To gain the world but lose the soul

Ingrained in almost every Christian's doctrine is the notion that humans have within them a soul that although non-physical (spiritual) resides within them. However, Brown and Murphy argue in Whatever Happened to the Soul: Scientific and Theological Portraits of Human Nature that humans do not actually have a soul but that the concept of the soul was brought into Christian thought from the Greeks and that our mind is so complex that it is capable of "soulishness."

First off I want to discuss the obvious apprehensions any Christians can and probably should have about discussing this issue. What scares people most is that if we take away a notion of spiritual being then we are left with just flesh and blood that carries no value to it. I think this is simply false because as Romans 1:20 says, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - —his eternal power and divine nature - —have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." So clearly the natural world, which has no soul, can carry an appearance that has the mark of the divine upon it. Another understandable reservation is that the concept of soul is so pervasive throughout Scripture that it is impossible to just fill in "a transcendent aspect of human nature" for "soul" without there being something lost from the author's original message. Fair enough, I don't consider myself an expert on the topic, but I feel that the Bible is true but that it is presented through a worldview (culture) that is different from our own and one great task in studying the Bible is learning how to apply what it says to your own individual life. So all I ask is that you keep an open, yet still critical, mind.

To introduce the topic I suggest reading a fellow Fuller student's, getting a Ph.D. in Philosophical Theology, blog as an introduction. But if you want to learn more you can read Brown's lecture on Descartesian concepts of mind (soul) and body, on recent neuropsychological research, and on determinism and free will in physicalist models of self. These lectures are more technical but offer a more in-depth look at the issue.

There are two main parts of his argument: that the soul is not necessary in Biblical faith and that despite pure physicalism humans can retain free will. I won't go into detail in the first. The second I find much more interesting. Here's the common argument: if humans don't have a soul, then they are just a bunch of neurons firing and so humans don't have any agency or free will. This was the main reason I believed in a soul. I thought that we needed to have some power that could overcome our mental wiring. If we live in a world of cause and effect, then everything that happens is deterministic and we have no control over what we do. We may have the experience of free will because we think we are thinking over different options but in reality, it is said, we are fixed in what we do and even in what we think about doing.

In a society that firmly believes in choice, as America does, it seems pretty obvious why this belief has not caught on more. We simply don't want to believe it. But
Brown's point in the lectures is that humans are capable of having free will and being purely physical beings at the same time. The argument, which is pretty hard to follow, is that the mind is so complex and full of networks that we are capable of circumventing deterministic problems. The familiar placebo effect will illustrate this better. The placebo effect occurs when the individual believes that some treatment will make them better, even when it is not actually doing anything physically. This is an example of a top-down influence on neuroanatomy, humans are able to exert control, albeit unconsciously, on the way their minds work.

Of course, there are clearly some issues that arise: artificial intelligence, severe brain damage, the concept of life after death, and many others. But the comforting feeling that arises is that we do not NEED to believe in a soul that we cannot prove exists (or can we?) in order to believe in free will. As a potential psychologist this means that to produce change in a client I will not always need to reward positive behavior and punish negative behavior in order to bring about change. By allowing the client to gain greater awareness of what is occurring inside of them, they will be empowered to change. It is a strong philosophical defense against those who believe that there is no right and wrong, that humans are simply a product of their environment.

And in case you're interested on my opinion on the matter, I am still deliberating. I find the prospect of a non-reductionistic physicalism to be consistent with my notion of spiritual growth as a process of training - or spiritual discipline - rather than as a supernatural intervention. But at the same time I remain hesitant because I'm not sure how my understanding of God and demons and the spiritual realm would be able to connect with a purely physical system. I accept that certain things occur outside of the realm of understanding and so I humbly accept that I will probably never know.

Questions? Comments? Concerns?