Answer To The Big Question example essay topic

WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THIS THING WE CALL LIFE? A question asked since the beginning of conscious thought or maybe even longer, a question that could only be answered by perhaps the dead, (with whom there is no scientific way of proving that they are even contactable yet). A question that it could also be argued is one that everybody at some stage has asked him or herself? This question however, is a question that many of us aren't even sure whether we actually want to know the answer to! But nevertheless, this is a question that is indeed important for many in deciding what kind of outlook towards life that they adopt.

So, what is it that we all spend so much time thinking about... IS THERE ANY EXISTENCE OF A SOUL WITHIN EACH OF US? The length of time, for which this question has been asked, is an indication that it is a question that will surely be debated for a great length of time to come. The beauty of it is in fact that although the answer is probably unattainable, humans shall never tire of talking about it and it is not a question that is solely limited to one single class, race or creed. Although it is not the aim of this essay to answer the question, it is the intention to explore in depth the idea that humans may in fact not actually have a soul. By presenting the ideas that Richard Dawkins has illustrated in his book called 'The Selfish Gene'; (1976), I shall attempt to do this.

In so doing, this will hopefully not necessarily convince you that there is no such thing as a soul, but more so question your own existence as well as your own ideas revolving around life as you know it. You may in fact be thinking that you have your views and that is that. But to not be open to this paradigm shift is to limit oneself in such a way that the only conclusion to be reached is that one is simply not a freethinking individual but a product of society and its 'safe'; and conservative ideals. Some of the points brought up by Dawkins in his writings are ideas that are explored by scientific means and it is in this way that he actually provides extremely valid points to support his argument. Therefore it will be illustrated through this essay that it is in fact possible that we are creatures who have been created through a long and complex evolutionary process and nothing more. If this is the case, then how does one go about their everyday life knowing that the only real meaning to it is to survive?

Wouldn't this concept if proven actually change the way in which people go about their everyday lives and cause people to seriously question their morals and ethics in light of the altered paradigm? If everything that we think, feel, and believe revolves around the simple fact that we do it for survival, and no other reason, then ones outlook would surely be seriously altered. To question the roots of humankind, one must first question the beginning of life on Earth and to do this a scientific point of view must be taken. As Dawkins begins his writing, 'In the beginning was simplicity'; , and from a scientific perspective, very few other outlooks can be adopted. As it is a fact that everything is made up of atoms and the universe is made up of stable things- rocks, galaxies, plants etc, it is logical to deduce that these stable things are in fact stable patterns of atoms. These stable patterns of atoms are formed because in certain conditions, certain configurations are more stable.

This in effect is the cause for which many different elements have been formed by simply losing or gaining electrons and or protons, (the substances which atoms are made up of). Humans are made up of the same stuff that the rest of the planet is and as far as it has been documented the rest of the universe. Therefore, how could it be that we could be built with any extra parts to us that can not be explained in terms of stable things, stable atoms or stable elements? The general belief that some humans adopt is that there is the existence of a soul within each of us, but if this is so, the question must be put forward, why is there no existence of a soul in any other life forms? If indeed one does believe that there is the presence of a soul in other life forms, then does this include all life forms, from cockroaches to lizards to plants, or does it merely include life that only exhibits personality, or perhaps only animals? Where one draws the line is going to be at best a fuzzy place.

Nevertheless, as Dawkins points out, in the beginning there were only atoms and at best a few of them, these atoms, it could be said would have bonded into unstable and stable forms. The stable forms it could be said gave rise to the laws of natural selection and survival of the fittest in its most primitive form. At some point in time, these molecules that formed stable configurations were able to replicate and in so doing created a world of similar molecules within which there were surely misprints which gave rise to different molecules. This is not unlike today where there is distinct evidence that animal and plant life does mutate in the replication process and these mutations do at times assist in giving an added advantage for survival.

As this process continued over billions and billions of years, (time that is practically incomprehensible), from the primitive molecules humans eventually arose and in so doing carried on this process of survival of the fittest without really trying to or even knowing that that is what they are doing. The only difference between these molecules and us is that we are capable of conscious thought, also believing that we are the only ones capable of it and therefore believing that we are somehow different from all other life forms. So if there were no soul present within any of us, what would be the purpose of life? Simply to replicate and reproduce of course. To pass on information regarding survival and to carry on the existence of oneself in some way long after they are gone would be it. Consciously or not, this would continue the survival of the fittest rule and ensure that life continues in whatever way possible.

The way in which this is done in all life forms is through the passing on of genes that carry information that ensures from the beginning of life that the individual has the greatest chance of survival possible. Dawkins, (1976: 139) states, 'genes can do only their best in advance by building a fast executive computer for themselves, and programming it in advance with rules and 'advice' to cope with as many eventualities as they can 'anticipate'. But life, like the game of chess, offers too many possible eventualities for all of them to be anticipated. Like the chess programmer, the genes have to instruct their survival machines not in specifics, but in the general strategies and tricks of the living trade'; . The genes in humans are known as DNA.

The thing that separates humans from all other living creatures, conscious thought, is something that has led to humans distinguishing themselves from all other life and it is this fact that has also led to the creation of what Dawkins refers to as 'memes'; . Memes according to Dawkins, are things that assist in the continuation of an individual for evermore in the same sense that genes do. They include such things as poems, ideas, thoughts, fashions etc which in effect when passed on give assistance in survival for the individual receiving them. Just as genes are passed on through eggs and sperm via the gene pool, memes are passed on via a meme pool in a process of imitation leaping from brain to brain. These two things, genes and memes, it could be put forward are the basis for all life and in actual fact may be the answer to the big question, answered in a simple way. That is, the meaning of life is to simply ensure survival and continuation of a species or individual through the means of these genes and memes.

However, one unanswerable question is that of where did this conscious thought arise from, this thing that was perhaps the creation of the meme pool itself? Dawkins, (1976: 141), believes that, 'Perhaps consciousness arises when then brain's simulation of the world becomes so complete that it must include a model of itself. ' ; However, this really isn't a very valid explanation as Dawkins, (1976: 141), continues, 'if there is a model of a model, why not a model of the model of the model?' ; The argument that there is a soul within each of us, that inside each of our bodies is a separate little me that will continue to exist in a spiritual realm long after our bodies have perished is something that really could only be a creation of the meme pool itself. If one adopts the point of view that Dawkins is putting forward, then the whole idea that we are spiritual beings living in a world consisting of rights and wrongs, goods and evils is a meme created to assist humankind in continuing survival for all. If any other view were embraced, then wouldn't humankind be today living in a world of total chaos and disorder? In conclusion, the world in which there is no such thing as a soul is not such a ludicrous statement.

Is it not possible that we have in fact been convinced by constructs of our very selves to believe that we are different, separate, and unique in our makeup? These things have literally ensured that the path of natural selection has been a path that has not altered a great deal since time immemorial. So I present this question to you now. Is it not possible that the belief in a soul of some sort is simply another meme complex that has convinced us that we are different in some form, simply for no other reason than to suggest to us that we should indeed reproduce and continue life? So perhaps believing there is some existence of a soul in all of us is nothing more than a romantic illusion created by our very own genes or more likely memes which in doing so have ensured the continuation of themselves. Whatever the answers are to the ever alluding questions, one thing is for sure and that is that, SURE, WE ARE SMART BUT LIFE IS SMARTER!!

Bibliography

Dawkins, R. (1976) The Selfish Gene.