Do you think that holding the view that the soul can be entirely separate from physical aspects of the body should be fundamentally important in a theistic worldview?
This is a question of great interest to anyone who cherishes hope of eternal existence. The intuitive answer surely is ‘yes’. The logic is simple. If some part of me is eternal then it makes sense that it has an existence separate from that part of me that is demonstrably mortal. My logic makes me a dualist!
But wait… It is MY logic. What if anything does it have in common with a ‘creator’s logic? Must God’s processes operate in a way that makes them subject to human logic and understanding?
Suppose neuroscience were to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that at my death no consciousness remains. Does logic then dictate I should subscribe to atheism? Could not the creator according to his will and power ‘ reconstitute ‘ me in such a way that the ‘I’ bears the hallmarks of the’ I’ of human existence and the ‘me ‘ is recognised and identified as ‘me’ by others? Should I really be disconcerted if neuroscience appears to come up with an indisputable conclusion that appears to be the ‘wrong’ answer for believers in an after- life with the creator God? Does the likelihood of my eternal destiny rest on the conclusions of neuroscience?
Some years ago, it was common to hear the argument that Christians’ bodies should not be cremated because it resulted in the incineration of the very material from which the resurrection body required to be reconstituted. That argument is less prominent these days and appears to have given way to a more mature way of thinking which understands that God’s ultimate aims are not dependent on processes that conform to human logic and understanding.
So…..doesn’t this suggest that our interest in science ( neuroscience in this case) should be more peripheral and our attitude to discovery more sceptical? Not so. I believe we are made as creatures who are curious and interested to unravel mystery; we are beings with a God given drive to understand and marvel. And to wonder is often to feel reverence; to feel reverence is to be inspired to worship the author of creation. Let’s have neuroscience aplenty!
So am I really an old fashioned dualist? I think I am but am open to qualifying that position if I can gain further enlightenment from whatever source. Any thoughts on how my thinking should be improved?
All of the above points to the need for humble and open enquiry; certainly not one characterised by the hardball of dogmatism. I regret those times when the discussion morphs into what can seem like self- interested and self – advancing debate. (Not on the GTN forum pages of course.) In the ‘science and God’ arena we should practise respectful dialogue more than the defence of a cherished point of view. Agreed? I suppose you are but it isn’t easy.
But back to the matter of the eternal soul. Is there an eternal part of me that exists from birth (or earlier) ? Or in eternity should I expect to be ‘ reconstituted’?
This is obviously a complex question, but a quick reply might go something like this...
A number of arguments could be given for and against the view that the soul must be separate from the body, but I think the fundamental issue is how this question is to be judged. Should it be judged using a scientific methodology or a theological one, or some combination of both? Indeed, is it even possible for science to tell us anything about eternal souls, given that science can only describe material and physical phenomena (or complex phenomena such as consciousness that emerge from them).The idea that science can tell us anything about the soul rests on the assumption that the soul should be identified with consciousness (or self-consciousness), something which I am very dubious about.
The biblical idea of the spirit (and later soul/psyche) is not focussed on consciousness at all, but upon 'life', or 'being a living being'. The life in question is a bodily one, yet one which can enter into covenant with God as part of the nation of Israel and later enter into union with God in Christ. It was only under the influence of Greek/Hellenistic philosophy that Christian theology started to adopt the pagan idea of immortal souls. The Old Testament - apart from the Apocrypha - basically knows nothing about this, and the New Testament - while using the Greek word 'psyche' - uses it largely (or even totally in line) with the Old Testament idea, albeit now directed Christologically toward new life in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
For myself, I think that we are creatures endowed with reason and self-consciousness, but that those things emerge from more basic material and physical processes. If we have faith in Christ, however, then God will grant us eternal life, and we will enjoy a new bodily life - in this world - albeit without the 'thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to'.
The Apostle tells us not to speculate about this new state, and I think his advice is very sound!
Thanks for your contribution Liam. I admit that my main arguments for dualism (that is, we are not the same as our bodies), are mainly philosophical ones. It is I submit, not mere speculation but reasoning - reason being part of our God given faculties which we should exercise as Christians. I think the Apostle was writing about useless, idle speculation rather than rational arguments.
This youtube clip from Peter S Williams is about just one of those arguments (about free-will) and might be helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5ZlyKJXVVE&index=2&list=PLQhh3qcwVEWh0MdW-hlHBPyLRWgFjzhPT
There are reasonable arguments for dualism and I would not simply put this down to adopting a pre-Christian Greek pagan philosophy. Examples of living Christian dualist philosophers are Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne and J.P. Moreland.
I do not pretend to be an expert on the theological basis for dualism but I do think we should take note of the words of Jesus in Matthew 10:28 "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Jesus makes a clear distinction between the body and the soul. In other words there is an immaterial part of us that survives death. And, to the soon to be dead thief on the cross he says: "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise."
There are of course Christian philosophers who hold a monist view such as yours and it is good to have healthy discussions on the subject - which is what the forum is all about.
This is a most interesting and important discussion. Thank you for it. I'll try to organize my thoughts around it once I find some more time. I suspect that, rather like the mode of Christ's presence in the Eucharist, we shall have to recognize a mystery here which for now we cannot penetrate. Let the discussion proceed, nonetheless!
It is worth perhaps looking at the writings of one of the most prominent Christian monists (someone who believes we are purely physical and there is no immaterial 'soul') - this is Nancy Murphy. She is Professor of Christian Philosophy at Fuller Theological Seminary. She appears in the 'God Question' production. The book to read by her is 'Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies?'. I spend a whole chapter in my book 'The Enigma of Consciousness. Reclaiming the Soul' looking at and analyzing her work.
She is a non-reductive physicalist. What this means is that she rejects the idea that the brain is entirely dependent on the way the smallest part, atoms and molecules work. Her thesis is that the larger structures and processes within the nervous system, in combination with the environment, have a 'downward causation'. The idea is that we are not just dependent on how each synapse fires but rather can see the way in which whole systems of nerve 'nets' can cause brain states, independent of the smaller and more basic chemical reactions. To quote from my book: "This claim is essential to her view of the mind as a Christian because it gives an autonomy to the mind that is free from the mere physical determinism of the reductionist physicalist. In doing this she does away with an immaterial soul and replaces it with nerve nets and downward causation."
I disagree with her and believe the argument is flawed. I would rather not go into my views too much here though and want to hear from more of the observers to the forum.
I know that it can seem a rather esoteric subject but it does boil down to some simple concepts. Please do not be afraid to comment anything at all about this subject - even if it is hard to formulate precise thoughts. It is an area that Christians easily shy away from. However, it is more and more a subject that the world is fascinated by...not least by the prospect of intelligent computers taking over our lives. Could they be conscious also?
Could computers ever become conscious? That was the question. If so, it would be most remarkable phenomenon and would raise big questions about the difference between consciousness and 'personhood'. Thinking about such a thing hypothetically might be useful.
Could a physically computerised intelligence that showed evidence of consciousness actually be considered to be a person? Might it be bestowed with a newly- necessary code of ' computer (not human) rights? My somewhat
intuitively-derived view would be 'no'.
My starting point would be to assume the conscious computer does not have what we might understand as a soul. Is that distinction between our sophisticated computer friend and ourselves helpful? I think it may be.
Jesus cited the greatest commandment to be to love God 'with all your heart, mind and SOUL '. The distinctions are interesting - particularly the separation of mind and soul. If mind and consciousness are ' essentially the same thing' - to quote Professor Frith of UCL in 'The God Question' series, then we need to distinguish between mind/ consciousness on the one hand and soul on the other.
I have considered for some time that 'soul ' may be in some way the equivalent of the life within us - a life that may - and will - cease to have physical and material manifestation of its existence at the point of death but nevertheless may continue eternally and be encased in a new form of spiritual consciousness. Jesus warned against forfeiting the 'soul' for the sake of prioritising the gathering of worldly possessions. It sounds rather like there is an essential core of being which is separate from all else - including earthly consciousness. Liam Fraser ( above ) raised the question of whether or not we may draw our conclusions on theological grounds. I would like to suggest that perhaps we can.
In a short post script to the above, I struggle with Nancy Murphy's terminology as introduced to us by Antony. It would seem strange to restate the ancient 'first and greatest' commandment as 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and mind and ...' nerve nets and downward causation'. Antony, I note you are not persuaded!
Interestingly, I too am unpersuaded by Murphy, but for the opposite reason - that is, I find nonreductive physicalism to be unsatisfying instance of wanting to "have one's cake and eat it too." That is, nonreductive physicalists want the credibility that often comes with calling yourself a physicalist - it's an academically respectable position. Physicalists say that the only pieces of ontological "furniture" in the world are those that are identified by physics. So, to be a physicalist of any sort is to say that there is nothing "to" the mind other than protons, electrons, molecules, neurons, etc. However, physicalists often grant that higher level properties require non-physics based explanations. So physicalists generally aren't apt to try describing economics or humor or art in the language of physics. Physicalism isn't the same as explanatory reductionism.
People like Murphy, however, want to say that we can be physicalists *and* nonreductive. They say that phenomena like minds are ontologically distinct from the brain, while still being dependent on the brain. But is this a coherent position? Perhaps not. As Jaegwon Kim argues against nonreductive physicalism, "to think that one can be a serious physicalist and at the same time enjoy the company of things and phenomena that are nonphysical, I believe, is an idle dream" (Kim, Mind in a Physical World).
Many Christians, then, are quite happy to drop the physicalist bit and stick with the nonreductive, immaterial option. But why is this necessary? One could argue that the need for an immaterial mind actually betrays an implicit deism, in which we need to have a special "spiritual" component to us in order to be in communication with God, or to experience life after death, etc. But this theological model isn't the only one - if your God-nature model is robust enough, it is possible to emphasize God's active presence and immanence in the natural world without requiring humans to have a uniquely spiritual immaterial mind.
As for conscious computers....some functionalists would say that yes, computers are or could become conscious! Others would argue that consciousness is intimately tied up in evolutionary biology, and that it is in extricable from the particular biological substrates with which we are familiar.
Thanks for all these contributions. This is turning out to be really interesting! One thing I believe we are finding is that there are few if any ‘knock down’ answers and Christians, as well as others, hold very different and reasonable views.
Going back to Iain’s earlier post, he said: “Suppose neuroscience were to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that at my death no consciousness remains.” And then he wondered if that would mean atheism …but then suggested the idea of re-constitution – God could re-constitute us as persons in continuity with our former selves. Of course God could do this and it is a way that Christian physicalists will explain how we continue after death. I submit however that science by its very nature can never show us the presence or absence of consciousness. This is because I believe conscious events are not physical and therefore the person is in this sense also not physical. My sadness when I remember some past event, for example, is not physical. Physical events are always publicly accessible, whereas what Richard Swinburne calls a ‘pure thought’, is privileged (no one but the subject can access it). Even if we see certain changes in the nerve potentials of my brain and MRI scans during my sad thought, it is certainly not the thought itself.
Thanks Sarah for your thoughts. I agree with you about Nancy Murphy wanting to have her cake and eat it - and I do not actually believe she can divorce the building bricks of the brain (atoms, neurons etc) from the higher level functions. They are linked causally all the way up. It is her way of giving autonomy to the mind from brute physical laws – so that she can be a libertarian (ie believe in free-will). I think we need to discuss the whole issue of free-will in this forum – please give us your thoughts everyone!
I get your point Sarah about dualists perhaps needlessly tagging a spiritual/immaterial soul element on to our nature when God could interact with us as purely physical beings. However most substance dualist philosophers do not hold their position for theological reasons…though the general public may do so. Substance dualists usually stick to purely philosophical arguments. Have you come across the ‘modal’ argument - here is a brief youtube clip of Alvin Plantinga expounding this view (initially it seems weak, but give it time to sink in): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOTn_wRwDE0
My view on computers is that they can never be conscious, even if they are so designed as to be indistinguishable from us. This is because they are dependent on symbols (usually combinations of zeros and ones) which have their derivation from humans. It is the same way that the words on the page of a book are not conscious though you might think the author is speaking directly to you. But please give us your thoughts about this. I agree Sarah that some assume that only a biological system could be conscious. But this seems a bit of a cop out – why not replicate the connections in our brains one day in the future with micro chips?
I notice no one has risen to the thought I put earlier that we do not need to be conscious, evolutionarily speaking. It is an add-on that does not seem to confer better survival in the Darwinian sense….Why are we conscious?
There are many avenues of enquiry here. I would be keen however to discuss the notion of free-will. Have we free-will? How could a purely physical system have free-will? What degree of autonomy do we really have? Are we responsible for our actions and thoughts? If we indeed do have free-will and autonomy, does this imply an autonomous soul that is not dependent on the physical part of us?
Continuing with the question on this part of the forum: can the soul be separate from the body? ...I think going back to the creation account is helpful here.
“And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7).
What does this mean? It would seem to me that this shows the physical (the inanimate dust) and also the soul as breathed into the body by God. But let us have opinions.
Regarding Liam's claim that dualism in Christian theology is borrowed from the Greeks and not part of the early church: I would agree that the Greeks had a dualistic view but totally different, in that to them the body was evil. In Christian theology the body is not evil and the body and soul are an integrated whole. Does anyone have knowledge of the views of the soul as held by the early church fathers? Please share here if you do.
There is then the whole question of relationship with God - our communion with God as his children is surely based on the fact that the only perfect relationship is within the Trinity between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God is Spirit. We have the immense privilege of being able to relate to God and, I submit, that is a spiritual/soul phenomenon. Rather than adopting the dualism of the Greeks, are we in danger of adopting the physicalism of modern philosophies? Discuss.
I hesitate to post on this forum as I'm already engaged on the other so I'll try and be brief. I'm afraid Genesis 2:7 doesn't help you here. The Hebrew terms normally translated as "breath of life" and "living creature" are also used elsewhere in the Genesis texts for other animals. Therefore if we use this text to affirm that humans have "souls" then animals have them too! What is distinct about humankind is the "Image of God" declaration in Gen 1:26-28. Oceans of ink have been spilled over centuries regarding what this term means and there are three rival or complementary views (depending on the argumentation adopted) which are still in the running. However, none of them bear directly on whether we have "souls".
I think it would be fair to say that the majority of Hebrew Bible scholars would dispute that there is a dichotomous concept of humanity in the texts such as is found in Greek and Hindu thought. The thrust of the Hebrew Bible in this matter is holistic not dualistic. Despite living among nations/Empires that had clearly held views of the Immortality of the soul, the Hebrew Bible has no clearly defined concept of the afterlife....very surprising indeed! That is why the concept of resurrection (a late development in the Hebrew Bible) is so important
Now I grant that the New Testament has verses that seem to indicate a "post-mortem" experience "in the presence of the Lord". But that has to qualified by the fact that future hope in Christian terms is normally viewed as an embodied existence or as Tom Wright likes to phrase it "Life after 'life after death'" So is this interim state disembodied or does resurrection into God's presence happen at death? The first would seem strange given the Biblical evidence and traditional Christian theological emphasis whilst the second makes it clear that any existence beyond death is only because of the power and love of God not because of some property in us that survives.
This is a complex subject and if there is scientific evidence for soul-survival (whatever that is!) then we have to take that on board but I'm not sure that we can do this by relying on texts alone
Many thanks Russel. It is indeed a complex subject. I agree with you about the Genesis 2:7 text - that it does not clinch anything definite about human souls. It does however indicate or point to the inanimate material needing something more than merely physical. I would not necessarily rule out animal souls.........I understand that John Wesley was convinced he would see his horse in heaven! Higher animals are conscious, even if on a different level.
I have looked briefly (and no doubt inadequately) at the views of the early church Fathers and the main theological positions taken by branches of the churches over the centuries. An immaterial soul seems to have been accepted by the early church - even if there were different views on its origin. Origen believed in pre-existent immaterial souls. Tertullian believed in direct transmission of immaterial souls from the parents through natural generation (traducianism). Lutherans have tended to hold to traducianism. The majority of churches, including the Eastern orthodox and Roman Catholic churches hold with 'Creationism' (not to be confused with how life came about). This 'creationism' holds that God creates each soul which then joins the body at some time from conception.
Along with Catholics and others, my own presbyterian branch of the church holds with an interim state after death when the soul is disembodied, to be re-united with the (changed) body when Christ returns. And so the final state is embodied. To do justice to the New Testament writings, I believe this is as close as we can get.
Clearly there is great mystery and categorical statements are unwise...but we are not talking about anything new here. The whole idea of an immaterial part of us that survives death is pretty central to mainstream Christian theology.
But the whole idea of the forum to is to listen to each other and I am open to my views being changed.
thanks for mentioning Wesley and his horse although someone did tell me once that the late great T F Torrance thought this sentiment was a weakness in his theology!!
C S Lewis apparently also believed in a future destiny for animals and when asked about Mosquitoes replied that could see how a heaven for mosquitoes and a a hell for men could be combined quite easily!
However, on a serious note thank you for raising the issue of animal consciousness. I have a book by called "Beautiful Minds" written by Maddalena Bearzi and Craig B Stanford experts in cetaceans and primates respectively and fascinating it is too!
It is here that the two respective discussion tables on our forum have a very important point of contact although it is probably too early in the proceedings to develop this further at the moment. Some Christian thinkers believe that if we are truly to face the theodicy problem then we must take seriously hints in the Bible (e.g. Romans 8 and Isaiah 11) of the redemption of all creation not just humans. The issue of "consciousness" may be a good place to start.
However, i just mention that in passing and hope we might come back to it at a future date. I will now concentrate on the other discussion table!!!
Like Russell Moffat I’m mostly involved in the other discussion thread, but have been following this one too, with interest.
I presume to interject now, because, diverse though the views which have been expressed already are, they share one assumption – that ‘soul’ is a noun. I want to suggest that it should be considered as a verb!
There’s nothing peculiar to Christianity in tending to think of the soul as a ‘thing’, an entity, which leaves the body at death. Anthropologists describe just such thinking among what we like to think of as ‘primitive’ peoples. Even drawings, showing some sort of bubble or cloud rising from the corpse, are apparently common.
But what do living humans, of any culture, actually observe? Never that bubble: only the cessation of actions – breathing, moving, talking, responding to others. The sum of these actions, or evident dispositions to action, is what gives us the sense of a living being. And the words that describe actions are verbs, not nouns.
Now it won't go unnoticed that exactly the same kind of things could be said about ‘mind’ as about ‘soul’. Indeed, I think most readily in terms of ‘mind’ and ‘soul’ as the two ends of a spectrum of action-words, with no clear-cut line between them.
As to immortality, I concede of course that my view would require the mind to be immortal if the soul is. But could you ever conceive otherwise? In what possible respect could a ‘person’ be said to survive if their mental features were missing?
How such immortality could be achieved I have, of course, not the ghost of an idea (pun intended!). But has anyone upholding more classical views, of an entity or entities describable by nouns being maintained or re-created at the last day, the ghost of an idea how that could be achieved either? There are some mysteries we must leave to God.
Many thanks Neil for your comments. I agree that there are great mysteries and that we should not presume to grasp in any way exactly what happens at death. Scripture does give us many clues however and anyone with a high view of scripture holds to there being continuation of the person after death. The alternative, as alluded to in the forum, is that somehow, at the end of time, God re-constitutes us atom by atom because he knows every atom that makes us. I do not find this satisfactory though - it seems to be simply a way of dismissing an immaterial soul through incredulity rather than reason. Jesus made it clear that the body and soul are different.
While I see your point about verb vs noun for the soul, I would never consider the soul to be 'thing'. Surely the soul is the person. In this sense I would still hold to the noun. But please continue sharing your thoughts about this.
As for the mind - we of course need our brains to function (at least in this world) - to have thoughts and plans and hopes and feelings. Contrary to what many think, Descartes saw the soul as intermingled somehow with the body (as he said, 'not like the captain of a ship'). Nevertheless he concluded as many philosophers do, that the person/soul is not a material part of the body. Quite apart from any theological views, there are good reasons for saying that a conscious person is not just the body. The fact that we have free-will is perhaps one of the strongest arguments.
Another fascinating truth is that when (as happens occasionally) a surgeon cuts the commissure between the two hemispheres of the brain, thus effectively giving us 2 separate unconnected cerebrums, there is never any hint of there being two people in there! The person has continuity and is unchanged in personality.
I see an analogy with someone driving a car. We see the car, from a distance, moving and if we did not know otherwise might conclude it was somehow directing itself. But inside the car is someone driving it. The person needs the car but is controlling it. In the same way we need our brains but should be careful not to assume we are just our brains.
As for the state of our soul (ourselves) without the brain, after death, I wholeheartedly agree that we leave that to God. What is fascinating about consciousness though is that it defies being pinned down to the material and seems by its very nature to have an existence of its own.
