[DavidL]

Good question, Lestat.

As a Christian, I believe that after the brain ceases to function, and gets shoveled into the grave, it's the soul ultimately "experiences" heaven or hell. Hence the soul is not dependent upon the brain (or any other part of the physical body) for its existence. The physical being is there simply as a "shell" for the soul, but in so far as it exists in conjunction with the body, the soul (consciousness) appears to be trapped in the space-time world.

I'm afraid that doesn't answer your question very well, but I'd guess that it's the souls that do the sinning (Jesus says, for example, that you only have to conceive adultery, to have effectively performed it) and the physical is nothing more than the material manifestation made possible by the body's existence in the space-time world. By that definition it's perfectly just that it's the soul, rather than the body, that attains heaven or hell.

IMHO Carlo's point is an excellent one, namely that if no soul exists, one can not say "I think that", but "my brain thinks that".

My wife (born in the Philippines) has had two near-death experiences, one when she was approx 5 years old, and the other when she was 29. On the second occasion, which she remembers vividly, she claims that she saw her soul leave her body, i.e. the view occurred from the standpoint of a third component entity.

I'm convinced that there is more to life than just the physical realm. But of course, as has been pointed out, in doing so I depart from "fact" and into "belief". (However, to my wife, her near-death experiences are "fact"; hence I believe that "fact" can be subjective). Whatever, I don't see departure from "fact" as being a "crime", in so far as logic and knowledge don't have the answers to everything. Assuming that everything can be explained by reason, or some kind of "cause and effect", is just that – an assumption. If one wants to suspend faith to the point of attaining utter objectivity, absolutely anything is theoretically possible.

David