Billions & Billions of Neighbors

Most everyone knows that I absolutely love Carl Sagan. A brilliant human being, I celebrate him as one of those people that give you hope in humanity regardless of the rest of the world. Of course, he has been dead for quite a while. His ever so well spoken words live on today, shining as bright as the stars in the sky. Science has come a long way since his book (and subsequent TV series) Cosmos, but even now the information and philosophical commentary are pertinent to today's pale blue dot inhabitants.

I discovered Carl Sagan late in life, having only one encounter with something resulting from his writing: the movie Contact. To me, Contact was a thrilling, compelling movie. True, today I still love this movie, but I am a bit more capable of giving it an accurate rating. At the time, I didn't know who Carl Sagan was. I had no idea that later in my life, his words would be as powerful as Richard Dawkin's in swaying my beliefs from theism to science. In a way, I feel like Cosmos was the Mister Rogers Neighborhood I never had after Mister Rogers had become less interesting due to age.

I don't remember if I ever learned anything from good ol' Fred Rogers. I didn't have to learn anything from him to adore the TV show he hosted, he was a distant friend that would talk kindly, show videos of things being made, and let me join him in visiting his puppet friends. Now that I think about it, it was a nutty show, although not nearly as nutty as Lamb Chop. It stimulated an area of my brain that remains active to this day. Whatever part of the brain that produces that amazing brain chemical called "wonder." That and an ever present reminder to feed the fish. I don't have fish.

Even with dated information, I feel that Cosmos will be the upgrade for my kids. Carl Sagan may not have had a train set, or a strict routine for when he enters his quaint home after returning from what had to be a sweater convention. He may not even have a strange puppet land full of moral stories. What Carl Sagan did bring to TV was that same sense of wonder, just a little more matured. And he definitely rocked a sweater more than once. Most importantly, he has the ability to make you believe in the amazing intricacies of the scientific world in which we all live. He had that ability to describe intense scientific theory in a way that was not only powerful mental stimulation, but very easy to swallow.

Yeah, from Sesame Street to Mr. Roger's to Cosmos. My kids are going to rule.

To Soul, Or Not to Soul

A very clear divide can be seen between the religious and non-religious concerning the presence of a soul. If you're religious, chances are that you believe you have a soul. It is necessary for most religions that have a belief in an afterlife. For non-religious, most a quite comfortable with the idea that there is no soul. Scientifically, there is no need for a soul. Our current information concerning the mind and body fill the gaps without needing some mystical energy to make the gears turn. Our understanding of the brain is certainly not complete, but it is extensive enough to show no evidence of a soul.

Of course, there is no way to prove that we have no soul, or that such a thing as a soul does not exist. However, there is no way to prove it. I have seen a video debate on whether or not humans have souls. The creationist claimed that there were current scientific theories suggesting a form of background energy in the brain gave evidence of a soul. He felt confident that this was proof enough. Unfortunately for him, he forgot that he had discounted the theory of evolution because it was only a theory, not a fact. Plain and simple, whether or not souls exist may be one of the many unprovable theories in our universe.

So why the concern over it? Can't we all just shrug and say "Ahh, there is no reason to worry about something that we cannot prove or change." Hardly. For many, the 'reality' of a soul is essential to give their lives meaning. It gives them something beyond mortality, something that indicates that things are not over after death. Whether the soul is unconscious energy, incorporeal intelligence, some deity granted self, or something else, the need is almost always based on hope for afterlife.

I remember what it was like when I was religious. The concept of having no soul was horrifying. To think that once my body stopped functioning I would be sucked into an infinite darkness, never to feel again, never to see anything or anyone again. It was a palpable fear. There was nothing worse than imagining that once I died, that was the absolute end. Obviously things have changed since then. I no longer fear that overwhelming darkness. As far as we know, there either is or isn't an afterlife. If there is, I doubt it's the eternal heaven. With free will, there is no perfect place to spend eternity. Eventually the inevitable boredom would set in and one would crave the darkness. If we have a soul, what if it does pass from our body to another body? You wouldn't carry your memories with you, so it still doesn't matter. If there is no soul and you simply end, there is still no reason to fret about it. You would be incapable of considering your situation.

Again, with science there is no need for a soul. Afterlife is a silly concept, an attempt to alleviate the pains of mortality and nothing more. Do I believe my unborn child has a soul? No, I do not. Shock! Horror! Devil speak! I don't believe in a god, so why should I believe in a soul? Does having a soul suddenly add worth to what is already a life? If so, shame on you. This comes back to the problem of "how can you have morals without religion?" How could I not? It's part of my genetic wiring by this point. The ancient humans that raped and killed to get ahead died out as a result. Working together proved to be the stronger selection, advancing those successful genes to further improve an already select gene pool. It is difficult to say that people are naturally good or bad, but it's very easy to point out that we tend to want to mate with nice people. The fact that we are conscious has greatly altered how natural selection works. We can choose against the gene pool, we can choose to kill, choose to have a choice. Morality does not require a god, nor a soul.

So I believe my child doesn't have a soul and I believe that evolution made us favor being moral, and that is how it came about. Now, depending on your beliefs, you'll either think I'm a horrible person, wrong, or maybe just 'lost.' You may even think that I'm going to be a bad parent for believing what I believe. I don't know what kind of parent I will be, but I know one thing: there are vast portions of the Bible that my child won't know until he or she is older. And even then it will be to demonstrate why I believe what I believe. I will tell him or her that I don't feel a soul is necessary or that a god is what makes us good people. We make ourselves good people by treating or fellow man right, treating ourselves with respect and dignity. Knowing that just because a large group condone a certain action, it does not make it moral or right. A true god would never command genocide, rape, pillaging. A true god would never burden its creations with an immortal soul that could be forever tortured.

A soul is not necessary to have worth. A human life is not priced by its ethereal contents. Life is precious because it is conscious, it feels, it is made of the same atoms of the universe that supports it.