Board index ‹ Soul, Souls, and Ensoulment

[Magpie]

Where do the immaterial parts of a person come from?

If you believe that a person is made up of a body and soul, please explain where the soul comes from, and when it comes into existence. If you believe that a person is made up of a body, soul, and spirit, please explain where the soul and spirit come from, and when these parts come into existence. If you believe something else, please explain it.

I'm not a theist, but I'm not trying to debate this topic. I'm looking for the Christian explanation for this. If you have a link to an article or lecture on the topic, please post it.

[jimwalton]

This question was basically asked just 1 day ago. You may want to scroll down just a little bit in the forum to see the question from yesterday.

I'll put a few things out for explanation and possible discussion.

1. Evidence of our thoughts and feelings betrays that we are more than just material objects, even biologically. Part of what we are born with and our nature as humans includes immaterial realities. Biologically it comes from the same place everything else comes from: our human nature.

2. Our sense of self (and perception of self, not just in thought, but as an entity) gives evidence that we have a conception of an immaterial self.

3. Our perceptions of truth and falseness (necessary for scientific inquiry) betray a belief that among the random and chance happenings of evolution and naturalism, content (apart from natural phenomena that we can empirically experience) has arisen that we can trust to be reliably true. (The conditional probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable, given naturalism together with the proposition that we have come to be by way of evolution, is low.) The reliability of cognitive content in addition to self-perception gives evidence that something besides pure materialism is present in our beings.

> when these parts come into existence

No one knows such things. Presumably we develop as complete persons. When does consciousness begin? I don't think anyone has the answer to that.

[Magpie]

Thanks. Like I said, I'm not trying to debate here, just looking for the theological answers to these questions. As far as I'm aware, the biblical authors didn't mention the creation of a soul or spirit, but assumed the immaterial parts existed.

[jimwalton]

Yeah, I appreciate that. I wasn't trying to debate, but rather present some information. The biblical authors only mention the creation of a soul or spirit in Gn. 4.7 ("and the humans became living souls"). The emphasis here is not, however, on the soul as opposed to and in distinction from the body, but instead on the fact that humans had consciousness (which is an "immaterial part"). The text portrays humans as a unity (not entering the conversation of bi-partite or tripartite), where consciousness and connectedness to God (nephesh) were part of his being, his very nature. I don't think the author of Genesis intended to speak in a metaphysical, ontological sense as we use "soul" today. It is of interest in Genesis that the source of nephesh of animals is the ground, whereas the source of the nephesh of humans is God.

[Emphysema]

The only evidence in what you’ve said, is evidence that you don’t understand how brains work.

[jimwalton]

Hmm. That's an odd comment since we weren't talking about how brains work, but whatever. The brain is a biological neurological organ governed by chemical reactions whose modality is neuronic firing over synaptic linkages. Consciousness, however, is not a material presence in the brain, but rather a little-understood result of chemical and biological life functions. No one really understands how consciousness works or specifically how it is engendered. Memories, in contrast, seemed to be stored like data (our computers try to model the same type of processes), but all the technicalities of how memories are stored and retrieved is not totally understood either, since they are not like computer storage (memories can be faulty). Brain functions like emotions arise in certain parts of the brain as it works, but things like intuition (which some people have in spades and others not at all) are not completely or well understood either. All in all, our knowledge of the biological and chemical functions of the brain are decently understood, but functions of the brain such as consciousness, conscience, free will, and intuitions are not well understood at all. We are still on a learning curve for those.

Neuroscience is advancing rapidly. There are still wide disagreements about the nature of human nature (monism or dualism), physicalism as the explanation of all things, biological determinism, reductive materialism, and the emergent qualities of brain function and consciousness.

So saying, evidence of our consciousness and thoughts betrays that we are more than just physical objects. The brain evidences emergent qualities that cannot fully be explained by biological or chemical science. Since the brain is a complex dynamical system and not static, completely chemical explanations for self, consciousness, conscience, free will, and intuitions fall short of adequate. Thinking, deciding, consciousness, memory, language, representation, belief, etc. are large dynamic patterns of brain activity that constrain the ongoing lower-level physiological phenomena whose activity constitute the brain patterns themselves. Therefore the causal properties of patterns are not reducible to the elements. That's what I was talking about. The immaterial parts of our brain give evidence to the possibility of soul existence.

[Magpie]

Right, I understood the Genesis reference to refer to a general sense of consciousness. What I'm trying to figure out is how the doctrine of original sin, or sin nature, ties into this. Is the soul sinful, or the body?

[jimwalton]

Oh, that (figuring out how original sin or sin nature ties in) wasn't clear from anything you've yet said. Thanks for that clarification.

Original sin is not so much a moral judgment as it is a spiritual status (though morality necessarily comes into play). Original sin was a breach in the relationship between people and God based on a rejection of God as the center of wisdom and order. Humans chose to consider themselves as the center, thus creating a relational separation. (To be clear, one result of the separation was moral degradation. When one separates from goodness, non-goodness is a result.) Sin is therefore originally not portrayed as evil but instead as a break in the covenant. When the relationship is broken, it had other effects: badness, self-orientation, violence, pride, blame, and eventually evil.

On to your question and Genesis 2.7. Humankind's creation "from the ground" is an expression of human mortality, not of his material manufacture. Genesis 2.5-6 gives us a picture of non-order, an inchoate terrestrial realm where there's is no productivity under the control of humanity. It's a text of functionality, not of manufacture. Just like Genesis 1, Genesis 2 is a description of bringing function to what is non-functional. Genesis 2.7 ("formed from the dust of the ground") means that humans are mortal (Gn. 3.19; Ps. 103.14; 1 Cor. 15.47-48), born by natural processes, and we will die by natural processes. The text talks about humans being formed for a function (to rule the Earth and subdue it, Gn. 1.28). We are able to fulfill that function because God has ingrained in us His image (Gn. 1.26) and the breath of life (2.7). All it is claiming is that we are entities in relationship to God.

Sin didn't deprive us of existence, consciousness, or function, but it did separate us from our primary relationship. The effects of it were devastating to our thinking and behavior (our minds became darkened and our actions became non-good). Both our non-material aspects (our minds) and material aspects (the actions of our bodies) were adversely affected, as well as our souls (now in a state of separation from God rather than union with Him).

[Magpie]

Thanks for your lengthy response. I didn't bring up original sin in the OP because I'm trying to understand the doctrine of the soul / spirit / immaterial first, and then figure out how original sin fits in. I'm still not understanding this. I'm not sure which religious tradition you're from, but do you know of a good lecture or book on original sin that explains how it ties in with the immaterial?

[jimwalton]

Thanks for your reply. I get it that we can't say everything we want to say all at the same time. We're selective, and that's a good thing. Otherwise, we would all just bury each other with walls of text. Ugh.

> Thanks for your lengthy response. I didn't bring up original sin in the OP because I'm trying to understand the doctrine of the soul / spirit / immaterial first, and then figure out how original sin fits in. I'm still not understanding this.

I'd love to keep talking. What is it you don't understand? I know there are plenty of contributors to your post, but I'd love to converse. Our theological knowledge of the origins of the soul are one Bible verse—barely enough to blink at, let alone digest, let alone tell us the answers to all our questions.

Genesis is telling us about the origins of the covenant and why it was necessary. Though God created everything just right, sin drew people away from God—so much that they no longer had an accurate idea of what God was like. This was why God decided to make a covenant.

The blessings, functionality, and orderliness of chapters 1 and 2 quickly turned to corruption (the Eden problem) and a distorted picture of God (the Babel problem). The covenant represents God’s initiative and intends to correct the Babel Problem by providing a means by which God can reveal himself to the world through Abraham and his family. The covenant in the OT addresses the Babel Problem (God falsely misconstrued), while the covenant in the NT addresses the Eden Problem (sin).

In the biblical world, the most important aspect of creation was that God brought order from disorder, and the order that was brought forth from chaos had to be maintained day by day, moment by moment. In one sense, God made the world for us, but in another, he made the world for himself. The cosmos was created to be his temple, and people were placed in the garden to serve as priests, not as slaves (the theologies of the surrounding cultures). Since the garden was sacred space, serving in the garden was similar to serving in the temple—it involved caring for sacred space.

Humankind was invested with God's image and he was functional as a living soul—consciousness and connectedness to God. Unfortunately, that's about the extent of the direct information we're given. Other pieces come from later texts, and much else from trying to reason it through.

> but do you know of a good lecture or book on original sin that explains how it ties in with the immaterial?

I must apologize that I don't. My thoughts come from a deep study of Scripture and all the reading I've done on many subjects, but I'm just not aware of a reference to refer you to.