In traditional or let’s say mainstream religions of the world, the soul is a non-material substance which is able to assume powers and attributes not open to it while trapped within the confines of a material cage we call the body. Based on this definition can we even try to appreciate what it actually is and how it may interact with the physical world as we would ordinarily recognise it? The answer to this question must ultimately rely on what we know of the physical world.

I think that most of us agree on the definition of the generic human body. Loosely speaking it is nothing more than a collection of bones, tissue, fluids, internal organs and flesh arranged to work in such a way as to sustain our everyday existence. As such, it is quite vulnerable to disease and will eventually stop working altogether as it heads towards the day of its demise. But what about the soul? Is there such a thing? Other than just blind faith or solemn wishful thinking, do we have anything that we could turn to or point at in order to bring even a trace of credibility to this idea?

Having listened to countless people who try to give their own personal views on the subject, many are content to approach it with a fair helping of derision and contempt and take the atheistic route of denying everything not within the grasp of mainstream science. But this should not come as a surprise to anyone. If the scientific world were to give credence to the existence of the soul they’d have to study it, dissect it, understand it, measure it, explain it and various other things that scientists do. The very fact that we can’t actually see a soul as we can a tree, the very fact that we can’t interact with it as we can with animals and humans, the very fact that it is not made of any substance with which we are familiar means we can’t apply rigour. And there are countless other human beliefs and superstitions in very much the same situation. For example science cannot apply its methods to palmistry, tea-leaf-reading, astrology, numerology, witchcraft, telepathy, telekinesis, ESP and such like because these things do not easily lend themselves to the rules of scientific scrutiny.

What we have then is a mixed bag of subjects all clumped under a single heading that is often referred to as mysticism. In this bag you will also find many ideas put forward by different faiths including the idea of a soul and life after death. But where does that leave those who wish to believe in an existence beyond physical death? I think that the sheer size of the number of people with these beliefs makes it very difficult to ignore and neither will it do to simply brush it aside as mysticism.

So we can conclude I think that it is not possible to approach these things from a scientific point of view. Is there another way?

Another Way

The only other way is to use what is loosely termed as common sense coupled with a fair dose of open-minded intuition. We can exercise this by making a series of statements that are born out of two distinct considerations.

A. Those that maintain a non spiritual existence.

1. No life after death.

2. All that we do is ultimately futile and will one day be absorbed into the eons without so much as a trace of anything that ever happened here on Earth.

3. There is no God.

4. There is no Heaven or Hell.

5. The only rules and regulations that we should obey are those created and maintained by the different cultures and societies.

6. There are no morals other than the ones engrained in human laws.

7. We are nothing more than flesh made of the same atoms and molecules as ordinary matter. We evolved out of creatures that lived millions of years ago and we shall continue to evolve for however long the planet is able to sustain life.

8. When we die, we simply stop. There is no consciousness or cognisance after death.

9. Nothing of what we do or say can alter the laws of physics. There are no miracles and nothing that cannot be explained by logical and scientific means either now or in the future.

10. Use your life to enjoy the physical aspects of existence and, as far as possible, help others to enjoy it too, before the onset of old age, disease or death.

B. Those that maintain the existence of the human spirit.

1. There is life after death through the continuation of the soul.

2. What we do here determines our fate in the next world.

3. God is the supreme Being who has no beginning and no end. He provides life after death as well as having created all life as we know it on Earth.

4. There is a Heaven and there is also Hell. Those that choose Hell are the ones who hate God and go there knowingly and willingly after physical death having absolutely no contrition or sorrow for any of their actions on Earth.

5. Many of the rules and regulations are based on the 10 commandments. However, we shall also be held accountable for sins such as those pertaining to conceit, lust and greed.

6. There are many morals outside of human laws that we must try to observe.

7. Life is a gift from God and should be preserved, nurtured and used to its full potential without the application of wanton physical, mental or immoral abuse either to upon others or oneself.

8. If there are things we do not understand or cannot explain, be contented and have faith in God’s infinite mercy to right every wrong and deal with all injustice in the fullness of time either on Earth or the place where our spirits shall live.

It is impossible to do justice to either school of thought in a short article like this but it is accurate to say that for those who have made up their minds, it is likely that they will fall into category A or B or at least some variation of either. But here’s something that you probably haven’t heard before.

In public, a person who proclaims to belong in A will not be so readily convinced in private. How do I know this? Call it intuition if you like but there is something within us that: in the absence of friends and associates around us, from whom we tend to draw strength, deliverance and of course where we also get a chance to exercise wit, sarcasm and intellectual exchange; the façade begins to fade away, leaving us naked and embarrassed in the privacy of our own thoughts. This is a kind of hypocrisy that we tend to try and hide.

On the other hand, a person that openly declares an affinity to B, either within a group of associates with the same convictions or otherwise, is likely to be as open about their beliefs in private as they are in public. In other words, there is no discernible difference between their public and private thoughts when it comes to matters of faith.

Why Is This?

It is hard to say. I suppose it is much easier to be convinced in public than it is to be in private for an unbeliever and yet the opposite seems to be true of the faithful. It is because a person who believes in a Deity is never alone and as human beings we always yearn good company, especially one who is always on our side and sympathetic to our cause. On the other hand, the unbeliever, when not surrounded by other people, is truly alone. Perhaps it is this unnatural state of being that sometimes prompts the individual into a momentary lapse of faith.

I have witnessed too often the sharp difference in behaviour and mode of speech of people when there is at least two others in the vicinity as opposed to just one other person. The third person, whilst not joining in with the conversation, immediately becomes the audience and as soon as this happens we feel compelled to perform. That is when a person falls into the habit of saying or doing things that they wouldn't normally say or do. Just like acting. Taking the second person away has an even more profound effect. The solitary person’s true nature is revealed if not to others than at least to themselves.