A Non Proof of the Soul’s Immortality

Philip Hilton scribbles,

C. S. Lewis once said that one of the proofs for the soul’s immortality was the way we perceived time. Sometimes we perceive time as practically infinite — an hour can seem like an age — but sometimes we see time as infinitely small. Anybody who has spent an intensely fun day can tell you about the feeling at the end — can tell you that it all passed in an instant. Because we see time in these different ways, says Lewis, it is clear that we are ‘timeologically disoriented.’ And what reason could there be for this? The only possible reason is that our immortal soul is not ‘used’ to dealing with finite periods — hence the disorientation.

At first glance, it seems that Lewis is indeed right. How is it that we could perceive finite periods of time in infinite terms? Surely this divide demands some kind of explanation.

However, we must remember that we perceive many things in infinite terms, especially since the time of Newton, and the invention of calculus. To name only one instance, in calculus, when calculating instantaneous velocities, we let the change in time approach zero. Similarly, when calculating the area of a shape, we sum up infinitely small heights over a distance.

Initially, it is very difficult to accede mentally to any idea of infinitiy. Yet it is clear that the results of calculus are extremely accurate.

In light of this, it does not seem unreasonable to compare Lewis’ perspective on infinitely small and infinitely long times with our calculus friends, infinitely small velocities, summed infinitely many times. Lewis apparently thought that our variable perspective on time was a result of our soul’s immortality — or our soul’s infinity, if you bear with the calculus analogy. I would suggest that the variable perspective may have less to do with our soul, and more to do with time.

Physically, we allow that time may be infinitely small, and yet may add up to a finite amount. It does not seem unreasonable that this may be true for our soul as well. We perceive time as finite because time is finite; yet we perceive time as infinite, because it is infinite as well.

Posted at 8:00 am EST on the 13th of September 2009 by P. B. Hilton.

Under Essays, Philosophy, Theology as , ,

There are 4 replies.
 
  1. V. K. Blake says on September 13th, 2009 at 11:48 pm

    I’m not sure what to make of C.S. Lewis’s proof, but I don’t quite see how you non-proofed it.

    I haven’t run into this proof before your post, so I’m just going off what you said now. But this seems to be what happened.
    Lewis says: The soul must be infinite because it can’t grasp finity (why is that not a word?)
    You say: The soul (or the mind?) can grasp infinity by means of calculus.
    Therefore Lewis must be wrong.

    Am I missing something?

  2. Philip Hilton says on September 14th, 2009 at 1:54 am

    No, C.S Lewis said that the soul is immortal because we often experience time in infinite terms.
    I say that that doesn’t prove that the soul is immortal because time in itself is in some sense infinite, as per above.

  3. Carl Schilmer says on September 14th, 2009 at 12:27 pm

    Seems very loose and sketchy to me. I’m not sure how strong the link between the soul’s perception of time and the division of time in math is. Note also that you can work with functions of things other than time, such as distance (dy/dx rather than dy/dt). Would these things apply to our perception of space as well? CAN space be subdivided infinitely (note my next paragraph as well)? The string theorists don’t seem to think so (see “The Elegant Universe” or “The Fabric of the Cosmos” by Bryan Greene, a sub-atomic physicist).

    And I think you’re a bit confused about your Calculus. Take the equation for differentiation, f’(x) = lim h->0 (f(x + h) – f(x))/h.

    If h does equal zero, we are dividing by 0. That’s a no-no.

    That’s why the limit is necessary. We are not dealing with a distance of zero. That’s why we take the limit.

    Same with integration. We aren’t making an infinite number of area calculations, we approach infinity. We get so close that we might as well be there (but we aren’t). Otherwise, things fall apart.

  4. Jim Chambers says on October 8th, 2009 at 5:56 pm

    I’m curious, where exactly does Lewis make this argument?