Something I've been rolling around in my head off and on is to write down the basic tennants of my religion, and by "my religion" I mean the things I decide to believe in, based on the fact that they make more sense to me than anything else. I don't claim any of this to be something you should believe; just what I do. So here it is, if anyone's interested.
Two caveats: 1. Note the category of this blog entry. "Preachy." 2. What I wrote is long-winded. You've been warned. If you choose to read on, I hope you get something meaningful out of it, whether you agree or not.
ON THE PRESENCE OF SOULS
For starters, I do believe that people have souls. I have a consciousness; I am aware of myself typing this, as well as the other experiences of my life. Although I acknowledge that maybe somehow it may be somehow possible for a computer (such as the physical human brain) complex enough to achieve consciousness by itself through means currently unknown to science and mathematics, I can’t imagine how, and thus don’t believe it to be the case. In my mind, consciousness is indicative of a soul.
If consciousness is a trait of the spirit, and, as seems to be the case, consciousness can interact with the physical world, then there must be some capacity for souls to affect the physical world and vice versa. I don’t pretend to know the extent of such, but what I will say about it is that, given that the brain obviously directs the body and the consciousness operates through the brain, I believe that the brain, or at least the parts of it that are directed to conscious thought, do not produce it but instead are a device that has evolved as an interface between the soul and the body. (Perhaps souls have co-evolved counterpart interface mechanisms to better control the brain.)
This also begets the question of who, if anyone, else has a soul. I realize it has often been suggested that souls are a human-only phenomenon. Since I do subscribe to the theory of evolution, I find this difficult at best. Were it to be true, there would have to be a point somewhere in the development of humanity where souls entered the mix. Where, then, would be the point where a single ape looked at its mother and thought “I am better than you because I have a soul and you don’t. I am a thinking creature and you’re just a dumb animal, mom.” Where would the evolutionary leap be where, in a single generation, such an important facet of a creature came into being without precedent? If you find it difficult to believe that an ape did so, then at some other point in paleontological history? Perhaps when the first mammals evolved (which would imply that mammals have souls), or the first multicellular organisms? Mammals gradually evolved from reptiles, and multicellular organisms slowly came about from increasingly specialized colonies of single-celled organisms. I don’t see any point in the evolution of any lifeform where a single generation showed such a dramatic change from its predecessor that I can imagine a soul to appear out of nowhere. Anywhere you draw the hypothetical line demarking the souled and soulless, you have the same “I’m better than you, mom” moment, based on no real evidence, at least that I can identify. Thus I am left with the conclusion that, if humans have souls, then so do all life forms.
Before proceeding further I should clarify that I do believe that souls reincarnate, and that they are immortal; they can neither be created nor destroyed. They can develop over time as we see in people, and perhaps go into hibernation for a time. They can reincarnate immediately after death or linger for a while on the other side (wherever they go other than here). I consider this more a religious than philosophical belief, thus I will not try to justify it logically, but merely accept it as something that feels right. I would encourage you the reader to come to your own conclusions if mine are not enough to your liking, or if you have something better.
Returning to the matter of evolution and souls, the previously reached conclusions lead to the obvious question of whether or not the soul found in a person is the same as that of a bacterium. It is possible they do. If I were to hazard a guess on the matter, I would say that souls for simple organisms are of same fundamental sort of thing as souls for complex beings, but as life has evolved over millions of years, the souls re-incarnating among them have developed along the way. I imagine as a likely scenario that, as life became more complex, spirits that frequently incarnated into larger, more complex beings became adapted to those sorts of beings, and more likely to incarnate into them again. I would guess that it is possible for souls adapted for trees, paramecia, and large vertebrates to switch roles when each’s next incarnation come about, but the result would be a crude fit in each case.
With the state of modern science, it’s becoming increasingly believable that life could have arisen out of the environment we believe to have been that of pre-biotic Earth. (RNA, the little cousin of DNA, has been cooked up via abiotic means, ammino acids have been found everywhere from experiments simulating antebiotic Earth chemistry to asteroids, et cetera.) Given such I wonder if the demarcation between early life and its prebiotic precursor might be unclear. Life seems to be such a leap from non-life that I could (and do) believe that any life requires animating spirits, or put more simply, anything alive has a soul. But if the biotic and prebiotic are not entirely distinct, it raises the question of whether or not spirits can inhabit that which is not alive. (If not, I’m again left to wonder at what exact point souls entered the mix. If so, maybe they’ve been there all along.) I would imagine they could, although the results might not be as obvious as life. Perhaps grand spirits inhabit stars and planets, and maybe a planet’s spirit is instrumental in the development of life on that world. That’s just a guess. With inanimate objects, on a smaller scale, having no finite lifespan, I would guess that they can come and go as they please. (If I’m wrong on this point and a spirit in an object is bound in it until its destruction, then that would seem to imply that the spirit would have to be present since its creation. I cannot resolve when inanimate objects are created or destroyed in most cases. Is, for example, a knife created when it is hammered into knife shape, or when it is fully assembled? Perhaps the blade is ‘created’ when the iron is deposited as ore that will later become a knife. Or perhaps it’s ‘created’ in a supernova that formed the iron atoms later to be coalesced into a planet where one day it will be made into a knife. And is it ‘destroyed’ when it is broken? What about just chipped and discarded? Or does it have to be rusted through or pulverized? When is a rock created or destroyed?) I would guess that the process of keeping a living body alive binds a spirit, at least for the time being, to the body, but there is no such bond between a spirit and inanimate object. But then, as I am inclined to believe that spirits are immortal, they do have the luxury of spending time in inanimate objects for a long while. I’ve often wondered if spirits inhabiting planets reincarnate as life-producing worlds are created and die, and if so whether or not they take the multitude of spirits native to the old world with them.
In the physical world, I’ve so far convinced myself that spirits have the ability to maintain (and possibly help create) life and to interface with a brain to achieve consciousness. Given that they have some ability to influence the physical world, I’m left to wonder what else is in the ability they have to affect the tangible world.
ON OBLIGATION
If I’m creating my own religion, which is essentially what I seem to be doing, then there arises the question of what my duties and obligations are according to such. I’ll only lay down rough guidelines here; this is entirely too open-ended to create a bible or ritual religious observances from. When and if I feel the need for that sort of thing I generally mesh my personal beliefs with what works and feels appropriate from established religions.
My first obligation is to spirit; it’s spirit that is at the root of all life, so I believe. Spirit exists beyond even worlds. There can be spirit without life, but no life without spirit. This is a particularly easy obligation to fulfill; if spirit is immortal then I don’t have to worry about spirits’ safety. But then, I would guess spirits are not beyond comfort and suffering.
Within the first obligation, I give preference to benign spirits over malign. Those that do good for its own sake (or at least try) deserve to receive such. Those that do harm for their own pleasure are less deserving of mercy or compassion. It should be noted, however, that in my belief the categories of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are not absolute; good spirits can corrupt and wicked spirits redeem themselves. (This applies to people, not only abstract spirits.) Thus I would endorse compassion to the malign be minimal, but not entirely nonexistent.
My second obligation is to life. This includes quantity and diversity. I don’t see how it could be the case but if, theoretically, I had to cause a lot of carnage among life to save spirits, I would, but only if I was sure of beliefs that I now consider to be plausible theories, not certainties. Loss of life would be a tragedy but as long as spirits survive there’s potential for more life. I daresay the obligation to life is a consequence of the obligation to spirit; the opportunity to take a living form, and do so repeatedly through many incarnations as life evolves, allows spirits to grow and develop. Life enriches spirit.
My obligation to life is why I am an environmentalist and, as odd as it sounds, why I have an omnivorous diet. Vegetarians and vegans often argue that the death of animals for food is inhumane. Where I differ from them is that I believe plants are every bit as valid as animals; they may not have the nerve structure to physically feel pain but they still have souls and deserve the same respect. Given that the apparent choice is to eat nothing and starve, but to do so would be the end of my own life. With a moral impasse I chose to take my answers from nature; if wild animals can kill others to survive as needed, then I consider myself justified enough in doing the same. (Note the obligation to diversity of life; it wouldn’t do for a species to go extinct. And note that in the natural world, the absence of predators leads to imbalance and hardship among prey populations.) Tangentially, this is the same reason I see no wrong in my immune system killing pathogens to fight off infection.
Within the second obligation, I give preference to native life. It is often said that the Earth is my mother. At very minimum, she is my hostess and I should be a good guest (or child, as the case may be). If Earth-native and alien life clashed here or on neutral ground I would side with my relations of Earth, most likely. (Note what I wrote earlier about the preference to benign over malign. If the Earth-natives were unjust aggressors in this hypothetical conflict then I wouldn’t support them.) If, on the other hand, Humans invaded an alien world with indigenous life, we would be the aliens and if we clashed I would advocate withdrawing or finding a way to coexist with the native organisms in peace. For an intra-planetary example, I would say native life in Australia has more right to be there than invasive introduced species that are currently unbalancing the ecosystem. This is somewhat problematic as it raises the question of when a species can be said to be native, a question for which I have no answer. For example, humans (at least those of aboriginal culture) and dingos have been in Australia long enough to achieve harmony with the ecosystem.
My third obligation is to humanity. Yes, humans do count as life (thus the third obligation comes from the second much as the second came from the first), but they are such a convoluted species they deserve a mention unto their own. If I had to choose whether or not to save the human race at the expense of the rest of life on the planet (which doesn’t seem as unlikely as obligations numbers one and two clashing), I would choose the rest of life. Maybe in a few million years the planet would evolve another race of civilization-creating beings, and they might do better than humanity.
Anyone who personally knows me well knows that I have a dim view of my species. Humans are habitually self-centered, short-sighted, ungrateful, and irresponsible. Their own short-sighted self-interest has caused the world’s biosphere much harm. If they are an experiment I’d say they might easily be called a failure. Still, they’re not without some redeeming value. Humans have invented fascinating literature, philosophy, religion and art. With their intelligence and sophisticated language capacity, oral and written, they have the ability to not only learn from their mistakes but also to pass the wisdom gained to future generations. (It’s unfortunate and costly that they rarely avail themselves of this capacity.) With sophisticated technology it is entirely possible that humans might save the world from external calamity (such as an asteroid collision for example), or even spread life to lifeless planets. So I conclude that, in both idealistic and practical terms, humans are worth saving should they be in jeopardy.
Within that obligation, I give preference to that which serves justice. This hardly deserves mention as it’s partially a reprinting of what I wrote as the preference in obligation number one. When humans clash, those who are in the right, if one side is more in the right, more deserves my support. (As should be obvious, ‘right’ here refers to moral/correct, NOT political right wing.) “Justice” is a very abstract thing to try to define. If I had to try I’d say it represents acting within mutually agreed upon or understood morality and agreements. (Different cultures tend to have differing concepts of morality, but usually there’s a fair amount of common ground. For example, as far as I know it’s generally considered more proper, ie just, to abide by one’s own word and previous agreements.) I say this is a reprint of obligation number one’s preference as it seems to me that ‘morality’ usually boils down to benign intent. Tangentially, one thing I do not respect in differing moral codes is where a person or culture’s morality endorses applying stricter standards or granting lower status to outsiders than to one’s own group (or self). Giving one’s self the benefit of inconsistency is, in my view, an expression of humans’ tendency toward being self-centered and not something worth pandering to in pursuit of justice. I also would not humor those who choose to disregard morality, nor those who claim moralities based on their convenience more than a sense of right and wrong. (One should not be quick to judge, but I would consider suspect a claimed moral code that is not based in consideration for others, ie. benign intent.)