Do humans have a non-physical soul? (And how does modern science affect the question?)

That’s always the million dollar question, isn’t it?

I honestly don’t spend that much time thinking about immortal souls. I have never found the various Sunday school lessons I’ve sat through with concentric circle diagrams separating the soul/spirit/body and delineating the various death and life points of each human component to be all that edifying or biblical.

I think there is a material reality and an intersecting and overlapping spiritual reality. We are more than the sum of our physical parts and our chemical reactions and electrical nerve impulses. Whether you call that “more” a soul or a spirit or a mind or a life force or the essence of humanity, it’s mostly semantics to me.

I think the Bible clearly challenges us to hope in the final resurrection, where believers are promised eternal material bodies. What happens to our soul/spirit/mind when we die and until that time, I don’t know, and I don’t think Scripture is clear. Maybe we are released from time and jump to the final resurrection. Maybe there is some sort of “soul sleep.” Maybe we are present with God in some disembodied form until the Paraousia. I think all the theories we could come up with are guesses.

I believe we will all face judgment and the righteous will be vindicated and justice will prevail. I don’t see how the popular “love wins” idea is all that vindicating. But on the other hand, most days, I would like to believe that eternal conscious torment of the damned is a misunderstanding. Again, I think most theories about hell and judgment are guesses.

Eddie didn’t like the last time I used the word “guess” to describe anyone’s well thought-out theological position, so I’ll clarify that I don’t think such theories are “just a guess” but I do think they involve a good deal of conjecture, assumption, and hypothesizing and “guess” is the best English word I can come up with.

3 Likes

I like your response. I believe that when my parents passed from time into eternity, they were at the Second Advent of Christ. I wrote my father’s funeral in 1985; however, another clergyman delivered it. I based the Scripture on 2 Corinthians 5:1-10. When he finished my sermon, he looked at me and said: It is my belief that today, Charles Miller, aged 56 years, has now a new body. Dr. J. P. Moreland, a former seminary professor of mine, calls this the Perspectival View. I tend to call it instantaneous resurrection. I helped a professor who was writing his Ph.D. dissertation on this subject. He dedicated a page to me. I am not feeling well now; therefore, I wish you adieu for this evening. I do not believe in soul sleep because of too many verses that I could name to support the immediate going to Christ. When you have experienced the death of someone you loved, it does make a difference. I know from experience. Believe me, it makes a difference. I appreciate your kind response.

Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

division of Cardiology, Hospital Rijnstate, Arnhem, Netherlands (P van Lommel MD); Tilburg, Netherlands (R van Wees PhD); Nijmegen, Netherlands (V Meyers PhD); and Capelle a/d Ijssel, Netherlands (I Elfferich PhD)

“During a night shift an ambulance brings in a 44-year-old cyanotic, comatose man into the coronary care unit. He had been found about an hour before in a meadow by passers-by. After admission, he receives artificial respiration without intubation, while heart massage and defibrillation are also applied. When we want to intubate the patient, he turns out to have dentures in his mouth. I remove these upper dentures and put them onto the ‘crash car’. Meanwhile, we continue extensive CPR. After about an hour and a half the patient has sufficient heart rhythm and blood pressure, but he is still ventilated and intubated, and he is still comatose. He is transferred to the intensive care unit to continue the necessary artificial respiration. Only after more than a week do I meet again with the patient, who is by now back on the cardiac ward. I distribute his medication. The moment he sees me he says: ‘Oh, that nurse knows where my dentures are’. I am very surprised. Then he elucidates: ‘Yes, you were there when I was brought into hospital and you took my dentures out of my mouth and put them onto that car, it had all these bottles on it and there was this sliding drawer underneath and there you put my teeth.’ I was especially amazed because I remembered this happening while the man was in deep coma and in the process of CPR. When I asked further, it appeared the man had seen himself lying in bed, that he had perceived from above how nurses and doctors had been busy with CPR. He was also able to describe correctly and in detail the small room in which he had been resuscitated as well as the appearance of those present like myself. At the time that he observed the situation he had been very much afraid that we would stop CPR and that he would die. And it is true that we had been very negative about the patient’s prognosis due to his very poor medical condition when admitted. The patient tells me that he desperately and unsuccessfully tried to make it clear to us that he was still alive and that we should continue CPR. He is deeply impressed by his experience and says he is no longer afraid of death. 4 weeks later he left hospital as a healthy man.”

1 Like

@Otangelo_Grasso

The account distinctly describes what occultists have for so long referred to as etheric projection (projection of the etheric body). This subtle body (the etheric body) normally exists in coincidence with the physical body but upon death separates from it as the physical body relinquishes its hold upon it—this experience is sometimes referred to as giving up the ghost.

During a near-death experience, as the etheric body is separated from the physical body (also called an out-of-body experience), the individual with vivid visualization abilities will be able to see his/her physical body lying there (including the immediate surroundings) from this exteriorized position—focus of consciousness must necessarily be directed from the phantom body. This is precisely why having vivid visualization abilities is a major factor in successfully experiencing an “out-of-body experience.”

Under “Interpretation” in the “Summary” to the study done in the Netherlands we read; “We do not know why so few cardiac patients report NDE after CPR.” Well… cerebral anoxia is a condition that refers to oxygen loss in the brain, however, oxygen loss is not a factor in self induced out-of-body experience—vivid visualization abilities are! This factor is somewhat touched on in the “Introduction” section of the paper;

“Such experiences could also be linked to a changing state of consciousness (transcendence), in which perception, cognitive functioning, emotion, and sense of identity function independently from normal body-linked waking consciousness.” The Lancet: Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest

How can you see from a phantom body that hasn’t yet learned to see? It cannot be done! And whether the experiences are strictly internal such as—seeing a tunnel, a light, deceased relatives, or a life review, these as well require “vivid visualization abilities.” This is a similar reason as to why so many people almost never remember their dreams—they hardly have any vivid visualization abilities. So, this should explain why “so few cardiac patients report NDE after CPR.”

Interestingly, there are extensively profound techniques that facilitate the out-of-body experience without having to go through a near-death experience or experiencing death itself. When so desired, the person can simply and easily return to his physical body without any harm done whatsoever. However, the training and experience is not for the faint-hearted.

Through extensive study and profound consideration on these difficult matters I have reached a definite conclusion—with death of the physical body the etheric body loses its vehicle for existence and therefore dissipates into the fabric of space and time.

What we call the soul (psyche) is something altogether different from what the etheric body is. The soul is what continues to exist in the souls of those who remain—particularly, our children. Through DNA and psychological characteristics information soul is passed on to our children. As I recall, this is why on numerous occasions, as a child, my mother referred to me as her soul—l’anima mia. It would seem that some individuals instinctively understand something that others don’t. Just recently we heard Vice President Joe Biden refer to his son, Beau, as his soul. http://www.people.com/article/joe-biden-beau-biden-death-cancer-research

So… considering the title question above, “Do Humans Have a Non-Physical Soul? (And How Does Modern Science Affect the Question?),” my answer is—Yes, humans have a non-physical soul, but it’s not what most people believe it is—the soul is the genetic and the psychological information that makes an individual the person that he or she is. Modern science (biology and psychology) would do well to clarify what is implied by the term soul, this way, the question can be appropriately answered. Therefore, @BradKramer this is the way I see how modern science affects the question.

Tony

1 Like

I could turn around and simply say that because our lives are finite, nothing we do will matter in the end. Everything is vanity and we are to be pitied above all creatures because we are acutely aware of what we have to lose. Our children’s beautiful smiles, experiences, hopes and dreams will be snuffed out and that will be the end of them. Only darkness will remain.

THAT is the reality of a World without Christian hope.
And I find that unacceptable.

We can’t. Mainstream modern theological scholarship on this subject is instructive.

  1. ‘Twentieth century biblical scholarship largely agrees that the ancient Jews had little explicit notion of a personal afterlife until very late in the Old Testament period. Immortality of the soul was a typically Greek philosophical notion quite foreign to the thought of ancient Semitic peoples. Only the latest stratum of the Old Testament asserts even the resurrection of the body, a view more congenial to Semites.’, Donelley, ‘Calvinism and Scholasticism in Vermigli’s doctrine of man and grace’, p. 99 (1976); note that this was written over 30 years ago, and the academic consensus has only strengthened on the issue.

  2. ‘For a Hebrew, ‘soul’ indicated the unity of a human person; Hebrews were living bodies, they did not have bodies. This Hebrew field of meaning is breached in the Wisdom of Solomon by explicit introduction of Greek ideas of soul. A dualism of soul and body is present: ‘a perishable body weighs down the soul’ (9:15). This perishable body is opposed by an immortal soul (3:1-3). Such dualism might imply that soul is superior to body. In the nt, ‘soul’ retains its basic Hebrew field of meaning. Soul refers to one’s life: Herod sought Jesus’ soul (Matt. 2:20); one might save a soul or take it (Mark 3:4). Death occurs when God ‘requires your soul’ (Luke 12:20). ‘Soul’ may refer to the whole person, the self: ‘three thousand souls’ were converted in Acts 2:41 (see Acts 3:23). Although the Greek idea of an immortal soul different in kind from the mortal body is not evident, ‘soul’ denotes the existence of a person after death (see Luke 9:25; 12:4; 21:19); yet Greek influence may be found in 1 Peter’s remark about ‘the salvation of souls’ (1:9). A moderate dualism exists in the contrast of spirit with body and even soul, where ‘soul’ means life that is not yet caught up in grace. See also Flesh and Spirit; Human Being.’, Neyrey, ‘Soul’, in Achtemeier, Harper, & Row (eds.), ‘Harper’s Bible Dictionary’, pp. 982-983 (1st ed. 1985).

  3. Indeed, the salvation of the “immortal soul” has sometimes been a commonplace in preaching, but it is fundamentally unbiblical. Biblical anthropology is not dualistic but monistic: human being consists in the integrated wholeness of body and soul, and the Bible never contemplates the disembodied existence of the soul in bliss.’, Myers (ed.), ‘The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary’, p. 518 (1987).

  4. ‘A particular instance of the Heb. avoidance of dualism is the biblical doctrine of man. Greek thought, and in consequence many Hellenizing Jewish and Christian sages, regarded the body as a prison-house of the soul: sōma sēma ‘the body is a tomb’. The aim of the sage was to achieve deliverance from all that is bodily and thus liberate the soul. But to the Bible man is not a soul in a body but a body/soul unity; so true is this that even in the resurrection, although flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, we shall still have bodies (1 Cor. 15:35ff.).’, Cressey, ‘Dualism’, in Cressey, Wood, & Marshall (eds.), ‘New Bible Dictionary’, p. 284 (3rd. ed. 1996).

  5. ‘Modern scholarship has underscored the fact that Hebrew and Greek concepts of soul were not synonymous. While the Hebrew thought world distinguished soul from body (as material basis of life), there was no question of two separate, independent entities. A person did not have a body but was an animated body, a unit of life manifesting itself in fleshly form—a psychophysical organism (Buttrick, 1962). Although Greek concepts of the soul varied widely according to the particular era and philosophical school, Greek thought often presented a view of the soul as a separate entity from body. Until recent decades Christian theology of the soul has been more reflective of Greek (compartmentalized) than Hebrew (unitive) ideas.’, Moon, ‘Soul’, in Benner & Hill (eds.), ‘Baker encyclopedia of psychology & counseling, p. 1148 (2nd ed. 1999).

  6. ‘Even as we are conscious of the broad and very common biblical usage of the term “soul,” we must be clear that Scripture does not present even a rudimentarily developed theology of the soul. The creation narrative is clear that all life originates with God. Yet the Hebrew Scripture offers no specific understanding of the origin of individual souls, of when and how they become attached to specific bodies, or of their potential existence, apart from the body, after death. The reason for this is that, as we noted at the beginning, the Hebrew Bible does not present a theory of the soul developed much beyond the simple concept of a force associated with respiration, hence, a life-force.’, Avery-Peck, ‘Soul’, in Neusner, et al. (eds.), ‘The Encyclopedia of Judaism’, p. 1343 (2000).

  7. ‘‎Gn. 2:7 refers to God forming Adam ‘from the dust of the ground’ and breathing ‘into his nostrils the breath of life’, so that man becomes a ‘living being’. The word ‘being’ translates the Hebrew word nep̄eš which, though often translated by the Eng. word ‘soul’, ought not to be interpreted in the sense suggested by Hellenistic thought (see Platonism; Soul, Origin of). It should rather be understood in its own context within the OT as indicative of men and women as living beings or persons in relationship to God and other people. The lxx translates this Heb. word nep̄eš with the Gk. word psychē, which explains the habit of interpreting this OT concept in the light of Gk. use of psychē. Yet it is surely more appropriate to understand the use of psychē (in both the lxx and the NT) in the light of the OT’s use of nep̄eš. According to Gn. 2, any conception of the soul as a separate (and separable) part or division of our being would seem to be invalid. Similarly, the popular debate concerning whether human nature is a bipartite or tripartite being has the appearance of a rather ill-founded and unhelpful irrelevancy. The human person is a ‘soul’ by virtue of being a ‘body’ made alive by the ‘breath’ (or ‘Spirit’) of God.’, Ferguson & Packer (eds.),’New Dictionary of Theology’, pp. 28-29 (electronic ed. 2000).

  8. ‘Far from referring simply to one aspect of a person, “soul” refers to the whole person. Thus, a corpse is referred to as a “dead soul,” even though the word is usually translated “dead body” (Lev. 21:11; Num. 6:6). “Soul” can also refer to a person’s very life itself 1 Kgs. 19:4; Ezek. 32:10).‎“Soul” often refers by extension to the whole person.’, Carrigan, ‘Soul’, Freedman, Myers, & Beck (eds.) ‘Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible’, p. 1245 (2000).

  9. There is no suggestion in the OT of the transmigration of the soul as an immaterial, immortal entity. Man is a unity of body and soul—terms that describe not so much two separate entities in a person as much as one person from different standpoints. Hence, in the description of man’s creation in Genesis 2:7, the phrase “a living soul” (kjv) is better translated as “a living being.”’, Elwell & Comfort (eds.), ‘Tyndale Bible dictionary, p. 1216 (2001).

  10. ‘It has been noted already that the soul, like the body, derives from God. This implies that man is composed of soul and body, and the Bible makes it plain that this is so. The soul and the body belong together, so that without either the one or the other there is no true man. Disembodied existence in Sheol is unreal. Paul does not seek a life outside the body, but wants to be clothed with a new and spiritual body (1 Cor. 15; 2 Cor. 5).’, Bromiley, ‘Psychology’, in Bromiley, ‘The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia’, volume 3, p. 1045 (rev. ed. 2002).

  11. Nor is any place left for dualism. Soul and body are not separate entities which are able to work in concert by virtue of a preestablished harmony (Leibniz).’ , ibid., p. 1045.

  12. ‘All Christians believe in immortality, understood as a final resurrection to everlasting life. The majority have held that immortality also includes continuing existence of the soul or person between death and resurrection. Almost every detail of this general confession and its biblical basis, however, has been disputed. The debate has been fueled by the development of beliefs about the afterlife within the Bible itself and the variety of language in which they are expressed. The Hebrew Bible does not present the human soul (nepeš) or spirit (rûah) as an immortal substance, and for the most part it envisions the dead as ghosts in Sheol, the dark, sleepy underworld. Nevertheless it expresses hope beyond death (see Pss. 23 and 49:15) and eventually asserts physical resurrection (see Isa. 26:19; Dan. 12:2).’, Cooper, ‘Immortality’, in Fahlbusch & Bromiley (eds.), ‘The Encyclopedia of Christianity’, volume 2, p. (2003).

  13. ‘soul. The idea of a distinction between the soul, the immaterial principle of life and intelligence, and the body is of great antiquity, though only gradually expressed with any precision. Hebrew thought made little of this distinction, and there is practically no specific teaching on the subject in the Bible beyond an underlying assumption of some form of afterlife (see immortality)., Cross & Livingstone, (eds.), ‘The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church’, p. 1531 (3rd rev. ed. 2005).

  14. ‘The English translation of nepeš by the term “soul” has too often been misunderstood as teaching a bipartite (soul and body—dichotomy) or tripartite (body, soul, and spirit—trichotomy) anthropology. Equally misleading is the interpretation that too radically separates soul from body as in the Greek view of human nature. See body; spirit. N. Porteous (in IDB, 4:428) states it well when he says, “The Hebrew could not conceive of a disembodied nepeš, though he could use nepeš with or without the adjective ‘dead,’ for corpse (e.g., Lev. 19:28; Num. 6:6).” Or as R. B. Laurin has suggested, “To the Hebrew, man was not a ‘body’ and a ‘soul,’ but rather a ‘body-soul,’ a unit of vital power” (BDT, 492). In this connection, the most significant text is Gen. 2:7, “the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life [nišmat hayyîm], and the man became a living being [nepeš hayyâ]” (the KJV rendering “living soul” is misleading).’, Lake, ‘Soul’, in Silva & Tenney (eds.), ‘The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible’, volume 5, p. 586 (rev. ed. 2009).

  15. ‘What is essential to understanding the Hebrew mind is the recognition that the human being is a unit: body-soul! The soul is not, therefore, unaffected by the experience of death. OT eschatology does indeed contain seminal elements of hope implying the more positive teaching of the NT, as can be seen in the OT phrase, “rested with his fathers” (1 Ki. 2:10 et al.), in David’s confident attitude toward the death of his child (2 Sam. 12:12–23), and in Job’s hope for a resurrection (Job 19:20–29). It is this essential soul-body oneness that provides the uniqueness of the biblical concept of the resurrection of the body as distinguished from the Greek idea of the immortality of the soul.’, ibid., p. 587.

It means we need to start taking resurrection seriously.

It makes an immortal soul irrelevant.

Perhaps the most impressive statement by Paul in the New Testament is his describing a future time when men and women rise up to meet Jesus in the sky - - and he admits that he does not know whether these men and women had bodies of matter or of spirit.

And we can understand why Paul could not decide. He was raised a Pharisee … and raised to believe that the afterlife was a PHYSICAL reality.

And yet, during the same age, the Essene view of the afterlife invoked a NON-MATERIAL state of the afterlife … where the SOUL was made of SPIRITUAL matter.

When we read Josephus, we might find the various terms and explanations to be somewhat confusing … but out of his writings we can piece together the difference between the views of the Pharisees and those of the Essenes.

The Zealots of Masada might arguably be considered different from the Essenes. But it is in this group that Josephus phrases the most amazing speech … a speech which may not have actually happened… but a speech which, nonetheless, demonstrates the existence of a most amazing theology: that immaterial souls immediately (or after 3 days?) rise up from the dead body to go to a blessed place… a place where they continue to worship God … and wait for the fullness of his revelations.

More details of this scenario can be found in the work called “History of the Rechabites” - - which appears to be a Jewish writing which had a Christianized beginning and ending appended to it.

I frequently ponder the irony that the most commonly rendered version of the fate of the human soul, in Western Civilization, is the ESSENE version … rather than the PHARISAIC one. While some Evangelical or Fundamentalist writers draw the general literary arc that people’s souls slumber until the End of Days, the POPULAR notion of the soul is that it moves on to a spiritual existence - - and THERE the soul waits for the End of the Universe.

@Eddie,

I believe @Jonathan_Burke intuitively rejects the Zoroastrian mysticism that came to infuse the post Exilic mindset of messianic Jews… I am very sympathetic… But of course, for you to be sympathetic as well, you would have to agree that Zoroastrian mysticism is a real component of Christianity…

Could you be clearer please? Are you saying the sources I cited do not reflect mainstream theological scholarship?

I don’t adopt that view at all.

That doesn’t answer my question. Are you saying the sources I cited do not reflect mainstream theological scholarship?

No it doesn’t; “mainstream theological scholarship” doesn’t have a Protestant, Catholic, Reformed, or any other kind of “bias to it”. It includes the full range of confessional and critical scholarship.

No, not even tacitly.

Firstly my argument is that actually identifying the “plain sense” requires reading the passage in its socio-historical context, in this case Second Temple Period Judaism. That’s fundamental to the historico-critical method. It has nothing to do with “a distinction between a purely Hebraic thought and a later, Greek-and-pagan-contaminated thought”. Secondly I do not believe the New Testament writers “misconceive the truth” at all, as I have told you before.

I don’t differentiate between “Hebraic doctrines” and “non-Hebraic doctrines”. I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you talking about Jewish doctrines, as opposed to non-Jewish doctrines such as Christian doctrines?

Demons is the one thing that unifies virtually all the Ancient Near East.

Sumerians, Akkadians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Egyptians… EVERYONE believed there were demons.

Did Jews? I certainly don’t consider the DESTROYER of the Passover to be anything BUT some kind of a demon … under the control of Yahweh… unless Yahweh was Himself the Destroyer.

So it is not shocking that Jesus believed in demons too. Nor is it surprising that Jesus would spit into dirt and apply the magical paste into the eyes of a blind man.

The emergence of Satan/Lucifer metaphysics guaranteed that demon theology would persist forever.

Let’s face it …belief in Demons is pretty easy … easier than believing the stories of Exodus, the Ark or Six Day Creation !
There was plenty of superstitious ideas to go around…

Not before the Babylonian exile. The Law of Moses demythologized the cosmos, and demons were excluded from it. Milgrom has some excellent comments on this topic in his work on Leviticus.

I’ve not looked around to see if the “upcoming tutorial video” was ever produced. It sounds like a great idea and I commend your efforts. (However, I wonder if it is one of those types of time-consuming projects that has been difficult to schedule since its June, 2015 start.)

1 Like

So what?

Of course I am. You’ve even noted this understanding is common to my community. What I don’t understand is your reference to “Hebraic doctrines” and “non-Hebraic doctrines”. Please explain it.

You mean it predominantly quotes Protestants. So what? Unless you can show these quotations are not representative of mainstream theological scholarship, your point isn’t relevant.

Of course I would have the same result; I would still end up with the results I presented. It would simply have become obvious that the Catholic view is now increasingly marginal, and that the Orthodox Church has historically preserved “soul sleep” (psychopannychism), within its range of views on the intermediate state.

Mainstream theological scholarship is as objectively determinable as mainstream scientific scholarship. This is not espistemologically naive, and scholarship actually differentiates itself between mainstream and non-mainstream views. Consequently, regardless of the fact that different people may have different views on what constitutes mainstream theological scholarship, the fact remains that their views can be tested against reality. For example, we can test very easily whether or not the idea that “the Bible teaches reincarnation and the worship of Buddha” is representative of mainstream theological scholarship.

Now back to my question. Are you saying the sources I cited do not reflect mainstream theological scholarship? Or are you saying that I am citing selectively from sources and giving a subjective and inaccurate impression of mainstream theological scholarship?

In passing once again I note you’re attempting to drag the discussion off into a meta-debate over a completely irrelevant side issue.

Oh goodness gracious, @Jonathan_Burke, is that what you really think?!!?!?

You take the role of Moshe quite literally, don’t you … And yet there is every reason to believe the Hebrew entertained Canaanite superstitions just like everyone else in the region !

Why would they have such rules if there was no belief?

Deuteronomy 18:11 - Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

Samuel 28:7-8
“Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her. And his servants said to him, Behold, [there is] a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Endor. And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me [him] up, whom I shall name unto thee.”

I think it would be very safe to say that you are not the only one to notice that. Again. Predictably.

@Jonathan_Burke, I am always impressed by your patience in maintaining composure.

1 Like