Atheists are almost all materialists, asserting that everything in the universe is wholly reducible to the physical. For the atheist, this includes the mind — all of our memories, dreams, and intentions. The orthodox atheist position is that the mind is like a computer program running on the physical substrate of the brain (the computer).
Few atheists seem to realize that this implies the immortality of the soul. Computer programs can be run on a new computer, even if the old computer passes away. For a small handful, this is an exciting fact, promising a future where we can upload our souls to the singularity. But for most atheists, this is a disturbing implication. These atheists want to believe that we can obliterate our souls forever by destroying our bodies. As if we can make a troubling computer program disappear forever, simply by frying the CPU of the machine that’s running it.
The most popular theist alternative to materialism is dualism, which asserts that the universe is composed of both the material, which follows the laws of physics, and the immaterial (e.g. “spiritual”), which doesn’t follow the laws of physics. You can see how the dualist could invent a soul that is not immortal. The “spiritual” plane could theoretically devise anything, including a soul that disappears without chance of reconstitution.
It’s hard to imagine a materialist mind that could not be reconstituted. If you reconstruct the exact physical configuration, you’ve reconstituted the mind. If you buy the theory that the mind is like a computer, you don’t even need to reconstruct the exact physical configuration — you need only create a functionally equivalent substrate and upload the mind. It’s the difference between replicating a running computer atom-for-atom and copying a program from one computer to the other.
Theists often criticize atheists by pointing out that materialism has no explanation for intentionality. That is, materialism has not yet explained how the physical layer can be composed into intentionality. Committed materialists insist that this leap will eventually be made. Even if we don’t have an explanation for intentionality today, we will, they say. But the day that we do, we will have proven immortality of the soul in a manner than is stronger than any dualist could make.
Once the atheists prove that our minds can be wholly composed of atoms, they will face the insurmountable task of proving that our minds can never be re-composed of atoms. Proving that the soul can be composed of atoms will make it infinitely more difficult to prove that the soul can be eternally extinguished, and it’s the latter that most atheists want desperately to prove.
I think your uploaded-soul analogy doesn’t work — though it is funny.
A brain’s components (neurons) themselves physically change over time and develop new properties. The memory devices in a computer do not change. They are either on or off. Thus there is no program stored in a brain, the brain *is* the program.
Anglican Bishop N.T.Wright feels there must be a full body resurrection to get a person and that there is no free floating souls. He strongly believes in no future life without a resurrection. I think his model matches present scientific findings better than your free floating soul idea.
Actually, anyone who believes in free floating souls is not a Christian. Bodily resurrection is standard Christian creed. However, the resurrection is not a matter of re-animated cadavers, it is a matter of being given new bodies.
What I described above is not a free-floating soul. It requires embodiment just like the Christian soul. The simple thought experiment as proposed by Kurzweil is this: imagine a computer powerful enough to simulate atoms, at large enough scale to simulate an entire brain, body, and rudimentary environment. You could configure the atoms and neurons in this computer simulation to exactly match the atoms and neurons in the physical world, and you would have effectively cloned the person’s identity.
Of course, computer simulating every atom is the hardest possible way to do it. There are conceivably easier ways.
(1) Concerning the thought experiment:
Sure, you replace every molecule in exact positions, same charges and same directions … and you get the same person — but no soul. There was no soul to start with. There was personality, traits etc… But lots of connotations with that word which you may be sneaking it to give the argument a flavor it does not deserve.
(2) N.T.Wright, Chpt 1, “Surprised by Hope” shows how a disembodied soul idea is common among many (if not most) people who call themselves “Christians”.
You said, “Actually, anyone who believes in free floating souls is not a Christian.”
So, are you declaring anyone who believes this does not qualify to be a Christian?
Yep, I mean “person”. When I say “soul”, I’m sticking with the atheist definition of “mind” — “all of our memories, dreams, and intentions”.
Not according to any Christian creed held by RC, EO, or Protestants. Christianity is a creedal religion, which means that the assessment of who is or is not a “Christian” is defined by the creeds. At least, that’s the “official” way to do it
People who believed in bodiless souls were driven out as heretics in the first couple of centuries of Christianity.
I agree that many nominal “Christians” have weird ideas about resurrection and souls, but you can usually point them to their own church’s doctrine statement to set them straight.
Do you believe you have to be a Christian to go to heaven?
I guess to help the dialogue, it would be helpful if you filled out a “Christian Share Thyself” table.
Hi Sabio,
I will have to think about that table. Some of the answers come easy for me; some would have to be made with serious qualification. I will respond to the question you posed, though.
Regarding your question, “Do you believe you have to be a Christian to go to heaven?”, the answer is a firm “No!” I do not believe that any Christian is allowed to say “Yes” to this, per Christian creed. The thief on the cross was saved, despite not professing 90% of any modern Christian creed. Christian creeds are about identifying who is “Christian”, not about identifying who makes it to heaven.
Additionally, I believe that it is quite possible that there will be many Christians who do not make it to heaven. This certainly seems to be a possibility outlined in the Bible.
Fundamentally, it is a terrible idea to start speculating about whether or not God is going to let others into heaven. That is a matter between that person and God, and the command to “judge not lest ye be judged” is very important. For example, I have known a few people who committed suicide, and there are people who confidently say that all suicides go to Hell. IMO, that is insane, but also very scary to be the person making such a judgment.
The worst are the people who want to run around offering you heaven as if they are handing out a doggie treat. They make themselves intermediaries on God’s behalf, and tell you how they will “save” you by interceding for you. I am sure I will have some future posts about this.
Lastly, I am very uncomfortable with the formulation that says, “if you want to get saved, take these steps”. I would like to blog on this further as well, since I think it is getting things backwards. It’s why I don’t like Pascal’s wager. I don’t think the early Christians were converted out of some greedy desire for 72 virgins in heaven or whatever.
Remember, since the theology is all fiction to me, I still believe some fiction-theology has bad effects on people and some can have good. Look at Islam, for instance, you may disagree with their theology, but certainly some Muslims are more dangerous than others.
Any theology which is more inclusive and points to the heart rather than specific outward beliefs is better in my book. Your theology sounds inclusive, even if not pluralistic.
I am encouraged.
Most of the people working on the singularity are atheists and materialists so this is a bogey statement to make Joshua.
Atheist.pig – Saying that most people working on the singularity are atheists is not the same as saying that most atheists are fans of the singularity project.
But it’s true that I haven’t done a study. Perhaps most atheists don’t want to believe that their souls will be forever extinguished when their body dies. As you know, I’m extrapolating from a very small sample set, and that is prone to error.
Joshua the whole reason for the singularity and the hope for uploading our minds is the dismay from naturalists and materialists that when we die its the end. If they believed they were going to an afterlife with God they’d be set at ease.
http://yudkowsky.net/other/yehuda
Eliezer Yudkowsky is one of the leading figures in singularity research btw.
Atheist.pig – I actually met Kurzweil about 5 years ago, and I think your characterization of the singularity/transhumanist folks is quite accurate. At the time, he expressed his disappointment that he probably wouldn’t live to see the singularity, and said that younger folks like myself should take good care of our bodies so we might live to see the day
On the other hand, I suspect that the very vast majority of atheists know nothing about the singularity and haven’t thought through the implications of materialism for the durability of the soul.
I honestly don’t know what percentage of atheists are dismayed or anxious about mortality. I can readily think of anecdotes on both sides, so I suspect there is diversity of attitudes. I will certainly be keeping an eye out for any surveys or studies on the topic.