My goal with this series of entries is to present a theory of the soul that is consistent with both the Bible and current scientific understanding of the brain and how it functions. This theory will, of course, be limited to my own understanding and interpretation of the Bible on this topic, much of which I have discussed in an earlier series of entries on the use of the terms for body, soul, and spirit in the Bible [see here]. Also, the theory will be limited to my own understanding of the current state of brain science and is likely to need modification as I understand more of the science and as more discoveries are made.
In this
first entry, I'm going to start with a major point of clarification: what I hope to explore and describe in the
entries that follow is a theory of the soul that is useful for Christian thought and maybe even "Christian
experimentation". The theory I
describe is not intended to be put forth as a "better
explanation" of neuroscientific findings about the brain and mind, but it is
expected to be consistent with
neuroscientific findings. As I see it,
neuroscience lives in the material realm and therefore is going to pursue
theories that arise from within the material realm. In Christian teaching, the soul is
fundamentally non-material, and thus is generally outside of the
materially-based scientific exploration.
Given this, I really don't expect non-Christian neuroscientists (or
anyone else who is not a Christian) to find my theories that compelling except
for one key point: I hope that everyone can see that there is a rational argument for how the soul might
work as it straddles the material and spiritual worlds. I don't expect non-Christians to adopt my
theory and bring the idea of a non-material soul back into their thinking about
the mind. No, I fully expect
neuroscience to continue to reject the idea of a soul and keep seeking for
material explanations. Of course, if
you've read many of my entries, you would not be surprised to know that I think
that philosophical materialism is a completely misguided concept, but that is a
totally different topic for discussion [for example, join Lucas for lunch]!
So why even hypothesize the existence of
the soul if there is (or is anticipated to be) a completely materialistic
explanation for the mind-brain-soul problem that does not refer to anything
that could typically be called the "soul"? My reason for creating the entries that
follow is this: for Christians, the existence of the soul is revealed[1],
not discovered. As I have discussed
elsewhere [here], the existence of the soul is clearly presented in scripture
and is a fundamental part of Christian beliefs.
It is a "given" as far as Christian belief goes. This situation could be a major problem for
Christianity because if neuroscience could prove that the soul definitely does
not exist, that would negate a basic Christian belief. Thus, my goal in these entries is to show
that, given an appropriate theory of the soul and its features, the belief in the soul is rational and
reasonable. The Christian faith needs
to be rational, in my opinion, and so this is an important issue to consider
[see here for a further discussion of that point].
Full-blooded
materialists in neuroscience may exclaim:
"the soul is superfluous - we can explain everything through the
material properties of the brain."
Therefore, the neuroscience materialist has rejected the idea of a
non-material soul because it is an unnecessary extra invention that they are
convinced they don't need. That is fine
for those who live in the drab, purposeless materialistic world. I am not arguing against that line of
thinking here, although I will point out that present neuroscience does not explain everything, so there are
still gaps (no, not just gaps: huge canyons!) in the materialistic
explanation. But my point is that even if all of those gaps could be closed
and neuroscience really can explain every observation of the
mind/consciousness/free will/etc. through purely materialistic means, that will
not prove there is no soul and will not negate the need for Christians to have
a rational theory of the soul and to persist in believing that there is a soul. For Christians who believe that the Bible is
the Word of God and reveals things that could not otherwise be known, the
question is not "is the existence of a soul necessary?" but "can
the Bible be trusted?"
For
Christians, the idea of a human soul will never be superfluous. The need for the soul is bound up in issues
of human sin and future judgement. The
need for the soul is bound up in the idea of eternal life. The need for the soul is bound up in the idea
of being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. These
are not points of consideration for neuroscience, and thus to neuroscience the
soul seems superfluous. It is not.
[1] By
"revealed" I mean that Christians are told about the concept (in this
case the "soul") in the Bible.
No comments:
Post a Comment