This is a sort of thought experiment, or an outline of my thought process, I've had knocking around my head for a while but I've never had the opportunity to discuss it with non-theists and I'm interested in hearing that side of it. I started thinking about this because I was raised in a family that firmly believes in reincarnation but I'm more scientifically-minded and I was trying to think of how/if reincarnation could fit into my understanding of science. This is purely hypothetical and probably full of holes but I'm interested in seeing where the discussion goes.
Assume for the sake of argument that souls exist and are something physically definable. According to most beliefs, souls inhabit peoples' bodies, are indestructible, and have an element of self. For these things to be possible in any scientific manner, a soul would have to be some kind of energy (it couldn't be something physical like an organ, we'd have found it by now). A soul being energy would account for it being immortal since energy can't be created or destroyed only transformed or transferred. For a soul to have an element of self, it has to have some level of sentience; if something is sentient, made of energy, and inhabits living bodies, it seems reasonable to think it does so as part of a symbiotic relationship (e.g. the soul gets to walk around and have experiences and the body gets to have some 'deeper' connection with the universe).
If an immortal, sentient energy-thing is hanging out in bodies for some mutual benefit, it stands to reason that moving from one body to the next as each expires would be more beneficial as it would allow the soul to have more experiences and allow the bodies a stronger connection to the universe depending on the 'age' of the soul (this is reincarnation in a nutshell).
None of this assumes that souls were created by any god, that souls have self and bodies do not (or vice versa), that souls have or impart any form of inherent morality, or that any communication between soul and body is perfect or even consistent (accounting for things like deja vu or hearing god; which could be the soul remembering things the current body hasn't experienced or the soul trying to communicate with the body directly, respectively).
Are these arguments reasonable given the assumption?
Assume for the sake of argument that souls exist and are something physically definable. According to most beliefs, souls inhabit peoples' bodies, are indestructible, and have an element of self. For these things to be possible in any scientific manner, a soul would have to be some kind of energy (it couldn't be something physical like an organ, we'd have found it by now). A soul being energy would account for it being immortal since energy can't be created or destroyed only transformed or transferred. For a soul to have an element of self, it has to have some level of sentience; if something is sentient, made of energy, and inhabits living bodies, it seems reasonable to think it does so as part of a symbiotic relationship (e.g. the soul gets to walk around and have experiences and the body gets to have some 'deeper' connection with the universe).
If an immortal, sentient energy-thing is hanging out in bodies for some mutual benefit, it stands to reason that moving from one body to the next as each expires would be more beneficial as it would allow the soul to have more experiences and allow the bodies a stronger connection to the universe depending on the 'age' of the soul (this is reincarnation in a nutshell).
None of this assumes that souls were created by any god, that souls have self and bodies do not (or vice versa), that souls have or impart any form of inherent morality, or that any communication between soul and body is perfect or even consistent (accounting for things like deja vu or hearing god; which could be the soul remembering things the current body hasn't experienced or the soul trying to communicate with the body directly, respectively).
Are these arguments reasonable given the assumption?
"Hey, Huginn... Muninn, whichever one you are, say 'nevermore.'"
"F*** you," said the raven.
"F*** you," said the raven.
