Do We Have a Soul?

No matter how many times topics of this sort are discussed, we never seem to reach a point where they are not attractive to discussion anymore.  For the most part, it is rehashing what we said before, possibly with a new set of linguistic tricks to make things clearer or, we think, more persuasive.  Overall, once one discussion has been had, all the following discussions will be the same.

The answer depends entirely on what we define "soul" as.  In general, when the question is asked the soul we are looking for is the Christian idea of some consciousness that will continue to exist after the body has ceased to function.  This soul is often imagined to have our physical image, although which part of the body's life is represented is sometimes debated, as well as our personality and memories; in other words, the soul is the "self".  However, all we know of consciousness and perception is based on the workings of the brain.  Anecdotal evidence of "extra-sensory perception" exists, as well as stories of "knowing" things without having any way of using the brain/body to acquire that information, but none of that is actually considered the realm of the soul.  The idea of this type of soul appears to be ridiculous, a desperate attempt to deny the end of existence.  In religious beliefs, there is an afterlife where the soul dwells forever, or a new earthly life through reincarnation.  A part of ourselves lives on after the body has perished, something that will keep experiencing life and all the workings of the universe, keep enjoying itself, keep compiling knowledge, until the end of time and all things.  It is a comforting idea, but there is absolutely no reason to take it as fact.  We have no way to measure the presence of a soul in the body, much less a soul in another place.  Despite tales of memories of past lives, nothing can be proved.  The religious soul is a fairy tale to the hardline practical mind.  Nevertheless, there are other uses of the word soul that might open doors to other possibilities, for example: having "soul" rather than "a soul"; being "soulful"; being "soulless".  A person, performance or work of art has soul when there is resonance with (other) people, when we feel a connection and identification with it.  This does not necessitate a feeling of timelessness or the certainty of the work being remembered through the ages, it is an impression of the moment.  A soulful being is one that can perform with soul or seems to hold some kind of wisdom or deep humanity, one that we should all strive to reach.  As for soulless, it is mostly used as a synonym for cruel or evil, but in the context of the last two terms, perhaps we can refine the definition to be disconnected from others.  Being cruel requires us to not empathize or sympathize with what others feel, a denial of our connection to our fellow humans or living beings.  It removes our humanity and makes us automatons, and yet we follow our own internal orders and desires, for the purpose of causing suffering.  Returning to the possession of a soul, we consider it to be intertwined with physical life, so the living being must have a soul if such a thing exists.  I would go farther, and say that every living being has a soul, in that the soul is simply life.  Animating energy.  Of course, we could then argue that electronics also contain energy, so by extension they also have souls, but I am not prepared to extend my definition just yet.

The Actress wondered where the whole idea came from in the first place, saying it seemed to be a rather arrogant way of seeing ourselves and our own importance to the universe.  She had her stories of "revelation" and proposed the soul as a non-material extension of ourselves that can gather data from places we ourselves cannot go.  Still, she was reluctant to mix the concepts of soul and energy.

The Educator pointed out that death is a universal experience, perhaps the most important one we have, but it is not known what comes after.  We have to create answers when we cannot find them.  She described herself as skeptical of the existence of a soul, but has had to reconsider throughout her life due to the popularity of the concept in human history and society.  She admitted that science was not capable to proving the soul's existence, but reminded us that science advances constantly.  What was impossible to know even one century ago is fairly common knowledge today.  It may be possible that we discover some particle or force that can be considered a "soul" in the future with the development of new technology to examine the universe.  She ended with the statement that nothing is clear and the topic is only questions, channeling the absent Doctor perhaps.

The Source carried on the scientific point, declaring that discovery has only just begun.  We think many things are clear and thoroughly proven, but we will surely be shown to have committed many errors.  She equated matter and energy, and said that since thoughts are energy, we create matter in our brains.  The soul may not be measurable, but we should not take that to mean it cannot exist; tumors and diseases remain undiagnosed for years sometimes, but they certainly exist and affect us.  If we limit our beliefs to only the provable, we are unnecessarily limiting our own participation in and understanding of the world.  She rejected the need for religion to base the belief in a soul on, saying that practices such as yoga include such ideas, but they are not themselves religions.  She was also quite sure that the soul resided in oneself, although she could not pinpoint the exact location of it.  Towards the end of the meeting, she began to connect the soul to instinct, maintaining that we need instincts to survive and that makes them essentially the same as a soul, although the soul is also a connection to something greater than ourselves as individual life forms.

The Leader admitted that he did not find the topic very exciting, hence the lack of writing from him, both this time and the last time we spoke of the soul.  He discarded the religious views and definitions, calling them "clearly false" and basically threw out the possibility of the soul being energy because, as the Source had mentioned, energy is physical, therefore the energy soul would be physical and discoverable.  We cannot do real studies on this topic because it is impossible to have a control group.  Still, he recognized some benefit of the belief in the soul and the afterlife, if only to somewhat relieve the despair that many people would experience in a hard, desperate existence on Earth.  Religion is a tool of control and the soul is just one of its methods. The concept of the soul can be useful in the same sense as religion, as a way of codifying certain behaviors that are desirable, such as empathy or interpersonal connection.  The relevance of questioning the existence of the soul is the way it gives us to rebel against religion and the simple assumption that it exists.  The soul is a great player in our stories of karma and reincarnation, as well as the tool for us to dream of living forever, while we should probably focus more on our legacy as a memory in the minds of other people.

The True Philosopher gave a brief history in writing of the idea of "soul" in several classical cultures, often connected with the idea of breathing and therefore life itself.  He was not present at the meeting and so unable to elaborate more on the subject.  Another Participant was somewhat fascinated with the connection between soul and emotion, saying the search for one can block the examination of the other, but he held out hope that one day we would be able to study both in the most scientific of manners.