Brain, mind and matters of the soul

Summary of discussions on forum. June 2017.

The following is an attempt to distil the main areas of discussion about this complex subject. It is inevitably too simplified and too shortened. Any inaccuracies are my fault. Those who have contributed will probably feel I have curtailed their points of view too much. The headings are those that were used to initiate the discussion in the forum.

Initial reactions
Iain Morris wrote that God is 'spirit' and is non-material, possessing intelligence and intentionality. This seems to be similar to ourselves. He is aware of a 'God of the gaps' danger in such discussions but challenges scientists to avoid 'science of the gaps'.

Antony chipped in stating that in his opinion science has not shown any mechanism to explain consciousness thus far. This was a recurring comment from Antony in the discussions: neuroscience is good at looking at brain function and connections but not ever describing how conscious states arise.

Sarah Lane Ritchie wrote suggesting that our inability to explain consciousness may be more to do with our human psychology rather than anything about its nature. She also wrote that the desire for a non-material soul can be seen as deism: not believing that God is immanent and active in physical nature.

Graeme Stokes wrote that scientists seem to be ahead of theists in this whole field of consciousness studies though he agrees there is a long way to go. Antony replied that he has not seen any neuro-scientific explanation for consciousness.

Can the soul be separate from the body?
Iain Morris wrote that intuitively the answer is 'yes!' It seems logical to him but he questioned whether this is also the 'Creator's logic'. He also discussed the concept of life after death; if there is no separate soul then does God reconstitute the body at the resurrection?

Liam Fraser commented that science by its nature cannot tell us anything about the non-material. It only deals with the physical. However he writes that the biblical idea of spirit/soul is not focussed on consciousness but on 'life' or being a living being. He feels that the idea of an immortal soul did not come from the bible principally but from Greek philosophy. He warned that speculation about the state of our souls after death is unwise.

Antony defended a dualist approach and that it was not speculation but based on logical reasoning. He mentioned 2 quotes from Jesus that support the separate existence of the soul: "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."Also: "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise."

Antony described (and criticized) the views of Nancy Murphy, a well known Christian philosopher who believes we are of one physical substance but that our brains work in a 'non-reductive' manner which gives the possibility of free-will. This 'non-reductive physicalism' is the idea that the sum of the brain connections (rather than the parts) can be conscious and have free-will. Antony asked what views there are on computers; could they be conscious?

Iain Morris doubts if computers could be conscious. He also quoted the words of Jesus about the greatest commandment to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul." This indicates a distinction between mind and soul.

Sarah Lane Ritchie argues against non-reductive physicalism but would agree that we are only physical, suggesting that we do not need a non physical soul God works immanently in all of physical nature and so can do so just as easily with us. She suggests that to think otherwise is heading towards deism.

Antony wrote that actually most dualists are not taking their position on theological grounds but rather on philosophical reasoning. He also asks why would evolution lead to consciousness? We could just as easily survive if we were unconscious.

Antony mentioned the creation account in Genesis "And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul" (Genesis 2:7). He felt that this pointed towards a soul separate from the physical 'dust'.

Russel Moffat wrote that actually the Genesis passage does not really refer to soul but rather to 'life' and that the same words are applied to animals. He also wrote that Hebrew scholars dispute any concept of dualism in the Old Testament.

Antony wrote that the early church fathers did believe in an immaterial soul even if they differed in how this originates.

Neil Spurway suggests that 'soul' is verb rather than a noun.it is to do with the actions of a person and that mind and soul are part of the same thing ".two ends of a spectrum of action-words, with no clear-cut line between them." Mind therefore would also survive this life if the soul does. He admits the mystery of this which we have to leave with God.

Antony discussed the views of Descartes mentioning that he believed the physical person and the immaterial soul were intimately linked (intermingled). Antony also mentioned the phenomenon of 'split brain' when there is surgical cutting of the commisure (the connection between the two halves of the brain) and that this does not lead to two people in the same body. (ie the person is not the brain).

Casper Hesp writes that consciousness is an 'emergent' property of the brain His view is similar to the non-reductive physicalism of Nancy Murphy. In this sense he is a Christian monist (Monism is the belief that we are made up of just one type of substance physical. Dualism is the position held which says we are two substances physical and non-physical ). He feels that the soul is not the same as consciousness but is the 'life' of the person and this cannot be separated from the body. He mused on what happens at the bodily resurrection and where is the person in the time between death and resurrection. He suggests that at death we 'exit' from time somehow.

Iain Morris likes the idea of animals with souls. He suggests that the heavenly environment is a redeemed version of what we enjoy here on earth (ie with animals). He mentions Romans ch 8 in which the whole of creation is redeemed.

Casper further defined and upheld his version of emergent consciousness (or non-reductive physicalism). He maintains that science strongly indicates a physical origin of consciousness.

Antony discussed 'property dualism' and 'supervenience'.which basically are similar to the emergentism of Casper.the brain being the origin of consciousness with consciousness a supervenient property of the immensely complex brain. Antony argues against this idea in particular that it fails to account for free-will, which cannot exist autonomously in a purely physical system. Antony also challenged Casper's statement that science strongly indicates a physical origin of consciousness.

Casper further defined emergentism and the 2 way causality he feels is possible in such a system (between the emergent consciousness and the brain). He finds dualism unhelpful and inexplicable in evolutionary terms. He also challenged the idea that the people with split brain are just one person there is evidence, he says, of 2 conflicting sets of consciousness in the same head.

Antony challenged Casper's assertion that science strongly points to a physical origin of consciousness. What evidence is there? He also discussed further the split brain scenario - (this discussion on split brain went into further great detail without agreement!).

Casper suggests a continuum towards consciousness from the early bacteria through to humans appearing. Likewise he suggests a continuum from the fertilized ovum to the full person. He asks where consciousness arises if it is not physical?

Both Casper and Antony did agree that that we should not equate consciousness with the person this was a really helpful conversation which illuminated the subject to me (Antony). The person experiences consciousness but is not the consciousness itself.

Casper finds the idea of constant miracle unacceptable. The dualist position seems to require something miraculous constantly. He again defended free-will within the purely physical system he holds to.

Antony defended the existence of the person after death, separate from the body. He mentions Moses and Elijah meeting with Jesus at the transfiguration while their bones were still in the earth.

Do we have free-will?
Antony opened this discussion with an explanation about the problem: it seems impossible for something that is physical to have the autonomy of free-will. Indeed quite a few philosophers and neuroscientists think that free-will is an illusion. This has huge consequences for us about moral responsibility and blame/reward. The Free-will debate is a key one in challenging the prevailing physicalism of modern thought.

Iain Morris feels that we do have free-will and our thoughts are in our control. He writes that we can reject our thoughts and that we choose among an assembly of thoughts. He also makes the point that we have moral responsibility and decide things based on this and that this is not something to be expected from a deterministic machine.

In conclusion
Clearly there are no complete and agreed conclusions to these questions! There are sincerely held differing views on the neuroscience, the philosophy and the theology of consciousness. It has been refreshing to air these together and hopefully throw useful light on this fascinating subject. It is not everyone's cup of tea but it is important for Christians to grasp some of these concepts so that we can engage with the debate. and pause and wonder about how amazingly we are made. For further information about this whole subject it is worth reading the two papers which I have provided at the beginning of the forum discussion.

Antony Latham. June 2017.
Chair of the Brain, Mind and Matters of the Soul forum

Summer's intervention -at least in fact if not in warm and dry weather terms- led to a fall in forum traffic. I have returned to read Antony's excellent summary of the discussion to date and I am so very impressed by the quality and diversity of the discussion that emerged. the lasting imprint of a rich range of agenda items on a subject that is as intriguing as it can be perplexing to understand. Yes we are ' fearfully and wonderfully made'; the concept visits my consciousness on a regular basis- and in concert with the number of times I have cause to reflect on some of the amazing aspects of what it means to be a conscious human being.
We owe Antony deep appreciation for leading the discussion and not least of all for the starter papers.
The question I feel led to pose at this point is not a scientific nor theological nor philosophical one. It is simply this.
How best can we take the richness of this discussion to date and encourage a wider audience to access it and benefit from it. The machinery of GTN is at our disposal.

I have come new to Grasping the Nettle and concerned that my response to the paper on the Mind and the soul may be inappropriate or, indeed arrogant. If so, please accept my apologies.
In my work as a doctor it has been essential that my response to illness has been based, as far as is possible on verifiable scientific knowledge. Attempts to counsel my patients on a religious approach or to heal by faith would have been totally inappropriate.
In dealing with my own thoughts, however my view is that our view of God and the Universe is hampered by the limitations of the brain which has evolved to help our survival rather than have a holistic view of the universe. The work of Einstein and advances in quantum physics have been astonishing, but have produced an increasingly complex and paradoxical view of reality and I suspect that the ultimate reality extends for beyond this.
While being interested in exploring the mysteries of science and theology I find it easier to base my life on a simpler approach of prayer, study of the scriptures and contact with fellow Christians and the rest of the community. I feel that this works for me but admit that I could be in error and in no way feel superiority to those with other beliefs or, indeed no belief in a supreme being. The history of religion has been befouled by dogma and intolerance and the prerequisite with living with others is an open mind.

I appreciate Dr MacLennan's contribution to our wide ranging discussion.
We do indeed live with restricted horizons, both intellectual and spiritual. That recognition could cause us to be dissuaded from further engagement with inter-related theology, philosophy and science questions and that is a legitimate position to adopt.
On the other hand it seems apparent that human beings have a restless urge to pursue knowledge and conquer mountains, both real and metaphorical. Of course that is not to suggest that such enquiries are any kind of alternative to prayer, study of scripture and meditation.
And, to develop the mountaineering metaphor, it may be that a view and a knowledge- or dawning realisation- that comes from ascending as far as a plateau, that is well below the summit, still offers glorious insights that deepen appreciation for whom and what we are. We should be encouraged to take the journey not because of a promised arrival but because of what we may discover en route- especially in the company of fellow explorers.

Although such explorations may enrich our personal understanding and appreciation, I take Dr Maclennan's point that bringing them into any professional arena is quite a different matter, with a series of judgments to be made that should lead to never compromising one's sense of what it means to operate to the highest and more justifiable professional standards. There are plenty of sharing opportunities beyond the office, the classroom and the consulting room.