#i feel like thomas aquinas reconciling science with religion | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

sicut-in-caelo-et-in-terra · 6 years

Note

Hey so l was wondering how to reconcile the existence of souls with stuff like neuroscience which says that there’s no soul? Bc as much as I believe in the afterlife I’m having a hard time pinpointing how it works...unless the point is that it’s a matter of faith and isn’t covered by science, which means that I have to have more faith. (Unfortunately I first tried to answer this by going through militant Richard Dawkins-esque atheist forums online, so now I’m healing from that toxicity.) thanks

Hey friend! Thanks for the ask!

That’s a really deep and philosophical question you’ve got there. And I know the feeling of trying to find answers like that from forums like those, it can get pretty draining and damaging.

I’m not really an expert in philosophy, although I have done some work with this kind of thing and it’s definitely something I’ve thought about a lot myself so I’ll see what I can put into this.

So first, let’s clarify that neuroscience, psychology, biology, and the sciences in general do not (and cannot) say that there is no soul. There may be some scientists who do not believe in the existence of the soul and use their platforms as scientists to attempt to pass off their metaphysical beliefs as truth, but the existence or lack thereof of a soul is not a scientific question and cannot be answered by science. The soul, as defined by most philosophers and theologians, is not a physical substance, not directly observable by any human means. You can observe evidence for the existence of soul-like things (e.g. if you find that you miraculously made it safely through some very dangerous series of events, you may attribute it to the intercession of your guardian angel), but you cannot measure the soul. It does not exist in space or as matter or energy. The term I have seen used to describe it is nonextended, as opposed to extended entities, like matter, energy, forces like gravity and friction, etc. Spiritual substance may perhaps be able to affect material substance (there is a series of letters between Descartes and Elisabeth of Bohemia that addresses this), but does not do so in a predictable or measurable way. Science only claims to be able to describe the extended world, and to describe patterns and processes that are measurable and predictable. It is possible to use science to understand the universe as a system, but it cannot sufficiently explain the soul or other spiritual substance or God or the afterlife. Philosophy, logic, and faith are needed to describe it.

One other way I have thought about science and the existence of a soul being reconcilable is that we don’t have explanations for everything in science. Think about our scientific understanding before we had the concept of infrared light. We couldn’t see it, although we would sometimes experience its effects (similarly to how we experience, for example, prayer or the intercession of angels - we don’t have the tools to understand why something happened, but we understand that something inexplicable happened). It wasn’t until after we discovered whatever tools were necessary to measure infrared light that we could empirically define its existence. But infrared light was so much easier than the soul, because it is tied to something we can experience with our senses (visible light), just at a different wavelength [or something, I don’t know a lot about wave physics]. Spiritual substance, and presumably many other things, have no ties whatsoever to anything that we experience sensorily, so for many of them we wouldn’t even be able to contemplate its existence at all, and for other things like souls which we can fathom, we would not be able to begin to conceive of a way to go about measuring it. Does that mean it doesn’t exist? Absolutely not, it just means that our human faculties are insufficient to fully understand it.

Now, there are a lot of philosophers who have logically “proven” the existence of spiritual substance, or even more specifically, the soul. You can read up on Descartes or Locke or Plato or anyone else you’d like, most people searching through metaphysics are going to have their take on it. Lots of them are unsatisfactory to me, but St. Thomas Aquinas has a really good proof for “the first mover” which has to be spiritual in nature, I’ll try to concisely outline it here:

- the universe is in “movement,” i.e. things are doing other things (including existing)

- necessary for “movement” is something causing something else to move (or exist or to be hot or to do any other thing)

- Go backwards now, forever. For example: This ball is moving because I pushed it because my arm moved it because my brain commanded my arm to do so because I desired to move it because it was in my way because I need to do my homework on this desk because I am in school … because my mother gave birth to me because my parents conceived me because they decided to because they wanted children because they were married … because they were born from their parents … because humans exist from whatever source they came from … because the earth was created through whatever means … because the universe exists…. etc.

- there must be some point where there was nothing in motion, and then something happened that caused it to move and set the universe into the chain of events that has led it to this moment, right now.

- the thing that caused the first motion must have not been governed by the same rules of causality that everything we can observe is subject to, i.e. it can’t require something else to cause it. Thus, that thing must have been made out of spiritual substance.

Maybe you like that proof, maybe you don’t. Maybe you search through other proofs and still don’t find satisfactory ones, none of them are perfect, and most require some sort of benefit of the doubt or suspension of disbelief. So at that point, yes, it is a matter of faith. You do need some trust in God that He exists, and often faith in His nature as well, in order for the rest to follow. And it can be really difficult. We all struggle with doubt. It’s a hard thing to wrestle with. I’ll be praying for you.

I could keep going on, although I fear I might start rambling. I love talking about this kind of thing. There was something about electrophysiology and recording rats’ dreams that I could talk to you about in regard to how that also isn’t irreconcilable with the soul, and if you want to talk more about that we certainly can.

Also if anyone else has any input, feel free to add!

TL;DR: Neuroscience, or any kind of science, has no right or dominion to tell you whether or not souls exist. In fact, the two domains do not have any say over each other; science cannot rule for or against religion, and religion cannot usually rule for or against science. There are a lot of philosophers and theologians who can ration out why souls do exist, some more convincingly than others, but all do require some faith. At the end of the day, whether or not you believe in the soul or the afterlife or God is your decision to make and yours alone, and it is ultimately a matter of faith. Hopefully this was compelling, and you can always talk to me one-on-one or send more asks if you want to explore it further.

God bless!

Jared

#ask #answered #philosophy #soul #the existence of the soul #theology #st thomas aquinas #descartes #locke #christian #richard dawkins #prayer

5 notes · View notes