MYSTICAL JELLY: 2011

Friday 4 November 2011

Work for 7th and 8th November

Now we leave 'Evil' and move onto Miracles:

Whilst I'm away you need to draw a table like this and fill it in using your own research:

(Any problems, please do send me an email)

KEY CONCEPTS (from SWINBURNE) A MIRACLE IS DEFINED AS:	Explanation of concept (what do the words in column one mean?)	Example from Bible or elsewhere	Difficulties with this concept
action of God, or an invisible (metaphysical / exterior) agent
That transgresses laws of nature
And has some religious meaning or significance.			Hume says miracles have NO religious significance - Why? (put at least four reasons here)

You need to get quite a bit of detail into each empty box - do your best

There's some good material on Hume here.

There's a definition of ' miracle' here.

This is useful, but you don't need all of it.

The material below might help with the 'difficulties' column:

Brian Davies in ‘Thinking About God’ (1985) believes that a wider definition of miracle is now common. He argues that miracles are “unexpected and fortuitous evens in the light of which we are disposed to give thanks to God”. The word ‘fortuitous’ leaves open the possibility that the event is normal, but is perceived as showing the hand of God. One of the miracle windows in Canterbury Cathedral illustrates such an event. A man is buried alive in a tunnel and his workmates go for help. In the meantime, his distant cries are heard by a passing traveller and he is saved. In the background, a hand can be seen as emerging from a cloud, indicating that the event was a miracle.

Holland – coincidences that do not break natural laws but have religious significance can sometimes be referred to as a miracle: “A coincidence can be taken religiously as a sign and called a miracle”. Holland’s Example: Boy and express train.

The view of miracles as events seen as bearing the hand of God has been popularised by John Hick. He believes that many of the Old Testament miracles, such as the plagues of Egypt and the crossing of the Red Sea, were probably natural occurrences which happened so fortuitously that they were seen as miracles from God

Process Theologians - They see God’s action permanently immanent in the world. This makes the idea of God’ intervention from the outside untenable.

Donald Neil (1984) finds it significant that all Biblical miracles, especially those of Jesus, involved the mediation or action of a human being. This shows that God’s action in the world is not an intrusion from the outside, but is done through human agency from within.

Rudolf Bultmann argues that in the scientific age it is no longer possible to believe in “direct Divine intrusion into the field of human events”,

This view is shared by John Habgood in an article called “God’s action in the world” (1991). He believes that the action of God in the world normally takes place through the agency of other people. The old view, he believes tends to raise moral questions about God’s wisdom and justice. If God were to intervene directly, it would raise questions about the inadequacy of His creation and more importantly, raise questions about why God should intervene here and not there (e.g. why should He not ward off a natural disaster or an evil such as the holocaust?).

Monday 3 October 2011

THE BEST OF POSSIBLE WORLDS

Susan Neiman explains our next theodicy - "The Best of All Possible Worlds", as proposed by Leibniz (below) - the video doesn't get going for about 30 seconds.

In 1759 Voltaire wrote a novel called Candide which comments upon Leibniz's theodicy.

There's a summary (and some questions) below: (source link)

Candide grows up in the home of Baron Thunder-ten-tronckh in the German province of Westphalia. His tutor, Dr. Pangloss, teaches him that their world is the best of all possible worlds, and everything that transpires in this world is for the best. Candide accepts Dr. Pangloss’s teachings as absolute truth. Candide admires the Baron’s beautiful daughter, Cunégonde, and they share an innocent kiss after dinner one evening.

Cunégonde’s father sees the young lovers kiss, and he immediately banishes the Candide from his home. This incident begins a miraculous series of misfortunes for all of the novel’s characters. Candide is conscripted into the army where he is abused (to a nearly absurd degree) and almost executed before escaping to Holland. In Holland, he is pitied by an Anabaptist who apprentices him and offers him shelter. Soon after, Candide runs into Dr. Pangloss, who has contracted syphilis and is now a poor beggar on the street. Pangloss explains that the Baron, Baroness, Cunégonde, and her brother were disemboweled and killed by soldiers. Pangloss is cured of his illness, and he departs with the Anabaptist and Candide for Lisbon. En route, they are shipwrecked, the Anabaptist dies, and Candide and Pangloss hardly reach shore before a massive earthquake strikes.

In Lisbon, Pangloss is executed for his heretical views and Candide is beaten for approving of them. By a stroke of fortune, Candide is reunited with Cunégonde, who survived the murder attempt described by Pangloss and is now a servant and mistress to two men. But she’s been staving off the sexual advances of the men. Candide kills both of the men and the group escapes, along with their new companion, an old woman, to Buenos Aires. There, the governor of Buenos Aires proposes to Cunégonde, and wary of her financial situation, she accepts.

Meanwhile, the authorities pursue Candide for murder, so he and his faithful servant, Cacambo, escape to a Jesuit camp. The Colonel at the camps turns out to be Cunégonde’s brother, who also survived the disembowelment attack, but has suffered an unimaginable slew of misfortunes. The Colonel learns that Cunégonde is alive and that Candide intends to marry her. Although Candide has saved his sister’s life, he still disapproves of the marriage because of Candide’s inferior social status. Candide responds by stabbing him.

Candide and Cacambo travel for several months and ultimately end up in the utopian land of El Dorado. At this point, anything would look great in comparison to where they’ve been, but this place is legitimately off the charts with gold and food. While they recognize the country is perfect, Candide is dedicated to the pursuit of Cunégonde; and Cacambo is restless. With the help of scientists, the two men leave the country loaded with jewels. Cacambo departs for Buenos Aires where Candide has instructed him to buy Cunégonde (you could do that in those days), and they plan to reunite in Venice.

After having most of his wealth stolen, Candide departs for France with a hired companion named Martin. In France, Candide and Martin travel in elite circles before departing for Venice. For a long time (at least six pages), they cannot find Cacambo and Cunégonde. Finally, Cacambo appears one night as a servant and informs Candide that Cunégonde is in Turkey. Here we go again.

Everyone leaves for Turkey. Candide buys Cacambo (who has been enslaved) and, when he finds them, he buys Cunégonde and the old woman, too. Candide discovers that Dr. Pangloss and Cunégonde’s brother both survived their injuries and are working in the galley. Because by now it seems the thing to do, he buys their freedom as well. Candide marries Cunégonde, but she is now unattractive and everyone is unhappy, especially since the only reason he liked Cunégonde in the first place was because of her looks. Life is terrible until they buy a small farm on which they canspend their days doing hard work, which somehow makes them happy.

Questions:

Write a short summary of the main points of the "Best of Possible Worlds" Theodicy (use the video)

What do you think Voltaire thought of the theodicy?

Who is Doctor Pangloss meant to represent and what do you think Leibniz thought of him?

What's the 'moral' of Candide?

Here's a picture of Doctor Pangloss:

Sunday 11 September 2011

The Book of Job

Job is a wealthy man living in a land called Uz with his large family and extensive flocks. He is “blameless” and “upright,” always careful to avoid doing evil (1:1). One day, Satan (“the Adversary”) appears before God in heaven. God boasts to Satan about Job’s goodness, but Satan argues that Job is only good because God has blessed him abundantly. Satan challenges God that, if given permission to punish the man, Job will turn and curse God. God allows Satan to torment Job to test this bold claim, but he forbids Satan to take Job’s life in the process.

In the course of one day, Job receives four messages, each bearing separate news that his livestock, servants, and ten children have all died due to marauding invaders or natural catastrophes. Job tears his clothes and shaves his head in mourning, but he still blesses God in his prayers. Satan appears in heaven again, and God grants him another chance to test Job. This time, Job is afflicted with horrible skin sores. His wife encourages him to curse God and to give up and die, but Job refuses, struggling to accept his circumstances.

Three of Job’s friends, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, come to visit him, sitting with Job in silence for seven days out of respect for his mourning. On the seventh day, Job speaks, beginning a conversation in which each of the four men shares his thoughts on Job’s afflictions in long, poetic statements.

Job curses the day he was born, comparing life and death to light and darkness. He wishes that his birth had been shrouded in darkness and longs to have never been born, feeling that light, or life, only intensifies his misery. Eliphaz responds that Job, who has comforted other people, now shows that he never really understood their pain. Eliphaz believes that Job’s agony must be due to some sin Job has committed, and he urges Job to seek God’s favor. Bildad and Zophar agree that Job must have committed evil to offend God’s justice and argue that he should strive to exhibit more blameless behavior. Bildad surmises that Job’s children brought their deaths upon themselves. Even worse, Zophar implies that whatever wrong Job has done probably deserves greater punishment than what he has received.

Job responds to each of these remarks, growing so irritated that he calls his friends “worthless physicians” who “whitewash [their advice] with lies” (13:4). After making pains to assert his blameless character, Job ponders man’s relationship to God. He wonders why God judges people by their actions if God can just as easily alter or forgive their behavior. It is also unclear to Job how a human can appease or court God’s justice. God is unseen, and his ways are inscrutable and beyond human understanding. Moreover, humans cannot possibly persuade God with their words. God cannot be deceived, and Job admits that he does not even understand himself well enough to effectively plead his case to God. Job wishes for someone who can mediate between himself and God, or for God to send him to Sheol, the deep place of the dead.

Job’s friends are offended that he scorns their wisdom. They think his questions are crafty and lack an appropriate fear of God, and they use many analogies and metaphors to stress their ongoing point that nothing good comes of wickedness. Job sustains his confidence in spite of these criticisms, responding that even if he has done evil, it is his own personal problem. Furthermore, he believes that there is a “witness” or a “Redeemer” in heaven who will vouch for his innocence (16:19, 19:25). After a while, the upbraiding proves too much for Job, and he grows sarcastic, impatient, and afraid. He laments the injustice that God lets wicked people prosper while he and countless other innocent people suffer. Job wants to confront God and complain, but he cannot physically find God to do it. He feels that wisdom is hidden from human minds, but he resolves to persist in pursuing wisdom by fearing God and avoiding evil.

Without provocation, another friend, Elihu, suddenly enters the conversation. The young Elihu believes that Job has spent too much energy vindicating himself rather than God. Elihu explains to Job that God communicates with humans by two ways—visions and physical pain. He says that physical suffering provides the sufferer with an opportunity to realize God’s love and forgiveness when he is well again, understanding that God has “ransomed” him from an impending death (33:24). Elihu also assumes that Job must be wicked to be suffering as he is, and he thinks that Job’s excessive talking is an act of rebellion against God.

God finally interrupts, calling from a whirlwind and demanding Job to be brave and respond to his questions. God’s questions are rhetorical, intending to show how little Job knows about creation and how much power God alone has. God describes many detailed aspects of his creation, praising especially his creation of two large beasts, the Behemoth and Leviathan. Overwhelmed by the encounter, Job acknowledges God’s unlimited power and admits the limitations of his human knowledge. This response pleases God, but he is upset with Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar for spouting poor and theologically unsound advice. Job intercedes on their behalf, and God forgives them. God returns Job’s health, providing him with twice as much property as before, new children, and an extremely long life.

(link)

Please ruminate upon the following:

1) What do you think about the depiction of God here? Is he exhibiting all of the attributes that we have discussed in class?

2) What conclusion (if any) does Job reach regarding the problem of evil?

3) Is there a message here about how we should approach or think about evil?

4) What is the meaning of the section concerning Job's friends? What are we meant to learn from this section?

5) What is the role of Satan in this story? Does he behave as you would expect him to?

Thursday 19 May 2011

Hard & Soft Materialism

Only use this stuff if you want to!

Swinburne criticises hard and soft materialism :

The first view, which I shall call 'hard materialism', claims that the only substances are material objects, and persons (including humans) are such substances. A person is the same thing as his body (and his brain is the same thing as his mind). The only events which occur are physical events, viz, ones which consist in the instantiation of physical properties in material objects. There are no mental events in the sense in which I have analysed this notion; for there are no events distinct from physical events to which the subject has privileged access. Hard materialism seems to me obviously false. There really are events which humans experience and which in consequence they can know about better than does anyone else who studies their behaviour or inspects their brain. My sensations, for example - my having a red after-image or a smell of roast beef - are such that I have an additional way of knowing about them other than those available to the best student of my behaviour or brain; I actually experience them. Consequently they must be distinct from brain events, or any other bodily events. A neurophysiologist cannot observe the quality of the colour in my visual field, or the pungency of the smell of roast beef which I smell. A Martian who came to Earth and captured a human being and inspected his brain, could discover everything that was happening in that brain but would still wonder whether a human really feel anything when his toe is stamped upon. There must be mental events in addition to physical events.

The second view in the history of thought about the mind/body problem is the view which I shall call 'soft materialism'. It is often called 'property dualism'. Soft materialism agrees with hard materialism that the only substances are material objects, but it claims that some of these (that is, persons) have mental properties which are distinct from physical properties. Brain-events certainly often cause mental events and vice versa. Neurones firing in certain patterns cause me to have a red after-image. And - in the other direction - trying to move my arm causes the brain-events which cause my arm to move. These are causal relations between distinct events - just as the ignition of gunpowder is a distinct event from the explosion which it causes.

The basic difficulty, however, with soft materialism as with hard materialism, is that there seem to be more truths about the world than the doctrine says that there can be. Hard materialism says that you have told the whole story of the world when you have said which material objects exist and which physical properties they have. But, as we have seen, there is also the issue of which mental properties are instantiated. Soft materialism says that you have told the whole story of the world when you have said which material objects exist and which properties (mental and physical) they have. However, full information of this kind would still leave you ignorant of whether some person continued to exist or not. Knowledge of what happens to bodies and their parts will not show you for certain what happens to persons. I have tried to illustrate this with the example of brain transplants.

Swinburne's Brain Hemisphere Thought Experiment

It's an attempt to show that mind and body MUST be separate things

It goes like this:

In theory, I could take the two hemispheres of your brain and put each one in a new body.

In theory, both of those bodies could be 'alive' - with half of your brain in each one.

In this situation, it'd be hard to say which one was really 'you' wouldn't it?... which one has your mind?

In theory, both could be conscious*

So where is your mind?

We're not sure are we?

So, I know exactly where all the bits of your body are

But, I'm not sure where your mind is

So, mind and body must be separate things mustn't they?

Therefore, this is support for substance dualism

(*in fact, there's some debate amongst scientist over whether the right hemisphere could ever really be conscious - but it doesn't control language, so how could we ask it anyway?)

Here's the argument in Swinburne's own words:

"Knowledge of what happens to bodies and their parts will not show you for certain what happens to persons. Let me illustrate this with the example of brain transplants.

The brain, as you will know, consists of two hemispheres, and a brain-stem. There is good evidence that humans can survive and behave as conscious being if much of one hemisphere is destroyed. Now suppose my brain (hemisphere plus brain-stem) was divided into two, and each half brain taken out of my skull and transplanted into the empty skull of a body from which a brain has just been removed; and there to be added to each half-brain from some other brain (e.g. the brain of my identical twin) whatever other parts (e.g. more brain stem) are necessary in order for the transplant to take and for there to be two living persons with lives of conscious experiences. Which of these two resulting persons would be me? Probably both would to some extent behave like me and make my memory claims; for behaviour and speech depend, at any rate in very large part, on brain-states, and there is very considerable overlap between the _information_ carried by the two hemispheres which gives rise to behaviour and speech. But both persons would not be me. For if they were both identical with me they would be the same person as each other (if a is the same as b, and b is the same as c, then a is the same as c) and they are not. They now have different experiences and lead different lives. There remain three other possibilities - that the person with my right half-brain is me, or that the person with my left half-brain is me, or that neither is me. But we cannot be certain which holds. It follows that that mere knowledge of what happens to bodies does not tell you what happens to persons.

It is tempting to say that it is a matter of arbitrary definition which of the three possibilities is correct. But this temptation must be resisted. There is a crucial factual issue here - which can be shown if we alter our thought experiment a little. Suppose that I am captured by a mad surgeon. He explains that he is going to perform this operation on my brain, in consequence of which there will be two living persons, one made partly out of my right brain hemisphere and the other made partly out of my left brain hemisphere. He announces that he will give one of these later persons ten million dollars and that he will subject the other one to torture. He allows me to choose which of the later persons will get ten million dollars and which will be tortured; that is, to choose whether the person who has my left half-brain will become a rich man while the one who has my right half-brain will suffer, or whether if will be the other way around.
How ought I to choose in order to become rich? It is evident that whether I shall survive the operation and whether my life will be happy or sad are factual questions. (Only someone under the grip of some very strong philosophical dogma would deny that), and yet, as I await the transplant and know exactly what will happen to my brain, each of the two choices would be very risky - if I choose that the person with my left half-brain will be rewarded, I do not know whether it will be me; and also, if I choose that the person with my right half-brain will be rewarded, I do not know if that person will be me.

And even after the operation no one will know for certain whether I have survived, or which of the later persons is me. Even if one subsequent person resembles the earlier me more in character and memory claims than does the other, that one may not be me. Maybe I've survived the operation but am changed in character and have lost much of my memory as a result of it, in consequence of which the other subsequent person resembles the earlier me more in his public behaviour than I do. And even if a fourth possibility, that they are both to some extent me, were (despite its apparent incoherence) correct, neither science nor philosophy could show that to us for certain, for all the evidence which could ever be obtained would be compatible with the other possibilities as well.

Reflection on this thought experiment shows that however much we come to know for certain about what has happened to my brain (and other parts of my body), and however much we come to know for certain about which mental properties are instantiated in which subsequent persons, we would not know for certain what has happened to me. What we would not know is which substance each of the later persons is. But since we do know - we may suppose - what has happened to each atom of my body, I must be different from my body. I must have a further essential immaterial part whose continuing in existence makes the brain (and so body) to which it is linked my brain (and my body), and to this something I give the traditional name of 'soul'. I am my soul plus whatever brain (and body) it is connected to. Normally my soul goes when my brain goes, but in unusual circumstances (such as when my brain is split) it is uncertain where it goes

Saturday 30 April 2011

Schopenhauer

The mind/body problem does not concern Schopenhauer, who explains in ‘The World as Will and Representation’, that there is only one central underlying principle behind reality: ‘the will’, and the world merely consists of the will, and representation is just a way of looking at the will. The relationship between the body and mind can also be explained through this theory, and as such, are representations of ‘the will’; mind and body are just different ways of looking at the same thing.

Ryle

Ryle had similar views to Dawkins, sharing his view that we are essentially physical beings and that there was no chance of an afterlife. Ryle is best known for his phrase ‘ghost in the machine’, which he coined to explain his idea that the soul or any argument that we were mental beings was false. He argued that the idea of the soul was a ‘category mistake’ that people made when they spoke of the mind or the soul. He claimed that when individuals speak of the mind and body as a different phenomenon they are making a linguistic error and that the idea of the human mind was as unreal as the thought of a ghost driving a machine. To Ryle, we are only physical beings, and any contrasting views to this derived from a fault in our language. Ryle believes that there is no chance of life after death, and that nothing of us is left behind when our bodies decay.

Ryle who is also a monist says similarly to Dawkins that we are just body. He says that the mind is a daft way of talking about the body. He also says things such as soul, self and consciousness is a daft way of talking about the body. This therefore means that the mind cannot exist separately from the body as we are only body.

Some more reading on Ryle here

Plato

Plato’s theory is based on the idea that although we do have a body it is the mind that is the centre of our existence and of our awareness of self. Although we do have a body it is not as central to our being and unlike our mind it is part of our ephemeral world. After death the body decays however the mind has the ability to be reborn and has the ability to rediscover the forms. The forms are the ideas we have inborn into our mind however we can only discover them through reason and exploration of our mind. An example of this is the idea that we possess of a perfect circle. We have not ever experienced a perfect circle however have the knowledge of what one is -this is a form. The idea in our minds which is perfect unlike the shallow copies present in the physical world. Our knowledge of the forms endures beyond death even though our personal experiences die with the body. Plato argues that the mind and body do both exist and are separate substances however he attaches more importance to the metaphysical mind than to the impermanent body. Plato does not clearly state how the body and the mind interact and only continues his belief that the mind is the most important feature of our existence as it is this that gives us intelligence and knowledge of the realm of the forms. This theory therefore supports the claim that the relationship between mind and body cannot be clearly defined or understood. Despite Plato’s clear outline of both the body and mind he does not reach a conclusion as to how the two work together even though they are two separate substances.

Aquinas

Aquinas a dualist believes that the world is metaphysical which he believes there is 'stuff' beyond the physical world such as a soul. He uses religious philosophy as a way to explain his views on the mind body problem which are later on used by religious people such as the Official Catholic Church Doctrine. Aquinas says that the body is shaped and controlled by the soul and the body makes one substance with the soul and the soul shapes and animates the body. He says that the mind is the form of the body such as the shape and power which is like the battery of the body. Dualists find it difficult to say how the mind and body interact but Aquinas suggests that the mind and body are joined although the soul animates our body but as it is wrapped in one substance with the body it means that the mind cannot exist without the body. Our self dies with our body as memories stay with body. Although when the body is resurrected the soul is reunited with it as well as our memories. This means that the mind does not exist separately from the body.

Berkeley

One example of a philosopher who believes that there is only one substance is Berkeley who argued that only the mind exists. Berkeley believed that the world is based on ideas. Although we believe that the world exists and that we have experiences of it he argued that these experiences are simply ideas supplied by God’s mind. Berkeley argued that it is only our mind, everyone else’s and God’s that exists and that we are all part of God’s ideas of the world. We interact and feel as though we are part of a physical world however there is no physical world-only God’s ideas represented as a “world”. It is simply God’s knowledge which is the foundation of our shared reality and why we can interact with each other. It is God’s knowledge which provides us with the world. Something cannot exist which is not based on God’s knowledge and ideas. The body is not a real substance as it is only an idea in God’s and human’s minds. This therefore means that Berkeley believes in a life after death, as he understands the soul to be a part of the mind. This means that at death we simply return to God’s mind as that is all we are-mind. There is no body to be left behind. Our “body” is not a real body it is only an idea of a body so this means that the mind and body are technically only mind.

Berkeley was a monist and immaterialist who believed that we were simply mental beings. Berkeley stated that we do not have a body, but instead an idea of one. He rejected ideas of a physical world, believing that there was no independent physical reality as the physical world was just an illusion. He argued that we cannot know whether there is anything beyond our sensations, and that it isn’t just God projecting sensations into our minds. Berkeley believed in philosophical idealism; the view that matter does not exist in its own right; it was just a product of the mind. In his opinion, all objects are mental creations, and since the world is a sum of all objects even the world was a mental construct. Berkeley summoned his theory through the Latin phrase ‘esse est percipi’, to be is to be perceived, which demonstrates his view that if an idea is not in our mind (or God's) then it does not exist. All of our passions, ideas and thoughts exist through the mind. He was convinced that there was an afterlife. He stated that we all have an eternal soul, and go to heaven as over time our ideas develop, becoming closer to God’s.

Descartes

An example of dualism is Cartesian Dualism proposedd by Descartes. He distinguished the body as having properties of extension, and motion which is subjugated by the laws of physics, whilst the mind is non-material without extension and free of influence by the laws of physics. He believed he could prove this by the fact that he had a clear and distinct idea of himself as a thinking non-extended thing, whilst he had a clear and distinct idea of his body as a non-thinking extended thing. He believed that anything he could think of distinctly, God can create distinctly, therefore meaning that the mind and body are distinct from each other. Since he believed that the mind and body are ontologically different in their nature, he was a substance dualist and believed that the mind could exist separately from the body since it is a different substance from the body and thus does not rely on the body. He proposed that the mind controls the body, which he considered to be like a machine. Nevertheless the body can also affect the rational mind, such as with desires of the flesh. He proposed that this interaction was through the pineal gland in the brain. He believed that only humans had souls, which incumbent the mind, and that this soul lives after the death of the body, as it is not bound by nature, because of this Descartes believed it to be immortal, and to live on afterwards without a body.

Dawkins

Dualism is rejected by Dawkins, a scientific naturalist whom as an atheist does not believe in the metaphysical. Rather as a materialistic monist, Dawkins believes that the mind is merely a product of the body, and thus since it is not a distinct substance, cannot exist separate from the body. In fact he believes that the mind isn't what makes a person at all, but rather genes and memes. Genes and memes cannot exist separately of the physical world, but rather rely on physical things to propagate them, so that they can be carried on into future generations. If all the carriers of a gene or meme were to die, the particular gene or meme would cease to exist. Because genes and memes rely on physical things, they are not immortal entities, and thus when someone dies, nothing immortal or immaterial survives them, this includes the mind. Thus since the mind is a product of the body, there is no need to explain the problem of how the mind and body interact. This is a problem for Cartesian Dualism, since other animals other than humans have pineal glands, yet Descartes believed only humans have souls. Nor does he explain properly how the immaterial soul is meant to interact with the material pineal gland, nor properly justify why it is the pineal gland which does this. This is something Dawkins has no problem with, since he uses science to help explain how he appears to have a mind.

Dawkins is a monist, believing that humans are essentially physical beings. As an evolutionary biologist, Dawkins explains everything in terms of evolution. Dawkins rejected any idea of the soul. According to Dawkins, the soul or idea of the soul is ‘dangerous to human endeavour’, and it is a restrictive and inappropriate thing to believe in. He believes in a world that is entirely physical, rather than metaphysical. His view is that human beings are just carriers of DNA, and that any opposition to this was a myth supported by no evidence. He claimed that if an individual felt a sense of individuality or that they had a soul; it was just their thoughts based on digital information. He argued that consciousness, and an idea of the self, ‘arises when the brain’s simulation of the world becomes so complete that it must include a model of itself’. Dawkins disregarded the opposing idea that we are mental, rather than physical beings, claiming the soul to be a non-existent ‘mystic-jelly’. He believed that there was no possibility of an afterlife, and that all was left of us once we died was genes, and his invention memes which he used to describe the continuance of ideas, inventions and cultures.

Another monism concept which does not have an issue with the relationship between mind and body was presented by Dawkins. Dawkins explained that what we understand as a mind is simply an “emergent property” of the body. The mind simply arises as a result of the body’s interaction with the world. The world is only physical matter and there is no other “mystic jelly” or “spirit driven life force” that controls our actions. We are simply carriers of DNA so there is no mind and there is no soul that continues to exits after death. Although we as humans feel that there is a mind and a driving force behind our actions this is simply a misunderstanding. Dawkins outlines our consciousness as arising when our view of the world becomes so complex that it has to involve a model of ourselves. He argued that the mind is only a property of the body so it has no individuality and is not a separate substance. The world and humans exist because of evolution and natural selection so there is no God and a soul that returns to him after death. He argued that the soul is “dangerous to human endeavour”. As only the body exists, the only thing left after our life has ended is genes and memes. Dawkins explained that there is no need to argue that there is a relationship between mind and body as body is the only thing that exists. The mind is a property of the body so it is only one substance. This therefore argues against this claim that the relationship cannot be explained as Dawkins believes that he has explained that the body doesn’t interact with something which does not exist.