A Theory of Soul Consistent with Scripture and Neuroscience - Part I: The Caveat

             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.

             [On toPart 2...]

 

 

---

[1] By "revealed" I mean that Christians are told about the concept (in this case the "soul") in the Bible.

Christian Apologetics and Its Goals

             [Note:  This entry is written for Christians.  Not that anyone else can't read it, but I'm not sure it will mean a whole lot outside of the Christian faith.]

 

             In my opinion, trying to "prove" Christianity through science is a challenging endeavor that is not worth the effort.  It's like visiting your neighbors to the east of you by travelling west.  Yes, you might eventually get to your next door neighbor's house that way, but why?

 

             Christian apologetics, in my mind, should have the goal of showing that Christian beliefs are reasonable and logical within the new scientific findings of the day.  This is extremely helpful and important for Christians, because they need to know and be assured that their faith is on solid ground.  It can be useful in talking with those who do not believe, because a major roadblock to belief can be the sense that Christianity is illogical and primitive.  But, in general, I just don't see it being a great pathway to belief these days.  There are shorter paths.

 

             Let me illustrate what I mean with an example.  Specifically, the effort to prove that God is the creator of the universe.  There is a lot of apologetic work towards fitting Christian belief into what science has discovered, or at least theorizes, about the origin of the universe and the origin of life on this planet.  Or, alternatively, a lot of apologetic work trying to expose the weaknesses of some of the scientific theories.  This is, in general, good and valuable work, and worthwhile for Christians to engage in.  But what is the goal?  I feel like the (often unstated) goal is this:  to prove that science is wrong.  In fact, it seems that the goal is to prove science wrong to such a compelling extent that scientists will be drawn to abandon their scientific beliefs and turn to Christianity.  I believe that many Christians expect that the arguments being mounted by Christian apologists are so air-tight that everyone should become Christians based on the sheer force of these arguments alone.  In my opinion, this is a misguided view because:  1) the arguments aren't that convincing (i.e. there are always counter-arguments to the counter-arguments), and 2) the arguments don't achieve what we hope to achieve (e.g. convincing someone that the eye is too complex to have evolved randomly is a long way from solus Christus).

 

             This does not mean that such apologetic work is a waste of time.  Far from it.  But the focus should be on helping Christians to see that their faith is reasonable and that they don't need to worry about whether science has discovered some new thing that voids basic Christian beliefs.  It is important to show that Christian faith is reasonable, as I have discussed elsewhere [here].

 

             However, when it comes to trying to help people who do not believe, I think Christians should be more direct.  To be a Christian means to be a follower of Jesus Christ.  It means to believe that Jesus Christ existed and still exists today.  It means to believe that Jesus Christ was God and is still God today.  It means to believe that His death paid the penalty that was due from each one of us personally.  It means that we believe in Jesus Christ so strongly that we commit to doing whatever He commands us to do.  It's all about Jesus.

 

             So, what's the most direct way to Christian belief?  To meet Jesus in a personal and convincing way.  That's as direct as it gets.  How does that happen?  Well, if you believe as I do, that Jesus is constantly seeking every person and trying to draw that person towards belief, then the direct route is to try to remove whatever blinders there may be that prevents[1] Jesus from getting through to them.  What are the blinders that people have?  When it comes to the academic world, the biggest blinder, by far, is the complete rejection of the miraculous.  This is the means by which God can communicate with the unbeliever (and believer too, for that matter).  Christian belief has, at its very core, the miraculous resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Without the miraculous, there is no Christianity.  Thus, when a person rejects any possibility of the miraculous, there are no remaining options by which Jesus can get their attention.  Each individual needs to experience Jesus in some personal way.  If their eyes are shut to His work and their ears are closed to His voice, then our only avenue to help them believe is this:  try to get them to open their eyes and ears!  Everything else is just wasted effort.

 

             It is true that sometimes a big roadblock for belief in Christianity is the general idea that Christian belief is illogical and/or primitive and that science has shown that Christianity is demonstrably false.  This roadblock should be addressed, but only addressed with the following goal:  to show that Christian beliefs are rational and could be true.  We don't need to show that they are, in fact, true.  Once you personally encounter Jesus and realize that He really is alive and really is God, everything else will come into focus and become clear. 

 

             Why not take the direct route?  See Jesus at work.  Hear Jesus.  To try to take the route that passes through the path of:  "you can't rule out a God" to "there must be a God" to "God is the creator" to "the Bible is true" to "Jesus was a real person" to....it just seems to me to be a really really long road to take when Jesus is already standing right next to the person and trying to get his or her attention! 

---

[1] I know it seems weird to suggest that human beings can prevent God from interacting with them (isn't God all-powerful?), but God chooses to allow people to persist in their unbelief if that is what they choose.  He doesn't force belief.

8. Can the body die? Can the soul die?

Linkage:  This is part of the study "Scriptural View of the Body, Soul and Spirit".  You should read that Introduction first.

 

Quick Answer:  Yes, both the body and soul can die.  But death has different meanings for each.  The body dies physically.  The soul can have a spiritual death.

 

Key Passage:

             Mt 10:28 – Jesus refers to "those" (presumably human enemies; maybe satan) who can kill the body but not the soul.  And then He refers to "one" (presumably God) who can “destroy” both soul and body in hell.  This establishes that both the body and the soul can "die", but that they do not have to die simultaneously.  Further, it implies that the "death" of your soul is a more serious consequence than the death of your body, because you should fear the one who can destroy your soul. 

             A different word is used in reference to "destroying" only the body <apokteino> when compared to the word used for "destroying" both body and soul <apollumi>.  To me, this implies that there is likely a distinction between what it means for the body to die and what it means for the soul to die.  This makes sense to me based on the fact that the soul is spiritual [see here]:  spiritual death is different than physical death.

             By the way - how could a monist who accepts sola scriptura read this verse and still be a monist???

 

Caveat:

             None - as long as you understand that the body and soul don't die in the same way.

 

Related Scriptures and Thoughts:

             James 5:19-20  James says that when you help someone become a believer, you "save a soul <psuche> from death <thanatos>".  This is a different action than saving a body (or physical flesh) from death.  There are many who save bodies from death or, I suppose more properly stated, delay the death of another, since eventually all bodies die.  Clearly, this verse implies that saving a soul from death is of greater importance than saving a body from death. 

             I Jn 3:16  "He laid down his <psuche> for us…"  This could be a difficult passage, because it may seem odd to think that both Jesus' body and soul died on the cross. Did Jesus’ soul die?  You could say that the term "laid down" refers to a sacrifice of his <psuche> but not the death of his <psuche>, but doesn't really fit the context, in my opinion.  Instead I think it is helpful, and consistent with other relevant new testament scriptures, to think of the death of the soul as being the same as the soul being “in the state of condemnation.”   Thus, when we think of Jesus soul dying, it is equivalent to saying that His soul was in a state of condemnation.  Through His death on the cross, we are told that He "bore our sins".  To take our sins upon Himself involves being in a state of condemnation.  Yet He escaped.  He "regained" His soul, meaning that His soul is (obviously) no longer in a state of condemnation but in a state of life.

 

Discussion:

             I don't see how it is possible to read Matt 10:28 and still be a monist.  If the soul is one with the body, and especially if the soul is one with the body and is all material, how is it possible to kill one without the other?  I know that some people love their monist ideas such that they will do all sorts of gymnastics to work around a verse like this.  In the end, by the time their gymnastics are done, they have pretty well redefined monism to be dualism!

             With respect to the death of the soul, the following seems true to me:  human beings all start with a dead soul – a soul in the state of condemnation.  Through faith in Jesus they can change that state – they can have a soul in the state of forgiveness and a state of eternal life.  Their soul is saved.  Jesus started with a living soul, which He freely gave over to death – to condemnation [I John 3:16].  But His resurrection overcomes that soul-death and He is now living – eternally living.  Man was dead but can become alive.  Jesus was alive, was dead, and is alive again.

             I don't know how much science has to say about life after death.  It's tough to experiment with.  There are certainly "near-death experiences", and those seem very interesting.  They can be studied for reliability and the facts of the cases can be verified.  But, in the end, I don't personally put a lot of weight on those experiences as being evidence for life after death.  I believe that there is life after death because Jesus taught that there is, but I don't feel that I, personally, can verify that until my body dies.

             Of course, the <sarx> certainly dies and decays.  That is clear in scripture and observable by science, since we can examine a dead body and observe its decay over time.  But science is outside of its realm if it claims that there is no non-material soul that survives beyond the death of the fleshly, physical body.

 

2. Is it necessary to believe that the spiritual world interacts with the physical world in a personal, individual level?

 Linkage:  This is part of the study "Scriptural View of the Body, Soul and Spirit".  You should read that Introduction first.

 

Quick Answer:  Yes.

 

Key Passage:

             Acts 1:16 “…the <hagios pneuma> by the mouth of David spoke…”  The Holy Spirit spoke through David to prophesy about Jesus.  There are many other verses like these that indicate that the Holy Spirit had a direct influence over an individual that resulted in a very physical, material outcome (words spoken and heard, words written and read, people healed, etc.). 

 

Caveat:

             I don't see any possible way that deism can co-exist with Christianity.  The very idea of "Immanuel" - God with us - is at the heart of Christianity.   The idea that God is "hands-off" when it comes to the physical universe is a non-Christian and anti-Christian idea.

             However:  this is not the same as saying that there is not a natural order to the universe.  The universe does operate under many natural laws.  These laws do not appear to require any supernatural influence; at least not in any obvious or measurable way.  As human history progresses, we find more and more of these laws that explain what we see happening in the world around us.  At this moment in history, the momentum of discovery is such that we expect that there is a natural law to explain every single thing we observe.  I don't believe such a view is contrary to scripture or contrary to Christian teaching, as long as you allow for the possibility of miracles.  In fact, you need a backdrop of an extensive "natural order" in order for miracles to become obvious.  For Christianity, miracles are necessary (e.g. virgin birth, resurrection, etc., etc.!) [especially I Cor 15:19].

 

Related Scriptures and Thoughts:

             Acts 2:4  The Holy Spirit spoke through the early Christians.  This is one perfect example in which God performs a miracle through a group of human beings.  The spiritual world (God) directly interacts with the physical world (the early believers).

             Acts 7:51  It is possible for our "self" to resist the Holy Spirit.  I think, in most cases, the battle between our own desires and the Holy Spirit occurs in the mind or soul. 

 

Discussion:

             I don't see how it is possible to believe anything about Christianity without believing that God, who is spirit, interacts with the world and especially with human beings, who are physical.  But the Bible does not detail how this happens.  For example, I imagine that, in most cases, the Holy Spirit influences our soul and our soul influences our physical behavior.  But that is just my own view and not something that could be considered part of Christian doctrine in any way.  As Christians, I think we have to be rather flexible as to the details of exactly how the spiritual world interacts with the physical world.  We can come up with ideas from examples in scripture and from our own personal experience, but I do not see anything in scripture that prescribes or detailed this interaction. 

             Regarding Christians knowing where the boundaries are with respect to science, I would just say that Christianity leaves no room for a purely materialistic view of the universe.  God is non-material.  Human beings are at least partly non-material.  And the non-material (supernatural) world interacts with the physical world.  If science claims that all that exists is the material, physical universe, then Christians should not accept that statement for two reasons:  1) it is a statement outside the realm of what science can comment on, and 2) it is against the clear teaching of scripture.

Conscious Crows???

             I came across the following headline that immediately caught my attention:  "Crows Are Capable of Conscious Thought, Scientists Demonstrate For The First Time."  This was an article by Michelle Starr (ScienceAlert.com, Sept 2020) and it starts out with the following paragraph:

 

"New research into the minds of crows has revealed a jaw-dropping[1] finding: the canny corvids aren't just clever - they also possess a form of consciousness, able to be consciously aware of the world around them in the present. In other words, they have subjective experiences."

 

             This was intriguing enough to force me to read the original paper referenced in the article:  "A neural correlate of sensory consciousness in a corvid bird" by Andreas Nieder, Lysann Wagener, and Paul Rinnert from the University of Tubingen, Germany; and published in Science in September 2020.

 

             This study is interesting not only due to the hype (or, really, in spite of the hype), but also due to the methods used and the fact that crows can be trained to do a task that is pretty complicated.  I learned something new about crows.  If you are interested in this topic, it is worth reading.  But I will also say that the paper is difficult to read and understand.  In my opinion, the methods and data could be presented in a more easily understandable way.  I will try, as succinctly as I can, to describe the experiment performed and highlight the key finding.

 

             The first thing to note is that the study was performed with two well-trained crows that were tested over many days.  They were trained to stick their heads into a darkened box where they could see a small screen where different symbols and colors were presented to the crow. The crow had to respond to what it saw according to some rules it had learned.  For example, one of the tests involved showing a white square on the screen and the crow had to indicate that it saw the square by first holding its head in place for a couple of seconds and then moving its head out of the box.  The crows were also outfitted with a device that recorded the neural activity from a specific region of the crow's brain - a region where the investigators hypothesized that "sensory consciousness" resides for the crow.  There are many more details to this experiment, but I think it is possible to gain a basic understanding of the key finding without going further into the experimental details.

 

             The crux of the test was this:  there is a low level of light intensity at which the crow sometimes perceives the light and sometimes does not.  This is called the "threshold of detection" and is something you are familiar with even if you aren't familiar with the term.  For example, there is a level of sound that, when presented to your ears, you would say you heard it about half the time.  The same is true when you are touched with a very fine wire. Sometimes the wire touches your skin and you don't feel it, and sometimes you do.  So, in the same way, sometimes the crow perceived the low level of light that was presented on the screen and indicated that it saw it, and sometimes the crow didn't perceive the light and therefore indicated that it didn't see it.  Thus, the exact same intensity of light is put on the screen and sometimes the crow perceives the light and sometimes it does not.  This kind of "unpredictable" behavior is a common characteristic of complex living things, but not generally a characteristic we ascribe to machines (although see next paragraph).  If you had an electronic light detector instead of a crow, presumably it would always read the same output based on the intensity of the light.  Machines don't have a "perception" where sometimes they see the light and sometimes they don't.  How can crows (or any living thing) exhibit "perception"?  The assumption of the investigators is that there must be somewhere in the crow's brain that decides whether it perceived the light or not.  Or - to use the word I would rather not use in this case - crows were sometimes "conscious" of the light and sometimes not. 

 

             In summary, what you have is an entity that, when presented with the same input, gives a different output.  By itself, this is not all that surprising.  The electronic circuit device called a "flip-flop" does the same thing.  A flip-flop is a circuit component that, when presented with an input, gives a different (alternating) output every time.  Kind of like clicking a ballpoint pen.  You click it once and the ballpoint is out.  You click it again and the ballpoint goes back in.  So, by itself, a changing output with the same input is interesting, but hardly represents consciousness (unless a flip-flop or ballpoint pen is conscious!). 

 

             The reason the flip-flop changes output each time is because each input causes it to change its state in preparation for the next input.  Thus, although you have the same input each time, you do not have the same "state" of the machine.  If you had some entity that stayed in the exact same state every time, yet still responded with a different output for the same input, then that would be more interesting.  Yet even that type of entity could hardly be described as "conscious."  For example, a true random number generator meets this latter description.  Assuming a random number generator has no memory of past events (it shouldn't), it will give a different output every time you make a request (i.e. the same input), yet presumably it is always in the same state.  And, like a ballpoint pen, random number generators are also not conscious.

 

             In the case of the crow experiment, there is no way to eliminate either of these two conditions and thus, in my opinion, the claim of "consciousness" in this case is very premature (i.e. wrong).  In fact, although I find the results of the paper interesting, I believe that the Discussion section of the paper devolves into baseless claims and hype.  If I had been a peer-reviewer of this paper, I would not have allowed the authors to make statements like: "Our finding provides evidence for the phylogenetic origins of consciousness.  It excludes the proposition that only primates...are endowed with sensory consciousness".  Let me explain why I say this.

 

             First, the crow's brain could simply be a "complex flip-flop."  By that I mean that there is no guarantee that the crow is in the same state every time the same low-level of light is presented to it.  In fact, given that crows have memory, this experiment could be simply demonstrating memory effects.  The decision as far as detection or non-detection of the low threshold light could be totally dependent on the previous trials or even the overall state of the crow.  The authors did not analyze this at all, which seems like a major oversight.  It could be that the presentation of the previous trial (or trials) is a better predictor of the crow's response than the neuronal output.  But even if that is not the case, the crow's response could clearly be a product of past responses and the crow's state of mind.  The authors claim that the crow makes a different choice when presented with the same stimulus.  But, in every trial, the "crow" is, in reality, a slightly different crow.  It is, at the very least, a few seconds older.  Further, other things are happening to the crow besides just getting older.  The most obvious is the presentation of the prior experimental stimuli, but there are any number of other inputs to the crow's system.  The crow is getting a reward after each trial, and surely the motivation with respect to the reward must change from trial to trial.  And who knows what other things affect crows?  None of these things were controlled for or ruled out.  And memory effects alone are not sufficient to demonstrate consciousness.  Ballpoint pens have memory.

 

             Second, the experimental outcome could be explained by a random process within the crow's brain.  By this I mean that even if you did a more careful experiment and could measure the "state of mind" of the crow at each moment, these results could still be explained by a random number generator.  I think it is unlikely that there is a true random number generator in the crow's brain, but I think it is very likely that the transmission of action potentials across a synapse at the transmission threshold has a small random component to it.  There is nothing in this experiment, as it was designed and presented, that precludes such an explanation of the data.  And random processes are also not conscious.

 

             To be fair to the authors, they did not design the experiment to demonstrate consciousness but rather to demonstrate what is called the "neural correlate of consciousness".  That means they were looking to show what part of the brain, if any, contained the "perception" effects that the crow demonstrates.  In that sense, the experiment is observational and is certainly not designed to explore the mechanism of action of consciousness.  What the experimenters observed is that some neurons in a specific area of the cortex of the crow's brain increase their firing when the crow perceives that it saw a low level of light, even if there was no light delivered.  So, you could claim that these neurons are responsible for the perception.  But the experiment is not designed to explain how it is that a neuron, or group of neurons, makes a decision that is in some way independent of its inputs.  In fact, that's way beyond the scope of any scientific experiment at present and strays into the difficulty with "free will" experiments that I have discussed elsewhere. 

 

             Finally, "sensory consciousness", as defined by neuroscientists and as used in this paper, is not real consciousness as you and I would think of consciousness.  I will deal with this issue in a future entry.  The authors of the paper are clear about this limitation and acknowledge this point in their paper.  But, of course, that minor little point gets lost when the reporter for ScienceAlert picks it up.  Suddenly, the outcome of the paper becomes "crows are conscious like humans."  So, we start off with a paper that doesn't even show "sensory consciousness" in any conclusive manner and end up with a claim that it shows real human consciousness.  That's called hype!  The paper is interesting, but it in no way shows that crows are conscious.  Don't believe the hype.

---

[1]Whenever I hear the word "jaw-dropping", I am immediately 99.9% skeptical of all words that follow.  It is the red flag of red flags that indicates what you are about to read is over-hyped to the extreme.

Lunches with Lucas VII

 [This is a continuing conversation...to start at the beginning, click here]

            I sat at the table, waiting for Lucas to arrive.  After our last lunchtime conversation, I had been doing some thinking and I was ready to seriously consider something he had been bugging me about for years.  Or maybe I was about to call his bluff!  I really wasn't sure which.

 

             "OK - I'm willing," I pronounced, as Lucas took his seat across from me.

 

             Usually Lucas was the one to get the conversation going.  It drove me crazy sometimes.  So he was caught off guard by my statement.  "Willing what?" he asked, clearly confused.

 

             "I've decided that being a 'hardened skeptic' of miracles makes more sense than categorically denying any possibility of miracles," I said.  I had been considering this for some time.  There was a part of me that felt like Lucas had made some good logical points in the past and that it didn't make sense to reject miracles a priori, and then only allow God, if there was a God, to be forced to use miracles as the only means of communication.  That was a cosmic Catch 22 - as long as you put aside the question of whether some all-powerful God could ever be caught in a Catch 22!  But there was also a larger part of me that wanted to see where he was going with his whole train of thought.  Maybe, if I could call his bluff, he would stop badgering me about it.

 

             "Really?" Lucas was clearly pleased.  "What changed your mind?"

 

             "I considered what you said," though I hated admitting it.  "Besides, it seems a bit exciting...maybe even a bit freeing," I said, surprising myself with that last statement.

 

             "That great!" Lucas said enthusiastically.   "Now God can talk to you!"

 

             Lucas was already having too much fun with this.  Maybe I shouldn't have admitted it to him.  "Well, I still don't hear anything," I said.

 

             "I do," Lucas said, intently.

 

             "What - you hear voices?" I said skeptically.

 

             "Yes - I hear you saying 'I still don't hear anything'."  Lucas said, smiling

 

             I rolled my eyes.  "That's dumb.  But I gave your God an opening.  I said I would allow for some remote possibility of miracles.  But I don't see any fireworks and I don't hear any profound voices."

 

             "How can you hear if you don't stop talking?" Lucas asked.

 

             I paused for a moment.  I pursed my lips and cupped my hands by my ears and looked up.  I mockingly waited for a few seconds.  "No, not a peep," I challenged.

 

             "No - I mean really stop talking - like for a whole day."

 

             "A whole day?  Take a vow of silence?  Become a monk?  I finally agree to allow for miracles and now you're making me a monk?"  I didn't get what Lucas was driving at.

 

             "No - not a monk.  But I mean a real day of solitude and listening.  I mean a day where you're away from everything and everyone.  I know of a great place you could go and I think you would really enjoy it." Lucas said, turning practical for once.

 

             "Haha - like being 'in tune with nature'...become like Thoreau?" I asked.

 

             "Well, kind of actually.  But more like being in tune with super-nature!" he said, seeming pleased with his turn of phrase.  "I own that cabin out in the woods and it's a great place to go."

 

             "Oh right.  So is this going to help me see God or hear God or something?"

 

             "Well, actually, it might!" Lucas said, as if he really believed it.  "I just think our lives are too busy for us to contemplate the important things in life.  Clearing your brain is important."

 

             "Well, on that we can agree.  To be honest, it does sound kind of refreshing."

 

             "In my experience, God never resorts to yelling.  He speaks softly.  And so if we never find time for solitude and quiet, we'll never hear his voice," Lucas said.

 

             "Your God is Harry Truman?"

 

             Lucas laughed a bit.  "So...how about it?  Are you ready to do this?"

 

             "Sure," I said.  Though, of course, I wasn't really sure.  But a day away seemed really good to me right now.  I wouldn't have done it on my own.  I just would never make that time.  And I could blame it on Lucas now.

 

             "I just have one thing to ask you to do," Lucas added.

 

             "What?  Homework?  I thought this was supposed to be refreshing," I said.

 

             "During your time of solitude, I want you to ask God to tell you what he's going to do for you," Lucas stated, matter-of-factly.

 

             "What in the world?" I asked. 

 

             "Yes - just a simple request.  Tell God he has to make it obvious to you."

 

             "You think God is really going to talk to me?" I asked, a bit incredulous.  I was looking for a nice weekend alone - not some strange experience. 

 

             "Yes, actually, I really do think God is going to talk to you."

 

             "Well," I laughed, "that would be some kind of miracle right there!"

 

             "Of course it would" Lucas said, and added "enough of a miracle for you to believe in him?

 

             I ignored Lucas' last comment.  He was always pushing me in that direction.  "I mean, I don't hear voices.  Are you talking about hearing an audible voice?"

 

             "I'm talking about a mental state in which you are convinced of something.  Sometimes the most obvious things are voices, but sometimes they are not.  Those rare 'ahah' moments aren't always the result of some audible voice.  But they can be life-changing," Lucas explained.

 

             I wasn't sure I got what he was talking about.  "I'm not sure I get it."

 

             "You will," he said, smiling confidently.

 

             I was a bit intrigued by this discussion.  "You expect some magic is going to happen?"  Then I turned a bit skeptical as I thought about it and remembered I would be in his cabin.  "What - have you installed some kind of intercom equipment in your cabin in the woods so you can 'speak the words of God' to me?"

 

             "No - no intercom," Lucas said.  "Actually, there's nothing there - not even internet."

 

             "No internet?"

 

             "No cell phones either."

 

             "What do you mean?  Is this so remote that there is no cell phone service?"

 

             "It might be, actually," Lucas said, "but part of this agreement is that you have to leave your cell phone at home.  No distractions."

 

             Maybe this wasn't such a great idea.  "Come on.  I need my phone.  What if I have to call someone?  What if some crazy serial killer lives next door?"

 

             "Oh good grief," Lucas said, rolling his eyes.  "Pretend like it's 1980.  You can live for one day without your precious cell phone."

 

             I was becoming a bit apprehensive about the whole thing.            

 

             Lucas picked up my phone off the table and started stroke it with his fingers. "My precious...my precious," he mocked.

 

             "Oh - stop that!  I'm not controlled by my phone!" I protested.

 

             "Good," Lucas said with finality.  "Here's the key."

 

 

 ...on to Lucas VIII

 

Lunches with Lucas VI

 [This is a continuing conversation...to start at the beginning, click here]

 

“Hey - it's been a while - great to see you again!” Lucas exclaimed as I walked toward our familiar table.

“Yes - too long, my friend," I said as I shook his hand, and sat down at the table.  "I guess you were too busy for me” I kidded him, knowing that we were both at fault for the lapse in time.

“Too busy?  I've been waiting here for months!” Lucas said with a smile.  

“Hey look, they have new menus,” I said, glancing down at the table.  "Maybe I'll see if there's something different that I want to order."  I opened up the new menu and started reading, although, to be honest, I didn't really remember if I had ever looked at the old one.  I glanced up and saw that Lucas was just staring at me with a smirk.

"What?" I asked.

"We both know that you are going to order corned beef on rye.  Stop pretending you won't," Lucas exclaimed, laughing at me.

"Maybe I will order soup, just to spite you."

"Hah!  You can't.  You're a creature of habit.  Just admit it," Lucas jabbed as the waitress came over.

Now I was conflicted.  I wanted to prove Lucas wrong.  But what was better than the corned beef on rye?  Why waste money on something I didn't like as much?  But getting back at Lucas and showing I was not just a creature of habit seemed more than worth it.

"The usual?" the waitress asked.

"No, I'll have...." I looked down at the menu again.  Tomato soup?  A BLT?  I felt the pressure of needing to make a decision over something so simple.  So, with an air of smugness at proving Lucas wrong, I finally said "I'll have your corned beef on rye...with extra horseradish please," and sat back.

"So...the usual." the waitress said, and turned away.

Lucas let it pass without comment.  Of course, the fact was, he had ordered his usual too.  What a boring pair of friends we were!  "I think we need a spark of creativity in our lunches!" I said with a smile, "Let's talk about something we've never talked about before."

Lucas seemed ready for that and immediately asked "How about the news about the man who died and then came back to life?"

"Well, that's certainly random, though hardly creative.  I mean, people have been reporting near-death experiences for years.  I remember reading a book a few years ago about a neurosurgeon who had one of those experiences - it was pretty interesting."

"No, I'm talking about the guy who was dead for four days!" Lucas exclaimed.

"What in the world are you talking about?  Did someone post that on Facebook or something?  Because everyone knows that Facebook is the source or real truth," I derided.

"No, as you know, I don't do Facebook.  Actually I read it in a book."

"A book?  What book? " I retorted.

"The book is called 'John'" Lucas said, with a look of finality.

"John?  Never heard of it - who wrote it?  Is this some book that just came out?"  This seemed like a strange conversation to me.  Had he gone off the deep end in the weeks since the last time we had lunch together?  I should not have suggested a 'creative' lunch topic.  This once more reinforced in me that being a creature of habit was generally a good strategy in life!

"Actually, the book was written about 2000 years ago.  Some people refer to it as the Gospel of John..."

"Are you kidding?" I interrupted.  "We meet for lunch after a few months of not getting together and the best you can come up with is to pretend that the resurrection of Jesus happened yesterday?"  Maybe I was a creature of habit with respect to my lunch menu, but Lucas was certainly a creature of habit when it came to bringing up some random topic from the Bible.

"Actually, I was referring to the raising of Lazarus.  And just because something happened long ago doesn't mean it isn't important," Lucas said.

I wasn't going to keep this conversation going, but the mention of Lazarus sparked a memory of a time years ago when I had looked into that event and recalled there was some good retort about it.  What was it?  Suddenly, from the cobwebs of my brain I remembered what it was.  Now I could turn the tables and get something over on Lucas.  "Doesn't the Bible say that you need two or three witnesses to confirm something?" I challenged.

Lucas looked shocked that I would be challenging him about something from the Bible.  "Well...yes it does...why?"

"Well, as I recall, your 'amazing' story about Lazarus is only recorded in your 'book' of John and not anywhere else in the Bible -  or any other book in the entire world, for that matter - so you only have one witness, and he was obviously pretty biased," I proclaimed, quite proud of myself for remembering that detail.

Lucas actually seemed pleased at my response.  "You're right!  I'm impressed you knew that."

"Thank you"

"So, what you're telling me is you need more witnesses before you would believe a miracle?" Lucas asked.

"A lot more!"

"Okay - what about the time Jesus fed 5000 people with just a few bits of bread and fish?  I mean, at least 5000 people saw that, plus the disciples and Jesus...plus it's recorded in all four gospels, so that means at least 5000+10+1+2 = 5013 people saw it." 

I ignored his goofy math.  "I'd like to talk to those 5000 people and confirm that story...but I can't...because they're all dead and they've been dead for 2000 years, assuming they existed at all!  That's not real evidence.  Lots of people have claimed lots of impossible things in history.  I don't believe any of them and neither would you if you really thought about it.  Let's talk about something else."

"So, it's not just a lot of witnesses - you need a miracle to happen today, not yesterday," Lucas persisted.

"No - I just need something current.  You're bringing up ancient history.  There's no way to substantiate things that happened so long ago."

"Have you ever heard of Brother Yun?"  Lucas asked.

"Are you changing the subject?  Because, if you are, I'm all for it.  But, no, I've never heard of him."

"He wrote a book about his experiences called 'Heavenly Man'.  It's pretty interesting.  He fasted without food and water for 74 days while in prison and survived.  How about that for a miracle?" Lucas challenged.

"No water for 74 days?  That's impossible, as you know," I stated.

"Impossible...or a miracle.  He's still alive.  Does that count as current enough for you?"

"Have you met this guy?"

"No, but I think he lives in the US now," Lucas said, as if it was helpful.

"You can't believe every goofy story you read in a book and I'm not about to waste my life chasing down everyone's crazy story I hear, just to confirm it was false.  How can you possibly believe that such a story is true?  Did you check it on Snopes?" I asked.

"Actually, I'm not sure if it's true either," Lucas admitted, "but my point is that for you to believe some event like that, it would need to have witnesses, be current, and...you would need the person to be sitting right in front of you.  You need to be able to grill the person yourself, right?"

"Yes, for something that never happened - they better be sitting right in front of me - and even then I'm skeptical.  They'd have to be able to show me proof," I said.

"OK, well, I'm sitting right here and I know you're well aware of how God miraculously intervened in my cancer diagnosis.  Is that sufficient proof?"  Lucas asked.

Now the conversation was becoming uncomfortable.  I certainly remembered the time Lucas had been diagnosed with cancer and then, at an appointment to prepare for chemotherapy, they found no trace of cancer.  Personally, I considered it a "medical mistake", but of course Lucas considered it a miracle.  At the time I was just happy for him and I didn't mind him claiming God cured him.  I was just happy he didn't have cancer.  But I didn't think it was very considerate of him to bring that up now and try to use it to paint me into a corner.  "Well..." I started.

But Lucas sensed he had gone a bit too far and intervened.  "I get it - you view it differently than I do.  And I know we're friends and all, and it happened to me and not to you.  What you really need is to experience something like this yourself."

I wasn't sure that was completely true.  Lucas continued "I mean, at least if it happens to you, then you don't have to worry about trying to determine if someone is telling the truth."

"I don't know if it has to happen to me, specifically - but I would have to be totally convinced of the truth of it," I said.

"But if you're not convinced that I was telling the truth about my cancer diagnosis, then it seems like the only one you would really believe is yourself," Lucas said, but not in an accusatory tone.

"I believe you're telling the truth," I said, backtracking a bit.  I didn't really want to get into an argument about that event - it was too personal for both of us.  "I mean..." I paused as I searched for an example.  "I'm just not going to stop drinking for 74 days and see if your God keeps me alive!" I said, trying to change the focus of the conversation.

Lucas seemed happy enough to take the conversation in a different direction.  He laughed "no, I wouldn't recommend trying to go without eating or drinking for a couple of months!  And I can't blame you for really needing to be fully convinced.  All the things I talked about happened to someone else, not to you.  So..." Lucas paused, "what about the miracle that you can personally experience every day whenever you want?"

"Right" I said sarcastically.  "I just conjure it up and 'poof', there it is."

"Well, your human ability to exhibit free will is exactly that kind of miracle," Lucas said, as if he really believed it.  "Think about it - it's the perfect miracle that you can test at any time."

"Oh good grief - that's ridiculous.  Just because things like free will aren't fully explained scientifically, it doesn't mean you can put them in the category of 'miracles'.  Even you don't really believe that," I said, challenging him.

"Ah yes - an AYUNE" Lucas said with a smile.

"What?"

"An AYUNE - as yet unexplained natural event," Lucas said.

I rolled my eyes.  "Oh, right, you've used that ridiculous expression before."

"It's fine - I understand why you don't want to view something like free will as being a miracle.  It seems too obvious to us - too natural," Lucas conceded.  "But do you see what you've done here?"

"Yes I see what I've done - I've totally forgotten how painful lunches with you can be," I said with a smile.

Lucas ignored the dig.  "You keep moving the bar."

"What 'bar'?"

"I mean first you needed more witnesses - then you needed something current not old - then you needed to be able to talk to the individual directly - and then even that is not good enough.  And when something happens that you actually experience yourself, you write it off as a natural event anyway.  You will keep moving the bar and nothing will ever be good enough to break through your disbelief," Lucas stated.

"And you say that as if my position is illogical.  But I'm the logical one here.  Most people see things the way I do.  I don't see miracles around every corner or every time I exercise my 'free will' like you do," I said, using air quotes around free will because I knew that really bugged Lucas.  "And I'm comfortable with that."

"My point is that the reason you don't believe in anything supernatural is because you don't want to believe, not because of any lack of evidence.  You've set up your whole concept of the world so that it is impossible for there to be any evidence of the supernatural.  And then you say everything is natural - nothing is supernatural," Lucas pressed.

"There is no evidence for the supernatural," I responded, as our food arrived.

"No - the fact is that you won't allow there to be evidence."

"OK, fine," I said, "I don't believe because I don't want to believe - is that what you want me to say?"

"Well - isn't that true?" Lucas asked.

"So...I said it.  Let's move on to some 'boring' topic of conversation," I said, taking a bite of my corned beef and letting the horseradish clear my mind.  "How's work going for you?"

 

[On to Lucas VII]