Science tells us there is no physical evidence for the soul. Its shape and size cannot as yet be observed or recorded, so according to the scientific method, the soul does not exist. Science only calls real that which is measurable, observable, replicable and quantifiable. Anything immaterial is unreal... But is that really true? With the advent of the Enlightenment and rational thought, western society has come to the point where only seeing is believing. Scientists generally hold the position that there isn’t a physical location in the brain for the seat of the self, or the soul. But countless individuals and communities across the globe are convinced of a higher reality that is, as yet, invisible. They assert that although it’s impossible to “prove” it, the soul exists. All beings live within a superstructure we are unable to point to, but upon which we are all completely dependent. So, given that alternative logic, what is the evidence for the soul? Because science relies on material results from experiments that can be re-created, its parameters for analysing the soul are very much limited. The only way it is possible for science to observe the soul is to note the very qualities of life that are subjective, nuanced and experiential. In other words, scientists know that a mind can see, hear, know and feel. But they can’t explain the ways – and the many differences in the ways – that we do those things. Why is one person’s experience so different from another’s? Why do certain thoughts affect certain people a certain way, and have remarkably different consequences for others? These curiosities and complexities point the way for scientific analysis of so-called immaterial things like the soul. One way of looking at it is to examine the self. What is it that makes you really you? Gregory Koukl points out that even though our cells rejuvenate every seven years, changing our body completely, our quality of self remains. Going further, what is the real spark of life, anyway? Science can attempt to replicate life, cultivate it, clone it, make it grow fungi – but it cannot create life. It relies on the invisible superstructure of reality to provide it with the basic thing itself – the energy, so to speak... This begs the even deeper question of what is truth? Is truth only what we can observe and measure? Sometimes people say mythology holds even more truth than non-fiction. That’s because it speaks to the underlying reality of human existence, rather than telling the story exactly how it is. Another example is parental love. Is it realized only in the clothes and food parents give their children, or is it evidenced more in an invisible quality of caring? So, looking at the evidence for the soul, the truth lies more in a quality of experiencing and understanding life that cannot be replicated or explained by science. The biggest proof for the soul is that science itself is so limited in explaining what really goes on in human consciousness. Sometimes the deeper power of belief lies in a vast absence of explanation, rather than in a set of tools that quantify “reality”. Do you believe in the soul? Why or why not? Please share your thoughts......
Posted on: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 15:42:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015