Mr. Judd;

Elizabeth Moon touches on this as well in her Paksennarion series. The elves there are immortal, but ironically incapable of long term, sustained effort. This flows directly from their immortality, because taking on a long task means doing it yourself, forever. For humans, on the other hand, no matter the task there is always an end. Therefore it is humans, not elves, who provide the sinews required for the long term struggle against evil.

AOG:

A vastly underrated set of books.

"Perhaps the saddest admission we can make about Western society is that we've shifted our hope for the future from our heirs to ourselves and to the futile dream of living forever, unencumbered by dependents."

Europe and Japan far more so than the US, at least as far as the demogrogaphic data are concerned.

But still, when you look at the ratio of money spent on the old to that spent on the young, and how it has changed over time....

OJ, I totally agree with your comments. My only question is, with the spiritually corrupting influence that immortality brings, why should we be looking forward to an eternal afterlife?

Robert D:

Interestingly enough, several other blogs (e.g., Donald Sensing's "One Hand Clapping") were discussing the very topic of eternity last week. One point made in that debate that really stuck with me is that eternity is, literally, timeless - there *is* no sense of past, present, or future. (Tolkien himself referred to the dwellings of Iluvatar - that is, God - as the "Timeless Halls", being outside the whole sweep of onmarching time of Arda, the created universe.) That being the case, it seems to me that the spiritual corruption that immortality can bring actually has more to do with the problem of being immortal in a world in which time is constantly moving forward, so that you're conscious of the passing-away of everything that isn't immortal. Again, this is something that Tolkien referred to repeatedly, and even had his Elven characters talk (and sing) about.

This, indeed, is why the angelic powers, the Valar, set aside Valinor as a refuge for the Eldar so that they might escape most of the weariness associated with eons of life in Middle-earth. However, if you've ever read the Silmarillion, you'll know that even this is not a panacea; and ironically, the fate of the immortal Elves is bound up with that of time-bound Middle-earth, while the fate of mortal Men is known only to Iluvatar, who dwells in timelessness.

Robert:

I'd just add that there's little reason to look towards an afterlife. We have no idea of knowing whether we'll get there.

If we've grown too selfish to have children and have become unreasonably desirous of life, it's a response to human nature, not a denial of human nature.

A surrender to human nature, though obviously the capacity to do so refutes Darwinism.

Looking at the obsession we have these days with living as long as possible - and, as Orrin notes, with our increasing reluctance to have children - it strikes me that we're starting to bear more than a passing resemblance to the Numenoreans. It's perhaps just as well that there's no Valinor for us to storm.

Or perhaps modern technology made these features of human nature more manifest. Before effective birth control was developed, the desire for sex may have overcome desires of some people not to have children. Before society became massively industrialized, lots of children meant more workers for the farm rather than significant economic hardship. And the technology of "instant gratification" makes it easy to spoil ourselves today in a way that wasn't possible for most of human history.

I don't understand what you mean about refuting Darwinism. It seems possible that once a species acquires a certain level of rationality the normal rules of natural selection no longer apply, at least not in the fashion that they apply to species driven totally by instinct.

So if you say that such-and-such aspect of human behavior refutes Darwinism, then I say humanity's the exception that proves the rule! (Or I would say that if I were an unreconstructed Darwinist; in fact I know that the role of natural selection within evolution is poorly understood, and that other mechanisms besides natural selection influence evolution.)

Peter: ????????? The way I understand it, Darwinism says that the rules governing a species' behaviors are hardwired and can only be changed over LONG periods of time. We're talking about, say, one to two hundred years here, which is much less than an eyeblink in evolutionary terms. And where did Darwin say that "other methods besides natural selection influence evolution"? That sounds suspiciously like handwaving to me.

P.S. The previous post should not be taken to mean that I, myself, reject completely the concept of evolution theory, because I don't, and I will scream at the top of my lungs and challenge you to pistol duels at ten paces if you try to imply any such thing. But I do state that it's handwaving to say that evolution theory can't cover a radical change in such a short period of time as 100 to 200 years.

Peter:

Ah, yes, the law of nature that suddenly stops functioning when Man, and Man alone in the Universe, acquires Reason. It's the Secular version of the Garden of Eden.

1. Darwinism says nothing about how hard-wired humans are, and there's no good reason to think that we went from having totally genetically hard-wired primate ancestors to freewilled humans in one step. It makes a nice strawman argument but has no relevance to what serious ethologists, neurobiologists, or geneticists think about human evolution.

2. I fail to see why human beings could not both work to extend their own lives and at the same time value fertility and children. Is this in the category of "chew gum and walk at the same time" sort of putative impossibility? We are human beings, not wooden pieces on some moral chessboard; we are capable of honestly valuing diverse things simultaneously; indeed, that is what makes our lives free and interesting (and sometimes tragic).

3. We've been here before. Recall the arguments made by clergymen against smallpox vaccinations in the 18th century -- which could, with some modernization of language, be mapped word-for-word onto Kass' arguments now. Few of you consider yourself hellfodder because you or your parents got vaccinated, but I could show you some nice quotes "proving" that vaccination is wildly impious defiance of the Deity.

4. If any of you people think that your minds are not embedded in bodies that have considerable control over your minds, you're either a lot smarter and saintlier than me, or a lot more self-satisfied ... or just decent people falling into a temporary rhetorical excess. I'll assume the third, but given that, I think we all agree that the law of nature doesn't have to have stopped functioning even after we did get Reason.

Mr. Schwarz:

If Free Will exists then we aren't bound by our bodies and therefore have in some sense broken free of biology, chemistry, etc. Or, you can believe that what we imagine to be free will is merely a function of those things. You can't both be a materialist and believe in the soul, love, etc.

OJ:
Once again you fall afoul of telling people what they are allowed to believe. That makes no more sense than telling someone they can't both be a non-materialist and believe in thermodynamics, electromagnetics, etc.

Believing that our minds are hypertrophied versions of our ancestors' doesn't preclude believing in love, etc.

As for the soul, as in an immortal entity, materialism does get in the way of that. So what?

Jeff:

I don't care what you believe, so long as you recognize it's not rational, as you concede at the end there.

You insist, presumably, despite the complete lack of any supporting evidence, that souls are immortal.

I insist that because there is no supporting or contradicting evidence, the question is unanswerable.

Materialism rather tends to get in the way of reaching conclusions from ignorance. The avoidance of which part and parcel of rationalism.

I would say that the word (or argument) of one person on the immortality of the soul is flimsy, but the belief of billions means something.

Based on what each of us experiences as human beings, is it more 'rational' to believe in a soul, or not? We all have hopes and fears, we all want love (and to love), and we all face questions about our mortality that most of us run away from. And where do most people go - to a stiff, rote religion; to a brave new belief in materialism and evolution; to the unreality of drugs; or in search of some ethereal state of nothingness. Which is best? Which is right? Which is truly real?

Those are the questions when we consider the soul. If results really matter, then isn't it smarter to trust the theologians and those who know about the soul, rather than those who deny its existence? Tolkien called mortality the 'gift' of men. Christianity has a slightly different explanation for mortality as we know it here, but belief in eternity is not just pie in the sky. Lewis wrote of 'the weight of glory' with respect to the eternal gravity of each person's life here.

I will be the first to say that most non-believers have a lot to complain about with the church and many of its stiff, rote followers. But it is a serious mistake to ignore the soul just because so many religious folk have ignored theirs.

Jim:

The terms materialism and rational have gotten a bit mixed here. So rather than take the time to untangle them, I shall use them synonomously:

Materialis=rationalism=rational=rational inquiry.

Regarding the soul, rationally speaking, the belief of billions means nothing. The existence and characteristics of the soul have nothing whatsoever to do with what billions believe them to be.

Even if they all agreed. But they don't.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence upon which to choose among the innumerable concepts of the soul, including the concept there is no soul at all. Not only that, it isn't even possible to decide that of all the options on offer, any are correct.

There is a fundamental question Harry and I have posed, but has gone unanswered: Say it is smarter to trust theologians on this. Which one(s)? How do you decide?

An allied problem is your implicit assumption that there are those "who know about the soul." How did they arrive at that knowledge? If they disagree, what then?

Hence my rational assertion that the question is unanswerable--"As for the soul, as in an immortal entity, materialism does get in the way of that."

That doesn't mean I believe it exists, or that it doesn't. It does mean there is no way to rationally prefer your answer, or OJ's, Tom's, Peter's, David's, L Ron Hubbard's, LDS's, Hinduism's, ad infinitum.

Jeff:

Bingo. There's no rational basis for belief in the soul, love, free will, etc. It requires faith. Deny faith, deny humanity.

OJ:

Wrong. There is no rational basis for making a choice between the options on offer.

Love and free will manifestly exist. And they don't particularly care whether you pick explanation A, B or C.

Well, sorry, that is too simplistic. There are some religions that deny free will exists at all. Do they deny humanity?

The soul does not manifestly exist. But whatever form of existence it may have also is completely independent of your choice, or mine. And there is absolutely no way to tell between the two.

Besides, which faith?

Also, at the risk of repetition, you make a claim for rationalism it itself does not make.

There is no rational basis to believe the soul exists.

There is also no rational basis to believe it does not.

Jeff:

The soul is immaterial. Rationally, no such thing can exist.

There's only one true faith: the monotheism of Abraham.

OJ, you write "I'd just add that there's little reason to look towards an afterlife. We have no idea of knowing whether we'll get there."

Again, I agree with you. Except, isn't one of the theist's argument against atheism that if we are not able to expect an afterlife of either eternal bliss or suffering as a result of our actions in this life, then we are incapable of acting morally?

In an earlier post you refuted a personal God. Here you are refuting an expectation of an afterlife. Keep this up, and we might just make you an honorary atheist ;)

Robert:

I think you have to assume that if there is an afterlife, you won't get an invite by acting immorally, though that's a bitter point of theological contention.

But I don't think, at any rate, that morality should be observed for personal reasons, but because it is what is Commanded. Personal reasons are more useful as the basis for immorality.

"If Free Will exists then we aren't bound by our bodies and therefore have in some sense broken free of biology, chemistry, etc."

oj,

I don't think Free Will is a violation of scientific law. I think it's a manifestation of those laws in biological structures that have become wondrously complex yet ordered in ways that we don't, yet, fully understand.

I also think that it's likely that we human beings have both free will *and* biological constraints on our ability to exercise it. I don't know about you, but I've had a lot of times in my life where trying to do what I thought was the "right thing" was made rather difficult by my very physical states of fatigue, discouragement, boredom, fear, anger, etc. I've had some situations where the emotions I was coping with pretty much took me over. Maybe you've experienced that too. It's a limitation on our free will, but I don't believe that it simply cancels our free will entirely.

I take the existence of Truth and Good to be postulates that can't be usefully argued. I have no interest in trying to persuade a postmodernist that some things really are true and some aren't. Nor am I interested in having that argument with a religious fundamentalist about whether scientific evidence strongly supports the hypothesis of biological evolution. Likewise, I don't see any point in arguing with moral relativists about whether it is right or wrong to end torture in Iraq, or whether we shouldn't have fought the Nazis in WWII. Truth and good are postulates -- you have to grant their existence to get anywhere in any kind of discussion I find interesting.

How truth and good inhere in a physical universe is a question that we can only partially answer, and about which we can indeed argue. But it does seem to me that they're more basic and unarguable concepts than the idea of a personal God, whose existence I find more dubious.

And I still don't see why it's *necessary* that we can either want to live longer lives ourselves, or want to have and care for children, but not both. Is it really so hard to imagine wanting two things at once? Are human beings really such uncomplicated cattle as all that?

Mr. Schwarz:

You're right that to even talk of morality or good/evil is a waste of time if free will is merely a biological manifestation of scientific laws. The Holocaust is, in that case, just an expression of scientific law and it is primitive to hold anyone accountable. That's precisely the point about why sciencism is repellant.

And, yes, mankind is quite uncomplicated--people are selfish. We've known that for thousands of years, even if science suggests that the level of selfishness we engage in violates Darwinian syrvival pressures.

OJ:
"The soul is immaterial. Rationally, no such thing can exist."

Rationally, your conclusion is irrational. Because rationalism could not possibly come to either that conclusion, or its opposite.

"There's only one true faith: the monotheism of Abraham."
So it appears that a billion Hindus and another billion Confucianists have it all wrong. Since this is a question clearly beyond rational inquiry, you must have a direct line to God to know this.

How nice.

So, when religionists engage in sectarian slaughter--it has been known to happen--or 20 centuries of often vicious anti-Semitism, that is not a biological manifestation of scientific laws, but something altogether superior.

How convenient.

BTW, "... science suggests that the level of selfishness we engage in violates Darwinian survival pressures" makes no sense.

As a starter, there is no such thing as "Darwinian survival pressure."

Jeff:

How does a strictly material world produce something immaterial and beyond the reach of physical laws, rationally?

Yes, Hindus and Buddhists are wrong.

Jeff:

Who knows about the soul? A good question - is it wiser to trust Deepak Chopra or Thomas Merton? Darwin (who didn't even really write about it) or Tolkien (who told stories that resonate to it)?

On this point, each person must choose for himself, after looking at what has been said - for my part, I will take C.S. Lewis, Merton, Chesterton, Hiliare Belloc, Pascal, all the way back to St. Paul (and Christ himself). They seem eminently more rational to me than Richard Dawkins, any of the Huxleys, Bertrand Russell, Sartre, Marx, Kant, Hume, Spinoza, and so on.

I think my point about the belief of billions was perhaps misunderstood. What I meant was that if one person claims personal experience of spiritual enlightenment, you are correct that (rationally speaking) it proves nothing - it is far too subjective. But when billions of people have the same experience (hope, fear, longing, loss, sorrow, angst, rage, hopelessness, guilt, etc.), then the 'existence' of the soul becomes much more a point to be disproved rather than a point of neutral, resigned, or smug agnosticism.

Pascal wrote of man's grandeur and his misery. Most cultures have literature and art with that very focus. Why? On the whole, the evidence for the soul is far more compelling than for the alternative. And we aren't even talking religion (yet). As Lewis wrote, if man is born with desires that cannot be satisfied here, then the clearest answer is that there is somewhere else where they will be met.

OJ:
You are conflating materialism with rationalism. You started this argument by stating you don't care what I believe, as long as I understand it isn't rational.

A strict Materialist is convinced there is no existence beyond the material.

A strict Rationalist would not find the question answerable. Although a rationalist would say that it isn't possible to prefer Jim's answer over Harry's or yours.

My response was based on rationalism.

A rationalist--plus the better part of 2 billion people-- would, of course, find your assertion that Hindus and Buddhists are wrong hubristic. After all, what, besides your assertion, could possibly lead to that conclusion?

Jim:
That all people experience hope, fear, etc is powerful material evidence those emotions exist as an inextricable part of human nature. Conclusively concluding anything else is a stretch.

As Lewis could also have wrote: If man is born with desires that cannot be satisfied here, then the clearest answer is that man is born with desires that are impossible to fulfill here.

How do you arrive at anything other than materialism rationally?

Rationalism doesn't exclude or include immaterialism. You may as well ask how a fish could arrive at a bicycle.

Which I thought I pretty clearly covered above.

How do you arrive at anything other than materialism rationally?

How do you conclude Hinduism and Buddhism are wrong?

How do you arrive at immaterialism without making it up?

Jeff:

It's made up (by God) and belief in it is irrational--that's my point.

Ambiguous reference is a terrible thing.

In your post of Nov 27, 5:48pm, what does the word "it" refer to? My belief, or the soul? Either is syntactically correct. But if I choose one, and you the other, then we will spend the next four days talking past each other.

BTW:
How do you conclude Hinduism and Buddhism are wrong?

How do humans arrive at any immaterial conclusion without making it up?

More clearly: "My belief, or belief in the soul?"

Your beliefs too, but I was specifically referencing the idea of the immaterial.

Hence the dangers of--unfortunately difficult to avoid-- ambiguous reference.

BTW:
How do you conclude Hinduism and Buddhism are wrong?

How do humans arrive at any immaterial conclusion without making it up?

There is a singularity from which the Universe starts.

I guess you don't care much for mathematics, or evidence.

You are still dodging the other question.

Which other question?

On what basis did you conclusively decide Hinduism and Buddhism are wrong?

Surely you wouldn't use material evidence to arrive at a conclusion on an immaterial subject. Would you?

Or do you have a direct line to God that you have been too humble to admit to?

Oh, that one. Sure, reason is a tool and is often useful. It's just not sufficient. As it happens, reason supports only one human Creation myth, that which features one God.

Reason does no such thing.