Souls and Sentientism

Abstract

I am a psychologist and not a theologian, so I do not know what the word "soul" means. What matters to me is a creature's capacity to feel, to suffer and to be conscious; its sentiency, not its soul, is the bedrock of my concern. Let us proclaim this creed of sentientism: that anything, human or nonhuman, terrestrial or extraterrestrial, natural or man-made, that can suffer should be included within the circle of our compassion and morality. Having admitted that I am not a theologian I must also confess that I am not religious. Religions, historically, have offered power, purpose and a programme. They have provided humankind with three things: magic, meaning and morality. Science has now taken over two out of three of those roles; it has provided the magic in abundance and the meaning partially, through technology and scientific explanation. What it has not done, however, is to provide a morality. That is why science today is in crisis--a crisis of trust in its relationship with the world. Science, like Frankenstein's monster, represents reason on the rampage. But what can religion offer? At least religion admits of morality. An major religions have shown some concern for the sufferings ofothers and have suggested