The Biblical Distinction Between Soul And Spirit: My Response To A Ghost In The Machine, I

Ebonmuse has on his site another much-talked-about essay titled A Ghost In The Machine which is a valiant argument against Cartesian duality, or the generally-theist idea that humans have a soul substance that can survive or somehow transcend the death of the physical body. While leaving a comment in the thread of On Expertise I noticed another comment by Heliobates which read,

“…if you want to read what I consider to be THE SLAM DUNK argument against theism, check out our host’s A Ghost In The Machine. Without Cartesian dualism, religion is dead in the water.”

To this I responded,

“IMO the error… is in assuming all religion dependent upon the Cartesian paradigm. Yes, I can and will offer a detailed counter-explanation, but it is far beyond the scope of the thread..”

So here we are. I said I would offer a detailed counter-explanation, and now I’ve got to stick to my word.

OVERVIEW

A Ghost In The Machine (AGITM) is no quick read, nor is it something any intellectual theist should skim lightly and toss aside. Due to the length and divergent nature
of the piece, if I want to be taken seriously I’ll likely have to address it in parts.

For today, I wish simply to show that the author’s ignorance of accessible biblical knowledge renders the majority of his argument a straw man, either-or fallacy. What I mean by this is that although I might agree with the argument from mind-brain unity and even the general conclusion of the piece, since as a theist I am not advocating dualism in the first place, the impact and relevance of AGITM to my particular theistic belief system is greatly diminished.

I did spend the better half of twenty-four hours digesting AGITM, and although in a writer’s context I’ll say it’s a most cohesive, well-written and wonderfully entertaining piece with a near-seamless progression of pertinent and well-supported facts, by no means do I agree with all or even most of the conclusions; I feel the piece contains pivotal misunderstandings of religion that will not merit the Courtier’s Reply, and I do not consider it a “slam dunk” against theism. I don’t even consider it a slam dunk against dualism, and this is not to say I particularly care for the dualist paradigm. I also have a few suggestions that I feel would strengthen the argument from mind-brain unity; in particular, I would upgrade the argument to mind-body unity and add that one need not even perturb brain matter to evoke demonstrable and predictable changes in soulical expression, i.e. the well-documented tonsillectomy studies of the Italian brothers Calderelli. Incidentally, I find their work a challenge to the classical interpretation of tonsils as useless or vestigial, although the two are by no means synonymous. I say this only because I have heard people defend tonsillectomies on evolutionary grounds.

The author’s is an outlined, 5-Part essay with significant sub-sections, case studies and tangential musings. The main point seems to come in the second paragraph:

“..there is strong evidence against the existence of a soul in humans, pointing instead to the alternative of materialism – that the mind is not separate from the brain, but that it arises from and is produced by neural activity within the brain. Simply stated, the mind is what the brain does…” (ital. mine)

In the final paragraph of Part One, the author’s conclusion, strategy and thesis are further clarified and summarized as to show that,

“…not only is there no evidence for the existence of the soul, but that there is strong positive evidence against the existence of the soul, deploying an argument I have styled the argument from mind-brain unity.”

Although I do not think AGITM successfully defeats dualism, it is not my intent to defend Descartes’ dualist paradigm or get mired down in philosophical bantering, nor is it my intent to counter the author’s overall thesis in one broad stroke. My intent, at least from the outset of the examination, is three-fold, and also beyond the scope of a single post:

A. To show how the author’s misunderstanding of fairly clear and accessible biblical teaching substantially undermines the argument (and not in a superficial manner that would merit the Courtier’s);

B. To show how the author’s misinterpretations of clear and accessible biblical teaching concerning both the soul and salvation have strong bearing on the value judgments inherent in the argument; and

C. To show that the author’s complete lack of address regarding the biblical tripartite model relegates the entire argument, no matter how eloquently crafted, to the status of an either-or fallacy, where the reader is forced to choose between limited options when other viable options clearly exist. In other words, the author permits us only a discussion of dualism vs. materialism, and nowhere is the reader even told that a tripartite model exists.

THE TRIPARTITE NATURE OF MAN

Contrary to being a matter of inconsequence or esoterics, let us consider this important differentiation between spirit and soul that we offer. The author begins Part Two with an interesting complaint:

“Remarkably, I have yet to find any theist source which explains (what the soul does).”

In stating such, the author reveals unfamiliarity with scripture. Although the Bible does not give a detailed, scientific, or even satisfying account of what our soul does, scripture contains several passages that generally describe what our soul is, and more importantly, what our soul is not. The Bible makes a clear distinction between soul and spirit, and the biblical depiction of a human being is tripartite, not dualistic. Reasonable biblical exegesis does not permit the argument that humans are dualist entities. Consider 1 Thessalonians 5:23 which reads,

“May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless…”

We can reasonably deduce from Paul’s words that the whole person consists of spirit and soul and body. Hebrews 4:12 makes a similar distinction that is also explicitly tripartite. These positions are further consistent with the idea expressed in Genesis that man was created in God’s image; remember, so long as we are in a biblical context, the God in question is also posited to be tripartite. Whether we approve them or not, at a bare minimum we must concede that these are instances of internal consistency from both the Old and New Testaments on the matter.

Under the tripartite model, soul is the product of the union between spirit and body, and perturbations in either spirit or body can and often do lead to perturbations of soul. As the light needs both a conduit and an impetus to shine, a human needs both a body and spirit to have soul. Electricity (spirit) needs scaffolding (body) through which it can flow to produce any singular instance along the spectrum of electromagnetic energy we call light (soul). Also, light (soul) can either extinguish via damage to the scaffolding (body) through which electricity (spirit) flows, and equally when electricity (spirit) is disconnected from the scaffolding (body).

At any rate, several word combinations the author uses indicate misunderstanding regarding the biblical teaching on the soul, and nowhere in AGITM has the author even considered the tripartite model. For example,

“Did the blast of the iron on that morning in 1848 knock Gage’s soul out of his head?”

To this I would respond of course not, but the severity of physical damage Phineas Gage sustained that summer day in 1848 surely obliterated portions of his scaffolding (body) that are crucial in the proper transference and expression of light (soul). Our author also asks,

“After all, if there is an immortal soul, why would it be subordinate to flawed biology?”

Though in the context above Ebonmuse uses ‘soul’ where I would use ‘spirit,’ excepting instances of divine sustenance or spiritual provocation, the soul must be subordinate to matter, because at any given time the soul (light) is the product of the union between body (scaffolding) and spirit (electricity). Thus, reasonable biblical exegesis permits the idea that a human being represents a dynamic interaction between spirit, soul and body, and Ebonmuse has missed this point entirely. Clearly not a slam-dunk, and arguably not even a complete argument.

In short, no matter how well-written, well-detailed or how many sources are cited, a piece can hardly be a slam dunk against theism if not all theist positions are evaluated. AGITM, though persuasive, good, well-supported writing, is NOT a slam dunk against theism. At the bare minimum, today’s introductory post establishes legitimate grounds that AGITM’s ignorance of the tripartite model (at least temporarily) renders the entire argument, no matter how wonderfully crafted, an either-or fallacy.

Without claiming to know all that which is capable, I do claim the fact of brain damage or stimulation which results in predictable and often curable behavioral changes in no way supports the conclusion that behavior and consciousness itself are by-products solely of the brain. As living souls, we are the interaction of body and spirit. Either end of the transaction can be damaged, resulting in various effects to soulical expression, which is consciousness and our sense of self.

However damning to Cartesian dualism, which is itself a matter of debate, AGITM offers little if any challenge to the biblical model as hitherto explained.