(Jesus the Christ.)
Master teacher,master carpenter and reported to be the son of God.
Not recorded to have ever written anything with no one on earth having any idea as to what he may have looked like.
(Jesus the Christ.)
Man,myth,or legend???

It may be impacted by your views on the next life. We are given new bodies, which would seem to suggest that our souls are not inherently a part of this current body. But others may say that the body is merely improved and renewed, not altogether replaced, which wouldn’t be as clear.
Another line of questions would go into emotional and spiritual states in relation to the physical body — is the body solely the source of feeling spiritual guilt, joy, etc.? If so, then could drugs fix all of that? Would that be a good thing?
Personally, I shrug my shoulders and say that I don’t know. It’s worked well so far

What can be frustrating to me is the notion by some that if science explains something, then theology must walk in lock step with it. I’m not suggesting that theology should alter science. But I don’t know how to talk to one steeped in a rigid naturalism to help them see that though science in theory might be able to have explanations for all that is observed, it is not in itself therefore the alpha and omega of our existence.
But then isn’t our faith called a revelation from God? And if a revelation from God then science is on the outside looking in, on that, I would think.
Good posts, as always, RJS. Thanks!

I’m certainly no human dualist. I’ve never, even as a child, been able to make any sense of the idea that some part of me is disassociated from my bodily existence. When I sleep, I know nothing. Where’s the place for some kind of continuous ‘soul’ existing in that equation.
Humans need bodies. In this life, and in the resurrected next.

phil @ 4,
Do you really know nothing when you sleep? What about dreams? Are we then a separate person every time we wake up?
I agree, human life is inherently meant to be embodied. We are, as C.S. Lewis says (even though he tends toward dualism sometimes), “composite beings”. But we’re more than particularly clever animals.

Nonreductive physicalism or holistic dualism seem the best likely options to me. I think the latter probably best accounts for the Biblical witness and the Tradition as well as the science.
Interesting book blurb — are we back to arguments from ignorance again though?

My own view is that what we call the ‘soul’ is an emergent phenomenon, inseparable from physical phenomena like brain activity but no more reducible to a description at that level than a symphony is reducible to description in terms of frequencies of vibration (or, to use a more modern analogy, no more than Mario Kart is accurately described as “a series of ones and zeros”).
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2009/07/id-ego.html

dopderbeck,
I am not going to argue proof or any such, and whether there is a “natural” explanation or not – I have long thought that human consciousness and capacity for creative and abstract thought, imagination, is the strongest argument for some kind of design/designer. This is what give the capacity for real relationship – which is the key feature of God revealed in scripture.
But – I am not comfortable with a classical duality – perhaps the terms you use – Nonreductive physicalism or holistic dualism are the best options, but I would have to look up the terms to understand the differences.

RJS asks, “Is there a profound mystery in nature of human experience and conciousness?”
If we fail to feel and marvel and wrestle and be awestruck and terrified and humbled by the breathtaking mystery of creation, then what is religion?

TRavis, I agree, dreams to exist in a sort of half-way house. My point should have been that our conscious self – i.e. the thing that we consider to be ourselves, is not existent during the time period when we are fully non-consciouss. i.e. coma/deep sleep. This seems to counter the idea of a temporally continuous, non-material soul.
It appears to me (emphasis on appers, in can’t be sure, im en environmental scientist, not a neuro-scientist!!!) that what holds us together is the memory of what has occurred before. Dreams seem to be a type of partly consciouss sleep where we can form memories. Without formation of memories, we’d be a ‘new’ person each day. See the famous medical case of Clive Wilding for more details on what happens when memories don’t form.

I’m also in a hurry, and my previous post contained more spelling and grammar errors than a text message. . .. apologies.

Why the jump from “this isn’t understood scientifically yet” to “this can’t ever be understood scientifically”?
Before the 1700′s, was it reasonable to say that God (or Thor, or the Thunderbirds, or Zeus, or Seth, or what have you) caused lightning? No, the proper response to “What causes lighting?” was “Darn if I, or anyone else, knows… yet.” Then Franklin came along…

RJS (#8):
Nonreductive physicalism: “mind” is an emergent property of neuorobiology, which is capable of exerting downward causation on the biological system from which it emerges, and hence cannot be reduced to that system. Representative theologians: Nancey Murphy, William Hasker, Joel Green
Reductive physicalism: “mind” is an epiphenomenon of neurobiology. If we had all the information, “mind” could be explained reductively entirely with reference to neurobiology.
Holistic dualism: “soul” is a spiritual property imparted by God in some way apart from biology, but the soul is inextricably intertwined with the body (biology) in such a way that neither soul nor body exist independently. Representative theologian: John Cooper
Substance dualism: “soul” is a separate substance from the body that can exist independent of the body. Representative theologian: J.P. Moreland

Re: Ted M. Gossard (#3)
One thing that impressed me in my work in campus ministry was the fluidness of “knowing”; or to put in other terms, the role of passion and excitement in knowing. I saw this most clearly in seeing Cal De Witt speak about Creation to hard headed scientists. The “wonder and awe” he expressed in his presentation of naturalistic phenomena as just that, helped him pierce the hard skins of some of these folks. Once he caught them up in the wonder and awe of the relationships he described, they were much more amenable to what they might be about. (Please note that this was not any kind of instantaneous conversion, but a foot in the door sort of pheneomenon).
Peace,
Randy G.