[Originally posted to Tumblr in "Solvings Cubes" on Feb 26, 2013]
Below is a relatively lengthy look at what science is and is not currently saying about the existence of the soul. Is it real? Plausible. Necessary?
There were about three hypotheses that I thought warranted attention and criticism. To wrap this all up I will try to summarize what the scientific community most consistently has to say about the soul these days.
1. Confirmations of the Christian Notion of the Soul
R. R. Reno- involve.christian-union.org
I found a few attempts to confirm, using scientific discoveries, that there exists a soul consistent with what Christianity and other Abrahamic traditions have recognised for centuries. I found them tremendously frustrating and laughable because they completely misinterpret scientific findings, making huge leaps to confirm a theory that they already believe is true.
Such writers glorify empirical evidence when it seems to be on their side, but do so in relation to a concept that they would probably consider true regardless. Experimental evidence is secondary to being convinced in this case, and this is not scientific and should not be presented as so.
This article by R. R. Reno of FirstThigns.com is a good example of one that presents itself as scientific but so isn’t. The writer is articulate and explains some scientific things correctly, introducing the article with factual information. What he does repeatedly throughout the article, however, is compare scientific findings to seemingly congruent Christian explanations. For instance:
“In a recent MRI study, “The Vulcanization of the Human Brain: A Neural Perspective on Interactions Between Cognition and Emotion,” Princeton brain scientist Jonathan D. Cohen has looked at patterns of brain activity while subjects respond to moral dilemmas and make moral decisions. It turns out that the brain patterns related to moral decisions need to be trained. The soul must be disciplined.”
In three sentences, Reno goes from describing the results of the study to concluding that there is a trainable soul (something the conductor of the study did not conclude). Reno argues that because this study suggests moral thinking patterns are largely set in place by experience, this means we possess souls capable of moral growth on a path laid by God.
“When I read Cohen’s results and analysis, I felt as though Aristotle and his views of the soul were being vindicated rather than overturned.”
Reno’s gut feelings and how they mirror Aristotelian texts are not scientific - they are strictly theoretical. Even if Reno is right about this, he would have to back up his theory with many more studies and the input of other scientists and theoreticians. Other possibilities would have to be weeded out, which absolutely has not been done here. He has no intention of doing any of this; Reno simply takes the study he likes and applies it to what he already thinks, then calls it a day.
“So much for the confident materialists who thought they had the facts on their side. Today’s science seems to confute yesterday’s scientific propagandists…Daniel Dennett, call your office: The human person is pretty much what the Christian tradition has always assumed…We’re animals with rational souls capable of remarkable change and development.”
This jump he makes is enormous, and he’s so confident about it. This guy is not a scientist and has no legitimate say in what neuroscience reveals unless he actually goes to the length to test his hypothesis. I have not seen any Christian articles that approach the science of the soul much differently than this guy does - I invite anyone to challenge me on that.
2. Biocentrism
Dr. Robert Lanza
- theosophywatch.wordpress.com
Biocentrism is a “theory of everything” developed by medical doctor Robert Lanza with some help from Deepak Chopra. It argues that, according to recent scientific studies, the universe does not really exist except as a result of a conscious being’s perceiving it. Subjective experience, says Lanza, is still a phenomenon scientists do not understand, but thanks to experimentation we now know that quantum systems behave differently when we observe them than they do when we’re not. Given the nature of current physical mysteries, Lanza says, remaining problems would be solved if biology were credited as the basis for everything, not physics.
If this consciousness-creating-reality theory were true, one could describe human consciousness as a sort of universal soul having control over all that is perceived to be real.
I encourage you to do some extra reading for this, because I found two articles that have challenged this in more informed ways than I can. The most obvious problem I see with the theory is that it would require drastic disproofs of physics as we understand it in order to make sense. Lanza seems to be making a fallacy I notice often, which is that because science has so far failed to explain certain phenomena, these mysteries therefore cannot be explained by science - or, if they can, it would require a drastic reexamination of things that so far have not caused experimental problems.
Besides, Lanza and Chopra are not physicists, cosmologists, or mathematicians. Though they may reference studies that could support their theory in certain circles, they have plenty of room to make misinterpretations given their lack of expertise. This is one reason to be skeptical of their conclusions.
The two articles I suggest reading for a more informed take on discrediting this are A-Unicornist’s “Is Biocentrism Worth Taking Seriously?” and Vinod Wadhawan’s “Biocentrism Demystified”. Of course I would also suggest reading Lanza’s writings to see his own words and ask your own questions.
3. Quantum Consciousness Theory
Dr. Stuart Hameroff
- whatthebleep.com
This third citing of science as proof of some kind of soul is probably the most difficult to describe and therefore to question. Stuart Hameroff, an anaesthesiologist studying consciousness, has proposed his own theory on the origin of consciousness, arguing that its basis lies on the quantum level, inside the cells of neurons in the brain. According to his theory, there may be quantum information that does not perish with the body, but rather is part of the mathematical structure of the universe. This information therefore reflects some universal truth that lies within our brains when we live and still exists when we die.
Frankly, I do not know enough about quantum mechanics or particle physics to argue with this effectively. Nonetheless, that is precisely what concerns me. There is a certain degree of “wat?” about his theory that is likely to leave the average listener mildly convinced that it is plausible, but still way too confused or uninformed to argue for or against it. I worry that some see the simple existence of this theory as a sign that scientists are on the way to proving the existence of the soul, which is precisely what Hameroff suggests.
The fact is this is generally not accepted or even taken seriously by scientists. Important aspects of it have been labeled as misrepresentations or even false assertions of what physicists have discovered thus far. If you’d like to see some scientists, including physicists and neurophysiologists, question Hameroff about his theory, try these two videos: 1 and 2.
What Science is Most Consistently Saying About the Soul
What Science is Most Consistently Saying About the Soul
- physics.gla.ac.uk
What you will see from all the above theorists is a common disdain for the “materialism” with which most scientists currently see nature. To many people, the image of humanity as an insignificant, impermanent, and immensely fragile component of the world is offensive. They feel belittled at the idea and celebrate theories that suggest otherwise.
But given what we know about the nature of the cosmos, particularly since the discovery of the Higg’s boson last year, particle physicists will tell you that we can now definitively know there is no such thing as life after death, nor is there a soul by which to make this possible. They can argue this because every significant space in the Standard Model of Particle Physics had been experimentally filled. Any other forces that we have not discovered must be either too weak or too short in range to have any significant effect on our everyday life.
There is no particle in the Standard Model that serves a soul-like purpose. So not only is a theory of the soul unnecessary for explaining certain holes in scientific knowledge, but it is absolutely impossible unless physics as we know it is drastically overturned. As physicist and cosmologist Sean Carroll said inhis presentation at Skepticon 5 in November,
“If you believe there’s some way that you have an immortal soul that travels from place to place, then you are not just saying we don’t know how it works - you are saying that our current knowledge of the laws of physics is wrong, which means you better give me a good reason to believe [that].”
Otherwise, the theory does not hold water. Hundreds of people have devoted themselves to intricate studies of physics in order to draw us closer to the truth about the nature of reality, using extremely advanced technology to do it. The math is there, the experimental evidence is there, and the rationale is there to verify the Standard Model. If you think scientists are missing something and the soul is a part of it, then you’ll either have to take it on total faith or start doing some serious work.
Sources:
No comments:
Post a Comment