Does God have Free Will?

             If you are trying to engage someone in a productive discussion on some particular point of disagreement, it is often helpful (necessary?) to go back to a starting point where you both agree and then find out where the divergence of thinking actually occurs.  In doing this, you often find that the point of disagreement is not really what you thought it was.  In that vein, I was recently thinking about a particular line of argument in my head and I thought it would make sense to go back to a statement everyone would agree with.  So, working backwards in my mind, I eventually settled on the following question as a starting point for agreement: “Does God have free will?”  I considered it to be a rhetorical question.  I said to myself “Of course the answer has to be ‘yes.’”  Everyone would agree that God has free will.  It seemed like a great starting point for the line of discussion I had in my mind. 

             When I first considered this question, I considered it so obvious that I thought even people who don’t believe in God would agree with it.  Specifically, I thought everyone would agree with the following statement:

 

“If there is a God of any consequence, then the one fundamental characteristic he[1] must have is the characteristic of free will.”

 

             Well…I’ve come to realize that not everyone agrees with that statement.  At first I was incredulous.  I really was.  But the more I’ve considered the issue, the more I’ve come to realize that it’s a trickier question than I first imagined.  I’ve come to realize that it is not the obvious starting point at which everyone would agree.  But I’ve also come to realize that it might be a rather valuable starting point from which to consider the whole issue of free will and determinism.  That issue, when debated and discussed, is almost always focused around the human condition – i.e. do humans have free will?  But in all of my reading on the issue of free will (which, granted, is limited), I have not come across any serious in-depth discussion of free will as it might relate to God.[2]  I know, of course, that not everyone believes in God and so many might say “why argue about something that doesn’t exist?”  But, as I phrased the question above, I think it is a useful line of thinking for anyone, including those who do not believe there is a god of any kind.  The point is, our views about free will and determinism are really exposed if we start asking about free will for a being, hypothetical or not, that has characteristics of being all-powerful and all-knowing.  Can such a being have free will???

             Exploring this question has not changed my original view:  I still think the answer is a resounding “yes.”  I still think that God obviously has free will.  But I can see now that part of the reason I feel that way is based on the very fundamental views I have about reality.  Those views are not shared by everyone!

             An example of the pathway this question takes is to rephrase it to something like “Can God do what He wants?”  Again, my first reaction is “of course God can do what He wants.”  But, then, someone might say “If God knows the future, then is He is bound to act according to that future, so He is not free.”  That’s a common problem with an all-knowing God.  But I think most people would say that God is outside of time and space – i.e. is not constrained by time and space – and therefore it’s not at all clear what it would mean for God to “know His own future.”  God is not living through time, waiting for certain events to happen and then making a decision (free will decision?) about them.  But, then, you have to wonder if free will has the same meaning if you take time out of the equation.  For example, can cause and effect happen in a realm devoid of time?  I’m sure a few philosophers have wrestled with that question and written books on the topic.  But, as for me, I’ve never experienced life outside of time so I have no idea how timelessness works.

             OK, so fine, that’s plenty confusing.  Maybe a similar question would be that, if God is outside of time and space, what does it mean for God to “want” something?  The word “want” as we typically use it, has a basis in a universe constrained by time.  If you “want” something, it implies that you don’t have it now but you would like to have it in the future.  Thus, it quickly becomes clear that you would have to define “want” differently when it comes to God (or any being existing outside of time), and so the question gets messy.  So, then you have to ask “can God want anything?”  And down the philosophical rabbit hole we go!  As is often the case, philosophy becomes a task of carefully defining the terms, which can often prove rather difficult and never-ending.

             One question we often ask with respect to free will has to do with responsibility for one’s own actions.  So, what about the question “Is God responsible for His own actions?”  Here we might have a clear answer.  We could ask it another way: “Can anyone or anything else be responsible for the actions of God?”  If the answer is “yes”, then doesn’t that make the “anyone” or “anything” the real God?  And so we would be asking the same question of that “anyone” – are they responsible for their own actions?  The buck has to stop somewhere unless there is one big circle of causality, which seems illogical to me.  So, I would say “yes, certainly God is responsible for His own actions.”  Is there anyone who would disagree with that?

             So here is where this line of thinking seems to help identify points of divergence.  I, personally, make a direct link between “responsibility for your actions” and “free will.”  I cannot conceive of any reality in which you can be responsible for your own actions if you are not free to decide those actions.  If God does anything, He is responsible for it.  And, if He is responsible, then He “chose” it.  And, if He chose a course of action, then He could have chosen otherwise.  If He could not choose otherwise, then who or what prevented Him from choosing otherwise?  If something can prevent God from choosing otherwise, then that person/thing becomes God in my opinion.  Here’s where the concept of God’s free will diverges from a concept of man’s free will.  The question of “could I (a human being) have chosen otherwise?” is harder to answer.  As a human being, I could be compelled by some other force or thing or being, and so the answer to the question is not as obvious.  But, when it comes to God, well, God, by definition, cannot be controlled by any outside force.  The answer to that question has to be “God is not compelled by any other force to make the decisions He makes” in order for God to be truly God.

             I suppose this line of thinking is a lot like asking if God is the “first cause.”  To me, that is part of the definition of God.  In fact, some would argue that it is the need for some “first cause” that is the best argument for the existence of God.  You can’t ask “who caused God?” or “who created God?”  God is not created and is not caused.  Personally, I do find the argument logically reasonable, but I don’t see it as the best argument for the existence of God – at least not the existence of a living God – as I discuss elsewhere <here>.

             In future entries, I am going to be building on the idea that God has free will.  But I acknowledge here that not everyone will accept that concept at face value.  I would certainly be interested in hearing the ideas of others on this topic.

---

[1] I know that a hypothetical “god” could be he/she/they/whatever, but writing that out every time is tiring to me and so I’m using the shortcut “he”.

[2] If you know of any such discussions, I would appreciate being sent a reference or link.

Prayer: From ACTS to APPLE PIES

             For a lot of people, prayer basically means asking God for things.  For others, it might even be defined more nebulously as "expressing your thoughts to the heavens."  But, for the Christian, prayer is a lot more than just asking God for things.  As we read the prayers recorded in the Bible, and various teachings on prayer in the Bible, we can see that there is a lot more to prayer than just "asking".  Certainly people prayed for God to do certain things or provide them with certain things, but they also used prayer to express thanks to God and to praise and worship God.  Sometimes people's prayers are primarily about confession of sin.  And there are many other examples.

             In order to highlight the different aspects of prayer, someone (I don't know who) came up with the acronym of "A.C.T.S.".  I think this one is pretty well known in many Christian circles, where A=adoration (praise), C=confession, T=thanksgiving, S=supplication (asking).  It's quite a useful acronym.  One of my Bible study teachers in college modified this a bit to the acronym "TACSI" (pronounced "taxi") where the I=intercession.  This latter acronym was to help emphasize the difference between asking for things (supplication) and praying for others (intercession).  There's a lot more to it than that, but that is for a future discussion.

             Anyway, over the years I have had quite a few occasions to teach on the topic of prayer and, through my own personal study, I realized that there were additional "types" of prayer.  I tried to come up with a new acronym that could incorporate these additional types of prayer to help people remember them.  At one point I had settled on "TACL RIC" but I always thought it was a bit too goofy.  Eventually, I have settled on "APPLE PIES", which I would like to briefly present here.  This acronym outlines seven "types" of prayer and two important characteristics of prayer.  I thought it might be useful to anyone who is trying to learn more about prayer.  It's easy to remember the acronym, but remembering what each letter stands for does take a bit more work than ACTS!  Personally, though, I've found it quite useful in my own prayer life.  So, here is the brief definition of each word in the acronym, along with a few relevant scripture passages:

 

A:  Appreciation

      Showing appreciation by giving thanks to God for the things He has done.

Ps 95:2, Phil 4:6, I Thes 5:18

 

P:  Praise

      Praising God for His character.

Ps 100:4, Ps 103, Heb 13:15

 

P:  Posture

      Physical - and mental - posture in prayer.  Physically kneeling in prayer is obviously not required but should not be ignored, and should be coupled with the critical character of humility.

Ps 95:6, Is 6:5, Eph 3:14

 

L:  Listening

      Being still before God and listening for His guidance.

Eccl 5:1-2, Jn 10:27, Js 1:19

 

E:  Examination & Confession

      Asking God to examine your heart and confessing sin.  Often coupled with listening.

I Jn 1:9, Ps 32:1-3, Ps 139:23-24

 

P:  Petition

      Asking God for what is on your heart.

Matt 7:7-11, Jn 16:23-24, Js 5:17-18

 

I:   Intercession

      Seeking that God would intervene for others.

Ex 32:9-14, Luke 10:2, Col 1:9-12

 

E:  Expectation

      Pray with faith.  Pray with the expectation that God hears and will answer. 

Jas 1:5-8, Dan 3:16-18, Ps 103:2

 

S:  Submission/Commitment

      Yielding to God's will or expressing to God what you are going to do in response to God's goodness.

I Sam 1:11, Jn 6:66-69, Ps 37:4

 

            There is a lot than can be said about each of these nine types and characteristics of prayer, and I hope to expand on these in the future.  But, if you want a quick example of how these different types of prayer can come together in a single prayer, read Neh 1:4-11.  I count at least seven of the nine entries all packed into these eight verses (and the remaining two of the nine are implied).  I encourage you to see if you can identify all nine.  I'll put together a more detailed review of this passage in the future.

  

This is presented under CC BY 4.0.  You have the right to distribute this in any manner, modify it, etc.  I only ask that you acknowledge your sources.

Book Reviews and Recommendations - Entry #6

 Book Review of "Prayer" by Ole Hallesby

              This is a review that is 40+ years in the making!

             If one measure of the importance of a book is "has the book made any real tangible change in the way you live your life?", then the book simply titled "Prayer", written by Ole Hallesby in the 1931 is absolutely important.  In fact, for me personally, this book might be at the top of the list (excluding the Bible).  The weird thing is that I think I read it only once or twice (until recently - April 2023).  Rereading it recently made me realize how deeply embedded in my psyche some of the points in the book had become.

             I read this book some time during my first year in college (1979-1980).  I do not recall how I came across it, but I'm guessing someone gave me their copy because I had no money to buy books.  At the time, I was interested in learning about prayer and reading all of the books I could get my hands on.  So, of course, I read a lot of books by E.M. Bounds and so on.  But I think the one by Hallesby was one of the first I read, probably because of its simple title.  His main point is unique among any teaching on prayer I read then and any teaching I've heard since.  His fundamental point is that "prayer is helplessness."  For me, it was a revolutionary starting place.

             The funny thing is that the book faded into almost an "ancient text" quality in my mind.  By that I mean that I have always remembered the main point of the book and I knew it came from that book (although I thought the author's name was O'Hallesby until very recently), but I never went back and read it again.  There have been a few times in the 40+ years since I read it the first time that I said "I should go back and read it again."  But, I could never find it in my collection of books and so I would eventually forget again and move on.  Also, oddly, I've never heard anyone else mention this book and I've never heard anyone else present prayer the way it is presented in this book.  Yet the book has had multiple multiple printings and has sold many copies.  I did, recently, come across a podcast where this book was reviewed and the reviewers on the podcast also kind of marveled that the book was not more well known among Christians.  Also, in the podcast they also mentioned that they thought the author's name was O'Hallesby too, which is kind of funny.

             What's so great about it?  First, it will deepen your understanding of prayer and second, it will motivate you to pray.  I sometimes teach lessons on the principles of prayer and I often find myself asking the question "isn't it more important to just spend time actually praying than to spend time learning about prayer?"  But then I hearken back to an illustration I heard somewhere about using a shovel.  If you're using the wrong end of the shovel, you'll eventually give up on the tool as useless, but if someone shows you how to use it, you find it is quite effective.  The same is true for prayer - it is worth learning how to use the "tool" of prayer properly.  Oh, and by the way, when I recently re-read the book, I discovered that the analogy I have been using of the shovel came directly from the book.  I remembered the analogy for 40 years, though I had long forgotten where it came from.

             The one thing I really can't figure out is why the idea of "prayer is helplessness" isn't brought out or emphasized by anyone else (that I know of).  The question is:  why pray?  Isn't God going to do what He's going to do?  Is prayer about convincing a reluctant God to do something He'd rather not do?  Or is it just that prayer is one of those things God tells us to do, so we should do it and not ask why?  No - as Hallesby shows from scripture - prayer is the cry of an infant to which it's mother responds.  We have too high of an opinion of ourselves when we bring deep theological discussions of predestination into prayer.  In prayer, more than anything else, we have to "become as little children."  Prayer is not for those who can take care of things themselves.  Prayer is not for independent adults.  Prayer is the cry of the helpless.  If you're not that helpless, then maybe your only real prayer should be "God, help me to realize how helpless I really am"!

             There are some aspects of the book that seem a bit dated - after all, it was written almost 100 years ago.  But Hallesby has a series of excellent and insightful thoughts about prayer - different types of prayer and impediments to prayer.  His thoughts are always very directly practical and he plainly addresses many questions that many of us have had about prayer.

             It's a pretty short, clearly written book.  For Christians seeking to understand the basic principles of prayer, I consider it a must read. 

 

 

                                                                              

A Theory of Soul Consistent with Scripture and Neuroscience - Part 13: Heads or Tails

             I'd like to present an illustration that is going to be very foundational for future discussions of my theory of the soul.  I think it is a simple point - at least I hope it is.  The point has to do with the close relationship between a truly random event and a "willed" event.  I've discussed this elsewhere, and it's going to come up again, but I want to put forward an illustration that should offer some insight into why free will is difficult to discern experimentally.

             Imagine that I have given you a long list of my recorded coin flips.  It's just a list:  Heads. Tails. Tails. Heads. Heads. Heads. Tails. Heads. Tails. Etc.  The list contains 1000 entries.

             A couple of givens:  assume that the flip of a coin is truly random and assume that my coin is a fair coin, such that you expect a 50% distribution of heads and 50% distribution of tails. 

             As you look at the table, there is nothing unusual about it.  I ask you to convince yourself that this is a random table of flipping a fair coin.  So, you dutifully collect some statistical measurements on the data.  You find that 50.2% of the entries are heads.  Seems fine.  You even break things down a bit more and look at the distribution of each set of successive groups of 100 values.  Their distributions also seem fine.  As far as you can tell, this is a typical table of random coin flips.

 

             Then I provide you with the following information:  occasionally, at time points known only to me, instead of flipping the coin, I willfully placed the coin down with either a heads or a tails.  You don't know how often I did that, but for the sake of illustration I will let you know that it was less than a dozen times during the 1000 entries you have in front of you.  I tell you that the series of intentional heads or tails spell out a word using an ASCII table.  My contention is this:  you could not tell which of the 1000 flips is intentional (and therefore has some meaning) and which is random.  In fact, looking across the entire distribution, you could not tell whether my claim that some of the coin flips are intentional is true or not.  Since I am telling you that sometimes my intentional coin placements are heads and some are tails, you wouldn't necessarily see a change in the distribution.  And, really, with so few intentional coin placements in the midst of so many random events, how could you really know that the distribution was not totally random even if all of my intentional placements are heads?  Any variations from a 50:50 split would be well-within any expected variation. 

             Could you ever distinguish my proposed "willed" series of events from a truly "random" series of events?  I contend that you will never be able to distinguish these because of the nature of random and willed events in this illustration.  Even in the extreme case - the case where every coin flip was actually not a flip but was, instead, me placing it down according to my own will; and further the case where I was obsessed with heads so I placed the coin heads up 1000 times in a row - even in that case, you can't prove that it wasn't random since there is some finite chance that a truly random series would result in the same distribution.  In such an extreme case, though, I couldn't blame you if you concluded that this was just a determined series of coin placements, and neither random nor willed.  Sometimes I think that when scientists think of free will, they imagine it must happen in the brain in a manner that fits this latter example.  Specifically, that to exercise free will means that every neuron fires under the control of the will.  If there is any "mixing" of events, it is a mix of determined and willed events.  But in my theory, this is not so.  Willed events are rare and are mixed in with a lot of random events.  In this latter case, not only can you not prove that there are no willed events, you might never suspect that there are any willed events.  If I hadn't told you that I sometimes placed the coin down intentionally, you would never have suspected that I was doing that.

              Finally, the whole situation is further complicated by the fact that you can't repeat the experiment and get the same results.  One common experimental method to extract rare events from the midst of random (or assumed to be random) noise is to perform what is called "spike-triggered averaging."  This allows you to find a very weak signal (like I'm proposing free will is) in the midst of a lot of random noise.  But this approach only works if the signal is repeatable and deterministic based on some known trigger.  In the situation I've described, we have none of the necessary conditions.

             Why do I bring this up?  Because the random coin flip is directly analogous to the randomness in the synaptic junction of neurons.  Neurons either fire (heads) or they don't (tails) as a result of sufficient conditions of neurotransmitter release at the synaptic junction.  That process is fundamentally random (I'll have to dive into the evidence in a future entry).  Therefore, we have exactly the same situation as the table of coin flips, but instead we have a table of neuronal firing states.  It's obviously a very complicated table because there are lots of neurons (not just a single coin) and they are all experiencing their random changes again and again as time progresses.  Also, a coin flip has a uniform distribution, whereas the distribution of any neuron's firing states is related to its inputs, is more complicated, and can change over time.  So it is a very complex table!  My point is that if you can't identify willed events in a simple table of random-plus-willed coin flips, then you surely can't identify willed events in the midst of random neuronal firing.  Willed neuronal firing events could occur constantly in the midst of random neuronal firing, and you would never know.  I contend that that is exactly what happens in the brain and you could never prove me wrong.  It doesn't mean I'm right, of course, but you can't dismiss the idea out of hand.

             Can the idea that willed events are hidden in random neuronal firing ever be considered scientific?  If you consider true science as only encompassing concepts that are disprovable and can be subject to repeated observation, then no.  Of course, by that definition, any theory of the past, such as evolution, is also not science.  But with respect to my theory, you could disprove it by showing that every neuronal firing event is predictable with 100% accuracy.  Specifically, if you can show that there are no such things as random events anywhere in the universe, then, I think, there would be no room for free will.  But, ignoring how difficult that would be, it seems pretty clear that the direction physics (and biology) are going is to confidently assert that there are random events in the universe.  Thus, rather than disproving the idea of free will, science seems to be progressing towards demonstrating that the necessary substrate for free will does indeed exist. 

             Of course, demonstrating that true randomness exists does not prove that free will exists.  I think that's where "disprovable science" ends.  The point of this entry was to show that if randomness does exist, it can be the source for free will and, further, that it would be impossible to rule out the possibility of free will if randomness exists.  Thus, given randomness, it is impossible to disprove the existence of free will and therefore, the concept no longer fits into the disprovable science realm.  That may bother some, but it certainly doesn't bother me because I've already accepted that there is truth to be found outside of science (something I've discussed elsewhere).

             In summary, free will requires an apparent fundamental randomness to exist.  Free will can be buried undetectably in that randomness.  Since it seems that fundamental randomness really does exist in the physical world, then neuroscience, if it confines itself to scientific statements, cannot claim to have proven that free will does not exist.  This makes the debate about free will and determinism a philosophical debate rather than a scientific one.  Yet it seems that scientists are the ones fully confident about their deterministic views.  To such scientists I say: l let go of your biological determinism and come live in the free world.  It's an exciting place to be!

My Dad

            My dad passed away last night (Pearl Harbor Day) after a long battle with Parkinson's Disease and diabetes.  As I suppose is often said in situations like this, we knew his death was imminent but we just didn't think it would be "today."

            In a moment of quiet this morning, I decided to continue my regular reading through the New Testament, with my current "reading emphasis" being to understand the link between body and soul.  This latest emphasis is something I started almost 14 months ago, beginning with the start of Matthew and, each day, reading the next paragraph or two.  So who could predict that on this day - just hours after my dad's passing - I would find today's reading starting with the following paragraph:

 

"For we know that when this earthly tent we live in is taken down (that is, when we die and leave this earthly body), we will have a house in heaven, an eternal body made for us by God himself and not by human hands. We grow weary in our present bodies, and we long to put on our heavenly bodies like new clothing. For we will put on heavenly bodies; we will not be spirits without bodies. While we live in these earthly bodies, we groan and sigh, but it’s not that we want to die and get rid of these bodies that clothe us. Rather, we want to put on our new bodies so that these dying bodies will be swallowed up by life. God himself has prepared us for this, and as a guarantee he has given us his Holy Spirit."

II Corinthians 5:1-5

 

            My dad loved to pitch horseshoes and was a professional horseshoe pitcher in the State of Oregon (a profession that requires a day job!).  But my dad's Parkinson's slowly began taking away his coordination and strength to the point where he could no longer pitch.  He picked up bowling and found it easier, and enjoyed that for many years but eventually, after too many falls, he had to give that up entirely.  I'm sure my dad longed for that future "new body" that Paul describes in the paragraph above, though I certainly don't remember my dad complaining about his progressing disability.  But he surely always imagined he would get back to horseshoe pitching someway somehow.  Those well-worn regulation horseshoes might still be in the trunk of the car.

            In my work to develop medical devices that can restore some lost function due to the progression of a disability, I am sometimes reminded that whatever we do is only a temporary fix.  Inevitably our bodies give out.  Sure:  exercise, eat healthy...do all those good things...but eventually that "earthly tent we live in is taken down."  Eventually the progressive degradation of my dad's body even took away his ability to enjoy watching sports - a lifelong passion fueled and often fulfilled by frequent bouts as a sports writer for various newspapers throughout his lifetime.

            I'm sure I got my love of statistics from my dad, who used to keep stats on every basketball and baseball game he ever listened to.  I bet he has written down somewhere, in one of his ever-present notebooks, the total number of times in his life that he tossed a 2lb, 10oz bent piece of metal toward a waiting post 40 feet away.  I think I also got my love of writing from my dad as well.  Those two things have certainly served me well in my profession over the years.

            Interestingly, I think I can also attribute my somewhat unconscious sense that "it's a good idea to read through the Bible" from my dad as well.  I still recall him having us kids read through some genealogical passage somewhere in I Samuel and it was tortuous and boring, but we came across some guy named "Dodo" and it made it tolerable!  But those concepts somehow stick in your mind and shape your thinking as you get older.  So, you could say that it was his influence that brought me to happen to be reading the paragraph above on this particular day. 

            Some just see coincidences and can calculate the odds of every event.  They see all of these coincidences as logically random events.  But my statistics aren't that good - I still allow for some miracles here and there!

A Theory of Soul Consistent with Scripture and Neuroscience - Part 12: Addressing Sloppy Christian "Beliefs" about the Soul

[Note:  This entry is written specifically for Christians.]

 

I found the following paragraph on the site "Bibles for America":

 

"Our soul is our personality, who we are. With our soul we think, reason, consider, remember, and wonder. We experience emotions like happiness, love, sorrow, anger, relief, and compassion. And we’re able to resolve, choose, and make decisions."

 

             I think this paragraph would describe a pretty typical evangelical Christian view of the body, soul, and spirit.  Although the context from which the paragraph above is taken is based on a Biblical perspective, this paragraph on the soul is not tied to any Biblical references.  But...it seems pretty Biblical on first pass.  It seems logical.  It would sound good to most Christians.  They would agree with it, I bet.

 

             And that's the problem.

 

             Neuroscience has proven this opening paragraph on the soul to be wrong.  The paragraph does not describe how things really are.  Even though I'm not a neuroscientist, I know enough to know that this paragraph has key fallacies.  I would say almost all scientists would know this paragraph is just plain false.  In fact, most people in the academic world would have enough knowledge of the workings of the brain to know that the assertions in this paragraph are wrong.

 

             If I was not a believer in God - specifically, not a Christian - I would just laugh at this paragraph and once again conclude that Christian believe in fairy tales.  This is clearly a statement of falsehood.  And it seems to present the Christian view.  Therefore:  Christians believe in falsehood.  But...I am a Christian and so paragraphs such as these are embarrassing.  They misrepresent Christian beliefs.

 

             This is the problem I am trying to address in these entries on the soul.  My contention is this:  first, the paragraph I've quoted above does not express Biblical teaching; second, what Christians should believe about the soul does not violate any known discoveries of neuroscience.  You can believe what the Bible teaches about the soul, and you can accept all of the discoveries of neuroscience, and you don't have to throw logic out the window to do so. 

 

             Unfortunately, the apparent impasse mostly lies with the Christian view as commonly presented in the opening paragraph.  Yes, it is certainly true that neuroscience oversteps its bounds with statements denying the existence of the soul, denying free will, sometimes even denying consciousness.  In fact, I would say that neuroscience doesn't just overstep its bounds with respect to religious belief - it oversteps its bounds into philosophy and ethics and even the social sciences and even art.  I've discussed this elsewhere.  But what I'm really concerned about is an incorrect view of the soul being presented as if it is a foundational Christian view.

 

             Now, I must stress that I don't think every word in that opening paragraph is wrong.  In fact, there are plenty of aspects that are, at the very least, partially true.  The problem is that mixed in with truth is significant error and thus you have to conclude that the whole paragraph is wrong.  Let me give quick example.  The statement that with our soul we "...experience...love...anger..." presents many problems and is too simplified.  If the statement was changed to "our soul is involved in our moral expressions of love and anger", then that would be acceptable.  I hope to show, in this series of blog entries, how to specifically think about the soul's involvement in expressions of love and anger, but, for now, the phrase "is involved in" is vague enough to cover the concept.

 

             It's important for Christians to recognize that there is no Biblical support for the statement that our soul is the seat of emotion, or that it is where we experience love or anger or other characteristics of our personality.  Frankly, the Bible is pretty vague on those details.  It is not vague about the existence of the soul, but it is vague about where the soul ends and the physical body begins, and vice versa.  In my theory of the soul, I draw sharper lines between the soul and body - not to claim any new insight from scripture - but only to show that a reasonable description of the soul and body can be made and still be consistent with the findings of neuroscience.  I think it is helpful for Christians to know that there is a logical description of the soul that can fit with neuroscience.  I also think that a clearer understanding of the soul can sometimes help Christians to live the Christian life.  But I wouldn't go so far as to say that all Christians need to understand and accept my (or anyone else's) theory of the soul.  What I would say, though, is that Christians need to think clearly about what is Biblical and what is not, in relation to the soul, and I think they need to stop assenting to paragraphs like the one above.  Why?  Because it makes us all look irrational and illogical and even foolish.  Certainly some Christian beliefs are "crazy" in the sense that they involve belief in miracles.  I've talked about this elsewhere [here].  But belief in miracles, though it may be crazy, is not irrational.  Rejecting the plain discoveries of neuroscience is irrational.

 

             Here's where I think the dog comparison helps [see here].  Christians should be clear on this.  Dogs don't have souls but, for example, dogs get angry.  Dogs remember things.  So to say that the soul is the seat of anger or "With our soul we...remember" is almost certainly false just by observing dogs.  Everyone should be able to come to that conclusion.  You don't need to know the latest neuroscientific discoveries to come to that conclusion.  But this knowledge is taken a lot further in neuroscience.  We know that damage to certain areas of the brain can wipe out memories.  We know that damage to certain areas of the brain can change the frequency and character of an individual's anger.  So...if our memories were all located in the soul, then why would brain damage affect our memories?  It's not just that we can't express our memories after brain damage - it is possible to damage very specific areas of the brain where essentially the only obvious deficit is a loss of memory (or sometimes just some memories).  To me, and to most people in the neuroscience world, this is unassailable proof that the statement "with our soul we remember" is false.  Our brain - our physical brain - is clearly involved in memories to a great extent. 

 

             You could say, as some do, that the soul is essentially physical and almost synonymous with the brain.  I don't agree with that, but it's a valid consideration given the evidence.  My point is that when most Christians agree with the opening paragraph, they do so with the idea that the soul is a non-physical substance.  They would not expect that the soul would be damaged by a blow to the head or affected by a stroke.

 

             If you've read any of my other entries, you know that I believe humans have a soul and that our soul is not physical.  In fact, I think the concept of a non-physical soul is a very fundamental belief of Christianity.  I even think that the soul does possess a memory of some description.  But a correct description of the soul does not ascribe all of our memories to it.  A correct description of the soul would not ascribe all of our emotions to it.  There is clearly decision-making in the brain that does not require the soul.  Even concepts such as thinking and reasoning are difficult to place fully in the soul.  Our personalities, as expressed to the outside world, are clearly strongly influenced by our physical brain.  So we have to conclude that the opening paragraph is wrong.

 

             In summary, I say this to Christians:  it is important to think clearly on this issue.  When it comes to detailed descriptions of the soul presented as Christian teaching, it is important to only go as far as scripture does.  In general, about all you can say is that human beings are unique in having a soul and our soul is involved in our moral decision-making.  To make confident statements about the soul that go beyond scripture and clearly violate known scientific discoveries is to present Christian beliefs as irrational.  That is bad.  We are crazy.  But we are not irrational.

 

 

A Theory of Soul Consistent with Scripture and Neuroscience - Part 11: Addressing the oxymoron of "Christian Monism"

[See here for introductory comments.]

             If you've read much of this blog, you know that I consider myself a dualist.  I assume that my Theory of the Soul would be classified as a dualist theory.  However, the label "dualist" can mean different things to different people.  I want to clarify what I mean when I use that label.  Also, at the same time, I keep finding a lot of Christians who are monists or, at the very least, "anti-dualists", and that surprises me.  I think some of the apparent disagreement might just be a difference in "definition of words", and so a clarification is in order.

             When I call myself a dualist, I mean that I am convinced that there is a non-physical (i.e. supernatural or spiritual) aspect to human beings.  The term "soul" is generally used to describe this non-physical component, although the word "soul" has a lot of meanings.  From a scriptural standpoint, I personally prefer to use the term "soul-spirit" or psuche-pneuma (Greek), because I think it more appropriately captures the sense of scripture on that topic.  I have discussed that in more detail elsewhere.

             I also believe that human beings are the only physical entities with a spiritual nature.  Or, to phrase it more simply:  only humans have souls.  I would distinguish my views from the idea of "panpsychism" - the idea that there is a bit of soul in everything.  I do, however, think that there is a whole "spiritual world" that pervades the universe and beyond.  But that is not the same as thinking that whatever makes up the soul in a human also makes up the components of everything else. 

             I have read articles by Christians who seem to believe that human beings have no non-physical component at all.  That concept makes no sense to me and it concerns me.  I don't see how it is possible to read the New Testament and not be convinced of the existence of a spiritual world.  My suspicion is that the only reason a Christian would see human beings as completely physical is because they are convinced that neuroscience has settled that score and so they are trying to fit their beliefs into that mold.  Specifically, they would be operating under the impression that neuroscience has proven that humans are only physical and therefore ideas like the "mind" and "soul" and even "consciousness" are simply manifestations of physical properties and are thus properly categorized as physical properties themselves.  For Christians in that situation, I do hope that my Theory of the Soul can provide an alternative way of looking at the issue.  As I have said previously, I hope to show that you can be a Christian (and a dualist), and not throw out any past, current, or even future discoveries in neuroscience...and still be a rational human being.

             On the other hand, I see that some Christians, and many others, are afraid of dualism because they consider it responsible for a lot of wrongs in the world.  They blame dualism for the behavior that stems from the idea that the physical body and the physical world is not that important.  When Christians focus their whole world around spiritual teachings and ignore the poor, or abuse women, or spew forth anger...many people blame a dualistic worldview as at the base of the problem.  I would agree that such behavior is wrong, but I disagree that it is grounds for throwing out dualism.  It does mean that the concept of dualism needs to be carefully defined and, I think, refined, so that it is not misused.  I am hopeful that Christians will develop a more refined view of their dualism that will provide guardrails that keep people from going to extremes and falling into those bad behaviors.  My Theory of the Soul is one attempt at refining this view.

             Let me just throw out one important point that might help establish some useful guardrails around dualism:  in my Theory of the Soul, nearly all of human behavior is due to the physical processes that go on within the human body, primarily the brain.  And when I say "nearly all", I mean like 99.99% of all human behavior is physical.  Yes, I am a dualist.  Yes, I am an unapologetic libertarian when it comes to free will.  But the soul, the mind, free will...they all need to be put in proper context.  I think free will is always available to humans, but rarely used.  I think moral decisions arise from deep within the soul, but are rarely expressed.  Thus, if we are to impact human behavior, we have to address the physical, physiological, psychological, brain health foundation of human behavior.  Christians definitely should not ignore the physical component of their lives and brains.  Building good habits is important.  Addressing the psychological problems in the brain is important.  This is frequently addressed through counseling and medication, because those can affect, and hopefully assist, the healing of the physical brain.  None of those activities should be ignored.  If your goal is to "exemplify Christ" in your life and behavior, you'll never be able to do that if you ignore 99.99% of your decisions and actions!

             So, you can't throw out or ignore your physical actions.  But a contrasting point (for Christians) is that the spiritual realm is always more important than the physical realm.  That does not mean to ignore the physical at all, but the right priority should be established.  This comes directly from the teachings of Jesus as he tried to change the worldview of his disciples.  For example: "... store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also" [Matt 6:20-21].  The physical will not last forever, but the spiritual will.  Jesus was constantly trying to get the disciples to think of the spiritual world first.  He said things like "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" and the disciples immediately started talking about whether they had enough bread.  In what I imagine is exasperation, Jesus chastises their "physical-first" view by reminding them that they had already experienced him multiplying bread to thousands, not once, but twice, and that he was not, in any way, referring to physical bread, but to the teaching of the Pharisees.  Jesus is not asking us to be blind to the physical world, but open up our eyes to see the broader and more impactful spiritual world. 

             Finally, it seems to me that our physical brain affects our spiritual soul.  This possibility should not be overlooked.  In that manner, our "physical selves" can leave an eternal impression, if you will, on our souls.  That is a very important point that I'll have to pick up in more detail in the future.

             In the end, you can be greatly improved through physical means - through retraining and healing of your brain.  But the one thing you cannot not do (in my view) is be transformed.  Transformation occurs in the spiritual realm and requires the Holy Spirit.  This is the "noodle reins" problem.  But to ignore a damaged brain, which is directly involved in 99.99% of your behaviors, is a really bad approach to trying to live a Christ-like life.  The brain needs to be healed (physical).  The soul needs to be transformed (spiritual).  To me, that is the essence of dualism as it applies to the Christian faith.

 

A Theory of Soul Consistent with Scripture and Neuroscience - Part 10: A Personal Example of Soul and Body in Action

[See here for introductory comments.]

 

             In this entry, I want to use a personal example to bring together a few of the ideas presented so far.  This example will combine the "noodles for reins" analogy [here] with the fundamental principle that most of what we do follows the pattern of "dog activity" [see discussion here].  When you put these two things together, you realize that the soul's influence might be pretty rare and is certainly weak.  The question that arises then is "when is the soul ever active?"  I want to provide an initial answer to that question using the following personal example.

 

Personal example of soul in action

             As an undergraduate, I was always on the thin border of being able to afford college.  In order to make ends meet, I needed to get scholarships, grants, work study jobs, and regular jobs.  I was constantly worried about whether I was going to be able to make the next tuition and room & board payment.  My dad worked, but my parents were not in position to help me substantially with college and, in fact, they lost their house during my freshman year of college. 

             After my first year of college, I gained a better understanding of how the federal financial aid system worked.  In my first year, the financial aid package included some amount that was supposed to come from my parents, but they were not able to do that.  During that year I learned that if I could qualify to be an "independent" on my taxes, then my parent's income would not factor into the financial aid calculation.  That seemed like a good plan to me, but I had to meet all of the criteria.  I don't remember all the details, but I recall there were three criteria and I met two of them easily.  But the third criterion was something like "you can't live with your parents for more than six weeks during the past year."  I had attended summer classes, so I hadn't lived at home during most of the year.  But when I added up the total time I had lived at home, it was something like eight weeks - just exceeding the official limit to qualify to be an independent.

             At the time, I was trying to "live by faith" and believe that God would provide sufficient funding for school.  I had already experienced a couple of miracles in that regard - someday I will have to relate that story.  But, miracles or no, I was constantly worried that I was not going to be able to pay the next bill and I'd have to take whatever money I had left and take the 48-hour Greyhound bus ride back home. 

             When it came to doing my taxes that second year, I struggled.  I almost met the criteria to be an independent.  Two out of three I easily met.  The third I was sooo close.  And if I could be an independent, I would get so much more aid.  I could pay for school.

             So...I lied on my taxes that year.  I claimed I met all three criteria and was an independent.

             What I want to do in this entry is relate my actions to the different components of my theory of the soul.  The decision to lie on my taxes was a moral decision, but driven strongly by the rational and emotional aspects of my mind.  There was an emotional component of the decision:  fear and anxiety.  I was certainly fearful about not being able to pay for school and fearful that if I wasn't declared an independent, I wouldn't get enough financial aid to pay for school.  And there was a rational component to the decision:  it seemed like a small thing because I was really close to qualifying.  And, besides, how could the IRS ever find out anyway?  There was no track record of where I lived during the past year (this was long before cell phones with GPS), so how could it ever be proven?  And what were the odds that the IRS would ever audit a poor college student?

             I used the term "mind" in the previous paragraph because I wanted to be vague.  Now let me break this down into the spiritual and physical realms - soul and body.  First, let me say this:  although I certainly believe the soul and physical body are different and distinct things, I think it is very hard for us to discern where one ends and the other begins.  The soul and body are intricately linked and I think it is hard to separate some of our actions into physical and spiritual categories.  I'll dive into this more when I talk about anger, which is certainly one of those characteristics of humans that resides in both the body and the soul.  But despite the difficulty in separating our actions into soul and body, I'm going to give some general thoughts regarding this situation that I hope will shed light on my theory of the soul.

             First, there are plenty of aspects to my decision to lie on my taxes that were purely physiologically-based.  But, since I don't think dogs lie on their taxes, there must be some aspect of my actions that was soul-based.  The fear of not being able to pay for college was strongly physiological.  We know that there are areas of the brain that are active when we are afraid or anxious.  There are also general physiological responses to fear that, to a greater or lesser extent, further heighten our sense of fear.  There is a positive feedback loop that can sometimes be detrimental to us.  I think the desire to extract ourselves from any situation that produces fear or anxiety - the "flight" of the autonomic nervous system - is nearly all driven by our physiology and can happen without the intervention of our soul.  Dogs avoid fear.  The things that cause human beings fear, such as not being able to pay for college, are certainly more abstract than what dogs fear, but that doesn't change the fundamental fact.  I think our physical brains are capable of extensive abstraction, allowing us to respond in fear to all sorts of rational and irrational concepts.  I think the drive to avoid fearful situations and find a place of calm and comfort is a very strong physiological drive.  Going back to the "noodle reins" analogy, trying to keep the horse from jumping when it hears a rattlesnake rattle is an almost impossible task for the jockey. 

             But fear alone was not sufficient to cause me to lie on my taxes.  I also needed the rationalization that 1) I was very close to qualifying and 2) I wouldn't be caught.  Our ability to rationalize must be one of those things that requires both the physical brain (mostly frontal cortex, I'm assuming) and the soul.  The ability to rationalize seems to me to require a broad, unified view of the situation we are in.  Specifically, it seems that rationalizing requires consciousness.  Since consciousness resides in the soul, then the soul must be involved in rationalization.  But I also think there is a lot of "computation" to rationalization which probably takes place in the physical brain.  Where does "thinking" lie?  In the physical brain or in the soul?  At the very least, our awareness of our thinking lies in our soul.  But the thinking itself?  I don't know for sure.  I think it could be that most of our thinking takes place in our brain and our conscious awareness of it is mostly in the sense of a spectator.  We are aware of our brain thinking.

             So, coupled with my fear, I rationalized that lying on my taxes was not that big of a deal.  It was "not that bad" I reasoned.  But, of course, I'm not the only one to lie on my taxes.  There are some who intentionally don't even pay their taxes.  I could have just not filed taxes, or any of a number of other equally wrong actions.  Where is the "setting" for how much of a lie on my taxes was "not that bad"?  I believe it is within the soul - the will - where these kinds of personal standards are established.  With my soul I decided to go ahead with filling out my taxes in a way that was not true.  Actually, "decided" is too strong of a word here.  In reality, based on my fears and rationalizations, I was fully prepared to claim I was an independent.  But ultimately my soul did not put the brakes on that action.  My soul let it happen.  But, even further, it's not like my soul was strongly opposed to proceeding.  My character, embodied in my soul, is pretty typical of most people, I think.  I generally want to do the right thing, but I also place a bit of a limit about doing the right thing and I have a very fuzzy border between right and wrong.  So, in the case of this particular action, my soul was complicit.  I didn't work that hard trying to keep myself from proceeding!

             So, I filed my taxes, claiming I qualified to be an independent.  And, it worked.  I was declared an independent.  My college financial aid was calculated based on my income alone and my college aid was maximized.  To be honest, I'd like to say I felt bad for doing it.  I'd like to say that I felt guilt over being dishonest on my taxes.  But I didn't really.  I felt uneasy, but it was the unease that you feel when you think you might get "caught".  That was it.  I made the same claim in the remaining years of my undergraduate schooling, but in later years I hadn't lived with my parents in excess of the maximum number of weeks, so I really did qualify.

             Let me just note here, before I go on, that when you ask the question "so, what part of you is responsible for lying on your taxes?  Your body?  Your brain?  Your soul?  Your will?"  I think there is only one good answer:  "I was responsible."  Though I am a dualist at heart, and therefore I think there really is a difference between body and soul, physical and spiritual, I also see each human being as a cohesive whole.  I'm not two separate people, i.e. a body-self and a soul-self that just happen to hang out together.  I'm one person.  We can't use the concept of dualism to start justifying any concept that "you" can separate from the guilt of your physical self.  Sorry - it's not that easy.

             Well, quite a few years later, when I was in graduate school, something happened that caused me to face my guilt about lying on my taxes.  I say "something happened" because I actually can't remember.  It may have been my own personal study of the Bible.  Or it might have been something someone said to me about living a life pleasing to God.  Regardless, I saw clearly that lying on my taxes was just plain wrong, regardless of whether it was "not that bad."  I was guilty.

             I rebelled against this idea with every fiber of my being.  But it didn't change the facts.  I had to admit guilt and make it right.  How could I do that?  I had no idea, but I had to try.  So, you may laugh, but what I did was to write a letter to the IRS, explain exactly what I had done on the specific year of taxes in question.  I didn't know if the IRS even had a mechanism to receive and act on a letter like that.  I can't imagine they get many letters from people admitting they lied on their taxes!  But they actually did read the letter because I received a response from the IRS in which they asked for some additional documents, which included a copy of my parent's taxes for that year.  It was rather embarrassing for me to have to ask my parents for a copy of their taxes from a few years earlier.  Although, come to think of it, why did the IRS need a copy of anyone's taxes - don't they have copies???  Anyway, I sent the required documents and never heard anything further.  That was more than 30 years ago.

             So why do I relate this "Part II" to this story?  Because I believe it illustrates a deeper component of my theory of the soul.  My action to admit my guilt and write a letter, while carried out by my physical body, was driven by my soul.  Actually, not even my soul.  I believe it was driven by the Holy Spirit.  If I use the horse and jockey analogy, this was one time when I let go of my "noodle reins" and let the Holy Spirit use his "steel reins."  As I said at the beginning of the previous paragraph, I "rebelled against this idea with every fiber of my being."  By that I mean that my body and my soul were united in rebellion against any suggestion that I should make this situation right or even that I was really guilty.  This situation was not just a physical response to inputs or past memories.  This was years after the event.  It was certainly not something I obsessed about in the intervening years.  In my opinion, this was purely an act of the Spirit.  If you don't believe in a spiritual realm, then of course you will claim there was a physical explanation for why I suddenly felt guilt and took steps to do something that I really didn't want to do.  Good luck with that!

             I don't expect it will ever be possible to do this experiment, but this is a case where, if you could read the entire set of neural activity in my brain, you would have found at least one neuron acting in a way that was not entirely consistent with all of its inputs.  This would be the influence of the Spirit via the soul upon my physical brain.  That is one of the fundamental claims I make in my theory of the soul, and I believe it has to be a fundamental claim any dualist (or similar) must make.  But these events are rare and can't be prescribed.  As I look back over my life, the event I relate here, where the soul and Spirit are clearly involved, seems to be pretty rare.  That is why it is so difficult to do an experiment to demonstrate this basic principle.