The Soul

One of the greatest concerns of all faiths, and a primary motivator of belief, is the issue of what happens to us after death. The faithful look forward to life after death, meeting their maker in his kingdom, and living in eternal bliss. But what part of us continues to the world beyond this one? General consensus among believers is that each of us possesses a soul, an immaterial, eternal essence which, following death, leaves our body and continues on to the afterlife. The concept of a soul is almost taken for granted, as though it were a clear reality; this couldn't be further from the truth.
The most obvious objection one might raise against the idea of a soul is this: how can an immaterial, eternal "thing" be associated with a material, temporal body? Those who believe in the soul consider it to be associated with an individual, either somewhere inside of them (there was once a time when the pineal gland was the supposed soul container) or around them. Yet how could this be? By simple definition, things which are immaterial are not bound by the laws of the material world. In fact, they represent the opposite of the world we know; these objects have no substance, can not be housed, nor can they interact with those things which are material, like a human body. In a perfect world, the argument would end here, and yet I'm sure that some of our detractors would appeal to the omnipotence of god and his creations to explain that my puny human mind can not understand the complex interactions of a soul and a body. I must admit that this is possible and therefore, must appeal to more complex arguments.
Let us take a moment to reflect upon the reason why the idea of souls is so appealing. Aside from the obvious appeal to be found in looking towards infinite bliss, one must admit that every ship needs a captain and the soul seemingly provides this role for the human body. The scientifically inclined may pipe up at this moment to claim that the human body already has a perfectly good (and clearly verified) captain, the brain. And yet, the brain is no more than a collection of neurons which send and receive signals amongst one another. Physiologists have yet to discover a "master neuron" which spontaneously instructs the other parts of the brain. Therefore, one can't help but wonder, when Sally decides she would like a new dress, which particular neuron or region of the brain came up with that desire? Surely something must be in charge, and the soul concept provides us with a conductor.
Indeed, most people who believe themselves to possess a soul, see that entity as more or less analogous to their personality/consciousness/mind. The soul, simply put, is us in the purest sense; it is the thing which desires, fears, loves, becomes inspired and somehow transmits these things to our brain. This is demonstrated by the way people discuss the afterlife: they look forward to seeing deceased relatives once more, and interacting as they once did in life, by speaking, and feeling emotions. Further, those who pray or speak with the souls of loved ones who have passed on, do so as though they were talking to any living person, which is to say, using their mind to communicate with an other's. Once again, one might wonder how an immaterial thing could communicate with the material brain (who's only language is physical neurotransmitters), yet this is besides the point. The far more important issues is the simple fact that, if the soul is in anyway similar to one's "mind," than this reality raises some serious concerns about the benevolence of the giver of souls, god.
These concerns arise because, if the soul is indeed some sort of reflection of the mind, then it would seem as though a great deal of mankind has been endowed with flawed souls. Take for example, the developmentally delayed, those whose minds never develop beyond late childhood, those who are never capable of the full complexity of adult thoughts and emotions. Are these minds a reflection of these peoples' souls? If so, this means that they must spend all of eternity as an idiot angel, never to fully reap the joys of paradise. One should also consider the mentally ill. Following death must a delusional schizophrenic spend all of eternity plagued by the delusions which tormented him in life? What heaven is this? It sounds much more like eternal damnation. Those who are born with imperfect minds, and thus imperfect souls, could not have possibly committed some sin at the moment of conception that would merit god's punishment. Why then does he choose to endow some of us with flawed souls, and others with normal ones? How can we call such a creature benevolent?
Yet the concerns do not end here. After death, we are told that one's soul continues on in either paradise or hell for all of eternity (though some religions do not include the concept of hell, they do all refer to the infinite nature of souls). This concept begs a serious question: what version of our soul/mind persists for eternity? One must admit that the mind certainly goes through significant changes as one goes through life. These changes can be rather mundane, from acquiring the taste for a new dish, or changing one's political affiliation. Yet, these changes can also be much more significant. Take for example, the development of a child. At one time, each and every one of us could not help but defaecate in our own clothes, nor could we communicate to anyone around us what we had done. Indeed, our minds did not even possess an understanding of defecation, or verbal communication at that time. Hopefully as we grew, these things changed, and our minds became more sophisticated and capable of a greater complexity of thought and emotion.
Now I ask you: does the child that sadly dies shortly after birth, persist in eternity as a dribbling, helpless soul, incapable of communicating or appreciating the situation it finds itself? Consider also the man who dies after having suffered from age related dementia; is his soul to forever wander paradise not knowing its name or recognizing the souls of its relatives? Once again one must wonder, have the above two reached paradise or hell? Perhaps our souls have the opportunity to transform into the form which represents us at the stage of life we enjoyed most. Thus, the old man's soul can become that which reflects him at his most vibrant age. This would pose a problem for the infant, who never had the life experiences necessary to transform its soul. Further, what of the murderer, who when standing at the pearly gates, and having to answer for his sins declares: "No, no lord, for that was me at age 34, I would like to submit my 32 year old soul for judgement."
The concept of the soul/mind is plagued with problems, and problems not encountered when one considers his mind to be nothing more than the sum of all the neural processes occurring in his central nervous system at any given time. The brain does change as we age, as neural connections become more extensive and varied, allowing for greater diversity of thought. Sometimes, these connections are aberrant, or individuals develop without the normal density of a certain neurotransmitter or receptor. In these cases, developmental delays or mental illnesses can arise. There is no current explanation for how a soul could lead to such malignancies. Further, does one's soul "go to sleep" when the brain does? What of the comatose soul, how does it know that it is not yet time to leave the body? What does it do in the meanwhile? When one takes drugs, drugs which physically interact with the brain to cause mental status changes, does the soul suffer the same ill effects? If not, why is it somehow incapable of preventing the lapses in judgement we are so prone to during these moments?
One could bypass all of the above arguments with one simple statement: the soul is not a reflection of one's mind, but rather something else, something completely different. Perhaps they would call this something one's "essence." If this were so, I would certainly have to admit that the issues raised above would no longer apply. However, I would also have to ask: of what besides one's consciousness is he aware? I am not aware of any part of myself that would not fall under the umbrella of my consciousness or mind, and so, if some part of me existing outside this umbrella were to pass onto eternity, why look forward to it? If the soul is not the mind, this would mean that one is completely ignorant as to the nature of his own. Where is the motivation to looking towards eternity as a foreign entity? No where to be found, I would answer.