The simple fact is
that all life-forms end in death and the elements of
which they are composed return to the air and the
earth to be taken up and recycled in some new
organism.
This natural
process is universal and is beyond dispute. What is
challenged by atheists and freethinkers is the claim
made by purveyors of religion that humans alone of
all living forms have a 'soul' or 'spirit' which
survives death and carries the essential
characteristics of the person to a supernatural
existence in a super natural realm.
The method or
pathway for making this crossing to a new life beyond
the grave varies widely between religions and between
the multitude of Christian denominations. The Roman
Catholic Church is probably the most dogmatic in its
proclaimed route to Paradise - infant christening,
confirmation, frequent mass attendances and the final
rites. Donations and prayers to the saints are
desirable adjuncts guarding against a period in
purgatory.
Atheists maintain
that the concept of humankind having a unique
supernatural 'soul' is simply a primitive notion
which has no basis in fact and that religious
organisations are guilty of perpetrating a colossal
fraud on ignorant and gullible people, chiefly
through the indoctrination of infants. They are aided
and abetted by the media who fear adverse reaction
affecting profits if the facts are revealed.
On what grounds can
atheists make the claim that no-one has a
supernatural 'soul'?
There is no
scientific evidence of anything super-natural.
There is no credible evidence that humankind is a
unique creation by a deity.
There is no credible definition of a 'soul'.
Scientific evidence completely destroys all the
concepts which are the basis for the existence of the
'soul'.
This last statement
requires verification, first of all by showing that
the basis of the religious concept is faulty and then
by citing the scientific evidence which nullifies the
'soul' concept.
When Charles Darwin
published his Origin of Species the religious bodies
realised that the theory completely undermined the
belief that humans were a unique creation. They
agreed that all organisms other than homo sapiens
were devoid of 'souls'. If humans were only the next
step on the ladder then they were obliged to
designate the precise stage at which a human was
given a 'soul'. They realised that such was
impossible and fundamentalists realise this today and
therefore reject the evolution of humankind.
The Church has
always had trouble with the nature of conception and
the specific function of the male and female. Aquinas determined that a male received a 'soul' 40
days, and females 90 days, after intercourse.
When the actual
conception process was revealed by scientific
research the Church declared that in a human being a
'soul' resulted when sperm fused with ova. This
introduced a new problem when the subsequent division
of the original cell led, not to one person, but to
two or more identical foetuses. In this case are more
God-given 'souls' provided or is the original 'soul'
divided, resulting in a number of identical 'souls'?
The problem has now
become more complicated with the birth of Dolly the
sheep which demonstrated that individual
differentiated cells can be made to regress to a
stage where they are capable of giving rise to a new
individual. Geoffrey Robertson, on a recent TV
Hypothetical, confronted a RC priest with this
scenario. The cleric's answer was that every cell is
infused with 'soul'. He probably did not realise that
cells are constantly dying and being replaced.
Whether countries
ban or allow such an experiment, the process which
would lead to a human clone will take place sometime
somewhere. This human clone would present an enormous
dilemma to the believers in 'souls' and is probably
why theologians and religious authorities are so
outspoken against the idea.
A modern concept of
'soul' equates it with the conscious mind but this is
equally flawed, for when the body dies the conscious
mind, being dependant on the brain, also ceases to
exist. This mind/soul concept has the problem of the
mind development, for death can occur in every stage
from initial fertilisation to full physical and
mental maturity; so 'souls' must be conceived as
forever developing or forever remaining in an
immature state.
Anyone weighing the
evidence has no trouble in discarding the notion of
the everlasting soul and accepting that death is the
natural end to every human life.
By accepting that
life is only for a finite period, short or long, the
atheist is confronted by the matter of how best to
spend the available time and therefore, if suitably
informed, will most likely spend the time worthy of a
human person.
It would be
difficult to imagine a more useless waste of time
than that spent in the worship of an imaginary god or
preparing for a non-existent everlasting life in some
mythical supernatural realm of eternal bliss.
In the words of
William Shakespeare:
Cowards die
many times before they are dead. The valiant never
taste of death but once. Of all the wonders which I
yet have heard it seems to me most strange that man
should fear, seeing that death - a necessary end -
will come when it will come.