After death, there is a part of you that lives on: the Immortal Soul. People all around the world maintain some variation of the belief; the Soul goes somewhere—Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, the Soul inhabits a new body—Reincarnation, the Soul becomes a ghost, or the Soul goes to another world (i.e. the Spirit World). Regardless of variation, these people all believe in the existence of an Immortal Soul. I, on the other hand, reject the idea of an Immortal Soul for a variety of reasons.
First of all, the Immortal Soul implies You do not change over time, which is of course ridiculous. When I die, does my childhood Self move on or the Self directly preceding my death? Does my Self as an infant, a teenager, a young adult, a thirty year old, or a fifty year old live on eternally?
The question puzzled me. Perhaps all of these Selves, merged into one, comprise the Immortal Soul. This, however, made no sense to me. How can I simultaneously be an infant who cannot walk, an innocent child, an angst-ridden teenager, a hard working adult, and a dying old man all at once? Perhaps that is a unique quality of the Immortal Soul: counterintuitive, but nevertheless true. I think not.
To believe in an Immortal Soul is to believe in a Dual Self. There is the Physical Self, the body, and the Spiritual Self, the soul. The Physical Self undeniably exists. The existence of the Spiritual Self is harder to prove. Can a part of oneself really separate from the body? I think not. When people refer to the soul, they are simply referring to their conscious mind.
That being said, the Immortal Soul is nothing more than an undying copy of our thoughts, emotions, personality, disposition, creativity, etc. When looked at in this way, the idea of the Immortal Soul is easily blasted into oblivion. The conscious mind cannot separate itself from the body! It is a part of the body! The conscious mind resides in the brain, a large and complex collection of nerve cells. When those nerve cells collectively cease firing, the conscious mind (a.k.a. the Immortal Soul) dies.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
The Unknown
The unknown frustrates me. I am a curious guy, I want to know! But alas, the unknown does not care about my insignificant irritation. The unknown does not reveal itself on its own, knowledge and understanding must be sought after by curious minds. This principle applies to all unlearned knowledge, but specifically, I would like to focus on Creation—I use a capital “C” to identify this creation as the famous First Cause, the Beginning of Everything, not just the Earth or the Universe but Everything.
Naturally, no human observed Creation. Therefore, empirical knowledge of Creation becomes extremely difficult to acquire. Scientists have their Big Bang Theory, but it is an unsatisfying explanation. The Laws of Physics break down when so much matter and energy is concentrated on so small a point. Therefore, physicists are seeking a better understanding of the Laws of Physics, but a unified Theory of Everything remains out of reach. Perhaps it will always be out of reach. Current explanations raise more questions than they answer. String Theory, arguably the most elegant theory available, cannot be directly proved. The alleged strings are too small to observe. Without going into sundry tangents, it is clear enough that science currently falls short of understanding Creation.
Religion, on the other hand, claims absolute knowledge concerning Creation. The Bible itself starts with the words, “In the beginning.” Every religion has its Creation story, or stories. They tend to be very similar. In monotheistic religions, an all-powerful Supreme Being creates Everything out of Nothing. In polytheistic religions, there tends to be one or two original supernatural beings that create the heavens and the earth and/or give life to more supernatural beings—which, in turn, give rise to more supernatural beings and so on down the line. Both explanations do not satisfy me.
The logic does not make sense to me. Creation needs a Creator, but the Creator can just exist. Is it just me, or is that a double standard? Let me bring the scale down a tad. The chicken cannot exist without being born from an egg. The egg cannot exist without being made by the chicken. So which came first? It is an infinite digression. In this case, evolution solves the digression. However, in the case of Creation, I am not aware of any satisfactory scientific solution to the digression.
I reject the God Hypothesis, to use Richard Dawkins' terminology, because having a Creator create Creation initiates an infinite digression. Who created the Creator? Who created the creator of the Creator? It just gives me a headache. I next turned to science, but science also failed to provide a satisfactory answer—for the aforementioned reasons.
After religion and science failed me, I turned to philosophy and to imaginative thought. Perhaps we are all living in a computer program, designed by some unknown superior intelligence, not God or gods but aliens or machines (like in the Matrix). Of course, this invokes the same infinite digression as the God Hypothesis—who created the beings that created the computer program we inhabit? Maybe there are forces beyond our perception at work, not God or gods but spirits, ghosts, etc. However, I do not like to go beyond the empirical. Since I cannot know if such forces exist—I cannot know if they exist by definition: they are forces beyond human perception—I disregard the option as pure imagination. Maybe there was no Beginning. Maybe we, as humans, want to give Everything a Beginning because we have a beginning ourselves. This is my favorite explanation, although it falls short of satisfying my curiosity.
After carefully considering all the aforementioned possibilities and being no closer to the answer, I fear I must bow down to the power of the question. It seems there currently is no way of finding the answer. I hope the answer will one day be found, but even if it is never found, the fact that I enjoyed searching for the answer made asking the question worthwhile.
Yours truly,
Gabriel Gethin
Naturally, no human observed Creation. Therefore, empirical knowledge of Creation becomes extremely difficult to acquire. Scientists have their Big Bang Theory, but it is an unsatisfying explanation. The Laws of Physics break down when so much matter and energy is concentrated on so small a point. Therefore, physicists are seeking a better understanding of the Laws of Physics, but a unified Theory of Everything remains out of reach. Perhaps it will always be out of reach. Current explanations raise more questions than they answer. String Theory, arguably the most elegant theory available, cannot be directly proved. The alleged strings are too small to observe. Without going into sundry tangents, it is clear enough that science currently falls short of understanding Creation.
Religion, on the other hand, claims absolute knowledge concerning Creation. The Bible itself starts with the words, “In the beginning.” Every religion has its Creation story, or stories. They tend to be very similar. In monotheistic religions, an all-powerful Supreme Being creates Everything out of Nothing. In polytheistic religions, there tends to be one or two original supernatural beings that create the heavens and the earth and/or give life to more supernatural beings—which, in turn, give rise to more supernatural beings and so on down the line. Both explanations do not satisfy me.
The logic does not make sense to me. Creation needs a Creator, but the Creator can just exist. Is it just me, or is that a double standard? Let me bring the scale down a tad. The chicken cannot exist without being born from an egg. The egg cannot exist without being made by the chicken. So which came first? It is an infinite digression. In this case, evolution solves the digression. However, in the case of Creation, I am not aware of any satisfactory scientific solution to the digression.
I reject the God Hypothesis, to use Richard Dawkins' terminology, because having a Creator create Creation initiates an infinite digression. Who created the Creator? Who created the creator of the Creator? It just gives me a headache. I next turned to science, but science also failed to provide a satisfactory answer—for the aforementioned reasons.
After religion and science failed me, I turned to philosophy and to imaginative thought. Perhaps we are all living in a computer program, designed by some unknown superior intelligence, not God or gods but aliens or machines (like in the Matrix). Of course, this invokes the same infinite digression as the God Hypothesis—who created the beings that created the computer program we inhabit? Maybe there are forces beyond our perception at work, not God or gods but spirits, ghosts, etc. However, I do not like to go beyond the empirical. Since I cannot know if such forces exist—I cannot know if they exist by definition: they are forces beyond human perception—I disregard the option as pure imagination. Maybe there was no Beginning. Maybe we, as humans, want to give Everything a Beginning because we have a beginning ourselves. This is my favorite explanation, although it falls short of satisfying my curiosity.
After carefully considering all the aforementioned possibilities and being no closer to the answer, I fear I must bow down to the power of the question. It seems there currently is no way of finding the answer. I hope the answer will one day be found, but even if it is never found, the fact that I enjoyed searching for the answer made asking the question worthwhile.
Yours truly,
Gabriel Gethin
Friday, July 16, 2010
The Pursuit of Happiness
Life is unfair. Life consists of suffering, toil, and hardship. However, everyone wants to enjoy life. This fundamental problem, how to enjoy life when it is filled with the aforementioned troubles, draws answers from countless sources, everything from religions to advertisements. Christianity promises salvation and eternal life at the end of suffering, where death does not end life but transitions into eternal life. Advertisements promise happiness, but only after buying the product being promoted. Naturally, there is a bit of a gap between the two promises, but that is not the point. With so many answers, from so many sources, how does one choose? How does the individual distinguish the “right” answer?
Learn what makes you, not society, not your parents, not your friends, happy. Happiness is a personal goal, a subjective truth. Although self-knowledge tends to be elusive and hard to attain, acquiring self-knowledge provides a metaphorical road map to happiness—arguably the Holy Grail of metaphorical maps. If introspection fails, trial and error works just as well. Try different activities, anything from reading to base-jumping. Then, simply make the enjoyable activities into hobbies, or, if lucky, a career. Do not be discouraged if this process takes a long time. Remember, there are billions of people in the world, but only a small fraction truthfully content.
Learn what makes you, not society, not your parents, not your friends, happy. Happiness is a personal goal, a subjective truth. Although self-knowledge tends to be elusive and hard to attain, acquiring self-knowledge provides a metaphorical road map to happiness—arguably the Holy Grail of metaphorical maps. If introspection fails, trial and error works just as well. Try different activities, anything from reading to base-jumping. Then, simply make the enjoyable activities into hobbies, or, if lucky, a career. Do not be discouraged if this process takes a long time. Remember, there are billions of people in the world, but only a small fraction truthfully content.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
The Importance of the Pursuit of Happiness
The importance of the Pursuit of Happiness is obvious. Life is short; enjoy it. Make every effort to be happy. Personal happiness is the most logical goal in life. Perfection is impossible. Problems—world hunger, extreme poverty, war, etc.—will continue to plague mankind. Fighting for ideals—justice, order, human dignity, etc.—is great, for progress is possible, but perfection has been and always will be unattainable. Personal happiness, on the other hand, is entirely possible. Personal happiness depends on the individual alone, whereas the aforementioned problems and ideals rely on society’s cooperation. This single principle makes personal happiness the most logical goal in life
True, religious beliefs uphold doctrines such as reincarnation or eternal life after death. Under such beliefs, life does not end with death, a comforting notion. However, without proof of life after death, it is in the best interest of the individual to doubt. Make life on earth enjoyable, there may not be another chance at happiness. Of course, this is a subjective truth. Perhaps for some, belief in life after death contributes to the individual’s personal happiness. Whatever works, whatever cultivates happiness, passionately pursue.
True, religious beliefs uphold doctrines such as reincarnation or eternal life after death. Under such beliefs, life does not end with death, a comforting notion. However, without proof of life after death, it is in the best interest of the individual to doubt. Make life on earth enjoyable, there may not be another chance at happiness. Of course, this is a subjective truth. Perhaps for some, belief in life after death contributes to the individual’s personal happiness. Whatever works, whatever cultivates happiness, passionately pursue.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
The Nature of Religious Truth
The Roman Catholic Church believes it is the One True Religion. All other religions have some truth, but only the Roman Catholic Church possesses the Fullness of Truth. However, does not every religion claim the Fullness of Truth for itself? If a religion did not possess Truth, its followers would all switch to the religion possessing the Truth. That is the purpose of religious truth, to be absolute Truth. No religion would ever imply fallibility. For Catholics, the Pope is infallible. For some religions, the Bible is inerrant. All religions have something of this nature: scriptures, a spiritual leader, their deity/deities.
Religions feign possessing Truth. Theoretically speaking, only one Absolute Truth about God/gods, the creation of the universe, the afterlife, and the proper ethics can exist. Yet, there are myriad religions. One of two things must be true: either every religion on earth is wrong, except one. Or, every religion on earth is wrong. An examination of these two claims is in order.
Assume every religion on earth is wrong, except one. How does a person figure out which one is the True religion? Well, every religion is based off faith—strong belief without proof. To persuade someone using faith is ineffective, especially when the person in question possesses no faith or possesses faith in a different religion. For example, a Christian telling a Jew to believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah probably would not go too well. The two would probably walk away from the encounter as a Christian and a Jew. A Christian telling an Atheist to believe in God would end with a similar result. Faith is not a solid basis for persuasion. This fact complicates finding the one True religion.
Obviously, a person is welcome to research every religion in the world in order to judge which one deserves the title, The One True Religion. However, the task can never be accomplished. Religions are based on faith, not on reason. Therefore, it is impossible to objectively investigate the validity of religious Truth. Religion is a subjective truth masquerading as absolute Truth. Religion is only as true as the individual makes it. Religious truth and the faith of the individual are directly proportionate. Put simply, if you believe, then it is truth to you.
Religions feign possessing Truth. Theoretically speaking, only one Absolute Truth about God/gods, the creation of the universe, the afterlife, and the proper ethics can exist. Yet, there are myriad religions. One of two things must be true: either every religion on earth is wrong, except one. Or, every religion on earth is wrong. An examination of these two claims is in order.
Assume every religion on earth is wrong, except one. How does a person figure out which one is the True religion? Well, every religion is based off faith—strong belief without proof. To persuade someone using faith is ineffective, especially when the person in question possesses no faith or possesses faith in a different religion. For example, a Christian telling a Jew to believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah probably would not go too well. The two would probably walk away from the encounter as a Christian and a Jew. A Christian telling an Atheist to believe in God would end with a similar result. Faith is not a solid basis for persuasion. This fact complicates finding the one True religion.
Obviously, a person is welcome to research every religion in the world in order to judge which one deserves the title, The One True Religion. However, the task can never be accomplished. Religions are based on faith, not on reason. Therefore, it is impossible to objectively investigate the validity of religious Truth. Religion is a subjective truth masquerading as absolute Truth. Religion is only as true as the individual makes it. Religious truth and the faith of the individual are directly proportionate. Put simply, if you believe, then it is truth to you.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Truth and the Right of the Individual
Truth can be divided into two subcategories, subjective and absolute (objective). Subjective truth lies in the mind of the beholder, much as beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. Absolute truth, or Truth with a capital “T,” is undisputable and based upon fact. In the decimal number system, 2 + 2 = 4—only a fool would argue otherwise. However, people often mistake subjective truth for absolute truth. For example, religious truth, although considered by the faithful to be absolute truth, is actually subjective truth. This concept is a crucial component of the Right of the Individual.
Assumedly, all humans accept the Truth because it is undisputable and based upon fact. If they do not accept the Truth, persuasion or education can cure their doubt. If a person is convinced 2 + 2 = 22 (in the decimal number system), a quick and easy mathematics lesson will enlighten him/her. Subjective truth, on the other hand, cannot be controlled so easily.
What is truth to one may not be truth to another. For example, blind people perceive the world with their remaining senses, creating their own subjective truth. Sighted people, able to use all 5 senses, will have a very different perceptive subjective truth. Neither the blind nor the sighted person has a monopoly on perceptive truth. They are both equally right. Subjective truth is as true as the individual makes it, and for blind people, lack of sight is indisputably true.
The Individual has a Right to his/her subjective truth. This Right deserves equal reverence as the famous Rights to Life, Liberty, Property, and Pursuit of Happiness. This Right may only be taken away if one’s subjective truth presents a clear and present danger of taking away another person’s rights; or will cause harm to oneself and/or others. Hitler’s subjective truth regarding Jews is unacceptable. Apart from these extreme situations, subjective truth merits tolerance.
Assumedly, all humans accept the Truth because it is undisputable and based upon fact. If they do not accept the Truth, persuasion or education can cure their doubt. If a person is convinced 2 + 2 = 22 (in the decimal number system), a quick and easy mathematics lesson will enlighten him/her. Subjective truth, on the other hand, cannot be controlled so easily.
What is truth to one may not be truth to another. For example, blind people perceive the world with their remaining senses, creating their own subjective truth. Sighted people, able to use all 5 senses, will have a very different perceptive subjective truth. Neither the blind nor the sighted person has a monopoly on perceptive truth. They are both equally right. Subjective truth is as true as the individual makes it, and for blind people, lack of sight is indisputably true.
The Individual has a Right to his/her subjective truth. This Right deserves equal reverence as the famous Rights to Life, Liberty, Property, and Pursuit of Happiness. This Right may only be taken away if one’s subjective truth presents a clear and present danger of taking away another person’s rights; or will cause harm to oneself and/or others. Hitler’s subjective truth regarding Jews is unacceptable. Apart from these extreme situations, subjective truth merits tolerance.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Thoughts
In addition to reading and reviewing YA fiction, I have spent a lot of time reading books on philosophy. Similar to the way stepping in a lake kicks up a cloud of sand, wading into the ocean of philosophic thought raised a cloud of doubt: thereby changing my perception of the world around me. However, the cloud of doubt did not hinder my vision as a cloud of sand underwater would. Instead, the doubt presented the world from another point of view, a wonderfully unique point of view. Just as time causes the kicked up sand to settle to the bottom, the doubt which had altered my point of view settled into personal ideas, a personal philosophy.
I write this as a prelude. I have written down some of my philosophy into short essays. I plan on posting them on this blog every two weeks throughout the summer. Unfortunately, I do not have enough to fill up the entire summer. This is where you, the reader, come in. I invite any reader of this blog to ask questions or suggest topics for my future writings. If you cannot think of anything off the top of your head, maybe reading my posted essays will give you ideas.
The first essay will be posted on Friday, June 11th.
Yours truly (assuming truth exists),
Gabriel Gethin
I write this as a prelude. I have written down some of my philosophy into short essays. I plan on posting them on this blog every two weeks throughout the summer. Unfortunately, I do not have enough to fill up the entire summer. This is where you, the reader, come in. I invite any reader of this blog to ask questions or suggest topics for my future writings. If you cannot think of anything off the top of your head, maybe reading my posted essays will give you ideas.
The first essay will be posted on Friday, June 11th.
Yours truly (assuming truth exists),
Gabriel Gethin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
