The Secret-Body and Soul

The duration of life is not enough to investigate the maze of evidence available to
make an informed decision about which religion is the "right" one. The concept of a hereafter is so nebulous and so inconclusive that enquiry becomes tedious and spiritually stamina sapping. We are disadvantaged from the start. Many people, because of the pressures of life, and the weight of personal decision making with regard to "salvation", say that they prefer to defer judgment to the hereafter, if of course, there is a hereafter. Ultimately, we are washed up on the shore of indifference; there we lie, exhausted and ripe for conversion to any system that will think for us. A system that will give us values with which we are not only comfortable, but which will hopefully provide us with the impetus and tools to tackle the hereafter. Our unvoiced question is; isn't there a way that we can lock into salvation with only a minimum of work being done? People become overwhelmed by the enormity of the problem. The search for the spiritual crib sheet is on; or better still, who has a copy of the exam paper? Heaven, the reward of the saved and the hereafter, are generally poorly defined. This gives rise to lethargy and indifference.
Let God reveal Himself at His own repose: live life to the full because all these hedonistic sensualities will be denied us after death, after all, such a lifestyle leads to Hell, doesn't it? So, it's a repent at leisure situation. When I die I'll find out what life and death is all about.
Paul Davies makes some interesting observations about the soul that is relevant here. He shows us, in his book, "God And The New Physics", that the soul and the mind are one according to Greek and early Biblical traditions. This is in fact one of the bones of contention about the soul. Eastern philosophy argues that the mind and soul are two separate entities, the mind being that component of man that strives against the soul to prevent it from achieving spiritual maturity. The soul is a spiritual entity they say, that has to be awakened through enlightenment. The mind is carnal and is fascinated with the sensual. It keeps us focused on the physical because once the soul has been awakened, the mind plays a secondary role to the soul.
The eternal nature of the soul is disputed because of space-time constraints. This is the difficulty that science has with such phenomena. Physical laws are applied to spiritual circumstances. Davies himself says, "On the other hand, such notions (of everlasting life) are strongly tied to our perception of time in the physical world, and do not accord well with the alleged separation of the physical and spiritual realms". In simplistic terms, if you can see and touch the one but not the other, are they then not separate realms? It seems to be easier to say that the unseen one does not exist!
Davies asks at the end of the chapter, "Can the mind survive the death of the brain by being transferred to some other mechanism or system. Clearly this would be possible in principle". The answer, according to eastern philosophy is - Yes! However, western religious systems do not allow for this type of thinking.
East is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet?

The atheist, in the face of so much religious confusion, rises above these difficulties. He finds comfort in the fact that he can dismiss religious fervour as speculative nonsense and he demands an empirical approach. This is not an unreasonable option. All religious organizations, churches, cults - call them what you will - have their dissidents. The erstwhile, faithful follower has become a disgruntled ex-member. There are more within the ranks, but they fear losing their salvation, as they understand it, so they hang in there. The atheist is not constrained in this way.
There will always be those who become disenchanted with one belief system and cross over to the opposition. Some may drop out altogether. This is often because dogma defies logic. Just believe, you are told. One day God will reveal all. Why the wait? However, for every one who leaves the fold, there are dozens who prefer to just believe. They are the ones who do not want to be confused with the facts. They are in Life after Death 101: Just give me the notes that tell me how to get to heaven.

Where is the middle ground? Can there be a middle ground? There are definitely many who are watching this tennis match between science and religion. The reader of this book may be one of them. These people seek the Truth about a spiritual evolution to take them to the peaceful meadow of empirically acquired knowledge and unambivalent hope. There they can leave all their human frailties behind. They ask: Why should a destiny of everlasting life be denied us just because it cannot be satisfactorily defined?
What do you mean I have to wait for the resurrection? So, when I die I'm dead, but I need not despair because at some time in the future I will be raised up alive? The alternative to this is going straight to Heaven, or Hell, as the circumstances demand. A third alternative is the troublesome theory of Reincarnation.

The problem is that we should take personal responsibility for our salvation if we are moved to believe that there is a spiritual dimension. Many people seek a spiritual solution. There are those who seek a spiritual solution beyond the domain of God. They call it "locking into the power of the universe". Apparently they are uncomfortable with the concept of God as a being. These people say that it does not matter what you call the power of the Universe. So why not call it God? To whom or what are they pandering? What would give the physical universe its power if not a godlike being? Maneuvering around this issue becomes another way of creating God in our own image. They believe in a power in the universe and they liken it to a physical power like gravity. This is very often the platform for the positive thinkers. Witness the recent spate of books the central theme of which is: As a man thinks so he is; the simplistic law of attraction, of which the rule is: opposites attract. This type of simplification makes both science and religion look silly.
Perhaps the vibrancy and creative thinking of the evangelical atheist Richard Dawkins embarrasses us? We are helpless in the face of his empirically sounding treatise called "The God Delusion". Even the title makes you wonder to what extent you are deluded. How can we stand up to Dawkins' rich and entertaining prose and not feel foolish?
In the chapter "Why There Is Almost Certainly No God", Dawkins writes: " Natural selection works because it is a cumulative one way street to improvement. It needs some luck to get started, and the ' billions of planets' anthropic principle grants it that luck". Note the words 'almost' and 'luck'; are these not the words used by the untrained believer struggling to justify his belief? Dawkins is subtly asking us to take a huge leap of faith, the same leap of faith that he ridicules in Creationist arguments.