Modern neurological research is challenging the traditional concept of a “soul” or a “spirit” separable and distinct from the body and/or the mind. In light of these discoveries, this book explores such fundamental questions as, Who am I? What am I doing here? Why do I do what I do? What does it mean to be saved? How am I responsible for my behaviour? What is the meaning of resurrection? and What happens when I die?
Mind Reading, Soul Searching And A Neurobiological Portrait
Turning first to science, after an introduction by Joel Green, Malcolm Jeeves looks at how modern neuroscience has impacted upon our understanding of what it means to be human (chapter 2). Over the last three centuries, at least among philosophers, talk of the “soul” has changed to talk of the “mind”. The last 100 years has forged an ever tightening link between “brain” and “mind”. Aspects of personality, once seen as attributes of the “soul”, are found to be closely related to the activity of the brain. Jeeves concludes: “The take-home message is that any view of human nature that fails to recognise the psychosomatic unity of the person is a view that cannot be defended from science.” (p30).
D. Gareth Jones likewise takes a scientific approach (Chapter 3). He looks at neural plasticity (our brains are changing), and behavioural genetics and concludes that while there are biological and physical limits to
human capacities, the environment and moral choices play the larger part in shaping who we are and who we will be as persons. Jones concludes that the “neurobiological portrait” of the human person “is entirely consistent with Christian emphases on the wholeness and coherence of the person.” (p46).
The Soul: Possession, Part or Person (What Is A Human Being?)
Lawson G. Stone (Chapter 4) turns to the Scriptures to answer the question, what of the soul? The opening chapters of Genesis provide a wealth of information from which we derive a biblical doctrine of humanity. The pivotal text is Genesis 2:7. “Adam” (not just his body) was formed “of the dust.” God breathed into his nostrils “the breath of life”. As a result Adam became “a living soul”. Adam does not have a soul. He is a living soul.
Adam has much in common with the animals. They are of the earth (Gen. 1:24). They have the breath of life (Gen. 6:17; 7:15,22). They are living souls (Gen. 1:21, 24, 30). Stone concludes: “No exegetical justification exists for finding here the notion of abstract, immortal, disembodied personhood that we usually mean when we speak of the “soul” (p59).
This does not reduce humanity to the level of brute beast. It does, however, recognise that physicality is a vital element to human existence. It is wrong to distinguish the “physical” from the “spiritual”. The fate of all creation hinges on human destiny; a truly human person is a social person; humanity stands responsible to obey God’s word and is called to be his “image” before creation, but none of this requires an “immortal soul” or “substance dualism”. Neuroscience then, far from undermining Christian belief, encourages a closer reading of the text and supports the biblical view of human person-hood. Patrick D. Miller also seeks to answer biblically the question, What is a human being? (Chapter 5). Looking at Psalms 8 and 144, at Job, and at Jesus in Hebrews 2, Miller concludes, “What therefore is to be said about the human cannot be confined to general statements about humanity apart from God. It cannot be said apart from the discovery that in Jesus Christ we see who we are and we also see God for us.” (p 73).
Bill Arnold (Chapter 6) admits that a cursory reading of 1 Samuel 28 may suggest that Samuel’s disembodied “soul” was present at Endor. If so this would undermine the view of humanity presented throughout this book. Arnold notes, however, that many ancient authorities assumed that the figure at Endor was not Samuel at all, but a demonic apparition. Others indeed argued that Samuel was really present. Among this latter group some saw in this text evidence of the survival of the “soul”, others said Samuel was in fact resurrected by God. Thus nothing in this (or in any other) passage contradicts the “monist anthropology” derived from modern neuroscience.
The Resurrection of The Body
Are Scripture and the new science compatible as regards the hope of a life to come?
Green (Chapter 7) begins by asking, what might the resurrection of the body entail? And if I have no immortal soul, how might the continuity of my personal identity from death to life after death be guaranteed? In answer to these questions Green summarises the teaching on resurrection found in Israel’s Scriptures – in Hosea 6:1-3, Ezekiel 37:1-14, Isaiah 26:19 and Dan.12:1-3. The resurrection signals the end time restoration of Israel and her victory over her enemies. It is the time of reward and punishment. It embraces a view of the person as a psychosomatic whole and rejects any notion of salvation as an “immortal soul” being liberated from a mortal body.
The post-resurrection appearance of Jesus, in Luke 24:36-39, confirms that Jesus was no immaterial ghost. And in 1Corinthians 15 Paul is explicit concerning the need for a body suited for life-after-death. From the interface of neuroscience and theology, Green draws a number of conclusions regarding resurrection and personal identity. It is problematic, he says, to speak of human identity in purely physical terms. Throughout our lives our bodies are in a state of flux. Our identity consists not only in our physicality alone but also in a network of relationships and in our “story”. Death is not only the end of one’s body, it is the severing of relationships and the end of one’s story. No aspect of our personhood survives death. Resurrection then is a work of God by which, not only are we reembodied, but relationships are re-established and our stories continued. This introduces a corporate aspect into our understanding of resurrection.
In an excursus, in answer to the question, where was Jesus between Friday afternoon and dawn on Sunday Green suggests that he was “with God.” This seemingly nonconditionalist conclusion needs to be seen in
the light of the discussion of time and eternity in Chapter 9.
Emergent Dualism, Time and Eternity
William Hasker (Chapter 8.) and Charles E. Gutenson (Chapter 9) are of a philosophical bent. Hasker argues for an “emergent dualism” by which he means that the mental individual, like a field of consciousness”, is generated or emerges from the organism and is sustained by it. It is not (as in traditional dualism) that some other thing has been “added to” the organism from outside. This philosophical “emergent dualism” lends itself to a doctrine of human mortality exactly as we find in Scripture.
Any discussion of an intermediate state between death and resurrection presupposes a particular view of the nature of time and eternity. Gutenson (Chapter 9) outlines three such views. The “common sense” view supposes God to inhabits time as we do, though he “knows” past, present and future. The Augustinian view supposes God to inhabit a realm outside of time from where he observes all of time as a whole. Gutenson argues for a third option, called the “eternalist position”, which has God actually inhabit all time at once. God’s experience of time differs from ours. To God the General Resurrection is as present as the moment of our death. From God’s perspective (and from the perspective of “the dead”) there is no intermediate state and hence no difficulty in God preserving one’s personal identity through the very real experience of death.
Pastoral Care, Mission and Counselling (Without a “Soul”)
Michael A. Rynkiewich (Chapter 10) argues that a “monist” view of persons makes a theology of missions more holistic, more incarnational and more naturalistic. For too long the Great Commission has been reduced to “preaching the gospel” and “saving souls”. A wrong-headed dualism has separated evangelism from social justice. Saving souls is saving bodies. Yet, a human person is not just a body, but a body-in-relationship. Conversion is not the saving of individual bodies (much less the saving of “disembodied souls”), it is the establishing of a new relationship with God, his people and the environment around about us – all in
Christ.
Both, Virginia T. Holeman (Chapter 11) and Stuart L. Palmer believe that different ideas of personhood affect a pastor’s approach to care and counselling. “Reductive materialism” (we are nothing but bodies), “radical dualism” (the real ‘you’ is the immaterial bit within), and even “holistic dualism” (we are made up of two bits, ‘body’ and ‘soul’ which belong together) are to be rejected in favour of some form of “emergent monism” (We are whole persons, including our body, from which emanates what we call ‘mind/soul’). Such monism eliminates unhelpful distinctions between body/soul and physical / spiritual. Both authors note that modern neuroscience stresses the importance of the self in relation to others. Holeman quotes studies showing that relationship factors (40%) are much more important in counselling than the theoretic orientation of the counsellor, or the techniques employed (15%). This emphasis on relationship is consistent with all that has already been said regarding the human person. When we are seeking to bring a person into relationship with God, his people and the world around us – weaving our stories into God’s big story – we are putting the “Christian” into counselling.
What To Make of It All
This is not a big-word-free book. Many will struggle to understand the science and philosophy which pervades this book. For those willing to work, the results are worth it. Those of us who hold a conditionalist understanding of the human person will be encouraged to note that this is not another instance of pseudo-Science and Scripture on a collision course, but rather a clear example of the book of Nature and the book of the Bible being read in perfect harmony. This should encourage us in our faith. The emphasis on relationships and “storytelling” found throughout the book should remind us that we are about more than imparting knowledge and asking people to edit the “immortal soul” out of their personal creed. We are seeking to impart to fellow Christians a holistic, incarnational, naturalistic, vision of our mission as the Church and to bring people into an eternal relationship with God, his people and the creation / new creation around us – again, weaving our stories into God’s big story!
ON GOD AND TIMELESSNESS
Today’s scientists are like religious gurus of earlier times. Whatever they say are accepted as divine truths by lay public as well as the philosophers. When mystics have said that time is unreal, nobody has paid any heed to them. Rather there were some violent reactions against it from eminent philosophers. Richard M. Gale has said that if time is unreal, then 1) there are no temporal facts, 2) nothing is past, present or future and 3) nothing is earlier or later than anything else (Book: The philosophy of time, 1962). Bertrand Russell has also said something similar to that. But he went so far as to say that science, prudence, hope effort, morality-everything becomes meaningless if we accept the view that time is unreal (Mysticism, Book: religion and science, 1961).
But when scientists have shown that at the speed of light time becomes unreal, these same philosophers have simply kept mum. Here also they could have raised their voice of protest. They could have said something like this: “What is your purpose here? Are you trying to popularize mystical world-view amongst us? If not, then why are you wasting your valuable time, money, and energy by explaining to us as to how time can become unreal? Are you mad?” Had they reacted like this, then that would have been consistent with their earlier outbursts. But they had not. This clearly indicates that a blind faith in science is working here. If mystics were mistaken in saying that time is unreal, then why is the same mistake being repeated by the scientists? Why are they now saying that there is no real division of time as past, present and future in the actual world? If there is no such division of time, then is time real, or, unreal? When his lifelong friend Michele Besso died, Einstein wrote in a letter to his widow that “the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” Another scientist Paul Davies has also written in one of his books that time does not pass and that there is no such thing as past, present and future (Other Worlds, 1980). Is this very recent statement made by a scientist that “time does not pass” anything different from the much earlier statement made by the mystics that “time is unreal”?
Now some scientists are trying to establish that mystics did not get their sense of spacelessness, timelessness through their meeting with a real divine being. Rather they got this sense from their own brain. But these scientists have forgotten one thing. They have forgotten that scientists are only concerned with the actual world, not with what some fools and idiots might have uttered while they were in deep trance. So if they at all explain as to how something can be timeless, then they will do so not because the parietal lobe of these mystics’ brain was almost completely shut down when they received their sense of timelessness, but because, and only because, there was, or, there was and still is, a timeless state in this universe.
God is said to be spaceless, timeless. If someone now says that God does not exist, then the sentence “God is said to be spaceless, timeless” (S) can have three different meanings. S can mean:
a) Nothing was/is spaceless, timeless in this universe (A),
b) Not God, but someone else has been said to be spaceless, timeless here (B),
c) Not God, but something else has been said to be spaceless, timeless here (C).
It can be shown that if it is true that God does not exist, and if S is also true, then S can only mean C, but neither A nor B. If S means A, then the two words “spaceless” and “timeless” become two meaningless words, because by these two words we cannot indicate anyone or anything, simply because in this universe never there was, is, and will be, anyone or anything that could be properly called spaceless, timeless. Now the very big question is: how can some scientists find meaning and significance in a word like “timeless” that has got no meaning and significance in the real world? If nothing was timeless in the past, then time was not unreal in the past. If nothing is timeless at present, then time is not unreal at present. If nothing will be timeless in future, then time will not be unreal in future. If in this universe time was never unreal, if it is not now, and if it will never be, then why was it necessary for them to show as to how time could be unreal? If nothing was/is/will be timeless, then it can in no way be the business, concern, or headache of the scientists to show how anything can be timeless. If no one in this universe is immortal, then it can in no way be the business, concern, or headache of the scientists to show how anyone can be immortal. Simply, these are none of their business. So, what compelling reason was there behind their action here? If we cannot find any such compelling reason here, then we will be forced to conclude that scientists are involved in some useless activities here that have got no correspondence whatsoever with the actual world, and thus we lose complete faith in science. Therefore we cannot accept A as the proper meaning of S, as this will reduce some activities of the scientists to simply useless activities.
Now can we accept B as the proper meaning of S? No, we cannot. Because there is no real difference in meaning between this sentence and S. Here one supernatural being has been merely replaced by another supernatural being. So, if S is true, then it can only mean that not God, but something else has been said to be spaceless, timeless. Now, what is this “something else” (SE)? Is it still in the universe? Or, was it in the past? Here there are two possibilities:
a) In the past there was something in this universe that was spaceless, timeless,
b) That spaceless, timeless thing (STT) is still there.
We know that the second possibility will not be acceptable to atheists and scientists. So we will proceed with the first one. If STT was in the past, then was it in the very recent past? Or, was it in the universe billions and billions of years ago? Was only a tiny portion of the universe in spaceless, timeless condition? Or, was the whole universe in that condition? Modern science tells us that before the big bang that took place 13.7 billion years ago there was neither space, nor time. Space and time came into being along with the big bang only. So we can say that before the big bang this universe was in a spaceless, timeless state. So it may be that this is the STT. Is this STT then that SE of which mystics spoke when they said that God is spaceless, timeless? But this STT cannot be SE for several reasons. Because it was there 13.7 billion years ago. And man has appeared on earth only 2 to 3 million years ago. And mystical literatures are at the most 2500 years old, if not even less than that. So, if we now say that STT is SE, then we will have to admit that mystics have somehow come to know that almost 13.7 billion years ago this universe was in a spaceless, timeless condition, which is unbelievable. Therefore we cannot accept that STT is SE. The only other alternative is that this SE was not in the external world at all. As scientist Victor J. Stenger has said, so we can also say that this SE was in mystics’ head only. But if SE was in mystics’ head only, then why was it not kept buried there? Why was it necessary for the scientists to drag it in the outside world, and then to show as to how a state of timelessness could be reached? If mystics’ sense of timelessness was in no way connected with the external world, then how will one justify scientists’ action here? Did these scientists think that the inside portion of the mystics’ head is the real world? And so, when these mystics got their sense of timelessness from their head only and not from any other external source, then that should only be construed as a state of timelessness in the real world? And therefore, as scientists they were obliged to show as to how that state could be reached?
We can conclude this essay with the following observations: If mystical experience is a hallucination, then SE cannot be in the external world. Because in that case mystics’ sense of spacelessness, timelessness will have a correspondence with some external fact, and therefore it will no longer remain a hallucination. But if SE is in mystics’ head only, then that will also create a severe problem. Because in that case we are admitting that the inside portion of mystics’ head is the real world for the scientists. That is why when mystics get their sense of timelessness from their brain, that sense is treated by these scientists as a state of timelessness in the real world, and accordingly they proceed to explain as to how that state can be reached. And we end up this essay with this absurd statement: If mystical experience is a hallucination, then the inside portion of mystics’ head is the real world for the scientists.