Soul Story: Evolution and The Purpose of Life by Tim Freke

Soul Story: Evolution and The Purpose of Life Reviews

• 
  Julienne

  What a monumental feat putting this new world view and philosophy down into writing! Beyond the WOW! of that, I really appreciated the layout (no capitals, very little punctuation). The text flowed perfectly and I felt helped me take in so much of the incredibly rich content. I felt pretty well prepared to read what many would consider an eye-poppingly new concepts such as evolution of the soul having read Ken Wilber, Michael Meade, Jean Houston etc. So far as I know - no one has put these concepts into such clear words - some words that the author had to create to convey something so new to modern life but based on language we already know. The book was not difficult to read but I did find myself reading it in chunks rather then all at once. I'll come back to it again as well.
  
  Many authors in this area come off as saying "this is the truth - you must believe it!" but Tim doesn't do that, he presents his ideas authentically with facts, reason and experience. He invites you into the space to look at things from a specific vantage point, one he has crafted from a lifetime of pursuit of both reason as well as mystery. There is nothing about this book that is haughty or condescending as I have found so many others to be. I didn't have to fight my way through it, I felt like I was joining the author on a journey. Whether you end up convinced or intrigued this is a great book!
• 
  Sandrine

  I am thankful to people like M. Freke to take matter (spirit) in their hands and mould a new (emergent) way of thinking/perceiving/looking/feeling (spirituality). This philosophy resonates with me and I am delighted to have come across it. It helps me to move forward knowing there are many others that I can now relate to and share it with.
  It also clearly presents how we are so much attached to our habits of old though we are quite capable of creating new ones, and words that convey meaning centuries old and yet we very regularly update to reflect the cultural or mainstream sense of nowadays.
  I liked the design and the unconventional style of the text format. It aptly conveyed the essential.
  
• 
  Stuart Smith

  Part of me loved this. There is so much optimism and meaning inherent in his arguments. But ultimately this is no better or worse than religious arguments. Atheistic worldviews dressed up with pseudoscience. His arguments are not pure logic. They are anecdotal and wishful thinking. Sure its a great story but ultimately no better or worse than any other philosophy that attempts to create meaning beyond the objective and observed universe.
  Mr Freke's worldview promises immortality and a journey towards a Communal Soul which we can call god, albeit one less powerful than the one promised by mainstream religion. A God that is emergent with evolution.
  
  Do we need this. Cannot we create meaning in our finite lives?
  
  File under fiction.
• 
  J.M. Knight

  I was given a copy of this book from netgalley for an honest review so lets get honest. This book confused me in a way that I ended up having to read parts over and over. The writing is simple and the topic written in a way that the average person can understand. I was confused because he presents a case that appears to be an attack on science or what he calls science objectivism going so far to claim science is a new religion. Yet he uses science to help explore the existence of the soul and combines it with spirituality to present his case. Science is science and you cannot pick and choose what parts of science you like or don't like. Besides the confusion on that this is still a book I enjoyed and found myself agreeing with in many points.
• 
  Lee Skinner

  I really disliked this book and the approach it takes to explaining and sharing knowledge. I tries too hard to sell a fictitious idea through the same processes as religious propaganda. I don't believe that Freke has any sinister intentions and I do not want to present my interpretation of his work as manipulative, but there is clearly a process of misguiding and planting seeds that sprout into vague, meaningless conclusions.
  
  For me, this is not a book that you go to for knowledge. It is a book that you go to with a pre-conceived conviction and you read this book in an attempt to find solace in what you affirm. What makes me say this is the opening line 'contemporary society is experiencing a soul crisis'. This declaration is also highlighted in big, bold, white letters on the back page with 'soul crisis' in red. The expectation is that you then say to yourself 'Yes, yes, there is a soul crisis isn't there.'
  I was left baffled by this statement and the lack of evidence to explain and support it. I'm not just going to affirm that there is a 'soul crisis' just because the author wrote it. I receive incredible spiritual satisfaction from being part of the human journey. I love being part of the species that emerged from Africa to conquer the world and being part of the ongoing zeitgeist gives me a great sense of purpose, so you can imagine my confusion when the following pages declare that 'science offers us power, not purpose'. 'Really!!?' I scrawled next to this statement with a pen.
  
  This is my problem with the book. There is no reason to accept or affirm any of the statements in it, apart from having those beliefs anyway, so what is the point of those people reading it (apart from comfort and a vague confirmation that their beliefs are correct). On the subject of purpose, I didn't feel that this book provided a sense of purpose. It tried to convince me that I had a soul, but surly the danger is that it simply confirms the soul myth for followers of Christianity, Islam and any other religion?
  
  From the opening statement 'there is a soul crisis' comes a series of baseless statements that you are expected to just affirm... just because. I have littered my copy of this book with 'why?', 'really!?' and 'nope!' in response to statements made.
  
  Why is the work 'numinous' used to describe nature and why does the book begin with 'a conviction that a supreme being of love is guiding our lives?' This is the game of religion and one only has to turn to murdered children, teenage cancer victims and long term victims of domestic violence to refute the guiding creator claim (the statement does seem appealing though if your 35 years old and sitting drinking tea with your feet up in the back garden of your semi detached town house).
  
  The rest of the book is then a slow layering of conjectured philosophy. The buttery biscuit base of 'there is a soul crisis' is then layered with a creamy 'now consider this view', which is then topped with a jammy 'now, if you look at things this way', all finished with a sponge layer of 'so, surly that must mean...'
  
  I don't like how this book slowly drips statements in a manner that is trying to convince you of something that may not be true. It's very poor writing and a bad attempt to present a philosophical concept as something to be realistically affirmed as our reality.
  
  I have two further frustrations with this book. The first is the Albert Einstein quotes. This is a trick often found in religious literature. The use of statements from scientists, taken out of context, to justify the propaganda of the overall message (Darwin's death bed comments are a classic example of this). Freke quotes Einstein's comment 'the human mind is not capable of grasping the universe'. Before quoting this, Freke finds it necessary to describe Einstein as 'one of the smartest people who ever lived' as if this declaration gives the comment more authority as it is used out of context in a paragraph about the mystery of life.
  The second is the use of the 'tree falling' question to justify Freke's argument (yep, the one Lisa Simpson used to blow Bart Simpsons mind in the crazy golf tournament episode: 'If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound'). Freke suggests that there is no sound and also suggests that the colour green did not exist until eyes existed to see the green. Before eyes, there was no green. At this point, the book became silly and my questioning notes on the page evolved into doodles of Bart Simpson putting a golf ball. Water existed long before life on Earth, but would we say that it wasn't wet because there was no nerve endings to experience the sensation of wetness. Of course it was wet and of course the leaves of ancient trees were green due to the chlorophyll. I do understand the argument. A prehistoric bee would not have seen green and only when we evolved our eyes was someone able to say, 'ooh, green.' But the properties of the leaves and their existence remains unchanged and it makes no sense to use this as an argument for the nature of reality and whether or not it is real. You can use this argument for anything. I could stand in front of Freke with his book open and then ask if the words on the page of his book exist, to which I then close the book and say (in my best wizard voice) 'but if you cannot see the words then how do we know they are there). It's a nonsense statement that demonstrates the pointlessness of spiritual philosophy.
  
  If you believe in a soul and want to believe in a soul, then I'm happy that this book allowed you to feel comfortable in your affirmation. If you were born into religion and this book is presented to you as firm evidence of the soul's existence, then I hope you look at it objectively. I'm going to stick to my quantum theory, space theory and human evolution books and continue to be in awe of my own existence, rather than trying to find a purpose through the hollow words of a philosopher.
• 
  Tiago F

  Disappointing read. Basically just denying materialism and advocating for typical Eastern metaphysical beliefs such as the concept of soul, reincarnation, etc. Looks like a book straight from the 60s. Not that I have anything against the premise per se, but philosophically I was expecting a much better argument.
  
  He keeps making his own names for every little concept which got bothersome to keep track of, especially since in the end it matters very little and his overall worldview is pretty standard in the psychedelic/spiritual community.
  
  I got the feeling that he was trying to "philosophically back" such beliefs but IMO it just restates them in a pretty basic way without bringing anything new to the table.
• 
  Abdullah Shams

  So far I going with the flow, however there are multiple dead ends forseable
• 
  Najwa Raz

  Simple, idealistic and comprehensive yet contemporary upbringing in this book really enlightens me up when reading every chapter. Especially the chapter talks about death, love and life.
• 
  Michelle Olms

  Great book