Neuroscience and the Soul

[Zeno Swijtink]

Science 27 February 2009:
Vol. 323. no. 5918, p. 1168
DOI: 10.1126/science.323.5918.1168a

LETTERS
Neuroscience and the Soul

Science and religion have had a long relationship, by turns collegial and adversarial. In the 17th century Galileo ran afoul of the Church's geocentrism, and in the 19th century Darwin challenged the biblical account of creation. The breaches that open at such times often close again, as religions determine that the doctrine in question is not an essential part of faith. This is precisely what happened with geocentrism and, outside of certain American fundamentalist Christian sects, evolution.

A new challenge to the science-religion relationship is currently at hand. We hope that, with careful consideration by scientists and theologians, it will not become the latest front in what some have called the "culture war" between science and religion. The challenge comes from neuroscience and concerns our understanding of human nature.

Most religions endorse the idea of a soul (or spirit) that is distinct from the physical body. Yet as neuroscience advances, it increasingly seems that all aspects of a person can be explained by the functioning of a material system. This first became clear in the realms of motor control and perception (1, 2). Yet, models of perceptual and motor capacities such as color vision and gait do not directly threaten the idea of the soul. You can still believe in what Gilbert Ryle called "the ghost in the machine" (3) and simply conclude that color vision and gait are features of the machine rather than the ghost.

However, as neuroscience begins to reveal the mechanisms underlying personality, love, morality, and spirituality, the idea of a ghost in the machine becomes strained. Brain imaging indicates that all of these traits have physical correlates in brain function. Furthermore, pharmacologic influences on these traits, as well as the effects of localized stimulation or damage, demonstrate that the brain processes in question are not mere correlates but are the physical bases of these central aspects of our personhood. If these aspects of the person are all features of the machine, why have a ghost at all?

By raising questions like this, it seems likely that neuroscience will pose a far more fundamental challenge than evolutionary biology to many religions. Predictably, then, some theologians and even neuroscientists are resisting the implications of modern cognitive and affective neuroscience. "Nonmaterialist neuroscience" has joined "intelligent design" as an alternative interpretation of scientific data (4). This work is counterproductive, however, in that it ignores what most scholars of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures now understand about biblical views of human nature. These views were physicalist, and body-soul dualism entered Christian thought around a century after Jesus' day (5, 6).

To be sure, dualism is intuitively compelling. Yet science often requires us to reject otherwise plausible beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary. A full understanding of why Earth orbits the Sun (as a consequence of the way the solar system was formed) took another century after Galileo's time to develop. It may take even longer to understand why certain material systems give rise to consciousness. In the meantime, just as Galileo's view of Earth in the heavens did not render our world any less precious or beautiful, neither does the physicalism of neuroscience detract from the value or meaning of human life.

Martha J. Farah*
Center for Cognitive Neuroscience
Department of Psychology
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA

*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]
Nancey Murphy
School of Theology
Fuller Theological Seminary
Pasadena, CA 91182, USA

References
1. M. Jeannerod, The Cognitive Neuroscience of Action (Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ, 1997).
2. M. J. Farah, The Cognitive Neuroscience of Vision (Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ, 2000).
3. G. Ryle, The Concept of Mind (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1949).
4. M. Beauregard, D. O'Leary, The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul (HarperCollins, New York, 2007).
5. N. Murphy, Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies? (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2006).
6. J. B. Green, Body, Soul, and Human Life (Baker, Grand Rapids, MI, 2008).

[Karl Frederick]

Zeno, thank you for this post. I enjoy hearing of new advances in understanding of what human beings are, though I believe causality is more difficult to determine than asserted by the following statement from the article:

"Furthermore, pharmacologic influences on these traits, as well as the effects of localized stimulation or damage, demonstrate that the brain processes in question are not mere correlates but are the physical bases of these central aspects of our personhood."

Showing that central aspects of our personhood are affected by pharmacologic influences does not prove that they are not affected by other influences as well.

Knowing a long chain of causality can answer a series of questions beginning "How does . . ." with a series of answers about how something can happen. At the beginning of a chain, and perhaps at every link, there is a fundamental mystery of "why," and that, to me, seems more a question for intuitive, rather than logical mind. I applaud the efforts to research the field with logic, but logic is often distorted through partial application in order to "prove" things that aren't so.

Karl

[Yubajeff]

Re:the neurophysiological correlation of the physical thought/deed and the mental/spiritual basis thereof

I have been "following this thread" since age 10. It was then I realized that ultimately we be imaging every individual human thought and emotion. I also realized that the images or otherwise delineated physical correlates did not by any stretch of my imagination constitute causation. The concept of dualism has immense appeal. It has stood the test of time. It has been endorsed (or honorably rejected) by just about every major thinker/doer. Those that reject it are usually academics with no real accomplishments under their belts. Dualism is found in nearly every Eastern and Western thought system, from Yin-Yang to the binary basis of computer systems. In my own mind it is clear to me that every biological system has a binary basis as well: every strand of DNA consists of series of PAIRED amino acids, and DNA comes in PAIRED strands, in the twisted double helix formation. This constitutes the genome, which then gives rise to an incredible variety of plant and animal life. I believe a binary mechanism also underlies the inorganic world, with all matter consisting of positive protons, negative electrons, and neutron which are probably a consequent of the binary process. Sometimes I visualize this as a universe composed of Lego's, with each subunit as having a positive and negative pole. There is subsequently a near infinite arrangement of these lego's, which is able to generate such complexity as a sunset in over Mount Kenya, with herds of giraffes and elephants drinking out of Lake Victoria under the watchful eye of native Kikuyus.
I can't quite see how these academic folks can confound causation and correlation so badly. They invariably present data, none of which as any relevance. I've thought in the past that the explanation is that none of these "scientists"-
are not trained as clinicians. As a clinician, I did receive one bit of important training: that is the ability to analyze for causation v. correlation. Without this awareness, a physician is a danger to their people, like most of the new crop, who prescribe statin drugs for everyone with a hint of high cholesterol level, to the delight of big pharma, and are a plague to society.
Yubajeff
[email protected]