4. Is the human “spirit” the same as the “Holy Spirit”?

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

 

Quick Answer:  No.

 

Key Scriptures:

             Rom 8:16 “The <pneuma> itself beareth witness with our <pneuma> that we are children of God.”  This is a clear scripture indicating that we have a spirit that is ours, and then there is the Holy Spirit.  Also, we don’t lose our spirit when the Holy Spirit indwells us.

             I Cor 6:20 "...and in your <pneuma>" - further indication that we have our own <pneuma> distinct from the Holy Spirit.

             Acts 7:55, 59  Stephen was “full of the <hagios pneuma>”.  As he was dying, he said “Lord Jesus, receive my <pneuma>”  I think  this clearly shows that we can be full of the Holy Spirit, but we still have a spirt of our own. 

             Acts 15:28 “For it seemed good to the <hagios pneuma>, and to us…”  Thus distinguishing the Holy Spirit from the human <psuche-pneuma>.  Even when the Holy Spirit indwells us, there is still "us" there as well.  It is not that the Holy Spirit kicks out our spirit and takes over.

 

Caveat:

             None.

 

Related Scriptures and Thoughts:

             Matt 5:3 “Blessed are the poor in <pneuma>…”  Obviously not referring to the Holy Spirit.  From this verse we can see that sometimes the word <pneuma> is not used to mean the Holy Spirit.  In fact, here it seems that the word <psuche> could have been used also.  That’s why I like the term <psuche-pneuma>. 

             Matt 8:16  he cast out the <pneuma> with his word.  There can be evil <pneuma>.

             Matt 26:41 …the <pneuma> is willing, but the <sarx> is weak.  I think this definitely shows that we have a “<pneuma>” that is not the Holy Spirit.

 

Discussion:

             As with Question #1, I just feel that it is sometimes useful to study what seems obvious to verify that it is, indeed, obvious.  Part of the importance of this question is that the word <pneuma> is sometimes used to refer to the Holy Spirit, but the word "Holy" (<hagios>) is not added.  Thus, in the New Testament, sometimes the word <pneuma> refers to God and other times it refers to man.  The difference is determined usually by context and it is not always obvious.  That's why sometimes one translation will translate the word <pneuma> as Spirit (with a capital "S") referring to the Holy Spirit and other translations will translate it as spirit (small "S") referring to the human spirit. 

             Also, we don't lose our souls when we gain the Holy Spirit and if you couple that point with the concept of "<psuche-pneuma>" [See Question #3], then it is pretty obvious that we can't lose our spirit when we gain the Holy Spirit.

3. Do human beings have a soul and a spirit, and are they different?

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

 

Quick Answer:  Yes - but it doesn't seem to be important to make a clear distinction between the human soul and the human spirit.

 

Key Scriptures:

             Mark 12:33, Luke 12:19 (examples)  The clear implication throughout the New Testament is that human beings have souls <psuche>. 

             I Thes 5:23 “…your whole <pneuma> and <psuche> and <soma> be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This seems to clearly establish that “we” are each composed of a body, soul and spirit and that each of those three entities has some distinction between them.

             I Cor 15:45 Would seem to indicate that there is some difference between the soul and spirit.  Adam had a soul.  Jesus had a spirit.  But, in this case the verse is speaking of Jesus in his human “form” – the “last Adam” – so I think the description means that humans have a spirit. 

             Heb 4:12 seems to be definitive:  there is a distinction between the soul and the spirit – they are not the same thing.  Yet this verse also implies that separating the soul and the spirit is a very hard thing to do.  In fact, it takes a unique instrument to do it:  the Word of God.  As a result of this verse I began to refer to the supernatural part of human beings as the “<psuche-pneuma>” or soul-spirit.  Granted, that term is never used in scripture, but there does not seem to be an emphasis in scripture on separating the concept of human soul from the concept of human spirit.  I could not find a single verse where the distinction seemed to matter in any way.  Thus, I think it is kind of a mistake to think of them in really distinct terms.  The analogy I used in my mind was that of the material brass.  Although it is composed of copper and zinc, each of which is a distinct metal, yet in brass it almost seems like you can’t divide them and that brass itself is a new metal.  I thought of the term <psuche-pneuma> as being like brass.  If pressed, you would say, yes, it is composed of two elements (copper and zinc), but for all practical purposes, it is just brass.

             Luke 11:24-25 This is the passage where the unclean <pneuma> goes out of man, then comes back to find the “man” swept and cleaned, and invites other unclean <pneuma>.  I don’t think this means that the person’s physical brain is swept.  There is something about our <psuche-pneuma> that allows for the indwelling of another <pneuma> or even multiple <pneuma>s from without.  That can be the Holy Spirit, but it can also be evil spirits (I never hear of a good spirit indwelling a human other than the Holy Spirit – so I think that must not happen).  And I think it must be hard for us to ward off the outside spirit connection.  In other words, it must be hard for us to maintain our own <psuche-pneuma> in the “swept and empty” condition.  Clearly, I would say, once the Holy Spirit indwells us, the Holy Spirit keeps all other spirits away.  That would be a part of the sealing that happens [Eph 4:30].  Without that connection, we are vulnerable.  I feel that the condition of being "swept and cleaned" describes the state that many people are trying to achieve and maintain.  Many people want to live a good moral life, but they don't have anything to do with anything "spiritual." 

 

Caveat:

             None.

 

Related Scriptures and Thoughts:

             Here's an obtuse thought: is it possible that there are some “human equivalent” creatures with no souls?  I’m not sure you could absolutely exclude that concept.  I do not know of a verse that says “all creatures that look and act like human beings have souls.”  But it seems to be just accepted in scripture that all human beings have souls.  However, as odd as it may seem, I don't think you could make this a point of doctrine.  There is a clear difference between being alive and responding intelligently; and having a soul. 

             Also, just because human beings have a <psuche-pneuma> does not mean that they are fully controlled by that component of themselves.  There is still the flesh - <sarx> - which often controls behavior.  This will be dealt with in more detail in response to some of the other questions I have posed.  In fact, I do believe it is scriptural to say that there are some people who are so given in to the control by their <sarx> that they do not appear to be influenced in any way to their <psuche-pneuma>.  That is a bad state to be in.

 

Discussion:

             This question was of high importance to me as it provides a framework for understanding the brain-mind problem from a Christian viewpoint.  Where is the "mind" located?  Is it in the brain?  Is it in the soul?  Is it in the spirit?  Based on my review of scripture, it seems to clearly fit into the "soul-spirit" and to try to break it down further requires going beyond what is clear in scripture. 

             To me, this also means that the nice neat diagram of three concentric circles...body, soul, spirit...[see earlier discussion here] is not necessary correct.  Based on Heb 4:12, I wouldn't make a solid line separating the soul from the spirit.  In fact, I would just have two circles:  the <sarx>, and the <psuche-pneuma>.  As discussed elsewhere, the common term for body, <soma>, can either refer specifically to the <sarx> (flesh) or to the entire human, including the flesh and soul and spirit. 

             Finally, as a result of this study, I decided to add a couple of additional questions to my list (#20 and 21).  These questions relate to the issue of whether science is equipped to "find" the soul or spirit and, if so, what kind of test would be needed.

 

 

1. Do you have to believe that there is a spiritual part of human beings (i.e. a nonmaterial soul/spirit) in order to be a Christian?

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 Scriptures:

             I Thes 5:23 “…your whole <pneuma> and <psuche> and <soma> be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This seems to clearly establish that “we” are each composed of a body, soul and spirit and that each of those three entities has some distinction between them.

             Mt 16:17 "for <sarx> and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven..." Here <sarx> means the physical world and in particular physical humans.  I think this verse alone is sufficient to say that there is some form of communication between the spiritual, non-material realm; and the physical realm we are living in now.  Of course Jesus is a physical embodiment of that, but here Peter comes to understand something in his brain that clearly is not a result of physical inputs.

             II Cor 5:8 “…willing rather to be absent from the <soma>, and to be present with the Lord.”  Although the word <soma> does not have to refer "only" to the flesh, it certainly includes the flesh.  I don't see how to understand Paul's sentiment without having a view that a person is both flesh and soul-spirit [Note:  for a discussion of how and why I use the term "soul-spirit" or <psuche-pneuma>, see here].  We know that God is spirit [John 4:24].  Certainly to be present with the Lord is to be in the spiritual realm.  To be absent from the body is to be dead.  So, when we are dead, there is a spiritual part of us that exists and is with God.  Also note that Paul is referring to himself and showing that he can be absent from the body and still exist - he can be present somewhere else.  Thus a "person" must have more than just flesh.

             John 4:24 “God is <pneuma>…”

             Joh 6:63 "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life."  You cannot believe in Jesus without believing in a spiritual world.  And you certainly can't understand His teachings without believing in a spiritual world.  In fact, a central tenet of Jesus' teaching is that the spiritual world is of primary importance.  When he tells people to "eat my <sarx>", He is forcing them to see the most material of all material things (i.e. <sarx>) in a spiritual way. 

             You need to believe in a spiritual realm to understand Gal 2:20.

             Heb 1:7  Angels are <pneuma>.  There are also evil <pneuma>.  I don't see how these beings can be understood in Scripture without a firm belief in a supernatural world that interacts with the natural world in some way.

             John 4:23 “…worship the Father in <pneuma> and in truth…”

 

Caveat:

             I think someone can become a Christian without knowing much of anything...but then they learn!  So, it may be that a new Christian hasn't even thought about the spiritual realm yet and has no opinion on it.  But any Christian, once they have considered the whole concept, must come away with the view that there is a spiritual realm.

             I strayed from my original question a bit.  My original question focuses on the human soul, but in many of the verses, I've looked at a broader view: the existence of the "spiritual realm" in general.  The "soul" or "spirit" or "soul-spirit" of human beings is, at least to some extent, a part of that spiritual realm.  The point here is to show that belief in a spiritual realm is fundamental to Christian belief, and that includes the idea that human beings have a "soul" that is non-material (ok, well, at the very least, the soul is not composed of the material substances currently known and recognized by science).

 

Related Scriptures and Thoughts:

             When the word <pneuma> is used, it would certainly seem to imply something that is not the flesh.  But I also take it to mean that it is something that is not physical either – or at least not a material thing or entity made of atoms.  The <pneuma> is not something you can sense – you can only see the outworkings of it in the physical world. 

             Also, you can't successfully live the Christian life without focusing on the spiritual component of your life over and above the material, fleshly component.  Rom 8:5  "Those who live according to the <sarx> have their minds <phroneo> set on what that <sarx> desires."  Living according to either the <sarx> or the <pneuma> is a mindset.  Making that moment by moment choice seems to be the central struggle of living the Christian life.  How do we decide that the spiritual is more important than the physical?  It seems that our <psuche-pneuma> is caught in the middle and being pulled in two directions:  our <sarx> is constantly dragging us toward the physical and the Holy Spirit is constantly encouraging us toward the spiritual.  I found it helpful to visualize that tug-of-war.  It is a daily challenge.

             Rom 8:7 "the sinful mind <sarx phronema> is hostile to God.  It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so."  That last phrase seems critical.  It is not possible to reform the <sarx>.  It is not possible to save the <sarx>.  The <sarx> must die.  (see also I Cor 5:5)  The only way of salvaging the person, any person, is through the salvation of the <psuche-pneuma>.  The <sarx> will not decide to stop being selfish.  It just won’t.

 

Discussion:

             I thought this question would be obvious from the beginning, and scripture does seem clear.  Still, it seemed important to establish this point first.  You can't have a fully materialistic view of the universe and claim to be a Christian.

             Christians struggle to focus on the spiritual over the material - it is not easy!  On a practical level, we can often act as if we only see and acknowledge the material world.  When Christians do that, they look ugly.

             The issue of whether a spiritual realm exists is a fundamental difference in "belief" between science and Christianity.  In fact, I would say it might be the fundamental difference.  Oddly, I don't hear much discussion about this.  Instead the arguments are about less fundamental differences.  Side issues, really [see here for elaboration of that point].  The important point to recognize is that this fundamental difference has to exist.  Science has to be grounded in a materialistic assumption and it ceases to be science if you ground it on the spiritual.  Further, as we have discussed in this entry, Christianity ceases to be Christianity if you ground it on the material.  The problem is that sometimes we mistake these a priori assumptions for a conclusion.  Science doesn't conclude that the universe is material only - it starts on that assumption.  Christianity (and many other religions) start with the assumption that there is a spiritual realm in addition to the material world.  Those are opposing assumptions.  It's not a point of disagreement, it's a difference in "initial conditions."  You can't really argue about the initial conditions - they just are what they are. 

             My interest is in understanding how to view the "brain-mind" problem.  It is fun to consider what the difference is between neurons firing in the brain and our thoughts, and even science hasn't figured out an answer.  But, given that science is confined to the material world, science is working hard to come up with an explanation of the "mind" that is based entirely on known material substances.  The point for the Christian scientist is this:  the idea of the soul as non-material is a non-negotiable part of their faith.  That's what I wanted to know in my study of this topic.  Science will never find the soul.  We just have to recognize that impasse and move on.

Scriptural View of the Body, Soul and Spirit

             This entry, and the related entries to follow on this topic (see links below), are part of a personal Bible study I did on the topic of the concept of body, soul, and spirit.  As a Christian and medical researcher, I feel that it is important to understand what scripture says, and doesn't say, about topics I am likely to encounter in my professional and personal life.  I need to know what principles are clearly laid out in scripture.  I have personally decided that science does not supersede scripture - that is part of my fundamental beliefs - but I also know that frequently Christians start arguing against science over things that are not clear in scripture.  So...I needed to know where the boundaries were, based on as thorough a study of scripture as I could muster.  Having gone through it now, it seemed that it might be helpful to other Christians in a similar situation.  So, this is just my personal study and notes, summarized in a hopefully helpful way.

             As word of caution:  this and the related entries are written purely from a Christian perspective and I haven't made any attempt to be more broadly inclusive.  If you don't happen to believe that the Bible is true, or that it should be used as the basis of determining truth, then this whole series won't make sense to you.  If that is your situation, I really wouldn't bother reading this series.  You might find my series on "Theory of the Soul" more palatable.  But, if you do believe the Bible is the Word of God, then maybe this series of entries will be helpful in guiding you in your own study so you can come to your own conclusions.

             I began this study with the goal of trying to understand the proper spiritual view of terms like “soul” and “spirit” in order to help me to know how to view neuroscience discoveries about the workings of the brain.  There are certain “discoveries” – or rather interpretations of data – that seemed contrary to a proper Christian view.  For example, there is a body of work in which experimenters try to show that “free will” is a misconception.  Rather, they claim, the material brain’s decisions are already made before we are even aware of it.  I believe this work is very misguided and flawed [see here], but should I view it as an affront to basic Christian beliefs, or just bad science?  Even more deeply baked into much of neuroscience is the idea of the completely materialistic brain and materialistic human.  Words such as "soul" and "spirit" have no meaning in their view, and their scientific interpretation is based on that.  That’s ok – science kind of has to be materialistic – but I wanted to be sure I knew the boundaries of plain Christian (i.e. scriptural) views on these topics.

             I was taught, when I was a younger Christian, that the proper Christian view was the idea of “body-soul-spirit” in three concentric rings, and that each person had a body, a soul, and a spirit.  Also, the soul was divided into “mind, will, emotions.”  I had kind of taken that whole concept for granted, but I was recently wondering whether this was really scriptural or just an abstraction of scripture or just Greek thought imposed on scripture.  So…I began studying the Greek words in the New Testament that had to do with body, soul, spirit. 

             Methods:  I read and studied every verse that had at least one of the following Greek words in them:

Soma

Sarx

Psuche

Pneuma

Kardia

Phroneo

Phronema

Sunesis

Dianoia

Zoe

Zoopoieo

Thanatos

Nekros

             I went through verse by verse and made notes, with a focus on the general topic at hand.  I tried to note how each particular word was used and the relationship between different words.  That took me about a year and a half to do.  Then after I had a whole series of fairly random notes, I wanted to have some way of coalescing them into some kind of useful summary.  So, in an effort to do that, I established a series of questions on the topic, and then tried to answer those questions based on what I found in my study.  The questions I came up with are listed below.  If you click on them, it will take you to the entry on that topic (once I get them all written up!).

             As a practical bookkeeping note, when I am writing a Greek word in my notes, I put it in the arrow brackets ("<>").  That's just my personal style and has no deeper meaning.

             Again, this is just my personal, plain reading of scripture.  Also, as you might note, I haven't gone through the Hebrew in the Old Testament yet.  That will take a long time to do...not sure if I will ever get to that!

1.  Do you have to believe that there is a spiritual part of human beings (i.e. a nonmaterial soul/spirit) in order to be a Christian?

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

3.  Do human beings have a soul and a spirit, and are they different?

4.  Is the human “spirit” the same as the “Holy Spirit”?

5.  Is the “body” the same as the “soul”?

6.  When the Bible uses the term “body”, does that only refer to our physical, material, body?

7.  Are the “mind, will, emotions” part of the soul?  Are they materialistic things or spiritual things?

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

9.  Are human beings alive because their soul is in their body, and when their soul departs their body, then they are dead?

10.  Christians get a new body, but do they get a new soul?

11.  When Jesus was resurrected, was it the same body that he had when he was crucified?  Was it the exact same molecules?  If he had a new body, why was his old body gone?

12.  Does conversion happen to/in the body or soul or spirit?

13.  Does the flesh change at conversion?

14.  Who sins?  Is it my body?  My soul?  My spirit?

15.  Is the "total depravity" of Calvinism in reference to the <sarx> alone?  Is the <psuche-pneuma> totally depraved?

16.  Can you really have "good intentions" but do the wrong thing?  Is that any different than having "bad intensions" and doing the wrong thing?  If you had "good intentions" then why did you do the wrong thing?  Can the <sarx> overrule the <psuche-pneuma>?

17.  Is the concept of "tabula rasa" consistent with Scripture?

18.  What is the point of bodily discipline, habits, and spiritual disciplines?

19.  Do animals have souls?  Spirits?

Also - some "non-scriptural" questions...

20.  What would it take for science to verify the existence of the human soul?

21.  What would it take for science to verify the existence of the Holy Spirit?

An Observation

Jesus:  "...hypocrites!..."  Matthew 23:13

I have known many atheists and many theists and many shades of "-eists" in between.  

I just have one question:

Why is it that atheists often live as if there is a God...and theists often live as if there is no God?

We are all hopeless hypocrites.

Solitude...what's that?

             I was reminded the other day about the importance of having a time of solitude away from the distractions of everyday life.  It is my observation that most of us spend 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in the pursuit of distractions.  I don't think that's any new revelation - I think that has been the tendency of our society for decades, if not longer.  But we've honed the skill to an impressive level and we've developed a wonderful array of technologies to help us achieve our goal.  We are now able to achieve 24/7 distraction.  We got what we wanted and...well...it's a disaster!

             There's a car commercial about safety features in some car - automatic braking I think - that illustrates the problem.  A distracted woman who is looking at her phone crosses the street in front of a car.  The driver is also distracted, but the automatic braking system prevents a really bad outcome from occurring.  The driver and walker look at each other, smile, and go on with their distracted lives.  We can all appreciate the physical danger of being distracted.  But the bigger problem with living a distracted life is not the physical danger, but the existential danger.  I'm thinking about the less obvious danger of living your entire life without really considering the big issues of life:  the legacy you will leave after you die, the purpose of your life, and so on.  In fact, I think our society tends to laugh a bit at these kinds of questions, as if they were from an older, less sophisticated time.  Society seems to say "no one asks those questions anymore."  But, if society laughs, it is a nervous laughter.  If you feel that questions like "what is my purpose in life?" are childish, then you have fully bought into a life of distraction and I feel sorry for you.  These are not childish questions at all, although even a child could ponder them. 

             We like to say "what you don't know can't hurt you" even though we all know that is about as false of a statement as any.  But we also live as if "what you don't think about can't hurt you."  That is also false, of course.  We know it is.  We just don't want it to be false and so we try not to think about it.  Which proves the point.

             So, with this blog entry I am going to suggest that you try to overcome the constant world of distraction for at least some finite period of time.  I am also going to suggest a slight bit of "structure" to your escape from distraction.  However, to be honest, if all you do is try hard to escape your world of distraction with no other goal than that it seems like a good idea, you will be better off than most.  You don't have to "structure" your time the way I'm suggesting.  But I figure that some of you might benefit from some ideas!

             Here's what I propose:  I strongly encourage you to take at least three separate sessions of solitude, each at least two hours long.  These have to be real solitude.  You have to go someplace where you can be certain that no human being or man-made thing can talk to you or interrupt your thoughts.  No phone of course.  No checking of texts, emails, etc..  I really doubt you can do this in your house.

             I suggest two hours, but that is a minimum.  A whole day would be much better.  But you need at least two hours because the first hour will be spend trying to "un-distract" yourself and thinking of all the things you have to do.  In fact, it might take a few days to "un-distract" yourself, but you've got to start somewhere.  Some effort is better than none at all.

             Driving is a possible option.  You have to have the radio/phone off.  And you need to go someplace that doesn't require your focus.  Driving on the freeway across the Great Plains is perfect.  In the continental U.S., I'd say the best is to be on I-94 headed west at about 6am on a clear, dry day.  Driving around in a big city, especially one you are unfamiliar with, will definitely not work!

             A hotel room could work, but it likely has more distractions.  A park is ok...but you need to be away from other people, as they are way too distracting.  A walk or run can work.

             As you try to settle in to a time of solitude and thinking, you will constantly be distracted by the things you need to do, so you need some way of writing them down and mentally trying hard to set them aside and move on.  Your mind will drift and after spending two seconds considering one of the questions below, you will find that you've wasted 15 minutes thinking about something else completely. Don't get frustrated with your brain, it's trying its best!  Just focus back on the question at hand and try again.  I am totally convinced that the direction of your life can change in five minutes of deep concentrated thinking.  A time of solitude could lead to a step change in your thinking and the way you live your life.  Of course, in order to get five minutes of deep thinking strung together into one cohesive line of thought may take hours...days?...years???...but you have to try.  You have to try.

             It helps, at least for people like me with bad memories, to be able to write down your thoughts as they come to you.  Or dictate them if you are driving.  For me, a good train of thought comes to me and then I start moving on to something else and I say to myself "I won't forget that first thought - I'll come back to it."  Then I forget that first thought.  I don't know if everyone has the same problem I have, but if I don't write it down, it is gone.  It never happened. 

             As a suggested starting point, I have three questions that I suggest you ponder - one for each of your two hour sessions.  I have a few notes about each question just to get you started, but I really encourage you to go your own way on these.  These are the kinds of questions and topics that we need to think deeply about.  By not thinking about these issues, we've already made some kind of default decision, almost unconsciously, about what the answers are.  The problem is, these are deep, foundational, life altering issues.  Whether we know it or not, every important thing we do, and our response to most issues we face, is dependent on the answers we have either consciously or unconsciously decided on questions like these.  We've built a skyscraper on the dirt.  Maybe we're lucky and the dirt happens to be solid granite and so we are fine.  Maybe.  But maybe we've built on plain old dirt.  It may hurt, but we may find that we need to start over - this time by building a solid foundation first.

             This is your uniquely human privilege and responsibility.  Cows don't think about these things.  So, if you don't take the time to think about these issues, you are no better than a cow.

             To get your mind to think more deeply on the questions below, my suggestion is that, after you express your own thoughts in answer to these questions, you imagine someone next to you saying simply "Really?"  I'm thinking of "really?" in the tone of:  "Are you serious?  Is that really your answer?  Is that the best you could come up with?"  This forces you to think deeper!

             Here are four questions I offer as starting points.  Of course, each question is a group of questions around a common topic.  I'm hoping that the general group of questions helps you to guide your thoughts.  Personally, I would pick only one to concentrate on for each session of solitude.  I know I suggested three sessions, but I have four questions.  So...if you only have time for three sessions, look at the question you're going to have to leave out!

 

1.  Legacy.  What will my legacy be in 100 years?  What do I want to have said about my life?  What am I going to do if I ever retire?  What are my plans after retirement is over?

 

2.  Morality.  What human activities do I see around me that I consider positive activities?  What activities do I see around me that I consider negative activities?  How do I decide which things are positive and which things are negative?  How do I decide which things are good for me to do and which things are bad for me to do?  Is my basis for making moral decisions always based on how I feel about something?  Is there any way that I might be wrong about my moral decision-making?  How would I know if I was wrong?  Has there ever been a time when I decided to do something that I didn't really want to do?  Why did I do it - what caused me to do something I didn't want to do?  Do I always do the things I consider to be positive or good things to do?  If not, why not? 

 

3.  Body and Soul.  Is the "mind" different from the "brain?"  Are any of my thoughts "original" or is every thought the result of previous input to my brain?  Am I really just a bag of chemicals?  What evidence would I need to have to conclude that there is no such thing as a soul?  What evidence would I need to have to conclude that there is a soul?

 

4.  Natural and Supernatural.  How would I know that something supernatural existed?  If there is a God of any sort, what would that God have to do to communicate with me?  How would I know it was God?  Can miracles happen?  How would I know if miracles can or cannot happen?  What defines a miracle? 

 

             Well, there are some questions to get you started.  Now - stop acting like a cow and find your place of solitude!

Top Five Worst Inventions/Ideas Still in Use (Part II)

            This entry continues my list of the top five worst inventions/ideas that are still very much in use today.  In my previous entry on this topic, I covered numbers 3-5.  Now it is time for the top two on my list.  But first, I’ll mention a few things that didn’t make it in the top five, but were close.  The QWERTY keyboard has to be one – that fact that the inefficient keyboard layout persists to today is a bad idea.  Loosely related is the persistence of worthless letters of the alphabet, namely X, Q, and C, which can be replaced by other letters.  I also find that words spelled oddly…or should I say weirdly…make no sense either.  Can’t we just hold to some basic spelling rules?  Another thing that probably should be in my top five is the "rule" that people get to vote on taxes for public schools but almost nothing else.  Why does that make sense?

            As I mentioned before, I think you should try making your own list and writing it up.  Let me know and I will add links.  But remember, the inventions still have to be in use today.  Without further ado, here are my top two worst inventions that are still in use today. 

Worst Idea #2:  The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act...aka "HIPAA"

            HIPAA is a law passed by the US Congress in 1996.  Otherwise referred to as the "Privacy Act" because that is the most visible outcome of the law.  Actually there continue to be additions to the original law.  Some of you probably have never heard of it and so it doesn't make sense that it would be the #2 Worst Idea on my list.  And, honestly, to a certain extent, I am using it here as an example of a law that started with a good idea, got expanded upon in the process of being put together, and then, when passed, had many unintended consequences.  Such laws are, in general, very bad ideas.  Also, unfortunately, such laws are very difficult to undo once they have been enacted.  In my experience, HIPAA is a perfect example of such a situation, it is very bad, and makes it to #2 on my list of the worst ideas that are still part of our daily lives.

            You may not think of HIPAA as part of your daily life, but if you have ever been to the hospital or doctor's office, you had to fill out at least one form that was solely related to the HIPAA law and its subsequent derivatives.  You probably didn't read the HIPAA form because you had 50 other forms to fill out and that one seemed pretty irrelevant.  If you don't work in the healthcare industry in some way, then it probably has little consequence to you.  It wouldn't make your list or even cross your mind.

            I work in medical research and I deal with the consequences, both intended and unintended, every day, whether at work or at home!  And, for the most part, those consequences are entirely a waste of time.  Yes, there are some good things about the general concepts that were part of the original law, but the whole concept of "patient privacy" took on a life of its own.  One annoying thing is that often, even if everyone, including the patient, agree that some of the law's requirements are a waste of time, it is not allowable to bypass the requirements.  It's like creating a 25 mile per hour zone on a freeway so that a family can cross from one side to the other, and then that family says, no, we'll take the bridge five miles down the road, yet the 25 mile per hour zone is left in place.  There's no logic there.  Red tape for the sake of red tape.

            The unintended consequences have to do with the “privacy” part of the law, which, as I understand, wasn’t even the original intent of the law (and the word “privacy” doesn’t even appear in the title).  The original intent was to make sure that health information could “stay with the patient” – meaning it was “portable” (that is in the title) when the patient is treated at different hospitals and clinics.  The privacy part came in under the “accountability” portion of the law.  This also was a good idea, but this is where the really bad (and probably unintended) concepts arise. 

            The HIPAA law and related laws have spawned a whole industry.  Check it out for yourself (for example:  https://www.hipaatraining.com/).  There are companies that sell entire training programs on how to navigate the HIPAA laws.  Every institution doing research had to create an entire process to meet the requirements of HIPAA that rivals the process for obtaining informed consent for research.  All such institutions now have a "Privacy Officer" and a staff of people whose entire job is to make sure that everyone in the institution is following the HIPAA laws so that the institution doesn't get fined.  That is a bad unintended outcome - at least I sure hope it was an untended outcome!!

            I don't know anything about Congressman Bill Archer, but he gets my thumbs down for introducing this bill to Congress.  This was a Pandora's Box.  There are some good things in this law, but there are also some really poorly thought-out aspects that, at this point, are nearly impossible to undo.  It is more red tape that slows progress and created a whole industry that creates nothing productive.  It's like creating a new tax that just goes to pay the salaries of the people collecting the new tax. 

            Laws with unintended consequences, baggage and red tape are #2 on my list.  But, in my opinion, there is one clear winner...

           

Worst Idea #1:  Hand Blow Dryers

            Yes, I'm talking about those stupid hand dryers that you find in public bathrooms.  It seems like they have been around for about 30 years or so.  Someone decided it was a way to save trees by reducing the use of paper towels.  They did a good job of marketing them to cities and counties and states, and so they are everywhere now.  I hate them.  If they were a good idea, people would install them in their homes.  They don't.

            Maybe they don't bother you.  They bother me because of a number of factors that come together:  1) I end up in lots of places where the bathrooms have hand dryers (like rest stops and so on), 2) unlike most men (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4504379/), I always wash my hands after using the bathroom, 3) I like my hands to be dry, 4) I don't want to spend any more time in a public restroom than I have to, so I want to get in and get out.

            The thing is, paper towels work great.  They are fast, efficient, and they just work.  It's hard to improve on something that is so simple:  a wimpy piece of paper.  With a paper towel, you can dry your hands in 5 seconds.  You can even dry your hands as you're walking out the door if you really are in a hurry.  You can take a paper towel with you to clean something up.  Hand blow dryers take what seems like forever to work and they cement you to one specific spot.  If you really want your hands fully dry, you've got to stand right there until they are dry.  I've timed them - they take maybe 30-60 seconds typically.  But that is a five- to ten-fold increase in the time it takes to dry your hands.  That's a poor trade-off.  In my observation, men are much more likely not to wash their hands at all, or to leave with completely wet hands, when the only option for drying their hands is one of those ridiculous hand blow dryers.  Further, recently I've noticed some bathrooms have both paper towels and a hand dryer.  In those cases, I have never ever observed anyone opting for using the hand dryer.  Does anyone think they are better at drying your hands???

            Part of the problem with hand blow dryers is not the dryer itself but the way they are implemented in public restrooms.  First, there is often just one, which then becomes the main bottleneck in a busy bathroom.  Again, what happens?  People don't wash their hands because they don't want to stand in a line waiting for the one precious dryer.  This is especially great if it is an old wimpy dryer that takes forever to work.  Also, I've sometimes observed them to be placed up high, which means that when you use it, it blows water all over you.  If you're in a wheelchair, then you're really stuck, not to mention that the dryers are against the wall which makes them hard to get to in a wheelchair.  Paper towels you just grab and go and dry your hands anywhere.  There is never a line for people waiting to get paper towels!

            Of course, the big supposed draw of hand dryers is that you are doing your part to save trees by making hand drying much more inconvenient.  If that was really the goal, then they should be crank operated (or put a pedal down below and operate the fan with your foot).  To install a device that sucks up electricity to drive a heater and high-powered fan in exchange for a paper towel dispenser that uses no energy at all seems like a very questionable trade-off for claiming that it is "good for the environment."  It also takes energy and resources to build the hand dryers.  Of course the same can be said for the process of making paper towels.  At home we use cloth towels, which have to be washed and require energy and water.  It's not simple to figure out which option is the most energy efficient.  My guess is that they are all pretty similar and that the impact on the environment is not drastically different among the different options.  If I were to rate things on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = no impact on the environment and 5 = huge impact on the environment, I'd say they would all be given a "2".  Therefore, the decision regarding what option for hand drying should be made on other factors...like efficiency of hand drying!  I'm pretty sure that you could do a lot more to help the environment by riding a bicycle instead of driving a car.

            Somewhere along the line, the marketers of hand dryers needed an additional sales gimmick beyond the idea that they were good for the environment, so they came up with the idea that they spread less germs.  I assume the point was that there was less touching of things with a blow dryer?  I don't know - it's not like you're grabbing the same paper towel that someone else used.  I think the idea was that with a manual paper towel dispenser, you sometimes had to pull some kind of lever to get the next towel out.  But there are plenty of other ways to design a paper towel dispenser so that you don't have to touch anything other than the towel.  Further, a lot of hand dryers have a button you have to push, so that totally defeats the "no-touch" concept.  Maybe the argument was that air had less germs than paper???  Well, as you probably know, that concept was totally debunked.  As it turns out, hand dryers are really good at blowing germs onto your hands, as described in this study:  https://aem.asm.org/content/84/8/e00044-18.abstract

            One thing I found while traveling across the country one time when I was on crutches for a bad knee:  hand dryers are as inconvenient as you can get.  I don't think anyone thought this through.  After you hobble to the sink to wash your hands, you now have to find where the hand dryer is, because it is never right next to the sink (probably because that would be an even bigger bottleneck - or maybe someone doesn't want to mix water and high current hand dryers!).  If you need your crutches to walk over to where the dryer is, you have to grab the crutches with your wet hands.  Also, there's no place to rest your crutches near the hand dryer.  Paper towels just work better - assuming they are placed next to the sink, where they should be.

            Another limitation is if you want to dry some other part of your body other than your hands.  For example, when you drive across the country, it is not uncommon that you want to wash your face or your mouth.  Hand dryers are not designed to dry your face.  Paper towels just work better.  It's obvious.

            So, in summary hand dryers are slow, they are inconvenient, they spread germs, and they probably use up just as much energy and have just as much impact on the environment as paper towels.   For those reasons, hand air dryers are the #1 worst invention that we currently still use.  That's an invention I'd like to see disappear!