Is There Scientific Evidence Of A Soul?
Is everything really explainable by science?
Or does the human body show physical evidence of a Divine Origin?
The axiom a "whole is equal to the sum of its parts" holds true in
physics and mathematics as well as biology. It seems so logical that
one wonders why such an axiom even needs to be postulated. But is it
really all that logical? There is a case in which the sum of an
entity's parts do not seem to add up to its whole. No, I'm not talking
about black holes, quantum particles, virus mutations or *
infomercials. I'm talking about the human being. The biological
components of the homosapien do not seem to add up to what we call the
human being.
Strictly on a biological level, it all gives the impression of fitting
together very nicely. For example, we all know that the heart pumps
blood, and it is usually strain or the deprivation of oxygen to this
natural pump that results in heart attacks. By the same token, it is
the deprivation of oxygen to the brain which can lead to a stroke or
even death. The components which come into play here become more
obvious upon a more detailed analysis of the circulatory system.
The heart consists basically of four chambers -- the right and left
atriums, and the right and left ventricles. The heart's function is to
keep the blood oxygenated by pumping it past the lungs, which absorb
oxygen and expel carbon dioxide. Although beating approximately 2.5
billion times in an average lifetime is quite an amazing feat, how the
heart accomplishes its task is not at all that mysterious. The heart's
components -- chambers, veins, arteries, etc. -- propel the circulatory
system, a mechanical process which we quite readily understand.
Similarly, the liver, our largest organ, serves as the body's chemical
factory. Some of the chemicals it produces are: albumin, which
regulates the exchange of water between blood and tissues --
complement, proteins which help the immune system fight infection --
coagulation factors, which help the blood clot when blood vessels are
damaged -- globin, a part of the pigment known as hemoglobin, which
carries oxygen throughout the body. In addition, the liver produces
cholesterol and special proteins that help carry fats around the body.
This is of course an oversimplified description of an extremely complex
organ. In fact, the liver's complexities make a practical artificial
liver a lot farther from reality than an artificial heart. Yet, in
spite of its complexities, the liver's basic functions are not really
great mysteries. That is, although precisely how the liver produces and
regulates the body's chemistry may still be far from understood, the
notion of producing chemicals or regulating circulating fluids are not
exactly mystical concepts. Such chemical functions are performed on a
daily basis in laboratories and in many man-made devices.
To sum it up, what the above two organs have in common is that in their
cases the "whole is equal to the sum of its parts" -- i.e their
underlying mechanical principles work satisfactorily as a whole within
the context of the living body as well as isolated components within a
laboratory setting.
The brain, however, is a little different. The brain and spinal cord
comprise the central nervous system, and control virtually every vital
function of the body -- thought, speech, heart beat, breathing, body
temperature, etc. It is believed that the cerebral cortex (the outer
portion of the cerebrum) is where movement, sensation, memory and
perception, among other things, are processed. Some of these functions
are similar to those of other organs in the sense that, in spite of
their awesome complexity, their mechanical processes have parallels in
man-made objects or in the laboratory.
Computers are excellent examples of how huge amounts of data and images
can be stored and transferred in man-made objects. Electrical impulses
are utilized in both computers and the brain, although their processes
may not necessarily be identical. So, with respect to the purely
mechanical process of memory and the transmission of data or impulses,
the brain and nervous system hold no great mysteries. As with the
liver, the precise processes employed by the brain may be far from
understood, but man understands many of the functions performed and has
in some cases reproduced their effects.
But this is where the familiarity with the brain ends. After all the
sophistication and miracles of modern medicine, biology and
biogenetics, the concept of intellect remains a total mystery. There is
no substance known to man, either within the human body or the lab,
that will produce intellect. To scan the brain, as some scientists have
done, with an imaging device and track down the parts of the brain that
come into play under certain intellectual pursuits is not the same as
isolating a substance that produces intellect. We may know that the
brain is the seat of the intellect, but that says nothing about what
intellect is or what substance, if any, produces it. A rough analogy
might be, determining what part of an engine contains combustion says
nothing about how fuel is produced or where it comes from.
Upon dissection of the human brain, aside from some jelly-type matter,
nerve fibers and perhaps neurotransmitters, all of which come into play
in our thought and motor functions, there emerges not a shred of
evidence of a substance that produces a sense of humor, the
appreciation of art, or the ability to differentiate between good and
evil. Even if not the precise method, at least a clue as to how these
human qualities are produced would, I think, have been in order at this
advanced stage of the twenty-first century. But nothing! Zilch! This
seems to fly in the face of the principle a "whole is equal to the sum
of its parts:" whereas the human brain seems to be the seat of
consciousness, its biological components do not seem to possess the
potential of producing such a quality.
Is it possible that "consciousness" actualy is a separate entity and
has no physical roots? And can it's effect on humans be taken as proof
that such an entity exists? "Black holes," despite the fact that they
cannot be directly detected, are universally accepted as science.
A black hole in astronomy is a celestial object of such extremely
intense gravity that it attracts everything near it and prevents even
light from escaping. Because light and other forms of energy and matter
are permanently trapped inside a black hole, it can never be observed
directly. It can only be detected by the effect of its gravitational
field on nearby objects. Yet, as undetectable as they are, black holes
are considered as real and as scientific as planets and stars.
In the same way, consciousness can be "proven" to have its own
existence by the effect it has on humans, giving them qualities such as
reasoning abilities, appreciation of art, humor, etc. Unlike a black
hole, however, since we cannot prove the existence of any physical
substance or process that can produce such features, consciousness
takes on a unique existence -- an effect without a physical origin.
Call it what you will, but this precisely coincides with the age-old
concept of a "soul."
I realize that a soul in itself may not be a scientific concept. But
when you can prove its features and qualities as surely as you can
prove a black hole's effect on its environment, you have effectively
proven its existence. Unlike a black hole, it's origin does not appear
to be physical, but, very much like a black hole, it definitely reveals
itself within its environment.
Unscientific, at this point, would be to deny that an entity exists
that gives human beings their unique intellectual features. There is no
question that it exists. The only question is, what do you call it? If
"soul" is to religious sounding for you, call it what you will, but
there is definitely something at work here that is not of a physical
nature.
If you don't believe a "soul" has been proven here, you may want to
start questioning things like black holes. Nobody will prove them to
you any better.
by Josh Greenberger
from shopndrop.com
|
