More on Immortal Soul: When did humankind aquire one

Faith & Science Conversation
61

Jay, part of the reason I have tossed out the idea of the Noosphere is to encourage someone to devise tests that will see if makes sense. You said you did read my longer essay, and I presume you read about the Frenchman whose CT scan showed his brain had shrunk to less than 10% of norman size. I ‘explain’ this by postulating that he was born into the Noosphere , and his brain was being ‘wired’ by his exposure to its influence. (Education at home & school,etc.) While he was maturing, his hydrocephalus slowly was destroying nerve circuitry that would serve his ability to perform in modern society, but, concurrently, his actual life experience encouraged the formation of new circuits that filled the gap–not quite as efficiently, perhaps, but effectively enough.

So he got along in modern human society, whereas Lucy, the Australo-afarensis with a slightly larger brain, could not. Do you have a better explanation?
Al Leo

62

@aleo
A better explanation? Haha. No. I haven’t given it nearly as much thought as you. Evolution was not a personal interest until just recently. I think your article was the first time I ran across the term GLF, so I’m not competent to evaluate the quality of your evidence and examples. You make a compelling case, though.

My reservations about the Noosphere come mainly from the fact that it does not seem logically necessary. In your above example, for instance, I could express exactly the same thought without resorting to the Noosphere: “I ‘explain’ this by postulating that he was born into human culture, and his brain was being ‘wired’ by his exposure to its influence at home, school, etc.”

You could easily remove the concept of Noosphere and replace it with “Realm of Ideas,” or “human culture,” and still arrive at the same conclusions about the rapid spread of speech and symbolic thinking. That’s my impression, anyway. Personally, I think that the existence of the Noosphere cannot be proven or disproven, but I haven’t studied the question enough to say for sure. I plead ignorance.

63

@GJDS,

What you are saying makes very little sense to me.

You can tell the world that God makes a woman from a man’s rib, and you aren’t expected to know ANYTHING about how that would be done.

In contrast, we know what kinds of energies and events can affect genetic molecules … plus a good deal more, for sure. God is in charge of those forces, right? And we know that animals that are not suited to their environment will not live long, and will not have as many offspring. Right?

And YOU think I need to explain myself more than YOU do?

In my view, this is another example of people who superstitiously adhere to mythical story lines think they can impose their superstitions on everyone else…

64

@Jay313

I wish I could have been a better audience for speculation on the soul. But ever since the double-slit laboratory demonstration showed that a single photon can STILL act like a wave … there’s really nothing about the COSMOS that I would bet on !

65

You are now making your position less obscure - you will put scripture to one side and choose something else - as I said, that is your opinion and belief. It is odd however, that you then decide what God would do. Don’t you see your position? If you put scripture and revelation to one side, you are putting God and Christian faith to one side.

Now your rant about superstition is offensive as well as clearly false. I will terminate this exchange.

66

I think you’re barking up the wrong tree here. The soul is a spiritual thing, and as such it is not necessarily connected to any specific biological traits. It could be that all animals have some sort of soul as well, although they are not judged because they do not know good from evil. It is not like God is going to run out of storage space for souls, there’s no reason that every microorganism or even every atom should not have a spiritual side. We really don’t know how works at all, but what we do know is that the soul is not part of the world, and no matter what you do to a person or an animal you cannot see their soul.

This idea that people started having souls at some point is a very dangerous one. Because it may lead to the idea that some people do not have souls, which is not something that the Bible supports. On the other hand there are a few suggestions that animals may have some sort of capacity that we don’t understand. Like the donkeys mouth being opened, or the serpent. Or just the whole business with animals being peaceful before the fall.

In terms of science, sentience, which is the ability to have subjective experiences, and the only thing which all humans have, disabled or not, through the deepest sleep and even the deepest comas, continuously, from the time their first brain cells grow to the time they suffer brain death. I believe that is the continuity of this sentience that is responsible for our existence. It is certain that lower animals like lobsters are also sentient.

Interestingly, while science may one day be able to bring dead tissue back to life, only God can reconnect the soul with the body. Thus while we may be able to make copies of dead people, only God is capable of resurrection. Resurrection is the ultimate miracle because it requires access to the spiritual “backend” of our reality.

67

I find it a wonder that a man can be considered a rascal prone to exaggerating God’s providence and will …
while, in contrast, someone who insists that God built the earth 3 days before the Sun is considered the more conservative and reasonable fellow:

Let’s contrast:

THE RASCAL:

  1. Do mistakes happen in the reproduction of genetic molecules? CHECK - YES.

  2. Do the causes of these mistakes include various known forms of energy? CHECK - YES.

  3. Do animals with various genotypes have differential survival and reproduction rates? CHECK - YES.

  4. Is there a genetic correlation measurable between animals depending on similarities in geographic
    and chronological origins? CHECK - YES.

  5. SO - - if anyone thinks God wanted to create humanity, he could have harnessed these natural
    processes to do so.
    CONCLUSION: This rascal is completely crazy.

Compare - -

THE REASONABLE FELLOW:

  1. Is there a book written by humans, that tells us how Earth was created before
    there was any people to witness it.
    CHECK - YES. God knows what actually happened.

  2. Does the book emphatically describe the creation of the Earth and its environment in 3 days, all of which was before the Creation of the Sun on the 4th day, which is the age-old method for measuring days.
    CHECK - YES. God knows how long a day is.

  3. Does the book say God didn’t make women out of dust, but out of the Rib of the first human?
    CHECK - YES. God knows how to make things out of ANY thing.

  4. Is there any reason to think that this Book may have been based on a non-scientific view of the
    world, influenced by older pagan myths of creation?
    CHECK? - NO!

That is a WILD and RASH suggestion… as well as the idea that God would harness the energies
known to be involved in genetic mutations to accomplish anything.

Sigh … I confess. It is I that is the Rascal.

68

Jay, that’s exactly what I thought when I first encountered Teilhard’s use of the term, Noosphere. Why did he invent a new word when older, well-used ones would serve? I had been studying anthropology for some time, and I had become accustomed to the use of the word "culture" to describe human activities: e.g. the Olduwan stone tool culture; the Mousterian stone tool culture. Anthropologists recognized that at sites that provided good flint, our ancestors crafted an entire ‘tool kit’–a variety of implements they foresaw as desirable in future hunts and butchering. But this use of the term “human culture” was not distinctive enough, in my opinion, to serve as the dividing line that defines humankind.

Cave art, first associated with the Cro-Magnon peoples, was seen by archeologists as the definitive evidence for a GLF. But it was not immediately apparent that it was a portend of such a momentous change in the history of the Universe–that the Biosphere would never be the same–that one species, Homo sapiens, would, in Tattersall’s words become 'Masters of the Planet’. Human culture could then include fine artistry (painting & sculpture), music, and language, but these accomplishments, in themselves, would not suggest planetary mastery.

The ability to share abstract, symbolic ideas between individuals, knitting them together (at least potentially) into a cooperative efficient society was the key leading to human domination of planet Earth. In my opinion (and probably in Teilhard’s) the word, Culture, had been used so often for lesser accomplishments that a new word, Noosphere, was needed to support the momentous nature of this advance. Mother Nature (aka evolution) had devised cooperative societies in the past–ants, bees, wasps–where 'evolutionary success depended upon the power of the individual being multiplied manyfold. E. O. Wilson in his book, “Socio-Biology, the New Synthesis” describes this in great detail. There may be some lessons to be learned in how humans should design their societies to balance the rewards accruing to individuals with those that promote societal success.
Al Leo

69

There doesn’t seem to be any way to solve the question in the OP, which doesn’t keep it from being interesting nonetheless. For a couple of reviews which may be of interest, search “sapient paradox” on PubMed. They are both in Philos. Transactions of the Royal Society, which is free. There is also a new theme issue of that journal this month on Human Evolution. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1698

70

I followed your link and noticed an article on “Mosaic evolution.” My first thought was: “What does Moses have to do with evolution?” Hahahaha. Just had to share. Thanks for the resource.

71

A very interesting and convincing piece on why the immortal soul is not biblical.

72

@Burning_to_Know

Are you cherry-picking here, Jason? Or have you come to agree with the writer’s OTHER chapter?

His Chapter 8 has the entire program laid out for human souls; if you agree with this chapter, then you also agree that the upshot of Christianity is that millions of souls WILL BECOME immortal, right?

Here’s his Summary:

1 - a few people will never die

2 - some will die once, and

3 - some will die twice.
The few who will never die are those Christians who are alive at the Second Coming of Christ. They will be born again as spirits and meet Jesus in the air upon his return:

Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed. (I Corinthians 15:51)

Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. (I Thessalonians 4:17)

Christians (We) shall not all die (sleep), but all will be born again as spirits (changed). When they receive their spiritual bodies their physical bodies are no longer required and will be discarded. These Christians will not experience death in the usual sense. However, as their physical bodies will rot and decay, they could be said to die in that they no longer support a life. Thus the following verse remains a true statement:

And it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: (Hebrews 9:27)

Those humans who died as Christians will be born again as spiritual bodies upon Jesus’ return. This is the first resurrection. This much larger group will die once.

Those who died as nonbelievers and are resurrected again as physical bodies in the second resurrection following the millennium, and still refuse to accept Jesus as their Savior, will be cast into the lake of fire and suffer their second death. These individuals will die twice as humans. There is no recovery from the second death. It is eternal!

73

I am simply showing why I know we do not currently have any immortal aspects. As the title question of this thread asks: “When did Humankind acquire one (an immortal soul?)” My answer is that we have not acquired one at all.

74

I think your refutation has little traction with those who consider the IMMORTAL qualities of humans to be
something GIVEN by God…

I myself do not believe in people suffering in Hell in eternity. So I certainly appreciate your use of
Biblical evidence that suggests that evil-doers PERISH in the afterlife, rather than persist in torture and torment
for eternity.

But to the average Christian … the mortal or immortal nature of their being is a quibble - - if, by being a devoted Christian, they are sure to HAVE their immortality.

I think Genesis and generally virtually all of the Old Testament supports your thesis … Adam’s AFTERLIFE is not taken for granted… nor even acknowledged. When dies he is dead. And it is only in the necromancy of Samuel that we find any reference to someone being summoned intact even after death.

Even after considerable contact with the Persians, the Greeks didn’t consider the fate of the soul to be very appealing. They considered the fate of the dead to be in a sleepy, hungry stupor, hemmed in on all sides in the muddy depths of the Earth. And based on the testimony of the more mystical Greek philosophers, they say the belief of a pleasant and successful afterlife was taught them by EGYPTIANS! … and disseminated to their fellow Greeks in mystery schools of various vintages.

It is in the generations prior to the arrival of Jesus (presumably due to Persian influence) that Jewish mystics start to see how humanity CAN be successfully immortal … with Biblical references to the “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” being properly interpreted to mean God is God to the LIVING … not to the dead … and so these great patriarchs are alive SOMEWHERE … even before the general resurrection!

If you want to dispute the fine points with Jesus over this, it is your wish. You don’t seem to accept the more systematic conclusions of the Sabbatarian writer that you yourself cite. But I don’t think you are going to produce any useful conclusions with your line of inquiry on denying the presumption of human souls - - either being immortal from before birth, at birth, or only at the End of Days.

75

I’m open to correction, teaching and altering my point of view. But when something seems final, as it does with the ‘soul’, I like to consider it solved and move on to the next problem.

76

I don’t think you are a big fan of mystical things like Heaven, @Burning_to_Know. To believe there is an afterlife ?

77

I know nothing of Heaven.

1 Like
78

Science and the Soul
Getting back to the original question, I have been doing some research on the topic. A very interesting theory has come up from an anesthesiologist and professor at the University of Arizona, Dr. Stuart Hameroff, known for his studies on consciousness. It turns out that another thing scientists don’t know much about is how anesthesia works. Under anesthesia, you don’t dream and you don’t generally have much sense of how much time has elapsed at the point you wake. Dr. Hameroff has been working over 20 years to try to figure out what happened to consciousness in that time (including recent collaboration with atheist Roger Penrose). He has come up with a theory that involves microtubules in the brain which he believes carry consciousness via quantum information and entanglement. His theory is that under anesthesia (and in near death experiences) this still-entangled information goes out of the body, but when the person wakes it comes back. He believes that it is possible that this information remains entangled when absent from the body. (See this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjpEc98o_Oo) This can imply an eternal soul, although he and Penrose, of course, do not claim a connection to Christian beliefs.

To be sure, the theory has been attacked… and rebutted:
This more developed version of their ideas was also widely attacked, and notably by the physicist Max Tegmark, who calculated that quantum states in microtubules would survive for only 10−13 seconds, too brief to be of any significance for neural processes.[6] Hameroff and the physicists Scott Hagan and Jack Tuszynski replied to Tegmark arguing that microtubules could be shielded against the environment of the brain and that Tegmark had used his own criteria for the reduction of the wavefunction, and did not use Penrose’s OR, which is the basic assumption behind the whole theory. Recently there have been more and more experimental confirmation of this shielding, and most notably of quantum coherence in microtubuli, which was found by Anirban Bandyopadhyay in 2014.

I’m not saying that this theory is true, but it is at least one way that could show a scientific connection between the mind, consciousness, and an eternal soul.

This and other evidence I’ve seen may hint at some answers to the questions raised here about what happens when someone gets brain damage or out-of-body experiences in many of the near death episodes which have happened to over 13 million Americans and which @smknws described. I have been ambivalent about near death experience stories but maybe there is now a scientific theory that explains it as possibly more than ‘hallucination.’

What do you think about all of this?

79

It’s interesting and I don’t know enough about it to be certain either way. But I am 99% sure that NDEs are hallucinations and not spiritual in nature. The stories from people who have had them are not limited to Christian themes and even when they are, they differ on details substantially, which should be the same if they were actually experiencing ‘Heaven’ or ‘Hell’. Their experiences almost always match what they already believe about the afterlife and God.

I find it fitting with what we know about the Human brain that our consciousness and our very personalities are tied to it and not some kind of spiritual aspect. When the brain is damaged, we clearly see a loss of parts of who the person is. And a complete loss of all the person is upon death. This combined with several scriptures confirm for me that their is no consciousness after death and only the eventual resurrection will remedy this.

80

I don’t want us to get too sidetracked about NDE’s, which are only a tangential evidence that Hameroff mentioned. The point is that - in the baffling absence of a being able to physically figure out where physically consciousness comes from - serious scientists - apparently including Roger Penrose - are thinking about possibilities of a quantum dimension that allows a kind of separation of the brain from consciousness. By the way, as I understand the theory, in a brain damaged person, even though the person might not be able to physically access their full consciousness, it doesn’t mean that the quantum information contained therein is lost forever.