Are there any contemporary philosophers or neuroscientists who uphold "substance dualism" (human souls)?

Question

And not just ANY philosopher, I'm talking about philosophers who specialize in philosophy of mind and whom have the credentials to speak with authority on the subject. Philosophers of religion are not qualified. To analogize, would you go to a gynecologist for psychiatric problems?

Substance dualism is the idea that a human being is composed of two substances: the physical substance of the brain that can be examined and studied with the scientific method, and a supernatural "soul" substance that defies all attempts at understanding or discovery with the scientific method.

In my various intellectual pursuits, I have not found one scientist specializing in neurobiology or any philosopher specializing in philosophy of mind to uphold this idea of substance dualism.

This is indeed a CRUSHING blow to religion in general, specifically Christianity, because the idea of an immortal soul is central to most religions.

Let me be perfectly clear.

Substance dualism is something very specific not to be confused at all with property dualism. The two are completely different.

Hence, when one uses the non-specific term, "dualism" by itself, I am completely confused.

Substance dualism entails belief in souls while property dualism does not. Property dualists maintain that the mind emerges from the body, but that it is completely dependent on the physical substance of the body and not some mysterious ether.

Hence, when one states, "there are many philosophers who are dualists," he is as imprecise as saying "there are many philosophers who have philosophies". What kind of philosophy though? What kind of dualism?

Andrew writes: "That being said, there is no reason to rule out philosophers of religion as not counting. Using a similar example, if I went to see a podiatrist and he told me that I had a concussion, I would listen to him. While he doesn't study the exact field in question, he has relevant knowledge. Ruling out philosophers of religion is unfair."

I disagree. I see it as a matter of tool sets. Philosophers of mind and neuroscientists have the right "tools" to assess this question. Consider an astronomer who uses a microscope to study the stars. Wouldn't work would it?

Remember when the Catholic Church put Galileo on trial for his heretical beliefs on astronomy? They used the tool of the Bible to decipher the position of the Earth in the universe, whereas instruments that were capable of truly answering the question were in direct opposition.

In sum, I find that philosophers of religion have NO relevant knowledge or tools on this subject.

One answerer writes: "Allow me just to respond to that. The disappearance of substance dualism might not be as crushing a blow as you would think. After all, Christianity incorporates the idea of bodily immortality. Jesus was resurrected after all, and ascended to heaven to the right hand of the father in his earthly clay."

Hmmm... Then what is the holy spirit? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the trinity is composed of multiple components, including the immaterial spirit.

Even if we are "resurrected" in bodily form, Christians still maintain that there is a "spirit" that is non-physical. If it requires a body... so what?

Occum's razor: Do not multiply entities beyond what is necessary.

If we don't need a "spirit" for our bodies to work, or our "spirit" is dependent on our bodies for existence, then are we just making things up? Perhaps the "mind" is simply an emergent property of the physical brain.

Answer 1

Not sure about the scientific side of things but these folks have all recently defended dualism in one form or another:
Averill, E. W. and Keating, B.
Larmer, R.
Mills, E.
Hodgson, D.
Stapp, H. P.
Jackson, F.
Hart, W.D.

Now, I'm not a theist but the proposition in your question seems flawed. There is no real link between how far we have come as a scientific community and the existence of belief. If people are not swayed from Christianity by the archeological record there's no chance that a general consensus about the possibility of dualism is going to matter. Faith doesn't work that way. Which is why I don't go in for it.

That being said, there is no reason to rule out philosophers of religion as not counting. Using a similar example, if I went to see a podiatrist and he told me that I had a concussion, I would listen to him. While he doesn't study the exact field in question, he has relevant knowledge. Ruling out philosophers of religion is unfair.

If I am so persuaded by my belief in dualism that I decide to pursue it into the realm of religion, why do I no longer count? Lots of logically sound ideas come out of the philosophy of religion community. Anyways, it's still a live topic and one imagines it will be for some time. We've believed in souls for thousands of years. We're not just going to stop all of a sudden.

EDIT: Substance dualism categorically does not imply that we have souls. I can be a substance dualist and hold that we have minds and that those minds are non-physical and that those minds have a finite life span subject to some sort of non-physical decay. I do not have to believe in souls to be a substance dualist.

Again, I think you make a mistake by ruling out philosophers of religion. The main problem is that you beg the question against religion. You assume that religion is false and that therefore philosophers of religion have nothing to say about the topic. What you should do is listen to what they all have to say and then try to refute them based on the arguments presented.

I agree that reliance on the bible as an argumentative tool is weak but no self-respecting philosopher is going to bring 'cause God said so' in to an argument. Things have changed, if only slightly, since Galileo's time.

Basically, I refuse to believe that Richard Swinburne (a philosopher of religion at Oxford) has nothing interesting to say about substance dualism.

All that aside, it seems clear that we have established that dualism is still alive as a philosophical topic. Whether we end up believing in souls because of that or not seems to be irrelevant right now. We're still hashing out the first part.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

First of all, I'd like to point out that what people believe is really irrelevant to the question at hand. IF the dualists are right, it makes no difference if there are no dualists - they'll still be right. Or, to put it another way, helium won't stop existing if we stop believing in it; reality isn't a popularity contest... it just is. So no matter how many or few people are dualists, it is no blow to religion whatsoever. What it does suggest is that their beliefs are not supported in other arenas.

Probably the best example of a world-reknowned neurologist who was also a substance dualist was Wilder Penfield. He died a few years ago, but is certainly much more contemporary than Descartes. His book on the subject is still readily available (link 1).

There are a number of philosophers who are still dualists... but their precise qualification by your standards are a little more difficult to ascertain. William Hasker is has published a number of works on the subject, but his credentials are a bit more theological than philosophical. David Chalmers might be closest to what you are looking for, though he's not very well published. Both fellows are still alive, so that's as contemporary as you can get.

Answer 4

"This is indeed a CRUSHING blow to religion in general, specifically Christianity, because the idea of an immortal soul is central to most religions."

Allow me just to respond to that. The disappearance of substance dualism might not be as crushing a blow as you would think. After all, Christianity incorporates the idea of bodily immortality. Jesus was resurrected after all, and ascended to heaven to the right hand of the father in his earthly clay.

Millions of Christians believe that there will be a general resurrection of the saved. So to say that the soul willbe immortal doesn't imply that it is something essentially separate from the body.

Answer 5

Dualist Philosophers

Answer 6

Forgive me for answering, I know only a bit about philosophy, but it doesn't stop me answering questions like this.

How can CONSCIOUSNESS be substance? Perhaps a way of phrasing it is that the various parts of the brain (the physical) create an output/ energy (consciouness), such as you would equate with force or gravity.

Answer 7

The 'Soul' is not a substance. it is a stream of energy/volition. You obviously have not researched very far.
There is an Icelandic Shamanic story called 'The Woman with Two Vaginas' Would that condition require a psychiatric or a gynecological consultation?

Answer 8

As you know, dualism is a Cartesian (not to mention Greek) notion.

It persisted during the Newtonian era, as a gentleman's agreement of spiritual theologians and materialist scientists.

After the quantum revolution in physics, c 1900s-1920s, Whitehead's independent derivation of relativity field theory via his philosophy of process in the early 20th century, after Wittgenstein's restating of the fundamental error of logical atomism/logical positivism, and after Husserl's monumental "Pure Ego" and "Rays of Light" awareness, a period of quietutde regarding the mind-body problem set in, through the 1950s.

Since then, a new wave of experimental data has been reliably verified and accepted onto the philosophic scene.

What these data import is that e.g. the Christian notion of a Creator, Father-Mother, a Son or Son or Daughter of God as Soul-individuating, and both as One in Spirit, is indeed more likely than ever.

Energy has been found to be stepwise geometrically coalesced (quantized), and human intentionality able to effect changes at this quantum level, which are otherwise only obtainable in physics labs using highly sophisticated equipment (e.g., Dr. William A. Tiller's experiments, http://www.tiller.org "Psychoenergetic Science," Dr. Elizabeth Mayer's collaborative work with Dr. Robert Jahn and others, "Extraordinary Knowing"),

A basic category error (using beta wave outer waking lower mentative awareness mode to theorize about gamma wave mentation, a higher, more creative mode, associated with maslowian peak experiences and also, tellingly, with Tibetan Buddhist insight meditation protocol) has been exposed as reductionist neurophilosophizing.

Institutes have reliably documented, in double-blind conditions, the persistence of coherent soulfield/biofield energy states (soul travel, out-of-body experience, remote viewing), even having two independent oobe'rs simultaneously accurately (i.e, with statistical significance) describe a concurrently-perceived "changing" target.

http://www.integralscience.org
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
http://www.divinecosmos.com
http://www.quantumbrain.org
http://www.noetic.org
http://www.heartmath.org

are a few of the workplace indicators available to the public record.

For those who are able to effect noetic progress in their own perceptuality, Husserlian, Bergsonian, Plotinian, and Whiteheadian state-specificities are achievable.

Then, as a philosopher of mind, with more than one state-specific mode of consciousness to examine, one may begin to practice in the protocols of e.g. an Ann Ree Colton, "Watch Your Dreams," a Mark Prophet, "The Masters and Their Retreats" (a higher-coherency attainment presentation), and O. M. Aivanhov, "Light Is a Living Spirit" and "A Philosophy of Universality." Other types of authorial work are also instructive: e.g., psychiatrist Olga Kharitidi's "The Master of Lucid Dreams," Dr. Dean Radin's "Entangled Minds," Jim Tucker, M.D.,'s "Life before Life." http://www.lifescientists.de/history.htm "Punk Science," by Manjir Samanta-Laughton, M.D., "Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer," Dr. Henry P. Stapp, "China's Super Psychics," Paul Dong, "PK Man," Drs. Mishlove and Mack, "Penetration," Ingo Swann, and http://www.sheldrake.org offer further, even somewhat entertaining if less rigorous, perspectives.

Avatars of awareness, such as Paramahansa Yogananda, have kindly written of their lives ("Autobiography of a Yogi," http://www.yogananda-srf.org ). These levels of awareness approach those of Christ Jesus, and are as accessible to the average academician of mind-body awareness as their own state of awareness permits. In other words, headucated "Pharisees" are, simply, grossly ignorant, and need to develop and purify, before presuming to critique that which they unfortunately have not even the slightest gnosis of. Their psychologism typically resolves into two erroneous modes: either simple ignorance (i.e, if they knew better, and desired to purify and develop their modes of perception, they would do better), or a more libertine ignorance, i.e., a subtle glee in claiming "no God," as "no God" for them permits a less-moral personal type of behavior. In both types, there is also an error of conflation: by condemning the false or fantastic claims, they arrogantly also exclude valid, true, reliable, and cognizant claims. It is hoped that the "waxing gross" error of Vienna Circle positivism would have instructively served more recent reductionist "neurophilosophers," but that has unfortunately and even risibly not always been the case.

cordially,

j.