The Catechism
of the Catholic Church says that the human soul is the innermost aspect of man and
the spiritual principle that separates from the body after death. The body then
decays and the soul goes to meet God (CCC #363, #997). But is it possible to prove that the
human soul exists?
Whenever someone
asks for proof of something, especially something immaterial, I sometimes ask if it is possible to prove anything at all. This is not to be flippant;
it’s a serious question.
Suppose you
were told that last night while you slept your brain was taken by aliens and
installed into an alien supercomputer. This supercomputer is now inputting all
the correct electrochemical impulses into your brain to precisely simulate the
world you are familiar with. You think you are reading a blog post right
now, but it is actually the alien computer inputting the data directly into
your brain—similar to the concept in the 1999 movie “The Matrix”.
This might sound absurd, but you would simply have no way of proving that this
artificial reality is false. If all the data you have is only virtual data
being continuously streamed into your brain, you would have no outside system
to use as a relevant basis of comparison.
For a less
fantastic example involving “proof”, consider our criminal justice system.
Have you ever been a juror in a
criminal trial? I have; it was quite a rigorous exercise in reason with a bunch
of perfect strangers—and it went on for two days. Proving someone guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt gets rather contentious when all twelve jurors cannot agree on
when the threshold for a “reasonable doubt” has been achieved. It seems to me
that when people try hard enough, they can always find a doubt that is reasonable…at
least to them.
Here’s
another case in point; suppose you and I see a cat running across the street.
We agree that it was indeed a cat and we go forward with that premise. There is
no doubt that we saw a cat; it is an unquestioned fact. We later receive more
data that informs us that it was actually a funny looking raccoon. This is not
so different from observations used in science. Once something is
“proven” is the science settled forever? No; not if more data is found to
question the previous thinking. Consider that Isaac Newton and centuries of
Aristotelian logic held to the assertion that our universe and past time were
infinite. Today many accept the premise that time/space had a starting point or
Big Bang.1
There are
many such examples about “proof” and I was reminded of these when discussing near-death
experiences (NDEs) with someone as evidence for the human soul. Of all the unanswered questions in science, one of the biggest is “What is the biological basis of
consciousness?” The hidden assumption in the question is (of course) that there
must be a biological basis.
Consciousness
can only be a product of a working brain; which is essentially a “meat
computer” ultimately controlled by the universal and unchangeable laws of
physics and chemistry. Therefore, NDEs must be manufactured in the brain. They
are delusions produced by the brain under extreme duress, such as a lack of
oxygen or being under the influence of powerful drugs administered during a
medical emergency. Agreed?
For the
strict materialist the paragraph above might be a satisfying answer, but like
the example of the cat vs. raccoon, could there be more data to question the
thinking behind NDEs and human consciousness? I believe I found such data in an
article written by Fr. Robert Spitzer when I searched the Magis Center for Faith & Reason for NDEs.
Now, it is
understandable to think that a priest writing something about NDEs could have a
non-scientific and manipulative agenda about the afterlife, but the very opening
paragraph shows the concern for scientific objectivity, “I cite the evidence of
near-death experiences with some trepidation, because there are many books
written on this subject which are not scientific…these nonscientific books have
rather manipulative agendas, and some are quite cultic in character.”
The article goes on to summarizes three separate scientific studies on NDEs: The van Lommel et al Study, The Melvin Morse Study of Near-Death Experiences of Children and The Kenneth Ring, et al Study of Near-Death Experiences of the Blind. For me, the most interesting data that challenge the premise about consciousness being only a product of the brain are as follows:
Flat EEGs: People reported clear and lucid
consciousness during the time in which there was no
electrical activity in the brain cortex and no brain stem function either,
evidenced by fixed dilated pupils and absence of the gag reflex. How can lucid conciseness
continue when the brain is clinically dead?
Out of Body: People experienced an out-of-body
state with sensorial capabilities. Out of body could even mean out of the room
where they laid unconscious, going through walls, seeing things and hearing
conversations which were later verified to be accurate. How does one experience
this without a body, unless their consciousness is somehow “non-physical”?
Blind from Birth: Those blind from birth reported that
they could see. If all our memories and knowledge are stored in our brain and
our brain never received any visual inputs from our eyes, how does a blind person see during an NDE?
NDEs and Children: Wouldn’t it be foolish to believe a
child? Maybe sometimes, but if you’ve spent time with children you know they
can be very unbiased and matter-of-fact. Small children do not know what an NDE
is and are not motivated by cultural or religious agendas, so how likely are
they to purposely report data to help these agendas?
Low Percentage: Not everyone reports an NDE. In the
van Lommel study only 18% reported an NDE, but 100% of them suffered a shortage
of oxygen, were given morphine-like medications and were victims of severe
stress. If an NDE is just a biological reflex of a dying brain, shouldn’t it be
closer to 100%? If endorphins were suddenly and unexpectedly released into the
brains of 100 people, wouldn’t about 100 of them report “good feelings”?
Do these
objective aspects of subjective near-death experiences prove the existence of
the human soul and the afterlife? Perhaps not, but beware of willful ignorance
and having qualms with an agenda. As in the criminal trail example above,
people are good at raising “reasonable doubts” for just about anything. Should consciousness without a physical brain be considered a real possibility? As
with the most basic principles of reason, when many clues point in a certain
direction, we do well to explore that direction seriously. In the grand scheme of reality
these studies are additional data points (and there are many) that concur with
the Catholic worldview.
1. Thomas E. Woods, How Catholic Church Built Western
Civilization (Washington D.C: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2005), p. 91
