I’m quite fascinated with the idea of life and death. I told my youngest son what I was working on and he thought it sounded macabre and morbid. I don’t agree with that. I find it interesting.
I’m not aware of having any life-threatening illness. Death does not appear close or welcome. That will change I am sure. Meanwhile I record my thoughts, feelings and investigations.
What do you think?
70. Souls, Spirits and Essence
Do we have a soul? Something separate from our corporate self? Some essence, a separate spirit?
Many religions believe we do. Somewhere within us is a separate soul, an eternal essence, our spirit. When we die it leaves our body and continues its journey to other adventures – depending on culture and beliefs!
It’s an interesting concept.
As a scientist I look for the evidence. This concept of some internal separate essence is fascinating. We do have a sense of identity, of self. Our ego. Psychologists have investigated this for centuries now. Freud and Jung are probably the most famous.
Freud did not believe in any soul. He saw the creation of our personalities as the result of internal conflict between unconscious forces – our subconscious, instincts, intrinsic psychological structures and learnt behaviours. He viewed our personality as a psychological construct. It is neither apart nor real – part genetic, part learnt – shaped by experience and genes. He divided it up into three components: our Id, which is the primitive, instinct-driven survival component. The Id demands instant gratification. Then there is our Ego. The Ego overrides the Id and moderates our desires with the needs of reality. On top of that we have the Superego. This is more learnt and provides our moral compass, shaped by our culture and upbringing.
Sigmund Freud not only pooh-poohed the concept of a soul but was scathing about all religion. He described religion as a mass illusion, a collective neurosis, based on our inability to cope with uncertainty, fear and repressed desire. He saw religion as a wish fulfilment for a deep-seated desire for a protective father as well as a tool for social cohesion and means to restrain primitive instincts through moral codes. He related it to an Oedipus complex based on a desire for an authority figure that dispensed justice in the form of rewards and punishments. Humans desired the universe to have purpose and fairness! Dealing with the capricious nature of life with its intrinsic meaninglessness was too much of a burden.
Well, wouldn’t that be nice! We all want the bad guys to meet their comeuppance and the good guys to be rewarded. We love the idea of Karma. We want to believe there is some purpose and that we go on, that’s it’s not just a fleeting flicker in the face of eternity.
We have a soul!
Well No. According to Freud that’s all bollocks.
Jung, on the other hand, had a very different view. He actually believed there was a soul and it had an essential role in mediating between the conscious and subconscious. He saw it as a bridge. He did not however, claim that the soul was immortal or separate. He saw it as intrinsic to the function of the psyche, an element of self with two aspects – a male and female component. The soul was the essence of the individual and required caring for. He advised that we nurture our souls through introspection, meditation and self-reflection. Jung was not as critical of religion though he stopped short of saying the soul was apart from our body and mind.
Jung had a more positive view of religion, believing that a spiritual life could assist people in finding meaning and wholeness. He saw it as cohesive in cultures and useful in reconciling aspects of the subconscious and conscious into a peaceful reconciliation. Through spiritual practice people could achieve resolution, become whole and more authentic. He saw religion as an innate human instinct essential for psychological well-being.
Jung did not believe in a soul as a religious entity. He saw it more as an internal aspect of the human psyche that mediated and resolved aspects of our internal psychology. He viewed religion as having some importance in promoting important cultural cohesion as well as inner spiritual/psychological contentment.
I reckon Freud would have thought that Sophie telling Ian Dury’s kids, Albert and Bill, that Ian had gone to heaven would have been harmful bollocks while Jung might have been kinder and thought it helped them through a difficult psychological period.
As for me, I take a slice from both camps. I think all religion is dangerous mass psychosis while leading a spiritual life of harmony and peace with nature can lead to purpose and contentment.
I agree with both of them – there is no separate soul!
My view that there is no soul counts for little. The debate rages. Most religions and philosophies are focussed around this concept of a soul that goes on after death. Mass delusion? Human nature? That doesn’t make it true or false.
Then we have all our near death recollections and anecdotal descriptions of past lives. We can take all that with a pinch of salt or not.
I often try to understand my own brain and its workings. How do I think? Where do thoughts originate? How do I manage to formulate the words I speak? It’s a very complex, quick and sophisticated. Can it really just be the result of these neuronal connections and electrical pathways in my brain? Seems bizarre. These thought processes of mine become fraught when confronted with public speaking. I get this inner panic as to where the words will come from. Will they arise and organise themselves when required? I have doubts so I make notes to assist the process.
So how does this complex process take place? Plato and Descartes argued that there was a separate soul that was responsible for our thoughts and consciousness. It’s an attractive idea but doesn’t really hold water. Like concepts of god it merely kicks the can further down the road.
I don’t know where or how my thoughts and words arise. I’m kind of OK with that. Not fully understanding something is better than latching on to a daft explanation that doesn’t explain anything. The idea of a soul merely creates something else that can’t be explained, much like the concept of a god.
Animals have consciousness. It appears that plants do as well. Is this consciousness/awareness a product of our brains? What about flies whose brains are the size of pin heads? Or microbes? Or plants? They have awareness. How do they manage that? Can you be conscious without a brain?
Then we come up against the murky world of quantum. Is consciousness a product of all matter?
The mind boggles. Does the universe possess an intrinsic consciousness? Does that imply a god?
Do organisms need a brain in order to be conscious? Seemingly not.
Questions. Questions. Questions. Do they demand answers? Not necessarily. I’m OK with wonder and speculation. I’m very suspicious of answers.
So does the soul exist. Not in my book. When I’m dead, I’m dead. Finito. Over. The end.
Mind you, there was that infamous experiment to try to find the weight of a soul after it leaves the dying body. That sounds fun. You have to find a willing party and place them on a very exact set of scales able to detect minute changes in weight as they die. Well they did this. In 1907 Dr Duncan MacDougall attempted to weigh patients at the moment of death. He claimed that at the moment of death there was a change of 21 grams. He interpreted that as the soul weighing 21 grams. That all sounds wonderfully interesting until you see that his experimental methods were very suspect, the samples were small and results unreliable. Nobody has proved the ‘soul’ has weight or that one actually exists.
I’ll stick with my view. Religion is bollocks. Souls don’t exist. We have one life. Make the most of it! (though I am seduced by this quantum idea and the view of all matter having consciousness – but then the idea of Karma appeals to me too! I’m just a sucker for interesting ideas or solutions that appeal to my sense of justice.)
As for 21 grams – I reckon you can stuff that!
