Cassie ClarkDeath and the AfterlifeApril 24, 2014Essay #1: Death and the AfterlifeIn an age where science and materialism reign, the theme of the soul is rarely mentioned, ostensibly left in the past with the philosophers of yesteryear. Nichols, however, frankly addresses this difficult subject and breathes new life into the argument that humans do indeed have an immaterial and immortal soul. Nichols summarizes several popular arguments for the existence of the soul while constructing his own argument, which presents a soul as limited in relation to its environment as well as a soul that is one with the spirit and controls the body. He discusses both the strengths and challenges of his argument, offering rebuttals to the challenges. Because this soul is the organizing principle of the body, it is also involved in the Resurrection, bridging the gap between the material and spiritual worlds. However, I disagree with Nichols' assessment, instead choosing the side of materialism where an immaterial soul does not exist. Nichols called his position “the soul as subject in relation,” which he categorizes as a holistic dualism ( Death and the Afterlife , 129). This view attempts to blend modern scientific and traditional theological beliefs into a comprehensive view of the human soul. In this perspective, he defines the soul as "the subject of personal consciousness (or personal identity)", the focus of each person's spirit and will (Death and the Afterlife, 129). In short, a person's entire being, minus the physical aspects, is housed in this immaterial soul. However, the soul cannot exist on its own: it is limited by its environment, physical or otherwise. Nichols states that in life the soul is one with the mind and as such the brain and body, which limit...... middle of paper ......process physical. I am in awe of what the human brain can do and I think it is absolutely incredible that such an advanced and beautiful system could have developed over thousands of years. I can't say for sure that we don't have immortal souls. In any case, one can rarely be certain of something like this. Our universe is beyond our current understanding and may in fact very well be capable of producing a soul. I am open to discovering new knowledge, but I believe that to be trustworthy, this knowledge must be well supported and capable of being tested with consistent results. Likewise, although we do not yet have a physical explanation of consciousness, progress is being made in this research and there is still much work to be done. In both cases, I say that just because there isn't an answer now doesn't mean there never will be...