Once again, science is asserting its supremacy. We are being told that our religious sensibilities are just biology. Are they? We asked one of our esteemed Light-work partners, Dr. Doug Matthews of Baylor University, to help us cut through the fluff.
LW - Give us an overview of what is going on here.
Dr. D - The perception that love, religion and morality are artifacts of biology is a conclusion that mainstream science and the popular press consistently promote. News conferences featuring scientists in starched, white lab coats are frequently used to advocate the belief that naturalistic mechanisms explain what appears to make a person uniquely different; that is, our ability to love, our ability to worship God and our ability to discern right from wrong. They conclude that human cognition, consciousness, and religious beliefs are due to natural biological mechanisms and are not due to some non-natural, external factors.
LW - Can you give us a couple examples of this kind of thinking?
Dr. D - Eric Kandel, a prominent neuroscientist, is the lead editor of an influential textbook titled Principles of Neural Science. Kandel writes the opening chapter and therein outlines a strategy by which science, particularly neuroscience, might explain the human mind, what I might think of as the human soul. Kandel writes: “The next and even more challenging step in this unifying process within biology, which we outline in this book, will be the unification of the study of behavior - the science of the mind - and neural science, the science of the brain. This last step will allow us to achieve a unified scientific approach to the study of behavior. Such a comprehensive approach depends on the view that all behavior is the result of brain function.”
Kandel concludes this opening chapter by exclaiming, “Indeed, the excitement evident in neural science today is based on the conviction that at last we have in hand the proper tools to explore the extraordinary organ of the mind, so that we can eventually fathom the biological principles that underlie human cognition”.
LW - So check me to see if I understand what's going on here. A biblically informed understanding of man sees him as both material ("body") and immaterial ("spirit"). Kandel is proposing that the immaterial (the "mind" in his terminology) can be reduced to mere matters of brain function. So we are nothing more than computers made of meat.
Dr. D - Bingo! I find the two quotations disheartening but also informative as to why many scientists use naturalistic causes to explain all things human. In the second statement, Kandel restates the principle that the mind can by explained solely by naturalistic causes; to completely understand the mind we have to believe that all behavior is dependent on brain function.
LW - What is your critique of this approach?
Dr. D - For me as a scientist who believes that God infused something different into people (Genesis 1:26), the conclusion that everything “human” can be explained by the laws of science seems very simplistic. I also find this type of science arrogant. First, the conclusion that naturalism can explain the human mind and (by extension) love, religion and morality, is predetermined by the initial premise. It's circular logic. Second, the initial premise is a statement of faith; the scientist is saying, "I believe that ONLY naturalistic causes explain the human mind." The faith required for this statement is greater than my faith in a God who created the human mind. Finally, such an initial premise raises the specter of an agenda in science, that its interests lie only in conclusions that support its beliefs—that the mind is nothing but an artifact of biology.
Prior to the enlightment period, scientists believed science was a tool to investigate God’s creation. I suggest that science return to its foundations and accept the fact that we are investigating a world created by an Agent beyond our comprehension. Love, religion and morality likely exist in ways science will not completely understand. These moments of scientific wonder should be opportunities to glorify God and not make simplistic faith statements such as “we’ve yet to develop the scientific tools to explain the phenomenon”.
Scientists who buy into Kandel’s framework only see naturalistic explanations for “the soul” of humans because they’ve filtered out all the data that leads toward any other conclusion. This might be a great recipe for popular press conferences and sound bites that are served up on the evening news, but it does not make for authentic or robust science that seeks to explore the grandeur and breadth of creation.
Along similar lines:
There's a very good argument (at least, I think its good) against naturalistic thinking such as this by Christian Philosopher Alvin Plantiga (of Notre Dame University). Essentially, the argument takes naturalistic assumptions to their logical conclusion: Naturalism assumes that our traits are developed and/or adopted for their survival value to a creature. Applying this to human reasoning, our minds and their thought processes would be developed for their ability to help us survive, not to help us develop true beliefs, under naturalistic logic. Its not hard to think of a scenario where a false belief might help you survive just as easily as a true one, so based on naturalistic assumptions, we have essentially no reason to trust our reasoning or the conclusions it reaches. Plantiga's conclusion based on this is that naturalism is essentially self-defeating or irrational. It also supports Dr. Doug's conclusion that this kinda reasoning is arrogant, or at least definitely pretty risky.
Posted by: Alex Marshall | January 22, 2008 at 03:50 PM
so do you have a definition for the human mind? what is it exactly anyway? is there a scriptural basis for it? Would I be correct in assuming form the above discussion that you hold a bipartite view of man? LW readers want to know...
Posted by: MBV | January 22, 2008 at 05:09 PM
The human mind, or at least a definition of it, is likely one of those things that most people have a definition of and this definition differs. How might you define it?
I do tend to hold to a bipartite view (you theologian you) although I've been a bit hesitant to think of them as two completely separate things but instead think of them as meshed in action with each other, at least in this world, yet able to maintain their unique identity.
In terms of scriptural support perhaps we might think about Matthew 22:37 (or Mark 12:30). Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." Granted this separates mind and soul but given the Naturalist position, that soul doesn't exist, I think mind as Kandel uses it encompasses both what we'd call mind and soul.
Posted by: Doug Matthews | January 22, 2008 at 06:35 PM
A neurologist friend of mine would likely subscribe to Kandel's view of "knowing." He has pronounced the Torah to be "myth and legend," and he would like to prove it. He grasps at whatever evidence he "thinks" disproves God or creation. If I question him about the origins of DNA or intelligence, he has no answer, so he sends me "information" similar to that above. When I read it, I feel tired. When I read Truth, I become enthused. Now, that tells me something!
Posted by: mrs | January 22, 2008 at 06:35 PM
Hi Mrs
I'd strongly encourage you to encourage your friend to try and disprove the Torah. CS Lewis, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel and Francis Collins, to name a frew, all became Christians because they set out to disprove God's word.
Posted by: Doug Matthews | January 22, 2008 at 06:43 PM
Good idea, Dr. Doug! I will do that.
Posted by: mrs | January 22, 2008 at 07:31 PM
Dr. Deeeeee - always the professor eh - answering questions with questions. nice. It was really an honest question - trying to study something you can't define is very difficult - like theology in that way I guess. You know things about God but cannot define Him. In the sane way you know things about the mind but cannot really define it. I can see why scientists focus on the material.
I do like Deut 6:5 when it comes to describing man: You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.
(I think a case can be made to equate heart with will and spirit)
Posted by: MBV | January 22, 2008 at 09:44 PM
You weren't suppose to notice that I didn't answer your question.
I've enjoyed the bit I know about Willard's thoughts on heart, will and spirit. Spirit I see as different from heart which to mea seems to imply physical. Will is what I see as the interesting conjunction in that our will can be transformed by the spirit and in effect change are heart. This is one application I think of 2 Cor 5:17.
In terms of the scientist though their position seems fraught with the fact that they a priori cut spirit from the equation. However, if it is true that spirit can modify the will then it seems reasonable that science could study the will and have an insight into the functioning of the spirit. However, to do so requires that one does not toss the spirit out at the beginning and this is where I think science is incorrect.
With all this said I could see a tie between human mind and human will where will is the conscious state of thought that reflects the state of my spiritual health played out through my physical apparatus.
Posted by: Doug Matthews | January 22, 2008 at 10:05 PM
Dr. D
What is addiction? How does science explain addiction? How does addiction affect the brain and its ability to reason right and wrong? Is it possible for an addictive feeling (the urge to satisfy) to overcome a sober mind to the point of comprimise or is it strictly a case of self-control? How does one overcome addiction? How does one surmount withdraws from their addiction?
Posted by: Bo | January 23, 2008 at 08:37 AM
p.s. I figure this is enough for you to answer at one sitting at LW. I have so many more questions and thoughts.
Posted by: Bo | January 23, 2008 at 08:42 AM
"a tie between human mind and human will where will is the conscious state of thought that reflects the state of my spiritual health played out through my physical apparatus."
I think you're onto something there. To roughly paraphrase an author I like - the soul is the thing that integrates spirit (or mind) and body.
Posted by: MBV | January 23, 2008 at 09:20 AM
Hi Bo
you ask a variety of interesting questions, to put a small teaser in I'll work up a post directly addressing your questions (at least I hope they directly address them).
Posted by: Doug Matthews | January 23, 2008 at 05:12 PM