More on Immortal Soul: When did humankind aquire one

Faith & Science Conversation
41

I would argue that we can’t or shouldn’t locate the “Image of God” or “Soul” in either consciousness or conscience. In terms of consciousness, I think that the comatose person in the hospital or the elder with dementia is no less an individual created in the image of God as the fully conscious individual.

Is conscience linked to being made in the Image of God? I was certainly raised to believe so and continue to be sympathetic to that view. However, what do we then have to say about the psychopath who is born without a conscience? http://www.hare.org Within an evolutionary paradigm I read that a psychopath can be viewed as a highly evolved, successful predator. Apparently a psychopath’s brain is wired differently than the norm.

A psychopath lacks empathy and a conscience. They are heartless; viewing people as tools meant to be manipulated. From a Christian perspective would we say that a psychopath lacks a soul or somehow missed out on being made in the image of God? Having recently retired from a career in criminal justice these are troubling “soulish” questions and soulish questions lie outside the providence of science.

42

When we discuss psychopaths, murderers, and other people whose actions are harmful (pathologically so), I regard the Christian faith to teach that all of us are held accountable by God for our actions, and God can punish us by ensuring our death. When and how this occurs is in God’s hands.

Regarding our humanity and personhood, we form the attributes that are synonymous with our self, soul, person (many words that are consistent with our spiritual character). These attributes are either (a) built on and through Christ, and due to the Holy Spirit, or (b) based on Satan’s attributes and motivated by his spirit.

I think that none of the attributes that define us are derived from a specific (or real) biological composition - they are due to our choices, motivations, actions, attitudes, repentance and faith.

43

I think It’s a bit more complicated then mere choices (not withstanding the need for justice, both human and God’s justice.

It seems that a psychopaths brain is wired differently. They appear to have been given a bad hand when it comes to moral decision making.

Copy from the article …
The study found that ASPD+P offenders displayed significantly reduced grey matter volumes in the anterior rostral prefrontal cortex and temporal poles compared to ASPD-P offenders and healthy non-offenders.

These areas are important in understanding other people’s emotions and intentions and are activated when people think about moral behavior, the researchers noted. Damage to these areas is associated with impaired empathizing with other people, a poor response to fear and distress, and a lack of self-conscious emotions such as guilt or embarrassment.

44

The expertise and insights required for an understanding of the human brain and psyche is out of my area, and my comments are directed to the subject of spiritual character (soul).

I understand that we as human beings face many difficulties in this life, and for most of us, our choices and attributes are related on how we deal with whatever life and the Almighty gives to us, both in joy and in sorrow.

On who’s soul is acceptable to God - this is entirely in God’s hands - I however find it difficult to discuss any situation where a human being is completely devoid of choice. Such a condition would be noticed from birth and we as a community should respond with any help we can provide. Perhaps some psychopaths are in this category and I would think if it is a physical condition, in most cases it should be picked up at an early age, and a treatment sought. In cases of damage, medical expertise is the only option I can think of.

45

I’m enjoying this dialogue GJDS - although the topic is veering away from the OP. Understanding the human brain and deciding if a “soul” is acceptable to God is waaaayyyyy over my pay grade also.

If I was an atheist I’d be tempted to “blame” psychopathology entirely on evolution.

However, as a Christian who accepts theistic evolution I struggle attempting to understand/integrate psychopathology and my faith. To your third paragraph… I’ve read that we hope to notice and “treat” youngsters who score on the psychopathic scale by helping them realize that it is within their self-interests to behave within societal norms. In adult life with psychopaths involved in violence and the criminal justice system, studies show that putting them in normal corrections programs helps them to become better predators since they learn program language and become better victimizers. In the Christian world, Christians are subject to believing the psychopath’s professions of faith and falling for his/her crocodile tears.

All I’m saying is that it is more difficult than assigning everything to individual choice. I have not found good Christian resources which accept the science and struggle with our theology

46

Larry, I agree with you in that we cannot assign everything to individual choice when we discuss pathological cases - regarding the human brain and “soul”, I tend to focus on a general understanding of this as a spiritual aspect of human existence and as Christians, we rely on faith and grace from God as much as on our understanding.

I had taken an interest in studies during my student days (many years ago) and I recall theories (e.g. nature vs nurture, behaviourists and “blank slate” notions), and I was struck by an absence of justice and protecting the community from predators and psychopaths. I see a tendency for self-righteous liberals who consider themselves civilised if they focus on the perpetrator, while the victims are ignored or their situation worsens.

Thus I do not “blame” any theory, but instead see a trend in the West, to avoid justice, and pretend some theory may serve instead. However, it is of topic so I think our discussion has gone as far as it can.

47

@gbrooks9
Not sure where you’re going with that. “God is spirit” is a straightforward proposition in Scripture. If you deny that spirit is immaterial, does that mean it is material? Does spirit have properties that can be measured? The choice seems to be either/or (either spirit is material or immaterial), unless you’re proposing a third category that is neither spiritual or physical. Of course, you’re free to do so, but I doubt you’ll find many to agree with that idea.

@GJDS
Yes, that paper has some thought-provoking ideas. Like Mr. Brooks, I also take exception to the following: [quote=“GJDS, post:39, topic:5297”]
for evolutionary theory to explain the existence of consciousness, it must show (a) how consciousness emerged through random variation in the genome of organisms in which it was previously absent, and (b) how that emergence enhanced the ability of those organisms to propagate their genes.”
[/quote]

I would like to hear from those who understand evolutionary theory better than I do, but it seems to me that there are examples of changes that confer no apparent advantage, yet nevertheless persist, and changes that confer no immediate advantage, yet proved advantageous in later development (exaptation). Correct me if I’m wrong, but if evolutionary theory can explain and accommodate other types of change that apparently do not enhance the ability of organisms to propagate, why should we hold consciousness to a higher standard?

@Larry
I am in great sympathy with you on this. I spent 10 years teaching in the juvenile justice system. (I’m working on a book about the experience.) Like @GJDS pointed out, genetic determinism (and environmental determinisim) is very problematic and runs counter to our faith. I encountered many kids whose brains were just not wired properly. It is disheartening to see that therapy and drugs have very limited effectiveness in changing behavior that is “hard-wired” into the way their brains process information. (Even “normal” people do not always make choices that are in their best self-interests. Otherwise, no one would sin.) Does this absolve them from responsibility for their actions? In terms of the justice system, I would argue “no,” mainly from the standpoint that a large part of the reason that prisons exist is not just to punish or rehabilitate, but to protect the public from individuals who would do them harm.

In terms of God’s judgment, I don’t know for sure, but there are some hints in Scripture. In particular, I’m thinking of Luke 12:47-48, where Jesus indicates greater and lesser degrees of punishment depending upon one’s knowledge of God’s will. I believe that God takes all factors into consideration in his judgments, and his judgments are always right and far exceed our limited concepts of justice. We take that on faith.

Personally, I think psychopathology should be considered in the same category as other birth defects. I also spent years teaching special needs students. What are we to think of the child born with profound intellectual disabilities? Why are some people born with seemingly no chance in life? Can we reconcile such cases with our belief in God? And to bring it back to the original topic, does the profoundly disabled person still retain the image of God? [quote=“GJDS, post:46, topic:5297”]
I see a tendency for self-righteous liberals who consider themselves civilised if they focus on the perpetrator, while the victims are ignored or their situation worsens.

Thus I do not “blame” any theory, but instead see a trend in the West, to avoid justice, and pretend some theory may serve instead.
[/quote]

Can a political liberal be a good Christian? I know more than my share of self-righteous conservatives, too. What trend in the West to avoid justice? The U.S. incarcerates far more people than any other nation. I’m not trying to pick an argument, since I’m in agreement with almost everything you’ve said, but I am encouraging you (and everyone else) to stop contributing to the “blame game” on both sides of the Culture Wars. I would humbly suggest that Christ and his Gospel sit in judgment on all political parties. Let us judge any particular policy according to that standard, not according to who happens to support it. (I apologize for the soapbox moment.)

1 Like
48

Because this is a particularly important area when we discuss the unique aspects of human beings. I do not put myself as an evolutionary expert, and I am relying on other experts, some of who say the time evolutionists propose for the true human to have appeared, is impossibly short for such dramatic changes. The paper I referred is by an expert in the area of consciousness and he seems adamant that ToE cannot deal with consciousness as experts understand it. Obviously others will have differing opinions - I have mentioned materialists who go to the other extreme, and believe ToE and decide that consciousness may be an illusion, since matter does not have it.

On liberal theories, my remarks are not meant to be political (my guess is that by US outlook, I would probably be a liberal) - my remarks are to theories that may have little value, but are used in social activities/engineering, more to make the theorists feel good, instead of doing good. Justice and its administration is a huge area and we as a civilisation need to put far more effort in this area. The US seems to me to be extraordinary violent, which is a cause for sorrow, but my nation has nothing to boast about in this area. So no argument - just a passing observation.

49

@Jay313
I don’t know if I should take credit or blame for getting this “soul thread” rolling, but I am learning a lot from the participants so far. I’ve never felt comfortable with the ‘soft sciences’ of psychiatry and social studies, and probably should stay on the sidelines in the discussions in these areas. But, I did find attractive the idea first put forth by Teilhard de Chardin that the appearance of humanity issued into the universe a new sphere–the Noosphere, a sphere of Ideas, which while immaterial in nature, it evolves and has an influence humanity’s future even greater than our biological evolution.

I do not claim that the Noosphere makes any sort of scientific advancement. It just provides a framework, an organizing principle, that helps make sense of some new scientific discoveries that have been puzzling–e.g., the way consciousness could have arisen through Darwinian evolution. This was seen as a major problem by Alfred Wallace, evolution’s co-discoverer.

Tattersall asks: “Where does our consciousness come from? Are our minds distinct from our bodies, or does the one emerge from the other? Most acutely posed by Rene Descartes well over three centuries ago, this question is still the center of vigorous debate. The introduction of evolutionary thought hardly did anything to resolve it; Charles Darwin was firmly of the opinion that brain evolution through natural selection was the unambiguous explanation of human consciousness, while Alfred Russell Wallace, an energetic proponent of adaptation through natural selection in all other matters, was simply “unable to see how this process could have brought into existence the extraordinary awareness of human beings…The mechanisms that lie behind these emergent properties (of the brain) remain among the most important unanswered questions of science, although many lines of investigation are energetically being pursued by neurobiologists, psychologists, philosophers, and others.”

(Simon Conway Morris)
“(Darwin assumed) _that humans must have had a process of gradual emergence. But the archeological record doesn’t really show that. We know that modern humans only appear about 200,000 years ago. But they didn’t really do much for the first 100,000 years. Why not? They have the same brain size, but they seem rather stagnant. I’m deeply puzzled about the origins of the things that make us completely human, such as our ability to use language and engage in rational discourse, our ability to employ our imagination. I am not persuaded those things can simply be extrapolated from Darwinian processes.

This convinces me of one thing: Stephan Gould’s NOMA is presently unworkable. To understand humankind’s problems, and how society should approach them, we need both science and religious Truth.
Al Leo

50

If I agree that spirit is immaterial, the next thing you are going to say is that immaterial things cannot interact with MATERIAL things…

What verse in the bible do you think says spirit is not MATTER or ENERGY?

(Photons are MATERIAL, yes? If MATTER can be converted to light …then light MUST be material of some kind, right?)

51

@gbrooks9
No, I wouldn’t say that immaterial things cannot interact with material things. God is spirit, and I certainly believe he interacts with the material world.

Light, photons, energy, electromagnetism, gravity, etc. – all would be classified as belonging to the material world. Anything that has physical properties and can be measured or observed belongs to the material realm. The Bible, as you alluded, does not define spirit for us, nor does it use terms with philosophical precision. The Bible is written in the rough-and-tumble language of everyday Hebrew and Greek. However, we can make some deductions from Scriptural usage of the terms for spirit. Can we freely exchange “God is matter” for “God is spirit” without changing the meaning? I don’t think so, despite the lack of a verse that explicitly says, “God is spirit, which is not the same thing as matter or energy.”

@aleo
I don’t blame you for the thread, but I do blame you for dragging me out of the shadows! (Some others may blame you for it, too. Haha)

Some time ago, I read your article on choosing science as a career. You have some very interesting ideas, but I must admit that you lost me on the Noosphere. I understand what you mean by saying that it is just a framework for understanding, but it seems like you fall back upon this unprovable and untestable “thing” to explain quite a bit. I’m not really sure that you need the concept of Noosphere at all, frankly. Do you really need the Noosphere to explain how God’s gift of speech, for example, could rapidly spread from one person to another, almost like an infection?

I apologize for getting way off topic. And NOMA is unworkable!

52

@Jay313

Why not?

You are discussing META-PHYSICS… nobody knows what is real about metaphysics?

If we assume that spirit is IMMATERIAL… then what? What do you think this changes?

53

@Jay313

My post quotes from an expert who states that evolution, at its essence, is stated as (a) and (b) - this summary is found in many papers, including from materialists and atheists, so I cannot understand why you and Mr Brooks take exception. Most (if not all) TE/EC rely on consensus amongst biologists on ToE, so I cannot fathom why a view of ToE that is widely promulgated in the sciences, is unacceptable amongst TE/EC. I wonder if this “taking exception” reflects a need to believe in ToE, and when doubt is expressed by experts, the reaction is to refuse such an opinion.

54

oh brother… more of the same ‘madness’ per DeliberateResult.

What are you going to say now that I no longer will be using the terms “ToE”, “Evolution” or even “Theory of Evolution”, without qualifying such terms as equivalent to “God-directed Evolution” or “God-directed Common Descent with modifications” ?!?!?

55

Dear me - I have stated a number of times that ToE is, in my opinion as a scientist, a “work in progress”, and that it has been embroiled in debates and controversy as long as I can remember. I have no need of it to practice science, and am not filled with angst over it. Just what is your problem?

The only reason I have taken an interest in BioLogos discussions is the theological statements made regarding ToE (whatever form or formula people pronounce), and in this context, I have come to the view that the theological statements are poorly phrased or invalid (e.g. Adam and Eve is a recent topic).

ToE is not central to my science-faith outlook, and I do not regard it as a theory of everything.

If you disagree with this, so be it - there is no need to blow a fuse over the matter.

56

Yes, of course. Your angst is WITH ME.

But all i’m saying is that God directed the process of the creation of humanity, descending from earlier hominids.

MY angst is that you, like DeliberateResult, think that saying “Scientists define Evolution as atheistic and random” is a valid criticism of the BioLogos position.

You are playing debating games… and don’t seem to know what to say about God using a process that takes millions of years other than to say “show me your revelation from God!”

57

Patience is indeed a virtue:

(a) scientist define ToE as random mutations and natural selection - recent discussions have widened the outlook, but that means biologists are debating this, not you or BioLogos. If biologists have published papers on your version, I cannot find any - because there are none. This is a simple statement and it beggars belief that you think it is a criticism of anyone!
(b) God created the heavens and earth - this is theological and makes no detailed statements about ToE.

What you say is just that, your opinion, and you are welcomed to it. My statements are to show that you are not in a position to show if God directed evolution, timeless processes, or if he took an instant or an endless amount of time.

If you belong to a group, denomination, or whatever, that has specific beliefs regarding ToE, then you should say so, and I for one will gladly end this exchange.

Theists have argued against one aspect of ToE, in that it lacks purpose, teleology, and they have provided opinions on this - I am not aware of any of such arguments forming the basis for a biological research program. Atheists and anti-theists have put forward their views in that it is without purpose and "anything’ can happen - they do not have a scientific program based on this outlook.

There is no debate on these matters - and if you, on behalf of BioLogos find these statement unacceptable, then my response will again be to note such an odd response.

58

@GJDS
Going back a few posts, I should’ve realized that you weren’t from the U.S. just by the way you spelled “civilised.” Sorry. We Americans can be pretty provincial.

Perhaps I should have said “don’t understand” instead of take exception. That’s why I asked to hear from those who understand evolutionary theory better than I do. For the most part, I am here to learn, so I welcome hearing from those with more knowledge on the subject than I have (which is actually a pretty low standard). Still, I reserve the right to respectfully disagree, even with the experts, if their argument doesn’t make sense to me.

This is the source of my confusion. I was under the impression that there are examples (many or few?) of novel biological forms and functions that do not enhance the ability of organisms to propagate their genes, yet persist. For example, hominid brains expanded for 100,000 years or so with no apparent advantages (behavioral changes) until homo sapiens sapiens. Does current evolutionary theory accommodate such developments? (I am honestly asking because I do not know.) Because it seems to me that if evolutionary theory can accommodate apparent “exceptions” such as this, it should be able to accept other exceptions, as well. That is why I asked why consciousness should be held to a higher standard. If evolutionary theory is flexible enough to make exceptions in some cases, why treat it as a hard-and-fast rule in the case of consciousness? (This is a real question, not a position statement.)

At this point, I really don’t know which acronym I fit. “God created the heavens and the Earth” is my only real commitment. I’m still trying to figure out the rest, and I’m pretty sure that a bunch (if not most) of my opinions will prove false in the light of eternity.

@gbrooks9
I’m sorry, but I don’t see a point in keeping this line of reasoning going. This isn’t a swipe at you, but no one else seems interested, and we are at an impasse. I don’t think consciousness = spirit, but I can’t prove it, and I can’t convince you that such identification has inherent risks, so I’d rather just bow out and give you the last word.

59

I am a scientist but not a biologist, and my interest over the years has included a faith-science harmony. I lost interest in ToE during my student days, but looked. from time to time. at current theological and philosophical topics, and ToE seemed to me make an appearance with some thinkers. So I do not present my opinions as anything more then an observer, and since ToE has no relevance to my discipline, my interest is confined to any theological arguments that stem from ToE.

My into-remarks are meant to give you a feeling as to why I question notions derived from ToE - so confusion is close to want I feel is a constantly changing theory that is presented dogmatically to the world, but within academia, has been is a state of debate and revision as far back as I can think. The outlandish claims made (such as evolution of consciousness and the brain) of ToE is an unwelcomed aspect of this outlook. So “accommodation” to me is more like, “make it up as you go” but claim a scientific basis. The last statement annoys me, because I view this as an appropriation or conscription of science to serve an ideology. If biologists stuck to dealing with their paradigm, I for one would simply work in my field without any annoyance.

I agree with you that “God created the heavens and the earth” is sufficient - after all Christians have held to this for roughly 2,000 years.

60

The concept of the Noosphere will serve its purpose if it promotes **directed speculation instead of idle speculation.**To date, most of the conjecture about how humans acquired symbolic consciousness is more in the latter category, idle speculation. And your last comment illustrates the utility of this concept. The Great Leap Forward is evidence that the spread of human culture was far too rapid to have resulted from some fortuitous mutation of a biological gene (or combination thereof). Once it appeared, human culture and the transmission of symbolic ideas did spread like some viral disease. For convenience, this appearance can be termed as the birth of the Noosphere, because it ranks in importance in the history of the Universe with the initiation of the Cosmosphere and Biosphere.

On planet, Earth, the Noosphere began some 50K yrs ago. Did it begin earlier on some other plant? Carl Sagan thought so, and his SETI project hopes to prove it. The popular movie, Cosmos, speculates that the Noosphere spread out from Earth with the ideas riding on radio waves and TV pictures in the 1930’s. While the Noosphere could spread out at the speed of light, transporting objects (like Jody Foster) between Noospheric centers depended upon the utilization of ‘worm holes’ in space. I may live to see SETI succeed, but it is not likely that I will see us sending a human to a Noospheric center on some planet orbiting Vega. (My great-great-granddaughter might.)

Present day science has no solid explanation for the GLF–the sudden appearance of consciousness. (So for now it supports a “God of the Gaps”.) It’s pretty obvious that the Homo sapiens brain was over-designed through exaptation. If there were some way that it’s neural circuitry could be altered through experience (Lamarkian evolution), and this experience be passed on via newly invented language, then indeed human culture could spread with the speed of a viral infection. This is what Dawkins would like to call ‘brain programming’. I have collected several examples strongly suggesting that this actually occurs.
Al Leo