My reply to Rational Christian Discernment's defense of mind-body dualism

My other blog pieces refuting the mind-body dualism whose biblical basis Christians cannot agree on. See here and here..

The RCD article starts out quoting the non-dualist opinion that the brain = the mind, and that consciousness is a real mystery to the experts:

Monday, September 30, 2019
A Rational Argument For The Existence Of The Human Soul
"In this discussion, many modern scientific thinkers have taken position that consciousness is an illusory faculty created by our neuronal activity. According to this position, our subjective self-awareness is wholly imagined fantasy that has no objective existence:
“Despite our every instinct to the contrary, there is one thing that consciousness is not; some deep entity inside the brain that corresponds to the “self”, some kernel of awareness that runs the show ... after more than a century of looking for it brain researchers have long since concluded that there is no conceivable place for such a self to be located in the physical brain, and that it simply doesn’t exist.” (Journalist Michael Leminick, Time Magazine)
“We feel, most of the time, like we are riding around inside our bodies, as though we are an inner subject that can utilize the body as a kind of object. This last representation is an illusion ... “ (Atheist author Sam Harris)
“The intuitive feeling that we have that there’s an executive “I” that sits in the control room of our brain ... is an illusion.” (Dr. Steven Pinker)
These thinkers all readily acknowledge that our actual experience of reality seems to fly in the face of their description of it — hence Professor Dennett’s “problem of consciousness.” One would think that in order to draw conclusions about the true nature of this problem they would rely on carefully researched evidence and hard facts before informing us that every experience that we have (or will ever have) — from love and morality to the appreciation of beauty and free will — are fictitious. Here are some examples of what the world of science does actually offer on this topic:
“Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious.” (Dr. Jerry Fodor, Professor of philosophy and cognitive science)

Then we start getting the rhetoric:

“The problem of consciousness tends to embarrass biologists. Taking it to be an aspect of living things, they feel they should know about it and be able to tell physicists about it, whereas they have nothing relevant to say.” (Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winning biologist)

Biologists don't specialize in the brain's function, neurologists do. 

“Science’s biggest mystery is the nature of consciousness.

History shows us that it is fallacious to assume that lack of current explanation suddenly means "god did it".

It is not that we possess bad or imperfect theories of human awareness; we simply have no such theories at all.” (Dr. Nick Herbert, Physicist)

Then apparently you haven't read the explanations neuroscientists give for consciousness.  Start here. Basically, it is not coincidence that physical or chemical changes to the brain always produce difference in mental activity or awarness as a result.

Christians of course are free to simplemindedly trifle that perhaps the mind can only come into the brain, so that the mind's ability to manifest itself only appears to be, but isn't actually, affected by a degraded form of the brain.  But since this theory also posits the mind coming into the brain from another dimension, this trifling possibility has a far lower probability than the empirically demonstrable correlations which are always consistent:  to mess with the brain is to mess with the mind, hence, the mind is nothing but the function of the brain, sort of like power to the wheels is the function of a running engine. 

Based on these honest assessments of the state of scientific knowledge on this topic one might think that these thinkers — who have a priori drawn conclusions on a subject for which they seem to have little to no evidence — would speak in far more humble and guarded tones.

No, Christian mind-body dualism posits our mind coming from another dimension.  That's sufficient to render reasonable the skeptic who argues from history that we will, in all likelihood, do for the mind what we did for epilepsy fits and thunder...and find a purely naturalistic explanation.  If you were a real Christian, you'd find obeying Jesus far more important than doing science.  The more you cite mind-body "research" the more you must admit being dissatisfied with the way the Holy Spirit convicted people of their sin before the age of Enlightenment.  If you already have biblical assurance the HOly Spirit will do his job merely by your "preaching the word", then your desire to "help" the Holy Spirit with further advances in science is reasonably construed as your rejection of the sufficiency of scripture. For if you thought scripture "sufficient" for faith and morals, you wouldn't try to "help make it more convincing" with non-scriptural references, just like if you think one glass of water is sufficient, you don't seek a second.  But since you use commentaries the way most people use college books, you are apparently very screwed up on what it means to live out your alleged belief that scripture is "sufficient" for faith and morals.  You may as well say one piece of clothing is "sufficient" for you, despite your desire to fill up your wardrobe with numerous additional articles of clothing.

No one seriously suggests that protons, quarks or chemical compounds possess innate awareness.

Correct, we rather assert that when those things are arranged in certain ways, degrees of self-awareness become emergent properties.

Why then do they suggest that the products of these foundational materials will suddenly leap into self-cognizance?

I don't think human consciousness is a "sudden leap".  As you go down the food chain, self-awareness and consciousness become far more fuzzy.

Is this a truly rational position to hold?

When the alternative is minds coming into our bodies from other dimensions?  Yes.

Exactly how many electrons does it take for them to become “aware” of themselves?

A lot.  Present science cannot give an exact number.  Exactness not required for reasonableness of theory.

Cells do not wonder about themselves, molecules have no identity and a machine — no matter how sophisticated — is imbecilic (without its programmer).

Not true, plenty of experts in artificial intelligence acknowledge that if the sophistication continues to increase, robots will begin to feel self-awareness.  See here.

If our decision-making faculty was indeed an illusion of the brain it should be impossible to physically affect the brain through our own willful decisions and yet research has demonstrated that the “I” can and does alter brain activity through the agency of free will as described by Canadian neuroscientist Dr. Mario Beauregard:
“Jeffrey Schwartz ... a UCLA neuropsychiatrist, treats obsessive-compulsive disorder — by getting patients to reprogram their brains. Evidence of the mind’s control over the brain is actually captured in these studies. There is such a thing as mind over matter. We do have will power, consciousness, and emotions, and combined with a sense of purpose and meaning, we can effect change.”

So Schwartz is a "top-down causality" advocate.  Wonderful.  Other brain doctors are bottom-up causalists.
I'd have to view his notes to make an informed decision about whether his tests were conducted correctly.  I also wonder what he has to say about OCD patients who fail to respond favorable to his treatments. 

Why then should we not consider the possibility — the one that satisfies our deepest, most powerful and intuitive sense — that the “I” that we all experience is the human soul?

of course the feeling is powerful, so is our feeling in every other part of our body.  Will you thus argue that our elbows come from another dimension?

And that the reason that science has not discovered its whereabouts is not that it doesn’t exist, but rather that it is not part of physical reality as we know it and as such is undetectable and unmeasurable by material means.

But since you cannot show that any "non-material" method is reliable, your confessed inability to materially demonstrate your hypothesis makes it reasonable for skeptics to regard it as a loser.  What are you going to argue now?  That the OT predicted specific details of Jesus' life with amazing accuracy hundreds of years before he was born?  Gee, skeptics have never trashed the book of Daniel, have they?

It is certainly understandable that for those who believe that material reality is the only reality this would be an unwelcome notion.

Because we are reasonable to have initial and sustained resistance to theories taht require positing immaterial beings that come into our bodies from other dimensions.  We tire of such ideas when we finish watching science fiction movies.

Nonetheless, I submit that in absence of any compelling alternative and with the obviousness of the reality of our self-awareness so manifestly apparent — it is the rational conclusion to draw."

Nope, you require the existence of an immaterial being who comes into my brain from another dimension.  Sorry, but because the arguments against Jesus' resurrection are powerful, Christians are running no less risk in offending whatever "god" is left, than atheists are.  If you feel comfortable in your current beliefs despite your inability to answer every trifling bickering bit of bullshit somebody can throw at you, you cannot fault atheists for learning from your example and doing the same.