- Thought for the Week
- Essay: Exploring the Nature of the Soul
- This Week’s Sermon from Rev. Frank and
Mary Hoffman
1. Thought for
the Week
From Pascal’s Pensees: "If one subjects everything to
reason our religion will lose its mystery and its supernatural
character. If one offends the principles of reason our religion will
be absurd and ridiculous....There are two equally dangerous extremes,
to shut reason out and to let nothing else in."
2.
Essay: Exploring the Nature of the Soul
Last week, I
introduced John Rawls’ A Theory of
Justice to Animal Issues, and I argued that
nonhumans should have a place at the hypothetical “original position,”
in which those with a stake in society’s rules and regulations would
determine what those rules and regulations would be. Important to
Rawls’ theory, nobody in the original position would know their future
identity. They could be rich or poor, male or female, or (as I argued
last week) human or nonhuman. While I don’t think it is necessary to
believe that it is possible that any of us could actually have been a
nonhuman in order to hold that nonhumans should have a place in the
original position, I do think that it is reasonable to posit that the
sense of self, which we experience only in our own body and not in any
other body, could inhabit a nonhuman body.
I come to this
conclusion after exploring the existential question, “How did I come
to inhabit the body I have?” In other words, how did the collection of
unfeeling atoms that comprise my body result in “me,” with my own
subjective internal, ongoing sense of being, whereas I have no sense
of being in any other, similar collection of atoms that I call “other
people.” Further, why does my sense of self exist in this body at this
point in time, rather than in some other body and/or at some other
time? I’d like to consider some theories that have aimed to address
this or other, similar questions.
A common response,
particularly among religious people, is that my sense of self is a
manifestation of an eternal soul. I see several problems with this
theory. First, the sense of self seems to depend upon the physical
brain. For example, those in a coma appear to have no sense of self.
It is hard to see how the sense of self could survive the demise of
the brain.
Second, I find little evidence for a nonphysical
entity that could account for this “soul.” There have been reports
about experiences after death, such as people claiming to have visited
Heaven or having had communication from dead people, but I have not
found such reports at all convincing. They have not, for me, met the
standard that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I
suspect that many, if not all, of these claims could be explained by
neurology (such as the distinctive experiences that can occur if the
dominant [usually left] side of the brain is suppressed in a
near-death experience), self-deceit (which can often occur in
situations of intense human desire), psychosis, or fraud.
Sometimes people attribute the sense of self to a soul, but they are
hesitant to say more about the nature of the soul because we have so
little evidence for what the soul is or does. Such a description of
the soul doesn’t tell us anything about the sense of self – it merely
gives it the name “soul.” Often, such naming is for political purposes
rather than for purposes of gaining greater understanding. People have
repeatedly sought reasons to include humans within the circle of moral
concern and to exclude nonhumans, and the highly dubious claim that
humans have a soul while nonhumans do not has been one such reason.
Many people cite religious texts or oral myths as proof of a
soul. Indeed, there are many biblical passages (particularly in
the New Testament) that suggest a soul existing beyond the grave. I
will explore this possibility next week.
Stephen R. Kaufman,
M.D.
3. This Week’s Sermon from Rev. Frank and Mary
Hoffman
The Word of God