[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.
