In Search of the Soul: An exercise in theological methodology

Atheists typically are not up on how a theologian reasons to a certain conclusion. Clearly Consersational Atheist is among these. But I'll give him credit. Rather than dismiss theology as bunkum, he has politiely asked for me to explain how a theologian reasons to a particular conclusion. He lists a bunch of doctrines and then states: "choose from these any ONE that you believe and can present a methodology."

Being the pleasant fellow that I am, I will happily oblige the request. I'll discuss here #2 "that souls exist". The point is not to mount a full case but to provide a very brief outline to explain how a theologian reasons.

Tradition

Tradition is a dirty word in some parts, but not in thoughtful theology. Actually it is not a dirty word in sensible science either. In science all taking tradition seriously means is getting up to speed on the legacy of informed and relevant opinions on a given subject matter. Same goes in theology, although in this case, as in philosophy, informed and relevant opinions may stretch back much longer than the last few decades.

When one does a survey of informed opinions in theology one finds historically a substantial consensus in favor of substance dualism, the view that human persons are composites of material body and immaterial soul. There actually are two different main theories of dualism, the Augustinian and Thomistic, but they agree on the main point that an immaterial substance exists after the demise of the body.

Interestingly, this consensus among theologians has dissolved in the last few decades. Of note, a number of theologians have recently adopted physicalist views of the human person.

To sum up, a survey of the most informed opinions of various theologians would provide various grounds to stake one or another position but we'll continue on in our brief survey.

Scripture

Next, we turn to scripture itself which, as I have noted, Christians take to be revelatory. One of the reasons that Christians have been historically dualistic is because of scripture. A number of passages suggest that the soul is distinct from the body and can survive the demise of the body.

Interestingly, a number of the physicalist theologians that have appeared of late have taken issue with this reading of the Hebrew nephesh and Greek psyche. They contend that scripture is more congruent with physicalism.

Science

Ever since Phineus Gage literally took it in the chin, scientists have explored in increasing detail the intimate relationship of mind and brain. In the minds of many philosophers and theologians, this has yielded powerful evidence that the mind simply is the brain (e.g. anomalous monism) or perhaps that it consists of non-physical properties that are supervenient on but irreducible to physical properties. Such views offer different shades of physicalism.

Others find that the intimate correlation between mind and brain that is amply established in neuroscience does not force any conclusion as to the identity of the former with the latter.

Philosophy

There are many philosophical considerations that come into play. For instance: philosophy of mind offers various theories of consciousness, some dualistic (property or substance) and others non-dualistic (e.g. physicalist). One must also weigh other arguments such as whether physicalism can sustain a concept of agency, free will and identity through time. Meanwhile the substance dualist wrestles with the issue of dualist interaction.

Finally, we should also throw in the fascinating and suggestive evidence for OBEs that has been collected by cardiologist Michael Sabom, philosopher Gary Habermas and others. If these cases can be sustained, then right there one would have evidence for the possiblity of continued existence apart from one's body. And that supports dualism.

Conclusions

So are human beings physical objects or ensouled composites? The theologian seeks to draw together all the information at hand from the best traditional and contemporary sources, along with his or her own reading of scripture, and the best information from science and philosophy. At the end of the day he or she then renders an informed opinion for the Christian community, but one which is subject to ongoing critical review, testing, reflection, development, possible refutation, et cetera.

So the next time somebody tells you "The philosopher asks questions that can never be answered. The theologian gives answers that can never be questioned" you may politely reply "Baloney."