Why the dogma of the Soul is so bad for all of us

Recently I was aske d why I deemed the idea of a soul so bad. It is a good question. The idea of a creator, a god may not have a deep effect on the workings of a persons mind. The idea of a soul, a consciousness that does not depend on the brain or body has far deeper implications. When I talk of the self being an illusion I include the notion of a soul. It is believed, by some that, though the body dies, the essence of the person in a state of awareness can transcend death. The first and simplest implication is that life becomes not so important. Killing people becomes not such a bad thing. If a paradise or even another life happens after we die, the current life becomes less important. It becomes a period we pas through, like puberty or a mid life crisis. In truth it is far worse than this. If the soul is eternal then this life is as significant as one second of your childhood. Mos t people who say they believe in the soul transcending death are just pretending. If they really believed it there would be people breaking on through to the other side all over the place. Trains would be stopped by an endless flow of attempted suicides. Tall bridges and buildings would have piles of the bodies of those who chose to enter paradise early below them. The correct reaction when you meet someone who has just learned that they have a terminal illness would be, "congratulations! Glad to here you are on the way to heaven soon." But people don't say that. Because they don't really believe. Some people do. Suicide bombers. The pilots of the planes that flew in to the world trade centre believed in the afterlife. They are prime examples of soul focused people. For them life has little value. It is just a step on the way to paradise.

A further consequence of this type of thinking is to do w itch compassion and understanding. Our society had its routes in the belief that there is a soul, that there is a self. That a person sits in your skull, taking in all the thoughts that come its way and deciding which have merit. This was and still is the broad consensus thinking. What is really exciting is that neuroscience is proving that this is not true. We are much the same as all other animals, a bundle of impulses and urges. There is no person within your skull, steering the vehicle that is your body. If it were true, who would be inside his head, and who inside his. The philosophy, though the basis of our legal system, begins to crumble under close inspection. The drug addict is deemed weak willed. The paedophile is blamed for having the thoughts fate gave him. The stupid are blamed for being stupid. The bright rewarded for being bright. None of us had any say in this. When a drug addict succumbs to their nature, it isn't like a normal person choosing to take drugs. They are in a constant, daily state of craving. The serial rapist, though we revile them, is not like us. They are constantly holding back. Constantly holding back the urge. If they can not control themselves, let us be adult about this, let hem come forward, without stigma, so we can work together for a better world.

This discovery has profound implications. The idea of keeping dangerous people locked away for the rest of our safety is still relevant, but punishing people for their nature is clearly immoral. Locking them away only makes sense to stop them acting out their nature, not to punish them for something they had no choice in. But we must also recognise that if there is sufficient neuroplasticity, if the person can be retrained to not act on their impulses they must be helped. Paedophiles ought to be able to submit themselves to doctors or police before they act on their impulses. We must overcome our revulsion and recognise that they never chose to be what they are. Let them come forward for help.

We are only alive this once. Don't put off what you want to achieve till the next life because there isn't one.