Pinker vs. the Pope
Re: The Duel Between Body and Soul
The above editorial appeared a few days ago in The New York Times. In it, author Paul Bloom asserts that "the great conflict between science and religion in... this century... will be over psychology, and the stakes are nothing less than our souls." He proceeds to argue against the soul, pronouncing ex cathedra that belief in the soul "would be reassuring - if science didn't tell us that this assumption is mistaken."
To make his point, he paraphrases the arguments of psycholinguist Steven Pinker and the Holy Father.
Of these two worldviews, the former strikes me as the more dogmatic.
Author Bloom would have been wise to listen to his son:
Author Bloom makes two mistakes. First, he assumes that there is necessarily a conflict between science and religion, and that it is former's task to disprove everything the latter holds. Science as we know it exists because of, not in spite of religion. It was the Judeo-Christian-Islamic belief that the universe was created by a rational Creator that led men of those cultures, especially the Christian West, in their attempt to understand creation, to develop what we know as science.
He also assumes that there is a necessary dualism between soul and body. This type of thinking owes more to the ancient Greeks and René Descartes than it does to Christianity. It can also be found in the religions of the East, which believe in reincarnation. In the Credos, Christians affirm their belief in the "Resurrection of the Body." For Catholics, this means the union of body and soul. In fact, the Catholic sees the body and soul as forming one nature:
Dostoyevsky prophetically observed that "If God does not exist, all things are permissible," foreseeing the horrors of atheistic Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Maoist China. Imagine the horrors the world will face when man is denied not only his God but his soul.
Re: The Duel Between Body and Soul
The above editorial appeared a few days ago in The New York Times. In it, author Paul Bloom asserts that "the great conflict between science and religion in... this century... will be over psychology, and the stakes are nothing less than our souls." He proceeds to argue against the soul, pronouncing ex cathedra that belief in the soul "would be reassuring - if science didn't tell us that this assumption is mistaken."
To make his point, he paraphrases the arguments of psycholinguist Steven Pinker and the Holy Father.
- "As the Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker points out, the qualities that we are most interested in from a moral standpoint - consciousness and the capacity to experience pain - result from brain processes that emerge gradually in both development and evolution. There is no moment at which a soulless body becomes an ensouled one, and so scientific research cannot provide objective answers to the questions that matter the most to us....
"Pope John Paul II was clear about this [the fact that the negation of the soul 'might be impossible to reconcile with many religious views'], conceding our bodies may have evolved, but that theories which 'consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.'"
Of these two worldviews, the former strikes me as the more dogmatic.
Author Bloom would have been wise to listen to his son:
- "I once asked my 6-year-old son, Max, about the brain, and he said that it is very important and involved in a lot of thinking - but it is not the source of dreaming or feeling sad, or loving his brother."
Author Bloom makes two mistakes. First, he assumes that there is necessarily a conflict between science and religion, and that it is former's task to disprove everything the latter holds. Science as we know it exists because of, not in spite of religion. It was the Judeo-Christian-Islamic belief that the universe was created by a rational Creator that led men of those cultures, especially the Christian West, in their attempt to understand creation, to develop what we know as science.
He also assumes that there is a necessary dualism between soul and body. This type of thinking owes more to the ancient Greeks and René Descartes than it does to Christianity. It can also be found in the religions of the East, which believe in reincarnation. In the Credos, Christians affirm their belief in the "Resurrection of the Body." For Catholics, this means the union of body and soul. In fact, the Catholic sees the body and soul as forming one nature:
- "The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the 'form' of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature." (Paragraph 365, Catechism of the Catholic Church).
Dostoyevsky prophetically observed that "If God does not exist, all things are permissible," foreseeing the horrors of atheistic Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Maoist China. Imagine the horrors the world will face when man is denied not only his God but his soul.
Redeemed by Our Savior, I work out my salvation with fear and trembling in Pohang, South Korea, where I live with my wife, daughter, and son and teach English at a science and technology university. Baptized a Methodist and raised a Missouri Synod Lutheran in Buffalo, NY, I spent six years as a guest of the Anglican Communion before being received by the Grace of God into the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church on the Feast of Saint Andrew, my patron, anno domini 2002.
<< Home