A Theory of Soul Consistent with Scripture and Neuroscience - Part 4: A Dog's Life

[See here for introductory comments.]

 

             In this entry, I want to discuss another key assumption that underlies my thinking about the soul in a manner similar to the idea that the soul is a complex organism.  This key assumption is that humans are the only creatures in the universe that have souls.  I discussed this issue from a scriptural standpoint previously [here].  I acknowledge that there is probably considerable disagreement about this assumption.  For me, the concept of the soul is strongly tied to the concept of "responsibility for one's own actions."  I actually haven't met anyone who believes that any non-human animals are responsible for their actions in the sense that they should be praised and punished for their actions even if there is no useful outcome of the praise or punishment (i.e. no training effect, protective effect, etc.).  Instead, I think those who would put humans and at least some other animals (non-human primates for starters) on the same level, do so by reducing the responsibility of humans.  That's a wrong approach, in my opinion, but I'm not arguing the point here.  For the purposes of this entry, the uniqueness of the human soul will be considered a given.

 

             I think that if past thinkers had started with the principle that dogs and monkeys do not have souls, but humans do, they would have come to some different conclusions about the soul.  In my view, past theories of the soul should have anticipated some of the significant arguments that have been levied against the existence of the soul that have arisen from the study of the brain, neuroscience, and medicine in the past century or so.  For example, a major reason people give for rejecting the concept of the soul is the observed change in behavior of humans who have some kind of brain damage.  "If the soul is responsible for our behavior, then why would damaging the brain cause any change?" they ask.  If the earliest theories of the soul had taken into account that "dogs don't have souls", the whole issue of brain damage would have been addressed from the beginning.  I hope you can start to see why I say this by the end of this entry.

 

             Here's the biggest point I want to make:  if dogs don't have souls, then everything that dogs do is a result of material, natural forces.  By implication, human activity that follows the pattern of "dog activity" should not be attributed or allocated to the soul.  It does not make sense to me that every non-human animal does an action through natural ("non-soul") means, like seeking food for example, but humans would do these same actions through a different means.  I suppose there could be exceptions with respect to certain actions, but as a fundamental principle, I don't think it makes sense to attribute anything to the human soul that is clearly observable in a dog (or any other non-human animal[1]).

 

             This is a very important principle.  Dogs can be trained to respond to commands.  Dogs learn to avoid certain activities.  The actions that dogs take can be very complicated.  Humans also have these characteristics.  Humans respond to training.  Humans remember things and avoid activities that caused pain in the past and seek activities that caused pleasure in the past.  Thus, as a simple first pass, it should be clear to even the most staunch dualist (I count myself in that group) that the soul is not necessary for activities as advanced as memory and learning.  Even emotions like anger and fear, which dogs clearly exhibit, must not require the soul (although it will be necessary to dive deeper into an emotion like anger in a future entry).

 

             If you start to think this through and compare your own daily activities to a dog's daily activities, you'll realize that your "uniquely human" activity shrinks down to very few things.  In fact, I believe we have phrases for those cases where we are simply acting as a complex living organism without the need for the involvement of our soul.  When we say things like "I was just going through the motions" or "I've just been on autopilot" or "I know I drove in to work this morning but I really don't remember anything about the trip," I think that indicates a whole series of actions that were "dog-like" and lived purely through natural, material, brain-driven means.  We don't need a soul for those actions.  I think we could go a whole day and only do and respond in a manner identical to a dog.  For such days, I suggest that our soul was never engaged.  In fact, I expect there are times in our lives where we go for long periods of time essentially going through the motions and, for all intents and purposes, we are soul-less humans.  Maybe another way to think of it is that if dogs looked like humans and could learn to speak a few phrases like "How's your day?" and "I'm fine", I'll bet you could work next to a dog and not know they weren't human.  Could a dog pass the Turing Test if there was a bark-to-English translator?

 

             OK.  By now many of you are saying "then what in the world does the soul do?"  In my theory of the soul, the soul is responsible for everything that makes humans unique from all other animals, but probably nothing more than that.  What are those things?  There are at least two things that I identify as unique to humans:  1) moral decision-making influencing the actions of the will, and 2) creativity when it can be classified as a true creative action [an introduction to this concept is described here].  In short, humans are responsible for their own actions and they are capable of true creation.  Dogs are not.  Therefore, it is the human soul that is responsible for those two activities.  We obviously will have to delve into this idea much more deeply as we go forward, but I wanted to get this idea out there now because it is so fundamental.

 

             Here's an interesting implication of this fundamental principle:  consciousness could be an epiphenomenon in the material realm.  I'm talking about real consciousness - the awareness of being aware and the unified stream of consciousness that is so difficult for science and philosophers to grapple with.  I don't think dogs are conscious in this way and therefore, by further implication, consciousness is not necessary for all of the kinds of actions that dogs and humans have in common.  Again, I go back to the common phrases we use.  When we say we acted "on autopilot", I think we are implying that we did the action unconsciously or, at the very least, we didn't engage our consciousness in that activity.  Thus, I say that consciousness could be an epiphenomenon because it is not necessary for us in order to live the "dog's life."

 

             What is the point of consciousness then?  In my theory of the soul, the purpose of consciousness is to inform our moral decision-making process.  I will come back to this point again and again, but for now I will say that most of our actions could be rightly classified as "reactions."  We respond to inputs and act according to our learned patterns in the brain.  These don't require consciousness.  Thus, even though I think that the "Libet-style" experiments don't show what they are often claimed to show, it doesn't matter to my theory of the soul if our conscious perception actually occurs after our decision-making.  I would say "dogs make decisions all the time without consciousness at all, so why would it be necessary for similar decisions when made by humans?"  But dogs don't make moral decisions.  And, frankly, I don't think humans make many moral decisions either.  But the key thing is that humans make at least some moral decisions, and that makes all the difference in the world.  In fact, if you only make one moral decision over your entire life, that separates you from every other being or object or thing or stuff in the entire physical universe.

 

             Don't think that just because we only make a few moral decisions that therefore these decisions are not that important.  Importance is not measured by number or volume in this case.  A single moral decision made by a single human is of more value than all the decisions made by all the dogs, monkeys, cats, pigs, cows, etc. that ever lived or ever will live. 

 

             The last point I will introduce is the idea that proper moral decision-making and free-will decision making is the one human quality that requires the awareness of the global context that our consciousness provides to us.  Neural networks don't need an awareness of the global context.  Each neuron only knows what its own inputs are and knows what to output.  No neuron in the brain ever sees the broad picture. Every neuron sees a very, very narrow picture of what is happening and can only respond in a very constrained manner.  Complex behavioral responses are accomplished because there is a huge network of individual neurons each taking care of their own little part of the overall response.  That's how a dog's brain works and that's how a human brain works.  My contention is that the reason consciousness is necessary is because of our need to make moral decisions and decisions of the will.  These kind of decisions uniquely require the global, unified awareness of our current situation in the context of our knowledge of the past.  In short, they require consciousness.

 

             I think I've given enough food for thought in this entry, so I'm going to stop here.  I've introduced many concepts that are going to require a deeper dive in the future.   Hopefully I've piqued your interest in this topic.  

---

[1] I'm using dogs just as an example.  Dogs seem to the be most human-like of all of the animals that humans have regular interaction with.  Non-human primates are probably even more human-like, but most people don't have personal experience with them on a daily basis.  A lot of people treat dogs as if they were humans, but that really is a topic for another day!  And sorry cat-lovers, cats aren't human either.

A Theory of Soul Consistent with Scripture and Neuroscience - Part 3: No Ghost in the Machine

             As mentioned in the first entry of this series [here], 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.  In this entry, I want to put forward one of the important principles that underlies my theory of the soul:  the soul should be conceptualized as a living organism.

             I titled this entry "No Ghost in the Machine."  That's a favorite phrase of detractors of dualism.  Neuroscience has looked into the brain and found no "soul" living inside.  Thus they love to say there is no magical, mystical, mythical, and childish spiritual component of human beings.  This is then simplified into the derision equating the soul with a ghost.  I take offense at this statement for two reasons, which I will address in the subsequent paragraphs.

             First, the idea that you could crack open the skull and find a little soul running around inside the brain is pretty ridiculous when you think about it.  There are a couple of really fundamental problems with that concept and I really don't think scientists make their derisive comment seriously anyway.  If we're talking about anatomical exploration in a cadaver, of course the soul isn't found - it left the body long before the dissection began.  If we're talking about exploration of the brain during surgery (i.e. when the person is alive), then there are even more obvious problems.  You can't do a complete exploration of the brain in surgery, so it's pretty hard to rule anything out.  But really now, what instrument do you use to observe the presence of a soul that is spiritual?  Visual observation?  X-ray?  MRI?  PET scan?  Electrical stimulation?  An electromagnetic field meter?  Listen for the soul to yelp when you poke it?  There is no tool you can use to directly measure the existence of a spiritual soul.  I'll talk about this more in a future entry, but I'm pretty sure every scientist who expresses the "no ghost" derision knows that they don't have the tools to measure the presence of a soul.  But it makes such a fun soundbite that it is hard to resist saying it.

             However, the more important reason I take offense to this statement is the impression it leaves regarding the "composition" of the soul.  The soul is equated to a ghost.  I suppose there's something to that connection, as I guess ghosts are generally considered to be the disembodied souls of those long dead.  I have no idea if disembodied souls hang around and cause havoc or try to communicate with the living.  My problem is the way ghosts are portrayed does a great disservice to the concept of the soul.  I guess there are all kinds of styles of ghosts in the media and in reports.  But a common portrayal of a ghost is as a semi-transparent somewhat human-shaped blob.  For my purposes, the important thing is the semi-transparent aspect.  Specifically, ghosts apparently don't have...brains, muscles, bones...guts.  The point is, it makes you imagine that a ghost is kind of all one substance - like smoke or jello.  And then, by implication, we imagine that the soul - if the soul and ghost are the same - is also "one substance."  This is a major problem to me and, in my opinion, leads down a long pathway of wrong-headed thinking about the soul from the very start.

             One key aspect of my theory of the soul is that the soul is complex.  By complex, I mean that the soul has many parts.  I consider the spiritual realm to be more advanced than the physical realm.  If so, it makes sense to consider that the soul could be at least as complex as the physical body.  The soul could have organs.  It could have systems, like a nervous system.  I don't mean to suggest that the soul has an actual brain or heart.  I just mean that the soul ought to be considered in a very complex way, not as some homogeneous substance.  For example, the body has a brain with complex interconnecting neurons in it.  The soul could also have complex interconnecting "circuitry" in it and thus could  interact with the body in very complex ways.

             I can understand why this concept might be uncomfortable to some.  Of course, for those who don't think a soul exists to begin with, to hypothesize a complex soul seems further off course.  I can't argue that point, although I would just say that some of the reasons that people reject the idea of the soul is because of claims made about the soul that arise from the mistaken (in my opinion) view that the soul is homogenous.  I'll bring up one of those issues at the end of this entry.  But for those who are staunch dualists, the idea that the soul is complex may seem disconcerting.  This is partly, I think, based on the fact that the Bible doesn't provide any details about "parts" of the soul.  That is definitely true, although terms like "mind", "heart", and sometimes even "mouth" or "feet" seem to have some reference to the soul or functions of the soul.  But to those who come at dualism through their belief in the Bible, I will just offer that my theory of the soul, while it must be consistent with what the Bible teaches, is, by necessity, going to include a lot of details that are not described in the Bible.  This is analogous to the anatomy of the physical body.  There are many principles of physiology, such as the oxygen exchange in hemoglobin or the filtering characteristics of the kidneys, that have no link to the Bible.  The same is going to be true for my theory of the soul.

             I want to give a quick example of the implication of the "soul as organism" idea.  This idea will need to be fleshed out in future entries.  As part of my theory of the soul, I propose that the connection between the soul and the brain (and/or whole body) is complex and can include principles like the lateral inhibition we observe in neuronal circuits.  Lateral inhibition describes a neural circuit where the inputs to one or more neurons cause neighboring neurons to be inhibited or less excitable.  This is kind of like the "high contrast" function in a drawing program.  It has the effect of emphasizing edges and points.  If the soul has something like lateral inhibition in its connection with the brain, it means that even if the soul connects to multiple points in the brain (for example), it might emphasize - or attend to - only certain aspects of the brain and down-regulate attention to other aspects.  I propose that this is part of the reason why your conscious attention has a focus to it and also why and how you can switch the focus of your conscious attention so quickly.  We'll obviously have to come back to that concept and dig much deeper into it, but I just put it forward as an example where the idea of a homogenous soul does a great injustice to any reasonable theory of the soul.  If consciousness resides in a homogeneous soul, how could our conscious awareness have a specific focus to it?  And how could that shift to something else?  In my theory of the soul, a fundamental aspect is that the soul can be, and likely is, at least as complex as the physical body.

             By the way, I believe this should also have an implication about what we think about God.  Since most people's conception of God is that God is spiritual and, even, "spirit", I think the "transparent ghost" thinking sometimes gets applied to God.  God is surely not a homogeneous ethereal thing.  God is not a lump of lead or even a beautiful diamond.  God is surely at least as complex as the creatures and universe He created.  There must be "parts" to God.  After all, God is living.  Does God have organs?  Who knows.  But surely God is the ultimate example of a complex organism, not a homogeneous substance.  This has implications, among other things, to how we think about the idea that "God is changeless."  That's an important Biblical concept.  But we think of a changeless living organism very differently than we think about a changeless lump of lead.  Anyway, food for future thought.

             I mentioned earlier that the idea of a homogeneous soul has led to some concepts that ultimately resulted in many to reject dualism.  Here is one of those key concepts:  the indivisibility of the soul.  I don't know if Descartes started this idea or if he borrowed if from others, but he said, for example "we cannot conceive of half a soul, as we can in the case of any body."  This was a big mistake, in my opinion.  In my theory of the soul, it is absolutely possible to imagine a "damaged soul" or a soul with a "lost or damaged part."  A "soul amputee" if you will.  Can you cut the soul in half and create two souls?  Haha - it will take us a long while to get to that issue.  But in my opinion, any theory of the soul must allow for the soul to grow and change and be damaged, yet survive.  I don't really know if the word "organism" can rightly be applied to the soul (or if we need a new word for it), but, at least for starters, it is a useful concept.  In the same way that the body has parts, and can exist without some parts but not others, I propose that the soul is the same way.  Of course the soul is not damaged by a bullet or a baseball bat like the physical body would be.  But it can be altered, even damaged, by activity in the spiritual world. 

             The complex "soul as organism" can develop habits.  The soul can learn.  The soul can grow.  All of these concepts are important.  A homogeneous soul is difficult to fit into any of these concepts, yet it is clear from the observation of human behavior, and the growing understanding of the neuroscience of the brain, that if there is a soul, it must have some or all of these features.  Those who have rejected dualism because they were forced to consider the soul as homogeneous and indivisible were right to reject that kind of dualism, in my opinion.  But if that is the only reason you rejected dualism, then I ask you to reconsider.  Consider a dualistic view of the human being where the soul is just as complex as the body.  I think you will find that it is much more difficult to dismiss such a concept out of hand.  At the very least, maybe I will intrigue you enough that your curiosity will force you to keep reading!

 

<Next entry on the Theory of the Soul>

A Theory of Soul Consistent with Scripture and Neuroscience - Part 2: Initial Explanatory Features

             As mentioned in the first entry of this series [here], 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 about the brain and how it functions.  In this entry, I want to lay out the specific features related to the soul, consciousness, and free will that I intend to incorporate in my theory.  As I present the theory in future entries, I hope to demonstrate how my proposed theory addresses each of the following features.

             I've listed below the key explanatory features of my theory of the soul.  I divided them up into four categories:  1) Christian Doctrine/Teaching; 2) Established Scientific Observations; 3) Explanatory Gaps in Scientific Understanding; and 4) Explanatory Gaps in Dualism.  I think the first two categories are pretty self-explanatory, though I want to clarify that I am using the terms "doctrine/teaching" and "established observation" loosely.  At this point, I'm not going to spend much effort sorting through whether some issue is a true point of Christian doctrine, and I'm not going to spend much effort arguing the validity of certain scientific observations.  In these two categories, I'm just putting forward what I see as the key things that both Christians and Scientists would want to see explained in a theory of the soul.

             The third and fourth categories are the issues that I see as being unexplained by any group with respect to issues of consciousness and free will.  I feel that for my theory to be useful, it needs to address these gaps and provide some explanatory power.  I think it will make sense when you see the topics I've listed under those categories.

             So, here is my initial list of "Key Explanatory Features" of my theory of the soul.

 

Christian Doctrine/Teaching

1.      Moral responsibility of human beings and the existence of sin.

2.     Continuity of the individual for eternity.  Christian teaching is based on the idea of "self-continuity" into the future.  You will remain you - a unique individual - forever.

3.     Death and bodily resurrection.  The resurrected body is a "new body", but it is still a body.

4.     Flesh/soul/spirit composition of human beings [see previous discussion here].

5.      Uniqueness of humans in God's image [I relate this to #8 below].

6.     Indwelling of human beings by the Holy Spirit.

7.      Possibility of evil spirits affecting an individual's actions.

8.     Human beings have souls unique to any other material (living or non-living) thing [see previous discussion here].

 

Established Scientific Observations

1.      Brain anatomy and even physiology is pretty well understood.  The brain is composed of neurons and glial cells (plus blood vessels, etc.).  There is extensive interconnectivity of the neurons in the brain, but the brain is also organized in different regions with specialized functions.  These anatomical regions are fairly consistent from person to person though brains are not carbon copies of each other.  Neuronal connections can be weakened or strengthened through a variety of internal and external factors.

2.     No "soul" has been measured, detected, or observed in the study of the brain.

3.     There is no "free will" center evident in the anatomical exploration of the brain.

4.     The brain is composed of networks of neurons with measurable input-output properties.

5.      Nerve conduction (signal transmission) is an electrochemical process that is very well understood.  Nerve signal transmission is clearly observable as a traveling electrical wave. 

6.     Signal transmission across synapses is well understood although there is "noise" in the transmission signal.  This transmission is primarily chemical in nature.

7.      Actions can be learned.  Repetition of actions/thoughts/etc. results in a strengthening of neuronal connections - the Hebbian plasticity principle that "neurons that fire together, wire together".

8.     There is no evidence that neurons make "decisions" - they just respond to their inputs.  The transmission of signals seems fully explained by the concept of cause and effect.

9.     Brain damage can have a huge effect on how people function and can even change their personality and thinking processes.

10.  Under certain specific types of brain damage, such as cutting the corpus callosum ("split brain"), people seem to exhibit features of two "persons" in one.

11.   People can be "locked-in", meaning that they are unable to respond in any observable way except that their brain is active and, in some cases, seems to still respond to outside inputs.

12.   In cases of brain damage, it is sometimes possible to train other parts of the brain to take over the damaged function, at least to some extent.

13.   Human beings can be placed in an unconscious state via anesthesia or trauma.  If they recover from that state, they have no awareness of being unconscious.

14.   A lot of things that happen in the nervous system happen unconsciously.  The autonomic nervous system, for example, generally operates completely unconsciously.

15.   You are not conscious when you are sleeping; except you dream, which seems different than consciousness when fully awake, but also different than regular sleep.

16.   There are "neural correlates of consciousness" - meaning that some parts of the brain seem necessary for certain aspects of consciousness.

17.   "Libet-style" experiments seem to show that our brain makes decisions before we are conscious of the decision, seemingly indicating that we do not have free will like we think we do [see some previous discussions here and here].

 

Explanatory "Gaps" in Scientific Understanding (Note:  I don't think all of these are really "gaps" - I think they are fundamentally unsolvable from a materialistic perspective.)

1.      Free will.  Humans seem to have free will - we all feel like we do - but there is no plausible mechanism for free will found in the brain.  [For a more general discussion of free will, start here.]

2.     Neural binding problem.  Human consciousness seems to reflect a unity (we see/hear/feel/etc. events as all happening together), but there is no anatomical structure that has any of the features necessary to make this happen.  [See an earlier discussion of this here.]

3.     Qualia.  The fact that there is a subjective component of our sense of things around us, but brains are not made up of those subjective components (i.e. there's nothing "blue" or "pointy" or "cold" in the brain).

 

Explanatory Gaps in Dualism (Note:  these gaps are introduced by dualism, and since I am clearly a dualist, I have to deal with them.)

1.      How and where can a spiritual soul connect to a material brain?

2.     If the spiritual soul induces action, it will violate the laws of physics.  Conservation of energy will be lost.  There will be an effect without a cause. 

3.     If the operation of the brain can be fully explained from a materialistic point of view, then why is it necessary to hypothesize the existence of a soul?  (I discussed this in the first entry [here], but I will probably need to deal with this issue in more depth in the future.)

 

 

             That's my starting list.  Now that I see the whole list together, it seems rather daunting!  Also, I will probably have to update this list and add to it as time goes on.  Please send me comments if you think there are additional points that any theory of the soul needs to address or explain. 

             In the upcoming entries, I want to establish some general concepts about the soul that are think are frequently misunderstood.  It will take a while to lay the groundwork before we dive into the real details!

 

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.