Evolution and the soul

[johnsl14]

Hi everyone,

Just stumbled across this site yesterday while searching for info on the historicity of Jesus. I've been perusing the threads and it seems like most everyone who generally responds is pretty well educated and willing to tackle things logically. It also seems that most of you have embraced evolution and christianity.

I was wondering how do you think that man has been differentiated from animal? I mean, at what point did we receive eternal souls? Or do you believe that all creatures have eternal souls, or all creatures along our evolutionary path have eternal souls? And are we the endpoint of evolution, or is there still somewhere to go? And if there is, did Jesus just die for mankind as we know it now or for those things into which we will evolve? And did he die for those things from which we evolved? How does an "evolutionary christian" (probably a better term for this) deal with these questions?

I guess sort of wrapped up in this as well is the question of Adam and Eve. Do you believe this story? And if not, how do you account for original sin? And if you do, how could this have happened through evolution?

Thanks for any responses.

Luke

[Mike D]

Hi Luke,

Welcome to the site, I hope you find your time here worthwhile.

Perhaps one of the more surprising things about Christianity is that its emphasis is not on 'eternal soul, mortal body' but on 'resurrected body' - that is to say, it is not certain whether we have such a thing as 'an eternal soul' at all. There are some passages of in the bible which could be interpreted to say that we do, but it is equally true that they can be interpreted figuratively. I say this is surprising, because it is practically a staple sterotype of Christianity of 'dying and going to Heaven', a stereotype that has been peddled as much by the church as anyone else, I should hasten to add.

I'm sure you can see where this is going - if we don't in fact have an immortal soul, then there can't be a question of when we got it!

My own position is to remain agnostic on many issues - my faith is in Jesus, not in speculations about doctrine. I believe that it is possible that there is some part of the human personality that survives death, but I'm not convinced either way.

On Adam and Eve, I see it as a myth in the truest sense of that word - it is a story of how human beings learned to choose to not do as God commanded - thus it was true at some point in history (people first decided not to listen to God) and is also true about what people do now.

Mike

[James Hannam]

NT Wright's latest book - Surprised by Hope - looks like it may be the definitive statement on this question. He demolishes the old fashioned 'ghost in the machine' arguments about souls and then rebuilds the Christian hope as being through resurrection.

www.amazon.co.uk/Surprised-Hope-Tom-Wright/dp/028105617X/

OK, I haven't read it but it looks good.

Best wishes

James

[johnsl14]

Mike and James,

Thanks for the replies.

Mike,

I'm not sure I understand your response fully. Are you saying that you do not believe in some sort of afterlife? If that is true, what is the point of your faith in Jesus?

Mike and James,

What do you personally believe about life after death/the resurrected body/eternal soul. I haven't read the aforementioned book either, but reading reviews it seems to stress the concept of the resurrected body over the concept of an eternal soul. Either way, I'm not sure it addresses the gist of my question. Let me try to put it another way: Are animals resurrected? Do they have the same hope for an after-life? If not, how do you draw the distinction between man and animal? If we are all from the same primordial soup, how/when did man get the distinction of resurrection?

Again, thanks for any replies.

Luke

[unkleE]

Luke,

I'm with the others on immortal souls.

1. The Greek word psyche is used in the New Testament, and can be translated "breath", "soul", "life" or "self", but it is not immortal - Jesus said to be afraid of him who could destroy body and soul in hell (Matt 10:28).
2. I understand the idea of an immortal soul came into christian thinking from Greek philosophy.
3. Therefore, as the others say, the christian hope is in our being resurrected bodily.
4. Note this also says something about hell as being eternal (in the age to come) rather than everlasting.

But this doesn't, unfortunately, end the problems. If you consider the issues of mind and brain much discussed by philosophers and neuroscientists, you find that if our brains are all there is to our minds (which would be true under a naturalistic or atheistic belief), then there is no place for our freewill - there is no "us" outside our brains to control the electrochemical processes going through our brains, and thus our "choices" are actually what those processes decide.

Now christians generally don't believe this (I don't), but to believe in human free will seems to require that our minds are something more than just the emergent properties of our brains. This view is "dualism", much scorned by scientists, but hard to avoid for christians.

But that seems to mean that there is some sort of soul after all, at least a self, or a spiritual aspect of mind undetectable by natural science. So the question may still become, when in the evolution of humanity did we gain free will, become spiritually aware, etc? (I'm assuming animals other than humans don't have these.)

I don't know the answer to that. And maybe my summary of the issue is mistaken. Anyone else with a view about dualism?

[humphreyclarke]

I suppose the question is, when can we say that humanity actually began?. Well this is pure speculation but my money is on the period when human culture, imagination and ingenuity suddenly flowered around 45,000 years ago in West Africa. The evidence ranges from fantastic cave paintings and elaborate graves to the first fishing equipment and sturdy huts. Anthropologists view this change as momentous, giving humans the cohesion and adaptability to expand their range into Europe, Asia, and eventually Australia and the Americas. Something happened, speculations range from a increase in brain quality, to a rare mutation that gave us the ability to communicate through language.

Having said that, we are now beginning to understand that the Neanderthals are not the dull stupid oafs of popular imaginations. There is evidence that they experienced a cultural revolution around the same time as Homo Sapiens (Châtelperronian) but it was thought they had simply copied us. I don't actually buy this, I think it was evolved independently.

Furthermore if we look at Homo floresiensis we see that it had a brain about the size of a chimpanzee, yet it also shows the hallmarks of humanity. There is evidence of the use of fire for cooking in Liang Bua cave, and evidence of cut marks on the Stegodon bones associated with the finds. The species has also been associated with stone tools of the sophisticated Upper Paleolithic tradition typically associated with modern humans. An indicator of intelligence is the size of region 10 of the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, which is associated with self-awareness and is about the same size as that of modern humans, despite the much smaller overall size of the brain.

So to conclude, the human body has a long ancestry but the features we would identify as being distinctively 'human' seem to have arrived comparatively recently, and they appear to be convergent across a number of different branches.

[Mike D]

Hi again Luke,

I'm not sure I understand your response fully. Are you saying that you do not believe in some sort of afterlife?

I'm agnistic about an afterlife, in the sense of dying and my soul going to heaven. I'm not sure what a soul is, and I'm not sure if I've got one! I do believe in an afterlife in the sense of believing in the resurrection of the whole person.

If that is true, what is the point of your faith in Jesus?

I'm curious - what do you mean by 'what is the point'? My faith in Jesus is a response to a person, raised from the dead by God's power, and in his teaching. I believe these things because I perceive them to be true - to that extent, there isn't really a 'point' to my faith, any more than there is a 'point' in my belief in the scientific method - I don't believe in order to gain something, I just believe. I'm not trying to say my faith is somehow virtuous, by the way, merely that I think that belief is a function of whether you think something is true, not what you would hope to gain if it were true, if you understand what I mean.

Are animals resurrected? Do they have the same hope for an after-life? If not, how do you draw the distinction between man and animal? If we are all from the same primordial soup, how/when did man get the distinction of resurrection?

The distinction between humans and animals is (in my opinion) that humans are self aware, rational and aware of moral choices (this is what I believe Genesis refers to in speaking of God making people in his own image), and have used this attributes to turn away from God. So redemption and resurrection are primarily for people as the beings made like God yet fallen. There are bits of the Bible which could refer to a general redemption for all of creation, but I'm unsure whether this is tue or not.

I hope this helps to clarify things. What's your take on this - does it make any sense to you, or does it sound like mumbo jumbo?

Mike

[johnsl14]

Mike,

I guess it is still unclear to me. I do not understand what is the point of a resurrected Jesus if there is no afterlife from which he is saving us. And that would be the direction I was going when I asked what is the point in your faith if there is no afterlife. It would be like me saying I have faith in pepperoni pizza. Ok, it exists, it was good, what's the point? Does that make sense?

I'm not sure about the significance behind the distinction of a resurrected soul vs. body. It seems like semantics to me. Either you're resurrected or you're not, who cares what we look like. I have a feeling the crux of what you are saying is tied up in this distinction. If there is no soul, there is no need for God to have given one to us at any point in history. Which would mean there would be no need for God to have intervened with his evolutionary project. If there is a soul then God had to intervene at some point, and that would fall outside strict evolution. Is that the rationale for the distinction?

Do you believe that we are resurrected as we are, or that we are somehow changed? Because I think the Bible is pretty specific about our bodies being new/different/better in the resurrection, and if they are new, what is it about the new us that is the same as the old us? Doesn't there have to be some sort of something else that inhabits(for lack of a better term) our new bodies, call it a soul/mind/spirit/personality/whatever? How else could Paul say, "For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked."2 Cor. 5:1-3. How could our earthly body be destroyed and God give us a heavenly body and it still be us if there were nothing extra-body to identify us?

Unklee,

I don't understand the distinction between eternal and everlasting.

Anyone,

Was there a distinct point at which we as humans became such? And is salvation extended to those from whom we evolved and will it be extended to those into whom we evolve?

Thanks again. Just so you all know, I was raised evangelical so that is how all you say is being filtered.

Luke

[rfmoo]

I do not believe that the human consciousness is destroyed at death, to be reconstituted at a later time. To me, continuity is a part of identity and if I am destroyed and my double is created later, it does the original no good at all. I'm not fussy about how this is managed. If my God is half the God I think he is, it's child's play to him.

Best,

Richard Moorton

[rfmoo]

To be a bit more clear, I believe that our consciousness survives death through the power of God in whatever manner it pleases Him to bring it about.

Best,

RM

[unkleE]

Sept 4, 2008 14:26:07 GMT johnsl14 said:

Unklee,

I don't understand the distinction between eternal and everlasting.

Sorry, one tends to abbreviate on these forums.

The Jews had a concept of this present age, which is evil and difficult, and the age to come, which will be great because God will have put things "right". I think originally, even up until the time of Jesus, they expected the age to come to be on earth, and the king to be a conqueror who would put down the Jewish enemies. Hence their common misunderstanding of Jesus, who saw things in less physical terms.

So Greek scholars tell me that when Jesus talks about this, the Aramaic word he used is translated as the Greek word "aionios" which has this meaning of the age to come.

In my youth, the evangelical Bible commentaries of choice in my circle were those published by IVF/Tyndale. Here is a quote from the "Tyndale Commentary on Matthew" by R V G Tasker MA DD, then Professor Emeritus of New Testament Exegesis in the University of London (p240, commenting on Matthew 25:41-46):

"In this verse, the same Greek word aionios is rendered everlasting before punishment and eternal before life; and the reader might draw the erroneous inference that while the punishment of the wicked will last forever, the life which the blessed are to enjoy will not! In fact, however, aionios is a qualitative rather than a quantitative word. Eternal life is the life characteristic of the age (aion) to come, which is in every way superior to the present, evil age. Similarly, 'eternal punishment' in this context indicates that lack of charity and of loving-kindness, though it may escape punishment in the present age, must and will be punished in the age to come. There is, however, no indication as to how long that punishment will last. The metaphor of 'eternal fire' wrongly rendered everlasting fire in verse 41 is meant, we may reasonably presume, to indicate final destruction. It would certainly be difficult to exaggerate the harmful effect of this unfortunate mistranslation, particularly when fire is understood in a literal rather than a metaphorical sense."

If this understanding is correct, then it has two implications:

1. We are not required to believe that the punishments in the age to come are forever, but rather involve forfeiture of life.

2. Whatever we are, soul, body, whatever, we should no be seen as immortal, but rather mortal that, by grace, "may attain to the resurrection of the dead".

I hope what I meant is a bit clearer now.

[James Hannam]

Sept 4, 2008 21:07:47 GMT @rfmoo said:

To be a bit more clear, I believe that our consciousness survives death through the power of God in whatever manner it pleases Him to bring it about.

This is very well put. God does not need Platonic souls or ghosts in the machine. Even pure physicalism (which I don't subscribe too) is compatible with personal immortality on a philosophical basis.

I do think, though, that freewill and immortality may be linked. We cannot exist without a body (hence the need for resurrection), but a body alone may not be enough.

Best wishes

James

[jamierobertson]

Agreed, James, and bravo rfmoo! Studying the human body shows that the mind and body are not two things that can be easily separated, as "vulgar" dualism would suggest (pain makes you miserable; stress and psychological upset have knock-on effects on virtually every body system); on the other hand, materialism seems to be, at its core, nothing but a bloody great assumption frequently made by those who really don't like religious types. Is there a "happy medium"?

Well, the Semitic Totality Concept (http://www.tektonics.org/af/baptismneed.html) handles this rather nicely. It seems to be a way of planting psychological issues firmly within the context of flesh and blood, whilst realising that the mind - which could be regarded as just an illusion - is still there in as much as it is a product of our neurones. The Bible isn't detailed about what happens to "us" (in the continuity, conscious sense) immediately after death - rather, our hope is directed towards a Resurrection that involves a physical body. Resurrected, yes, glorified, yes, but physical, living in a newly-created physical environment.

I have no problems with accepting that, in the course of history culminating with the evolution of Homo sapiens, God has created a material universe which has generated a being in his image - able to choose, love, enjoy, help, enforce justice, and interact with God in a worshipful, fulfilling relationship. I happily accept the existence of spiritual entities of varying sorts, but that doesn't necessarily have to extend into the deus ex machina that Christianity is often portrayed as preaching.

PS. - yes, yes, I know I completely avoided the free will issue. I'm not convinced that materialistic humans really do mean no free will.... but I've not pondered it a great deal, and am happy for correction

[unkleE]

I'm still interested in the topic of dualism. James has mentioned "souls or ghosts in the machine", and Jamie says "the mind and body are not two things that can be easily separated, as "vulgar" dualism would suggest".

I once thought the same - we are dust that has evolved, and we gain eternal life by grace and resurrection of the body. But after I did a bit of reading on neuroscience, I wasn't so sure. If we think our minds are emergent properties of our physical brains, it is hard to see how we can exercise any genuine choice, as seems to be required for faith and ethics. For all our brains seem to be controlled by the cause and effect laws of physics.

The question "do we have free will?" seems to become "can we initiate new electro-chemical processes of thought (i.e. ones not arising in response to previous processes or external stimuli), when that initiation is in itself a thought/process?" The initiation of a new thought is in itself a thought, so what initiates it? It seems like a circular argument.

So we have a problem, and the first obvious option is to find a form of monism that allows for some additional properties for physical matter in the brain and the processes it generates. Predicate dualism, and John Polkinghorne's "dual aspect monism" are examples, but it seems like they are both still claiming there's something more than the physical, and they seem to effectively just be disguised form of dualism.

Reluctantly, the only way out I can see is to be a dualist, and believe "we" and our minds are more than our brains. And I find this is more of a live option than I expected, among philosophers at least. Philosopher Brian Chalmers (Professor of Philosophy at the Australian National University and philosophy of mind editor for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) is a dualist. And even scientists tend to think as dualists some of the time, and recognise they haven't disproved it. Alwyn Scott: "Although dualism cannot be disproved, the role of science is to proceed on the assumption that it is wrong and see how much progress can be made."

Now you guys seem to scorn this option, but can you explain how any other option provides for free will and ethics, or do you not believe in them either? I'm really interested to know.

[Al Moritz]

I am a firm believer in dualism. As the Pope said, believers can acccept the emergence of the human body through evolution as long as they maintain that the soul comes directly from God.

Unklee, I agree with your points on free will and thought. Also, how can the mind recognize truth when it is just brain? Everyone can recognize mathematical truths like 17 being a prime number. Granted, the concept of prime number is an agreed consensus, but once the term is established, firm, objective truths related to it can be seen. Truth in thinking cannot be explained by evolution, only consensus in thinking.

Also, if the mind is just a computer (which it would have to be if it were just brain), how can it think about itself? Is there any computer program known that can reflect on itself? No. Stephen Barr has raised and discussed this point brilliantly in "Modern Physics and Ancient Faith" and rejects physicalism of the mind on these grounds too.

Certainly, thinking is impaired by impaired brain function. However, equating the two because of that is grossly mistaking correlation for causation. Brain function and thinking are correlated because the brain is an instrument of the mind. I cannot work with a dull knife, I can only work with a sharp knife. Does that mean that the knife is me? Of course not.

Also some neuroscientists are firm dualists. Nobel prize winner John Eccles is one.

***

No, I am not an Intelligent Design guy, I am a firm upholder of the origin of life by chemical evolution and of all aspects of biological evolution. Yet only up and until the emergence of the human mind. For a Christian to go so far as to try to accomodate the human mind under the evolution umbrella as well is fearful caving in to scientific "political correctness", in my view.