Prove the existence of the soul

[Charlemagne_II]

Linus

Thanks for the reference to Feser’s book. Will check it out.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The usual objection to the immateriality of the soul is that it seems tied to the body in demonstrable ways. For example, certain parts of the physical brain control different parts of the intellect. The right brain emphasizes one kind of mental activity, the left brain emphasizes another kind of activity. How can we answer this objection from the materialist?

 

[polytropos]

The usual objection to the immateriality of the soul is that it seems tied to the body in demonstrable ways. For example, certain parts of the physical brain control different parts of the intellect. The right brain emphasizes one kind of mental activity, the left brain emphasizes another kind of activity. How can we answer this objection from the materialist?

This objection is taken to have much force, but it’s really more appropriately leveled towards forms of Cartesian dualism (in which the mind is an immaterial substance that is distinct from the body). When the soul is understood as the substantial form of the body, it’s expected that damage to the body will impact the function of the soul.

As for whether things like intellect can be accounted for materially, I will (also and again) defer to Feser. He recently posted on his blog 3 responses to Alex Rosenberg (a materialist/eliminativist). His book Aquinas that Linus mentioned defends the immortality and immateriality of the soul. His other book Philosophy of Mind also addresses “Scholastic psychology,” but is mostly a survey of the various materialist philosophies of mind and why they are problematic.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

polytropos

I am looking for an explanation of how the brain (matter) connects the body with the soul (spirit). The materialist argument has certain advantages. When the body dies, the soul (vital spirit) leaves the body. The materialist assumes the soul simply dies with the body, or perhaps it dies first and then the body dies. In either case, the materialist sees no reason to assume that the spirit lives on without the body, and sees no reason why death is merely the moment that the spirit departs the body and continues on its separate journey.

What would be a question you would like to ask the materialist that you think he might not be able to answer, a question that would suggest materialism is inadequate as a final hypothesis?

 

[polytropos]

I am looking for an explanation of how the brain (matter) connects the body with the soul (spirit). The materialist argument has certain advantages. When the body dies, the soul (vital spirit) leaves the body. The materialist assumes the soul simply dies with the body, or perhaps it dies first and then the body dies. In either case, the materialist sees no reason to assume that the spirit lives on without the body, and sees no reason why death is merely the moment that the spirit departs the body and continues on its separate journey.

Materialism is not compatible with the existence of the soul. It is, generally speaking (there are many brands), the metaphysical position whose ontology consists only of matter and energy (often limited to the quantifiable aspects of matter and energy). The soul would be immaterial, so there is not really a materialist position on the soul.

So on the materialist conception, it’s not really that the the soul dies with the body but that the soul does not exist. Materialists, furthermore, do not really hold the mind to exist besides, perhaps, as a set of “properties” of the brain that “seems” to exist but is ultimately reducible to matter and energy. Eliminativists (like the aforementioned Alex Rosenberg) have decided to eliminate the mind from their ontology, ie. they assert that there is no mind and whatever you perceive to be the mind is an illusion.

What would be a question you would like to ask the materialist that you think he might not be able to answer, a question that would suggest materialism is inadequate as a final hypothesis?

Well, I would ask the materialist how he could explain intentional states in the mind (the ability of the mind to be “pointed toward” something) without any appeal to teleology or intentionality outside of the mind (since materialists hold the world to have no immanent teleology, they must explain how the mind - which is essentially reduced to the brain which is also just part of the world - could seem to exhibit intentionality).

I’d also ask how he could explain abstraction and reason - particularly insofar that they do not rely on mental images or symbolic understandings. For example, we have only ever seen particular triangles, but how is it that we understand a concept of triangularity that is not represented by a single triangle? ie. trianglularity can apply to scalene, isosceles, and equilateral triangles - but we’ve never seen a triangle that is all or none of those things, even though our concept of triangularity, which is non-visual, applies to all of them. This is what the Scholastics take to be characteristic of the intellect (while recalling phantasms, or mental “images” based on sense data, is what we have in common with non-rational animals).

However, I would still urge you to examine the resources that ccmnxc, Linus, and I have suggested. I wouldn’t bother asking these questions as a sort of “checkmate!” since those unfamiliar with philosophy of mind may not even understand what you are getting at. Most materialists are not really aware of their position and hold it just because it is inconceivable to them that anything could not in principle be explained by empirical science, while non-materialist philosophers of mind are specifically trying to demonstrate that a full materialist conception of the mind is impossible.

So if you were to ask someone how intentionality arises from non-intentional bits of matter - they would likely just respond that the whole can be greater than the sum of the parts (although such an appeal is actually teleological, since a whole can only be “greater” if it is directed towards a certain purpose), or that the brain is more complex than you realize, or that neuroscience is a new and rapidly advancing field. So there is really no avoiding learning the arguments in a lot of detail if you want to engage in those sorts of debates. Fortunately, Feser is a very accessible writer and is very skilled at his field. He also used to be a materialist and is intimately aware of where its flaws lie.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

polytropos

I am looking for an explanation of how the brain (matter) connects the body with the soul (spirit). The materialist argument has certain advantages. When the body dies, the soul (vital spirit) leaves the body. The materialist assumes the soul simply dies with the body, or perhaps it dies first and then the body dies. In either case, the materialist sees no reason to assume that the spirit lives on without the body, and sees no reason why death is merely the moment that the spirit departs the body and continues on its separate journey.

What would be a question you would like to ask the materialist that you think he might not be able to answer, a question that would suggest materialism is inadequate as a final hypothesis?

See the Edward Feser blog spot where he is discussing " Elimitivism. " Here is discusses what you are interested in. You may have to go back an essay or two to read his whole discussion which ran over three postings. edwardfeser.blogspot.com/

Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

poly

** He also used to be a materialist and is intimately aware of where its flaws lie. **

I used to be an atheist and know all the flaws in atheism. So it’s reassuring to know that about Feser.

Thank you very much for taking the time and labor to develop a very interesting answer.

Well, I would ask the materialist how he could explain intentional states in the mind (the ability of the mind to be “pointed toward” something) without any appeal to teleology or intentionality outside of the mind (since materialists hold the world to have no immanent teleology, they must explain how the mind - which is essentially reduced to the brain which is also just part of the world - could seem to exhibit intentionality).

I think Dawkins has argued this in The Blind Watchmaker. Nature unintentionally produces intentionality as a survival mechanism for higher species. What I don’t think he manages to explain is why all the elements that contribute to survival of the higher species were developed or made available (air, vegetation, water, fire, etc.) long before the arrival of beings who consciously exercise their own intentionality. Nor, of course, can he explain why the elements of the universe first created at the Big Bang seem intentionally created to make possible sooner or later on some planet or other the air, fire, water, and vegetation that would be required to produce the first self consciously intentional beings on that planet.

Yes, I will certainly explore Feser in more depth as you all have urged. Thanks!

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think Dawkins has argued this in The Blind Watchmaker. Nature unintentionally produces intentionality as a survival mechanism for higher species.

It is difficult to comprehend, at least for me, how intentionality could even be possible without the capacity to “anticipate” the immediate (at least) future in the world in which the “intender” is a part. The evolution of a functional mechanism for intentionality would presuppose the capacity to anticipate. Yet, why would the capacity to anticipate possible scenarios develop without some pre-existing potential for intentionality to select between them?

Intention and anticipation together seem to presuppose a teleological model of physical reality, yet how would a teleologically based operation arise in an unguided and intentionless universe?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Peter

**Intention and anticipation together seem to presuppose a teleological model of physical reality, yet how would a teleologically based operation arise in an unguided and intentionless universe? **



Stephen Barr in his Signature in the Cell talks about the materialists who posit an infinite and eternal system of universes that are born, exist for a time, then die. In such a system, sooner or later anything is possible, including intentionality that arises in a universe without teleology. The problem with this argument is that it is a desperate attempt to find an explanation that is mathematically feasible, that allows for intentionality existing somewhere among all these universes without it have been intentionally planted. Also, it requires the supposition of an infinite number of universes, for which there is not, and cannot be, any proof of their existence.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Oops! That’s Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell, not Stephen Barr.

 

[wcknight]

Apart from the many individuals who have had supernatural encounters, the saints being the most famous of these, we have non-physical phenomena that can not be explained otherwise.

A recent event such as the death of Lawrence Andrews, an activist who advocated and worked with saving elephants for years. After his death, several groups of elephants marched for miles to his house and stayed for a couple of days, and then returned back to their preserves. Even though they had not been there for over 3 years, somehow they knew their friend had died.

Many incidents such as friends seeing their loved ones just after their deaths or just before their own demise attest to the reality that the spiritual world does exist.

Consider that the human brain is a physical object animated by electrical impulses… but what makes the brain and the electrical impulses work in such an organized way. IF one were to take a recently deceased brain and simply apply electricity to it in the same magnitude as a normal brain… odds are it would do no more than record some activitivy but any actual thought or conciousness would not take place, unless it were to suddenly revive the deceased.

The fact that we can organize our thinking and think about our own existence, and consider the consequences or our actions is a non-physical activity. It goes way beyond the matter and energy present in our bodies.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Oops! That’s Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell, not Stephen Barr.

If the soul is the “form” of the body and form comes through “information” and the information that forms biological life is located in DNA, then I think Meyer raises an very important point. Where is this information sourced? Is it intrinsic to matter? Aquinas’ distinction between matter and form would argue otherwise. Was the information embedded into the chemistry of the elements and compounds at the Big Bang?

Meyer argues that could not be the case because the nucleotide base ordering in DNA has no physical or chemical cause. If he is correct about that, then, given evolution of human beings, the form of the body (soul) originated in DNA coding which is the loci at which God ensouls human beings by endowing each with a particular form, in"form"ed in their particular and unique DNA.

 

[polytropos]

If the soul is the “form” of the body and form comes through “information” and the information that forms biological life is located in DNA, then I think Meyer raises an very important point. Where is this information sourced? Is it intrinsic to matter? Aquinas’ distinction between matter and form would argue otherwise. Was the information embedded into the chemistry of the elements and compounds at the Big Bang?

Meyer argues that could not be the case because the nucleotide base ordering in DNA has no physical or chemical cause. If he is correct about that, then, given evolution of human beings, the form of the body (soul) originated in DNA coding which is the loci at which God ensouls human beings by endowing each with a particular form, in"form"ed in their particular and unique DNA.

When Aquinas calls the soul the form of the body, he would not be referring to something like the information located in DNA. That would be imply, I believe, that rationality could arise out of purely material processes and structures - since it is certainly conceivable that human DNA could arise through naturalistic processes and that humans could have many of the traits they have on the basis of their DNA.

I have not read Meyer, but I do not think the soul or rationality is reducible to DNA (the idea of DNA carrying information does imply intentionality, but not of the mental/rational sort). I think that sells the game to materialism. I believe that our DNA establishes the “animal” (vegetative and appetitive) part of our substantial form, which becomes a human soul only when God informs it with rationality. This would entail that there were biological humans but not metaphysical humans at one point. I believe that Adam and Eve were the first ensouled humans, the first rational animals.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

wcknight

Apart from the many individuals who have had supernatural encounters, the saints being the most famous of these, we have non-physical phenomena that can not be explained otherwise.

Yes, crass materialism seems to be useless as an avenue to explain extraordinary and miraculous events. The best it can do is dismiss them by saying they are illusions, or that science will one day reach the point of explaining them as natural phenomenon.

Hardly convincing.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I believe that our DNA establishes the “animal” (vegetative and appetitive) part of our substantial form, which becomes a human soul only when God informs it with rationality. This would entail that there were biological humans but not metaphysical humans at one point. I believe that Adam and Eve were the first ensouled humans, the first rational animals.

Yes but rationality must fit the biological form as a hand to a glove in order for the two to correlate closely in functionality. That would mean the biological aspect of a human being would need to be “tailor-made” to allow the rational aspect to be “incarnated” within it. Does matter have the inherent potential within it to existentially mirror rationality in this way? Or would God need to intervene specifically to target the eventual ensoulment of the rational aspect of human beings?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Peter

**Does matter have the inherent potential within it to existentially mirror rationality in this way? Or would God need to intervene specifically to target the eventual ensoulment of the rational aspect of human beings? **

Perhaps we could look at it this way: God is always intervening in his creation just by the fact that he guides the history of the universe in such a way as to produce a planet such as ours and creatures such as we. The only aspect of his creation that he does not intervene with is free will. Man’s arrival on the scene, the creation of his soul, cannot be a matter of atoms happening to get together and nothing more. They were guided to the place where a soul was waiting to vivify and inhabit them.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Peter

**Does matter have the inherent potential within it to existentially mirror rationality in this way? Or would God need to intervene specifically to target the eventual ensoulment of the rational aspect of human beings? **

Perhaps we could look at it this way: God is always intervening in his creation just by the fact that he guides the history of the universe in such a way as to produce a planet such as ours and creatures such as we. The only aspect of his creation that he does not intervene with is free will. Man’s arrival on the scene, the creation of his soul, cannot be a matter of atoms happening to get together and nothing more. They were guided to the place where a soul was waiting to vivify and inhabit them.

I accept that. However, if nature is the instrument by which God manages biological creation and order then his hand must also be explicable in natural terms, no?

 

[Mijo12]

I accept that. However, if nature is the instrument by which God manages biological creation and order then his hand must also be explicable in natural terms, no?

We’re not pantheists. But if you consider the limits of the sciences and realize that you cannot experiment with the supernatural. The natural sciences developed as a facet of knowledge that can from the fruit of Catholic theology( read How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. Also when you consider that the mind is not the same as the brain, there is a connection but their not the same aspect of reality. A materialist would deny the thinking mind, while the idealist would deny the physical brain. We Christians accept all truths, the existence of the soul and mind and body. While various philosophies must deny some truth to make their perception simpler to understand. Don’t fall for these reductionist philosophies, if you find body and soul paradoxical it’s because reality exist because of God, not because of you.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Peter

**I accept that. However, if nature is the instrument by which God manages biological creation and order then his hand must also be explicable in natural terms, no? **

Yes, intervening in a perpetual way, not as if the the intervention was sporadic. God does not intervene sporadically with nature’s laws, except in the case of granting miracles. Think of the world as a glove and God as the hands in that glove. God never takes his hands out of the glove, but perpetually moves the glove to perform according to his will. Nature in that sense is not pantheistic, but rather constantly dependent on the mind and will of God. The glove has no mind or will, but the fingers in the glove have a mind and will behind them that move the glove this way and that. Hence the laws of nature that favor the creation of Man.

Yes, a clumsy metaphor.

Then how do we explain the problem of evil? Does the hand in the glove guide the glove to cause tsunamis and avalanches and volcanic disasters? Why doesn’t the hand in the glove stay these awful events?

You got me there!

 

[polytropos]

Yes but rationality must fit the biological form as a hand to a glove in order for the two to correlate closely in functionality. That would mean the biological aspect of a human being would need to be “tailor-made” to allow the rational aspect to be “incarnated” within it. Does matter have the inherent potential within it to existentially mirror rationality in this way? Or would God need to intervene specifically to target the eventual ensoulment of the rational aspect of human beings?

I would say no, matter cannot “mirror” rationality, if I am understanding you correctly. Rationality is fundamentally immaterial and cannot be reduced to matter, even if matter is understood teleologically (as, say, as strand of DNA would be on the Aristotelian view, having an inherent directedness toward reproduction and heredity). God needs to ensoul human beings for them to have a rational nature since the intellect is necessarily immaterial and can’t be caused by the material. (Man’s animal nature, being vegetative and appetitive, may be a necessary prerequisite for a human soul, however. That is why I’d say that there can be biological but not metaphysical human beings.)

So I’d say the biological aspect of human beings is directed by God without any sort of special intervention; it is not a-teleological since it still results from the structure of final causes in the universe. But special intervention is necessary for the creation of the rational soul.