Belief

[Love4All]

Well … I’m not sure if this post will remain, be moved, or be deleted given that I recently discovered that evolution and atheism are unwelcome topics on this forum. Still given that this is an apologetics forum and I am looking for reasons to believe hopefully the mods won’t mind.

In any case, here’s the back story. I am a (former) catholic who has been agnostic if not atheistic for the past three or four years. Recently, I had an existential crisis, because the thought came to mind that I would die and that that would be lights out. This crisis was provoked by my reading of a book, which made use of evolutionary theory. Now, I am searching. Part of me wants to believe again, but I’m afraid to believe something that isn’t true. As such, I have questions.

1. What reason do you have to believe in life after death and the soul in general given that science explains consciousness as the result of neurological activity? How would you prove this? Is it provable?

I don’t think neurological activity can really explain the mystery of consciousness. I think that requires another substance, namely spirit. Neurons and the chemicals that compose them and that act as neurotransmitters are physical, and I see nothing in their functioning that would even remotely suggest that they are generating conscious experience. At best, sensory impressions would trigger behavioral algorithms in a way akin to the processing of a computer. What in that process suggests conscious experience?

1. How do you rationalize the notion that humans have souls in terms of evolutionary theory? When did we as a species get our soul? Did earlier hominids have a soul?

I do not think souls come from evolutionary processes such as produced our kind of bodies. I think, rather, that hominid bodies lend themselves very well to the requirements of a spiritual soul, and that is why God chose this form in which to manifest His image.

1. How do you persist with an anthropocentric view in light of the deep cosmological time that preceded our existence, the millions of years of evolution on earth, and the billions of years that will follow?

I have a few different half-baked theories about this. For one thing, to be terracentric (i.e. to believe that this earth and no other is special to God) might not necessarily follow at all from Christianity. There may be similar life elsewhere in our universe, and if it is human — i.e., physical and spiritual both — then it seems certain that these humans, too, are beloved of God. They may or may not look like us, but in light of what I said in my answer to 2, I think it likely that they would at least in some key ways. They might be in an unfallen state and naturally immortal, or they might be fallen and the Gospel might have transpired simultaneously on all planets needing Redemption, or, they might be fallen and awaiting the Gospel message from us, once we progress more and become properly enlightened as a species. Or, it is possible that this earth is the first to have life of any kind, and the rest of the universe awaits our exploration. It seems to me that on other planets, the name they give their home planet would be the same word as our “earth.” Sort of like how it is now in India.

1. How do you persist with an anthropocentric view in light of the vastness of the universe?

In sum, why should I think myself special enough to have an immortal soul given that I am such a ‘recent’ invention and am so small in relation to the universe as a whole. Why should I think myself special enough to have the soul when there are perfectly good (if unsettling) materialist explanations?

~ Helpmyunbelief

I don’t, as I’ve said, think that materialists can actually explain the phenomenon of consciousness itself. As to the immortality of that which possesses both consciousness and self-awareness, it seems like a natural wish, and it is plausible at least that we would never wish it if indeed we didn’t already in some sense possess it as part of our nature.

 

[Love4All]

Yes. Biologically, life is impossible without death. Think of all the recycling of living matter, once it’s dead, by other living beings. Also, don’t forget that suffering very likely does not have all the psychological implications for animals as it does for us humans (who, for example, can consciously fear for their future).

“Biologically, life is impossible without death.”

Can you support that? I can understand that plants may have to die to be eaten, but plants also regenerate. Adam and Eve were created, I think, to be immortal. Is there any scientific reason why this could not be so?

 

[Atticus_Sparrow]

Welcome to the forum!
I also strongly suggest the book Aping Mankind by Raymond Tallis. He is an atheist and a neuroscientist, and he thoroughly debunks the idea that we have good materialistic explanations for the human mind and consciousness. Here is the amazon link with also my review:

amazon.com/Aping-Mankind-Neuromania-Darwinitis-Misrepresentation/dp/1844652734

Sounds really interesting. Thank you for the link, I believe I’ll check this out. Great posts throughout this thread, BTW