Cold Case Christianity: Rebuttal to J. Warner Wallace's arguments for the existence of the soul

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

A Very Brief Review of Arguments for the Existence of the Soul (Free Bible Insert)

Posted: 23 May 2018 01:23 AM PDT

We’ve created a free Bible insert that is a short review of the philosophical arguments for dualism (articulated more fully in a podcast). As Christians, we believe hold a dual view of world around us. We believe in the existence of the brain and the mind, the body and the soul, a material world and a spiritual realm. This concept of dualism, the recognition of two co-existent realms and realities, is critical to our faith as Christians.

And it is denied by Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists, both of which teach that the soul is simply the life-force that ceases conscious awareness at death and doesn't become self-aware again until the day of resurrection or judgment.  We would hardly expect significant Christian groups to deny dualism, if its basis in the bible were "clear".  This is sufficient to rationally justify the average unbeliever to conclude the classic mind/body problem is too fraught with uncertainty to think studying it will yield anything useable, and to therefore walk away from what appears to be a furiously useless exercise in sophistry.

If dualism is not true (the opposite view is often called ‘monism’ or ‘physicalism’), there is no realm in which God exists, we are not souls designed for salvation and life with God, and there is no life beyond this one.

That only sounds bleak and repulsive to those who have already been nurturing a Christian faith for years aand have high hopes of being snatched up into the air to live on cloudy streets of gold forever.  It doesn't sound depressing at all to those who smartly refused to set their hopes unrealistically high.  When you tell a Mormon the book of Mormon is a fraud, the fact that they just cannot imagine such a negative thing being true, doesn't mean it isn't true.  It means the Mormon has set their hopes far higher than reality would have allowed.  Nothing is different in the case of the typical Christian, nor in the case of anybody who sets their hopes too high, then starts finding out that reality refuses to comply with their dreams.

So how can we begin to prove the existence of something we cannot see?

Maybe like you prove the existence of air, by tests that can detect things invisible to the naked eye?  Or did I forget that what you are talking about also cannot be physically detected in the first place?

What kind of science could we possibly use?

Did you forget that there is nothing in the NT that expresses or implies that you should ever try to make such arguments, while in fact if you simply did what Jesus and Pual clearly told you to do, you'd be too busy to indulge such trifles as the present one?

Are you positively certain that this mind/body dualism bullshit you bring up doesn't qualify as the 'word wrangling' Paul so strongly forbade in 2nd Timothy 2:14, and the sinful interest in controversial questions he forbade in 1st Timothy 6:4?

After all, science deals with the natural, physical realm, and we are trying to investigate something immaterial.

You are also trying to use science to investigate something that is "spiritual".  But this is your problem.

Is science even the right instrument to get this job done? Probably not.

Translation:  "the idea that the human body has an immaterial soul, is unscientific".

Instead, let’s examine the case from a philosophical perspective to see if there is any rational reason to believe dualism is true.

I wonder how many homeless people on the street end up in hell because you prefer to trifle about controversial philosophical topics on the internet instead of prioritizing the face-to-face preaching Jesus clearly commanded.  What if an unbeliever is so intrigued by this article of yours, that they wish to investigate further, and while on their way to the library, they die in a car crash?

Now if you hold to the standard conservative Christian view that ALL people who died before repentance go to eternal hell, then because this unbeliever died in a car crash before actually having repented and believed the gospel, he not only goes to hell, but stays there for all eternity.  And the reason he delayed repentance is because your argument here made him more interested in figuring out whether you were right or wrong, and less interested in the danger that he is always one heartbeat away from the dates of hell.

Doesn't it bother you that the more you indulge in theological controversies, the more you imply to unbelievers that they actually DO have tomorrow and the next day and the next few years to safely delay repentance without fear of the horrific consequences?

But once you try to duck this argument by parting ways with conservative Christian scholars and pretending you think some unbelievers are allowed a second chance to repent in the afterlife, you help skeptics and unbelievers confidently conclude that the bible-god probably isn't as fearsome and sadistic as Jonathon Edwards and most fundamentalists say, and therefore, another justification to delay repentance.

While much can be written on this issue, this short post will simply review the case for the soul based on the evidence from the Law of Identity:

A = A

The Law of identity simply states that something on one side of the equal sign is identical to something on the other side of the equation if they have the exact same qualities or properties.

Yes.  When we say the mind = the brain, we are not equating a non-material thing with a material thing.  The mind is purely physical.  What fool thinks there's no molecular basis to memory?  What fool doesn't notice that as Parkinson's disease erodes the physical brain, the memories stored there, which make up most of the the "mind" also disappear?  No reason to see this as any different than a computer memory card which no longer holds certain data because it was erased by a computer virus. What fool would say maybe the data still exist in the spiritual realm, and it only uses the physical disk as the doorway through which to enter into the physical world?  FUCK YOU.

If this is true, we can say that they have an “identity relationship”. When applied to our examination of the soul, monists describe the following identity relationship:

the brain = the mind

the body = the soul

If this is true, all the properties and qualities on one side of the equations should be identical to all the properties on the other side of the equation.

Not true.  Apple = fruit.  But not everything true about "fruit" is true of "apple".  Fallacy of equivocation.  So the mind can = the brain, without implying everything true about the brain is true of the mind.  But regardless of your technical error, there is no evidence that the mind is anything other than the physical brain, except of course the dualists whose controversial theological opinions motivate them to define "mind" more esoterically than most people.

If there are differences in the qualities and nature of the items on opposite sides of the equation, we have two realities, just as Christians have argued all along. Here then, is the brief summary of arguments describing the differences between our bodies and who we are as souls:

Difference One: “Public” Versus “Private”

(The Private Knowledge Argument)

Physical Properties Can Be PUBLICLY Known

We can look at a piece of sculpture, for example. The sculpture is physical and can be seen (accessed) by everyone.

Maybe that's why scientists and geologists disagree about what makes up the core of the earth...because these physical properties can be publicly known?

Mental Properties Are Only PRIVATELY Known

Not true.  When your mind is shocked by a frightening thing, your body reacts, even if only subtly, so even if dreams are private, not all mental properties are restricted to the private realm.  When we see a baby jump, twist her face, then start crying, its pretty obvious that her mind had perceived some type of pain or fright or frustration.

And if the private nature of mental properties be true, you just proved that insects and lower animals have souls that survive death, since according to your logic, if their mental properties are private (and they surely are no less private than human thoughts), such properties cannot be equated with the bug's physical brain and thus necessarily imply, under your reasoning, that their sense of identity arises from something more than their physical brain.

Will you go where your own logic leads?

Or will you insist that your reasoning can only be validated where it agrees with the bible?

If the latter...so much for your pretense of objectivity.

How the sculpture makes you feel is impossible for us to access publicly.

Not true.  If the man is heterosexual and the sculpture is of a scantily clad sexualized woman, a penile plethysmograph would detect what's going on in his mind, even if not perfectly.   Suppose you know a local man was convicted of child rape and went to prison and was released.  You see him on the sidewalk, staring at your kids for no earthly reason.  Your inability to be positively certain what his thoughts are, wouldn't slow you down from being confident that your suspicions about what's going on in his mind are likely correct, and reacting accordingly. 

Again, many people react physically to nightmares when sleeping.  Pretty easy to tell what they were thinking even if not perfectly so.  Mental events are not always private.  You lose.

You would have to tell us. We cannot determine this from a physical examination of your brain unless you tell us what you are feeling.

See above.

THEREFORE: Mental Properties Are NOT Physical Properties

The physical brain is something different than the immaterial mind. They are different because one possesses privately held knowledge (the mind) and the other (the brain) does not.

That doesn't follow.  you also cannot see the atoms responsible for exerting force on a piston in an engine as the result of a gasoline explosion, but you hardly conclude that the exerted force and the responsible atoms are different from each other.  

Or gee, I don't know...maybe you'll argue that the force that drives the piston down comes from the spiritual dimension and only uses the exploding gas as an interface by which to enter the physical realm?  How different is that from the trifling stupidity that says our thoughts originate with our soul/spirit in another dimension and only come into the physical world through the portal of the brain?

Difference Two: “I” Versus “My Body”

(The First Person Argument)

Like Everyone, I Only Use First Person Possessive Pronouns to Indicate Possession of Something Other Than “Me”

I use expressions like, “This is my toothbrush,” or “This is my mom,” because I am describing someone or something other than me.

Like Everyone, I Commonly Use First Person Possessive Pronouns When Describing My Body

I also find myself using expressions like, “This is my body,” or “This is my hand” when describing my physical body or some portion of my body.

A theory that, if true, would wreak havoc on the justice system.  Apparently, when the intruder said "this is my gun", he was describing someone or something other than himself, hence, his testimony, captured on home video, is inadmissible.  

Gee, Wallace, did you ever consider becoming an attorney? There's big bucks in dishonest sophistry.

THEREFORE: My Body Is Something Other Than “Me”

So because courts of law require the pursuit of actual truth, it would behoove you to convince America's courts of the "truth" that the criminal suspect's body is different than himself.  Under your Christan assumptions, adding this truth to the justice system can only help the cause of truth.  What a laugh.

Just like my toothbrush is something other than me, my physical body is also something other than me. I am not my body.  These are two different things.

Use that excuse as your alibi in a criminal trial. See what happens.  You'll soon find that the devil has blinded the minds of the jurors to spiritual truth...and maybe God decreed from all eternity that you conduct your ministry from a prison cell.

There are two realities, the material and the immaterial.

No, the "immaterial" constitutes an incoherence no less foolish than "dark matter", an thing its supporters admit they cannot even coherently define.

(By the way, although we sometimes use the expression, “my soul” this is an inaccurate use of the term. We don’t have souls, we are souls.)

That's exactly what Jehovah's Witnesses and 7th Day Adventists believe.

Difference Three: “Temporary Parts” Versus “Transcendent Identity”

(The Parts Argument)

Physical Entities Are Dependent on Their Parts for Their Identity

We know the difference between our car and someone else’s car in a parking lot, and we know the difference between our cell phone and someone else’s phone left behind in a library. We know this because we recognize parts are what establish the identity of physical objects

Which makes a powerful argument that my body parts are what establish my own identity.  Or maybe you never heard of DNA?  Your identity isn't lost if you lose an arm or all four limbs...but what if you lose your head?  Does the remaining torso still constitute "you"?  Probably not.  Hence, the physical head/brain are essential to identity.

But We, as Humans, Are NOT Dependent On Our Parts for Our Identity

But no matter how much we have changed (even if we have an organ transplant), we know our identity is not at risk.

But if we managed to succeed in transplanting a brain (cell phones were absurd ideas 1000 years ago, god only knows what breakthroughs await us in the future, there appear to be few absolute limits), you'd be quietly shitting yourself with worry that a man actually became another person solely for physical reasons.

I am still me, regardless of the fact I am now made of a completely different set of cells compared to my youth.

But the cells will always have your DNA and genetics. The day we can replace a person's DNA with different DNA, we will be looking at one person becoming a different person.  Sorry, but you cannot defeat the problem of human identity being tied to the physical.

THEREFORE: Humans Are NOT Purely Physical Entities

For this reason, we know that we are more than mere physical entities, dependent on our parts for our identity. Once again, we know intuitively we have a transcendent identity. We are souls.

Now you aren't being biblical.  First, you don't know whether the bible distinguishes soul from spirit.  Are you a dichotomist or trichotomist?  Second, Peter clearly taught that the flesh wars against the "soul", apparently teaching that the flesh can exhibit desires and motives independently of the "soul", 1st Peter 2:11.  That's contrary to your own belief that it is from our soul that we make choices. The biblical view is that the man who chooses to use the services of a prostitute has made a choice independently of his "soul".  This is parallel to apostle Paul's teaching that the flesh and the spirit are contrary to each other in Galatians 5:17.  You don't really know from the context whether "spirit" there should have a capital or lower-case "s".

That the bible does little more than mislead on this issue may be legitimately inferred from the horrifically confused self-deluded speech we get from Paul, who says sometimes when he sins, it isn't him doing it:

 14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.
 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.
 16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good.
 17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.
 19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.
 20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
 21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. (Rom. 7:14-21 NAU)

 If that spiritual concept is true, then that truth should be lobbied by Christians into America's court system. After all, if there is a spiritual reality that says if you desire to do good but end up sinning anyway, the sin wasn't committed by "you", but by the sin itself (!?)

Good luck with that.

Note also that this contradicts modern Christian theory on soul and dualism.  Paul believed some choices could be made solely by the "sin that dwells in me", contrary to the popular modern view that all choices we make, are made at the level of the soul, and the body is merely reacting.  Apparently Paul believed it legitimate to credit nothing but "sin" as responsible for his body choosing to do something immoral.

Difference Four: “Measurable” Versus “Immeasurable”

(The Measurement Argument)

Physical Entities Can Be Measured Using Physical Measurement Instruments

We can take out a ruler and measure the width and length of your brain. We can weigh it and calculate it’s mass.

But As Humans, We Possess Mental Entities (Thoughts, Wills, Desires and Sensations) That Are Not Measurable By These Methods

We cannot use physical measurement tools to examine our thoughts. Propositional content cannot be measured in this way.

Not true.  Thoughts are formed mostly of memories, and memories are encoded in molecules, and molecules, being physical, have obvious detectable sizes.  So you and Frank Turek and other apologists are wrong, thoughts are physical.

THEREFORE: Humans Are More Than Physical Beings

There is a physically immeasurable dimension to our beings. We are more than matter. We are physically immeasurable souls.

If it keeps junior on the straight and narrow, he can go on pretending to be whatever combo of moisture and invisible man he pleases. Atheists should be practical, not militant.  Leave the Mormons alone, some fools bring much good, and even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Difference Five: “About Others” Versus “About Themselves”

(The Self-Existence Argument)

Mental Entities Are Not Self Existent

Our hopes, fears, concerns and worries are always about something else; something outside of themselves

Not true, delusional people have brain disorders that often cause them fear of things that don't exist, this is also true with many children who irrationally fear the dark and the monster under the bed that always goes invisible when mom checks...and therefore, the feared thing did not originate from anywhere except within their physical brain.

But Our Brains, As Physical Entities, ARE Self Existent

Physical things are not about something else; they simply exist on their own and do not rely on other physical objects for their definition

THEREFORE: Our Brains Are NOT The Same As Our Minds

Brains are physical, self-existent entities, minds contain mental entities that are dependent on outside entities for their definition.

Nope, see above.

Difference Six: “Morally Determined” Versus “Morally Free”

(The Free Will Argument)

Oh fuck you, this is where not even many Christians agree with you.  Unbelievers can reasonably decline an invitation to become involved in one of Christianity's numerous in-house debates.

No Physical System is a Free Agent

They are either determined (one event following the other) or random

Therefore No Physical System Has Moral Responsibility

Because moral responsibility requires moral freedom of choice

Moral responsibility cannot exist unless somebody insists that somebody else is morally responsible.  So moral responsibility can just as easily be a social fiction necessarily conjured up to make socities like America possible.   Children can be just as easily raised to feel no moral responsibility as raised to agree they have moral responsibility.  Babies and toddler need to be 'taught' to mimic the morality of the parent, because the morality they are born with is selfishness.  A sense of moral responsibility cannot be shown to transcend environmental conditioning.

Human Beings DO Have Moral Responsibility

We have the innate sense that each of us has the responsibility to act morally, and indeed, we observe we are free agents who do choose right from wrong freely

This is not true of sociopaths.  You can get rid of that rebuttal by arbitrarily excluding them as disqualified misfits, but the point is that your theory doesn't account for all the relevant data, you can only make your case by appeal to what some or most humans are like, not all. 

Sociopaths are just as human as anybody else, so we cannot automatically assume their sociopathic condition constitutes a misrepresentation of human reality.  To be human might indeed require that you have little to no concern for other people's feelings.

THEREFORE: Therefore Human Beings Are NOT Simply Physical Systems

If we are purely physical entities, we can only act as a series of events, and we are unable to act freely (this is the nature of physical things). Our free agency demonstrates we are more than simple physical objects.

Tell that to Christians who adopt 5-Point Calvinism, and they'll scream back that the ease with which you assume humans have "free agency" makes it appear you never read the bible in your life.   I suggest god's like-minded ones get their act together before they present their in-house controversies to the world as if they were absolute truth.