sign in sign up
<<
Home , Emergent materialism, Materialism

Neuroscience &

Neuroscience, , and the Soul: Limit Questions Jeremy M. Aymard Department of Biology; College of Arts and Sciences Abilene Christian University

In light of recent discoveries in neuroscience linking the to physical processes, Christian philosophers have resorted to a more materialistic view of the human person, using neuroscience as support for their view that an immaterial soul does not exist. In this essay, I point out a major flaw in the for defending a materialistic view, argue that either a bipartite or tripartite view of the human person is more aligned with Scripture, and hopefully point towards a more reliable means for attaining regarding human and the soul.

Joel B. Green, a professor at Fuller more toward a materialistic view of the Theological Seminary, makes the claim that human person; these Christian thinkers have “in the case of identifying what it means to attempted to reshape and amend their be human, the biblical scholar is likely to interpretation of Scripture in light of modern side more with the neurobiologist than with findings in neuroscience. the major, well-known voices of the Christian tradition.”1 According to Green Bipartite/Tripartite Views and Dualism and other Christian materialists, as Most lay Christians hold a bipartite neuroscience has advanced in the past few or a tripartite view of the human person, decades, the that a separate, immaterial believing that each of us contains some sort entity (such as a spirit or soul) of immaterial, usually eternal, entity. From a necessary to account for human capacities – secular lens, bipartite and tripartite views are a bipartite or tripartite view – is very similar to dualism, which is a position less and less probable from a scientific that holds that the mind and body are not perspective. Biological processes are identical and that mental phenomena are beginning to give adequate explanations for non-physical.3 Although dualism is human and behaviors, and as generally considered “out of fashion” in neuroscience advances it may be the case psychology and philosophy,4 the idea is not that someday every mental process will be seen as completely unfeasible today in the traced to a biological one.2 Reaction to this scientific world. Some well-known trend has varied among lay Christians. For neurologists, including Nobel laureates such the most part, Christians still hold onto a as the late Sir John Eccles, have continued bipartite (body and soul) and or a tripartite to defend dualism.5 Even a minority of (mind, body and soul) view, not resorting to secular philosophers that resorting materialism. Christian philosophers on this to materialism, although an easier approach, (mainly concentrated at Fuller fails to give the complete picture. Theological Seminary) have attempted to There are a variety of ways to divide tackle this issue by rejecting dualism (i.e. predicate dualism, bipartite/tripartite thinking and leaning much dualism, and substance or Cartesian

1 Jeeves, 2004, p. 182 4 Robinson, 2016 2 Satel and Lilienfeld, 2013 5 Jeeves, 2013, p. 72 3 Guttenplan, 1994

Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2016-Spring 2017 |Volume 4 1

Neuroscience & Soul dualism) and also a variety of perspectives by other people – the soul – while as to how the immaterial and material demonstrating the physical entity (‘the interact (i.e. interactionism, body’) that is capable of being destroyed by , and parallelism). The other people. The last passage uses the term strain of dualism and the variety of ‘dust’ to refer to the body; this is what interaction most synonymous with bipartite returns to the earth in burial, while the and tripartite views are substance ‘spirit’ (a separate entity) returns to God. (Cartesian) dualism and interactionism. A Reading passages like these in plain substance dualist is defined as one who strongly suggests an immaterial entity “holds that a normal human being involves contained in each individual. It is also two substances, one a body and the other a suggested in passages like these that this person.”6 Translated to bipartite/tripartite immaterial entity can be in a separate views, this ‘person’ refers to an immortal location than the body. and immaterial soul to Christians. Interactionism is the view that the Dualism in Philosophy immaterial and material causally influence Philosophical arguments for dualism each other; so for the Christian, the soul has can also be translated into arguments for influence over the body and vice versa. bipartite/tripartite views. One argument is called the modal argument. The argument The Lay Christian View – Shaped by can be traced back to Descartes, who claims Scripture that since it is conceivable for the mind to Why do most lay Christians hold a exist apart from the body, one’s mind (or bipartite/tripartite view similar to Cartesian soul, in the case of the Christian) is a thinking? These are a few common biblical different entity than one’s body.7 passages that point to a dualistic view of the Admittedly, the modal argument is human persons, not a particularly robust one; neither are the we are of good courage, and we would other philosophical arguments for dualism. rather be away from the body and at home Complete reducibility of the mind to the with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5:6 ESV) brain and the rest of the central nervous Do not fear those who kill the body but 8 cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can system has been a recent trend, and destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew neuroscience will most likely proceed in this 10:28 ESV) direction, yielding dualism completely And the dust returns to the earth as it was, obsolete from a scientific standpoint. But and the spirit returns to God who gave it. (Ecclesiastes 12:7 ESV) most lay Christians do not use philosophical arguments to guide their faith; Scripture is If one accepts them, these positions make it used as the ultimate source of authority on difficult to refute a bipartite/tripartite view this issue. The Christian philosopher, on the of the human person. In the first passage, other hand, feels compelled to incorporate Paul is explicitly referring to two separate logic and modern scientific/philosophical entities – the person (‘we’) and the body. findings into their biblical criticism, so a This passage is in stark opposition to any disparity has formed between Christians in form of materialism. The second passage the pew and Christian scholars. also seems to suggest an entity untouchable

6 Op. cit. ref. 2 n.p. 8 Op. cit. ref. 2 7 Op. cit. ref. 4

Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2016-Spring 2017 |Volume 4 2

Neuroscience & Soul

The Christian Scholar’s View – Shaped as evidence to support materialistic by Neuroscience since the mind has recently been shown to According to some of today’s most be dependent on the brain. prominent Christian thinkers on this subject, N.T. Wright, in praise of the ideas a serious issue arises for the bipartite/ held by these philosophers, writes in a tripartite thinker – the rise of modern foreword of a collection of Christian neuroscience linking the mind to the brain, materialists’ essays, “The media regularly making obsolete the need for an immaterial report neuroscientific and genetic research entity to allow for and indicating the interdependence of mind, thoughts. In light of this, these philosophers brain, and body. This outstanding book have resorted to a materialistic (monistic) brings that work into dialogue with profound view of the human body. philosophical analysis and careful attention Nancey Murphy, developed the to relevant biblical texts.”12 philosophy of ‘nonreductive ,’ which maintains a materialistic view of the Limit Questions – Recognizing human body, but claims that humans are not Boundaries completely reducible to their brains. She ties But is the use of neuroscience really the idea of downward causation, a an appropriate means for defending a philosophical that mental states materialist view of the human person? For have causal power over biological aspects of someone open to the possibility of a divine the body, into her view to avoid the being (such as a Christian), an appropriate assertion that all human thoughts and approach to the philosophy and practice of behaviors are based solely on science must be taken. One of the best- neurobiological processes.9 Her argument known approaches is called methodological can be summed up in one sentence: “All of , which is the practice of science the human capacities once attributed to the that limits research to the study of the mind or soul are now being fruitfully studied natural world, leaving as brain processes – or, more accurately, I phenomena open to possibility but outside should say, processes involving the brain, the scope of science. Several Christian the rest of the nervous system and other scientists and Christian scholars adopt this bodily systems, all interacting with the view. This is opposed to philosophical socio-cultural world.”10 Another Christian naturalism, which states that the natural thinker, Timothy O’Conner, holds a view world is all that exists since any possible called “,” believing supernatural have not survived tests that consciousness is an emerging property using the scientific method. Only atheists or of physical aspects of the human body.11 agnostics hold this view since there is no Neither Murphy nor O’Conner possibility of a deity with this . believe in an immaterial soul, but rather hold If methodological naturalism is that one’s is dependent on practiced, neuroscience has no say in physical processes occurring in his or her whether an immaterial soul exists or does body. They believe that consciousness does not exist. Whether or not a human being has not continue after death because of this an immaterial aspect cannot be tested or reason. Christian philosophers like Murphy observed using the methods of science, and O’Conner use neuroscientific research which are limited to natural phenomena.

9 Murphy, 2006 11 Scott and Phinney, Jr., 2012 10 Ibid., p. 56 12 Jeeves, 2004, preface

Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2016-Spring 2017 |Volume 4 3

Neuroscience & Soul

Christian materialists have inappropriately eschatology, Christian materialists place a incorporated modern neuroscientific large emphasis on the bodily resurrection. findings to defend a materialistic view when No intermediate state (a period of all along the possibility of an immaterial consciousness between death and Judgment soul has been outside the realm of science. Day) is possible with materialists because This is not to say that biology cannot consciousness is dependent upon one’s provide answers to questions that are seen as physical body. What do most lay Christians shared territory between faith and science. It believe? For the most part, both Catholics certainly can, as long as it operates within and Protestants hold a bipartite/tripartite the limitations of methodological view in believing that consciousness naturalism. One such example is . remains after death, and the disembodied Biology can give us answers about how spirit is relocated to another place. For most organisms have evolved and, through Protestants, this intermediate state is phylogenetic analyses, can create something like a temporary heaven or hell, statistically significant trees of within depending on the person’s final destination. which every discovered species can be A general underworld, hades, is believed to incorporated. But if science limits itself to be the intermediate state in Eastern the study of the natural world, it cannot shed Orthodox, Methodist, and Anglican circles. any light on whether or not evolution Purgatory is one possible intermediate state happened by pure chance or happened as a believed by most Catholics. Catholics also result of guidance by a divine power (or a believe in the Communion of Saints, which mix of both). Chance is assumed in holds that those who have died and have methodological naturalism; however, lived a life of faith are now in heaven and supernatural intervention cannot be can even intercede on the earthly believer’s disproven because it is not testable. The behalf.13 All these views hold that each same limitation applies to neuroscience. person who dies maintains a disembodied Simply because connections are being consciousness immediately after death. Two discovered between the mind and the brain biblical passages used to support this does not give neuroscience a say in whether are Luke 23:43 where the thief is promised an immaterial soul exists or not. Not paradise with Jesus ‘today’ and Luke 16:22- recognizing this critical boundary limit as to 24 regarding the story of Lazarus at what science can and cannot address has Abraham’s side and the rich man in Hades. been a flaw in Murphy and her colleagues’ It is hard to refute the word ‘today’ logic. This resorting to a materialistic view in the first passage. On the very day the thief is an unnecessary compromise between on the cross was going to die, Jesus told him science and faith. Even if one day all human he would be in paradise, which could only thoughts and behaviors are linked to some be possible if he maintained consciousness biological process, the of an after death (outside of his physical body). In immaterial aspect cannot be ruled out by the second passage, the relocation of the rich science since it cannot be observed or tested man and Lazarus is evident immediately by the very methods of science. after death. The rich man goes to Hades, while Lazarus is living where Abraham is Bodily Resurrection (supposedly, heaven). Relocation Another problem exists for Christian immediately after death is also believed to materialists. Regarding issues of have happened to Jesus. In the Apostle’s

13 Madrid, 1992

Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2016-Spring 2017 |Volume 4 4

Neuroscience & Soul

Creed, the believer states, “I believe that An Alternative Jesus … descended to the dead.”14 One Methodological naturalism was passage that most likely gave way to this brought about in the practice of science to statement of belief is 1 Peter 3:18-20 where avoid “God-of-the-gaps” arguments, or Christ is said to proclaim to the ‘imprisoned arguments pointing toward a divine being spirits’ disobedient in Noah’s . Here we when science was unable to provide an see Jesus, conscious, despite his body being answer to a particular question. This is in the tomb, communicating with other simply a method for placing a limitation on conscious people who are separated from science as a of study, as all fields of their bodies. study should have limitations. The same In contrast to these passages, some holds true for ; the Bible should not lay Christians, such as Seventh-day be used a scientific document, even though Adventists, hold to the idea that the soul fundamentalist Christians have used and inhabits some sort of sleeping state between abused it as one. death and Judgment Day; they use John Simply because neurobiology is 5:28-29 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-14 to providing adequate explanations for the support their views: human mind does not mean that the Bible is Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming under attack in its claim that humans have when all who are in the tombs will hear His . Even Nancey Murphy admits that “no voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those such accumulation of data can ever amount who have done evil to the resurrection of to a proof that there is no immaterial mind judgment. or soul in addition to the body.”16 Despite But we do not want you to be uninformed, central nervous system organs being linked brothers, about those who are asleep, that to certain thoughts, emotions, and behaviors, you may not grieve as others do who have no . For since we believe that Jesus none of it can amount as evidence against an died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, immaterial soul. If an immaterial soul exists, God will bring with him those who have it cannot be detected by CT scans or fMRIs. fallen asleep. Belief in an immaterial soul should stem from Scripture, which in faith is believed to Maintaining a dualistic perspective be divine , and whether does not contradict either of these views. neuroscience links the human mind to However, for the materialist, the physical processes should have no effect on requirement of a bodily resurrection for this, one way or the other. Christians, consciousness to take place in the Eschaton especially those who have a high regard for requires a radical ad hoc twisting of traditional understandings of Scripture, will passages such as Luke 23:43, Luke 16:22- acknowledge these limitations and base their 24, and 1 Peter 3:18-20 before a views of the human person thereon. materialistic view can be supported by Scripture. Even Kevin Corcoran, a Christian Conclusion materialist, admits that these passages are Biblical criticism is important, and difficult to ameliorate with a materialistic obtaining a clearer view of Scripture in light view of the human person.15 of scientific findings is beneficial for the Christian seeking to find answers from both nature and divine revelation. For this

14 ELCA, 2006 16 Op. cit. ref. 9, p. 69 15 Corcoran, 2006

Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2016-Spring 2017 |Volume 4 5

Neuroscience & Soul particular topic, however, science is limited successfully spread to the world by in its scope in providing answers about an “uneducated and untrained” men who immaterial soul, and should not necessarily simply had faith (Acts 4:13). Philosophical be used as evidence against it. As a result, thinking may be pushing us in the wrong Scripture may be the primary means for direction on this issue, as it sometimes does seeking the truth to these kinds of questions. according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:20-25. Resorting to materialism is an unnecessary On the other hand, as N.T. Wright points and inappropriate compromise if out, “the Bible does not envisage human methodological naturalism is practiced as as split-level creatures (with, say, a . Consequently, distinct body and soul) but as complex, there is a chance that lay Christians have this integrated wholes. The ultimate Christian right; maybe their lack of of hope is not for disembodied immortality but philosophical and scientific explanations for bodily resurrection.”17 Adjudication regarding this topic have kept them closer to between these two positions is far from the truth. The Gospel, after all, was settled.

Literature Cited Corcoran, K.J. (2006). Rethinking human nature: A Christian materialist alternative to the soul. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. (2004). EELC Texts: Apostles' Creed. Retrieved from https://archive.org/web/ Guttenplan, S. (1994). A companion to the . Oxford, OX: Blackwell. Jeeves, M.A. (2013). , Brains, Souls and Gods: A Conversation on Faith, Psychology and Neuroscience. InterVarsity Press. Jeeves, M.A. (2004). From Cells to Souls, and Beyond: Changing Portraits of Human Nature. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans. Madrid, P. (1992). Any friend of God is a friend of mine. This Rock Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.catholic.com/magazine/ Murphy, N. C. (2006). Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Robinson, H. "Dualism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Satel, S. & Lilienfeld, S.O. (2013). Human behaviour: is it all in the brain - or the mind? The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/ Scott, R.J. & Phinney Jr., R.E. (2012). Relating Body and Soul: from Development and Neurobiology. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 64(2), 90-107.

17 Op. cit. ref. 12

Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2016-Spring 2017 |Volume 4 6