cosmology and the soul

Guy Consolmagno SJ has posted his fourth and final article for Thinking Faith.

This one I thoroughly enjoyed.  Not only does his faith come through clearly, but his love and passion for science is a delight.

In this article, he explores current thoughts as to where our universe might be headed, and specifically how it might ‘end’.  He ends with a consideration of the Christian idea of life after death, by way of the soul-as-software metaphor.

If you love thinking about cosmology and religion, you’ll love this article…

I’m a little mad at him, though; because now I’m going to HAVE to purchase his book: “God’s Mechanics: How Scientists and Engineers Make Sense of Religion”, and I’ve got enough books to read at the moment!

7 thoughts on “cosmology and the soul”

  1. Dale,

    I’m currently reading Geisler and Turek’s book “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.”

    I’ll have to put “God Mechanics” on the list, too.

    Thanks for the link…good stuff.

  2. I enjoyed Consolmagno’s fourth article – very clear and embracing. Though for me it fell down at the end when he started talking about computers.

  3. John,
    Thanks for the comment. If you didn’t know, I’m heading back to Missouri in a week (for about 15 days) for my sister’s wedding. I’m supposed to be doing some music at CFC, so who knows, might run into ya! Hope so! Cheers,

    Ken,
    Yeah, I’ve really enjoyed this series. When you say ‘fell down’, do you mean you weren’t understanding the software analogy, or did you mean you didn’t agree with it, or something else?

  4. Soul as software . . .
    Resurrected body as the new hardware on which to run . . .
    Dr John Polkinghorne has said similar, according to the Bish. ;)

  5. No – just that it’s not at all convincing to me. Big contrast with the rest of the article. I think partly because I recognise how the description of the universe is based on reality – observation and experience of objective real things. The computer part is only a wild speculation with no objective facts (that I am aware of) to base it on.

  6. I agree Ken, it is an interesting discussion right up until the soul enters the discussion. This last section feels tacked on and lacks the clarity and eloquence of the preceding material. If I was more cynical I’d be tempted say it was tacked on because otherwise there would be no religious content ;)

  7. Thanks Ken and Ian,

    I don’t mean to sound trite, but I’m not really surprised that such language about the ‘soul’ would be problematic for you guys. If your worldview assumes that ‘reality’ and ‘objective real things’ are only really material things, then of course any description colouring outside those assumed lines for reality are not going to be sufficiently ‘based on reality’ (or that version of it).
    -d-

Comments are closed.