CogBlog

Recently my religious views have taken a complete 180 and then back again. I was raised in a Protestant home and considered myself a strong and faithful Christian. However, my senior year in high school I actually took a class based on the idea that “our purpose in life is to pass on our genes.” This threw me and religion and God seemed to be completely illogical and I became an atheist. I could not see how God and a soul could coexist with science and evolution. It was unfathomable to me. I believed that everything we did was a direct response to something biologically or in the environment. However, I then had another reversal after attending a very religious college is TX last year. I became a Christian again but kept my strong thoughts of evolution and a soul and their coexistence.
It feels odd discussing my personal views when there is obviously no backing for anything I believe. But I firmly believe that a soul could be seen as part of evolution. I believe that God is overlooking everything and every mutation in all organisms. I also believe that at some point God granted humans the gift of a soul. I see it as a form of evolution. A mutation if you will. It is the thing that sets humans apart from other creatures, but it is nothing more than any other gift or quality that other organisms have, except that we obviously value it more because it is OUR gift and the thing that makes US different. Because of this belief, I think that everyone can reconcile religion and the idea of a soul with science and evolution. But again, that is just my personal stance.

In regard to the challenges faced when merging evolution and religion:
I believe the single most challenge that the merging of evolution and religion contain is one between the tangible and intangible. Evolution tests itself in the field of science whereas religion, Christianity more specifically, finds its foundation on faith (it can be argued that the Bible is tangible, however followers in the faith believe this to be the word of God and thus once again relates it to the unseen). Evolution is portrayed to have supporters found in the realms of higher education such as biologists and various scientific careers whereas Christians are portrayed to be less educated and following people such as pastors, priests, etc.; however, this gives a misrepresentation of credibility such that we assume evolutionists to be much more intelligent than religious followers. This is a setback against religion. We hear of Darwin’s study of finches and the data he collected on his journey and similarly in church we hear of things such as sin and its correlation to the soul. The bible itself is an unchanging text (ignoring translations), yet evolution contains a mass of information and is still growing. I find it hard to see that religion and evolution could ever compromise and combine into one. Science wants proof of religion or in some cases has already decided its “falseness”. Religion wants evolution to bend its views around religion. I disagree with Gould’s viewpoint that religion and science occupy two separate realms in a sense that Darwinism exclaims no ultimate and final goal which is directly contradictory to religious viewpoints. The creation stories are far from similar. The belief in God creating all animals at once in the “great chain of being” goes directly against evolutions principle of a common ancestor. Religion is abundant in morals and beliefs and Darwinism takes an amoral stand. However, I do feel there seems to be a trend in history where science is becoming the new age victor against religion (heliocentric model, negative views against Catholic Church, etc. etc.)

Honestly, I have never questioned the fact that I had a soul, the part of me that will not stay on this earth when I die, but go either to heaven or hell. However, I never thought of the soul as telling one what is right and wrong. I thought that was one's conscious. Maybe I am misinformed. I don't know if there is a reason to be religious even if there is no such thing as the soul. The more I learn about the complexities of this world like how water fights gravity to make it to the leaves of the tallest trees the more I firmly believe in a supreme being. I just have a hard time buying the fact that this world could have been formed by chance. I personally believe that evolution is God's tool in shaping this world.

Someone emailed saying they had a hard time hearing the definition of a "soul" today amidst all the construction, so I'm posting the response here for others to see as well. Mind you, I'm no theologian, but was raised in the church.

The traditional definition of a "soul" would be that it's a non-physical component of each human that is created by God. A soul is what makes decisions between good and bad choices within each individual -- it is what makes us human (i.e., different from animals) according to Judeo-Christian theology. This is why sin is important to religion. If the soul is inherently predisposed to sin, then the individual must repent and seek God's help in following a righteous path in order to achieve everlasting salvation, ascending to heaven.

If there is no soul (i.e., bad behaviors are determined by one's environment and biology, etc.), there can be no sin. If there is no sin, then the usefulness of the church is severely restricted, if not altogether obsolete.

So, this is why the idea of a soul is so central to the debate.

Your thoughts? clarifications?