Sacraments and Human Nature: Part II – Man is More than Matter
This last weekend I spoke at a molecular biology forum on the U of I campus on the topic of Evolution versus Creationism (notice which side got the “ism”). I was the speaker on behalf of the side of Creation and my “opponent” was an evolutionary anthropologist. I found out that I was doing the talk rather late, which in some ways was fortunate as I was not tempted (o.k., well tempted) to try to address any problems on the side of biological evolution as a scientific theory. Rather, I focused my preparations on what I had thought would be the inevitable discussion of the incoherence of philosophical materialism.
Happily that was not necessary, and anyone expecting a heated debate showing an inherent conflict between science and religion left disappointed. The anthropologist kept to biology for the most part (except for a slip referring to the supernatural as magic for which he apologized) and I kept to philosophy and theology. However, my preparations reminded me of the pervasive presupposition of philosophical materialism of so many in modern science and varying degrees of the same among the general population.
It is not surprising then, that Sacraments are incomprehensible to materialists. Though, to some degree most of us are probably affected by this thinking due to cultural conditioning. Thus, it is probably appropriate to begin with a discussion of human nature. The nature of man is a composite one which classical philosophy has always referred to as hylomorphic. In other words, to be human is to exist at the union between the material world and the spiritual world; we are a unity of body and soul. More on this in the next post.
Perhaps a word could be said about what is mean by “nature”. When classical philosophy uses the term “nature” it means the essence of a being, that which makes a being what it is. That which makes a man, man, is a body and soul but a particular kind of soul. Man has a rational soul which informs the body. “Informing” means that the soul not only gives the body its shape but it actually brings the body-soul unity into existence. This soul is immortal which means that once it is created by God it will always exist. Man cannot be a human person without a body and an immortal, rational soul.
Since the dawn of Western philosophy, great thinkers have been showing why the assumption of some (a small minority by the way) envision human nature as solely material. There are many arguments against materialism but I will take a couple of philosophical arguments and some hints from modern science and mathematics.
Radical materialism makes no sense. For the words in this post exist in one’s mind not in any material way but they have a non-material existence. They are symbols for things material and for intellectual concepts that themselves have no material existence, but exist nonetheless. Universal ideas of non-material things such as love, truth, and beauty have a universal existence that comes about without the transfer of the same material substance to each mind that possesses these concepts. The contents of our thoughts are not limited to space and time as is matter, but they exist in many minds at once without ceasing to be in the minds of others. Thus, there is obviously an intellectual domain that cannot be reduced to matter.
Some have shown that at the instant a materialist utters his claim and wants another to accept it as true, he is being irrational. If materialism is true than asking someone to make a judgment and change one’s mind by accepting his materialist claims, is an impossibility. If materialism is true then thoughts, including judgments, would simply be the result of the interplay of material forces that are completely determined by laws of nature. Whatever happens would be the result of the necessary outcome of matter obeying natural laws. Free will, choice, all of these would be mere illusions. Of course, even if a materialist recognizes this and is a committed determinist, he cannot live that way. This belief generally is used as a convenient justification for his rejection of those truths which would make uncomfortable demands upon him.
Some have retreated from the inconsistencies of this radical materialism to what has been called epiphenomenalism. In this theory, thoughts are simply said to be the resulting phenomena of the interaction of material forces in the brain. Of all the difficulties with this theory, one significant problem is that thinking has no way of controlling the body. If thoughts are just epiphenomena then we would still be automatons responding to some preset program. We would simply be experiencing, in some unexplainable way, the results of mechanistic, cosmic forces which are moving us toward some necessary end. It is impossible to convince anyone (well maybe a few sophists masquerading as philosophy professors have been able to hoodwink a few unsuspecting undergrads) having experienced making a choice with sufficient mature reflection, that they were not making a free choice.
There are hints from physics that materialism is incoherent. Though certainly not universally agreed to, the so-called Copenhagen or orthodox interpretation contradicts claims of materialism. In some quantum experiments there are resulting paradoxes that can only be explained, according to this interpretation, if the mind of the observer exists, at least partly, outside the world circumscribed by that which physics is able to describe.
From mathematics we have Gödel’s theorem. This theorem was discovered by mathematician Kurt Gödel in 1931. He found that no formal system (which is like a system of grammar or a system of axioms and rules for deduction, used for modeling some phenomenon–e.g. computer programs) can be the source of its own proof. The application of this to materialism was made by John Lucas, an Oxford philosopher. In 1971 Lucas showed that a mechanistic view of the mind is incoherent because a mechanistic mind would simply be a formal system. According to Gödel’s theorem, no mind could then account for itself, which is clearly contradicted by experience. In other words, if a mind were mechanistic, a person could never become self aware.
Logical reasoning, evidence from modern science, and yes, even common sense all tell us that there is much more to the world than the material. No small wonder that philosophical materialism has been limited to the domain of those few who know too much about too little and confuse themselves and others (who know too little about anything) into thinking they know it all. Next time we will discuss how classical philosophy came to the realization that man has a composite nature.
.jpg)
So many great launching points from this post. I wish had the time and knowledge to use the opportunity!
As I said before, I do think that much of this is ultimately best handled within philosophy. If the universe appears intelligible (rational), then something apart from it must account for it (ground it). This is why, for instance, process philosophy and theology is not satisfactory.
Did you see the reports today of Consolmagno’s indiscreet characterization of creationism as a form of paganism? That Christianity has a God of the supernatural; to believe that this God creates the natural universe is superstition. So much confusion and conflation of issues among those who should know better, imo.
Comment by monica — May 6, 2006 @ 8:45 AM
Remarkably, the children are getting along, so I have a minute:
Man has a rational soul which informs the body. “Informing†means that the soul not only gives the body its shape but it actually brings the body-soul unity into existence. This soul is immortal which means that once it is created by God it will always exist. Man cannot be a human person without a body and an immortal, rational soul.
Man cannot be a human peron without a body and and immortal soul. I wonder if we could say further that this also demands that man cannot be a “human person” without both a human body and a human soul. That is, is it really acceptable that God slaps a “human” soul into a “non-human” body? Is it even possible that there be such thing as a “human” body without a human (rational, immortal) soul? You see, I’m having a hard time reconciling just how you can get a human person *from* evolution if you accept the composite nature of body and soul (and I do).
This is probably a topic better discussed in the next section . . . and just in time for the kids needing me.
Comment by monica — May 6, 2006 @ 9:03 AM
Did you see the reports today of Consolmagno’s indiscreet characterization of creationism as a form of paganism?
No Monica, I did not see them but found a short article in WorldNetDaily that seems to be the one to which you are referring. I would like to see Fr. Consolmagno’s ideas in the greater context of his thinking on this subject. I would hope that his philosophical and theological background would provide him with an authentic Catholic view of God’s relation to His creation. In any case, I agree that his characterizations of creationism seems to be a little uncharitable and it is not clear to me that paganism is appropriate. It is not clear how he comes to his paganism conclusion but I hope that he does not follow Fr. Coyne’s Deist or possibly Process errors.
Is it even possible that there be such thing as a “human†body without a human (rational, immortal) soul?
If biological evolution (in terms of common decent) is true then it seems to me that it would have to be understood along the lines of St. Thomas’ description of Aristotelian biology. That is, the conception of a human being comes about through a process that lasts about two weeks. After fertilization the first soul is a vegetative soul whose telos is an animal soul when the body has progressed sufficiently. By the way, because this vegetative soul has its primary telos, eventually a human being, it must be treated as a human. The vegetative soul is replaced with an animal soul (whose telos is a human soul) which is infused at the point when the body is ready for it. Then at about two weeks or so the human soul would be infused.
In other words, if common decent is true then forms of lower organic entities would exist whose telos is in the direction of some particular higher entity (including man). It seems to me that given the time-line available since the formation of the earth, if random genetic mutation is part of the preparation of the matter for a higher level form, then the lower level form would also be directing, in some manner, evolutionary development as well (Wolfgang Smith has a compelling theory in this regard).
The biological evidence in favor of common decent and St. Thomas’ emphasis on the relative autonomy of the natural world leave me open to the possibility that there may have been some common decent. However, I think we are still a long way away from the kind of evidence needed to make common decent the relative certitude that many seem to presuppose.
Comment by David — May 6, 2006 @ 11:00 AM
I actually read the article from spirit daily (not sure if WND is linking to the same one, but this is what I read: http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=674042006
So, if I understand correctly, your potential reconciliation is that proto-humans came to be through common descent, and at the right time, God infuses a rational (human) soul into an already developing embryo (with vegetative soul whose original telos was directed toward becoming human).
I suppose that would work. It’s not ultimately “satisfying”. I mean, that leaves us with the fact that the first humans had non-human parents that were physically identical to themselves (in the generic of species), but had animal souls. It leaves a kind of metaphysical distaste in my mouth. The parents could not have been much different from their immediate children.
I just don’t know why (as a catholic and, therefore, as one who has no problem accepting special intervention from God) I would need to believe in the origins of man as anything other than what is intimated in scripture and certainly not contradicted by science.
That is, that while all other creatures may have been “generated” by common descent, that human beings are special; their origin is from God, who directly and personally generated them. We know that we must believe (according to the faith) in two original parents. Yet evolution demands that we also believe that the two parents also had parents – like them in all things but human soul.
This seems to compromise the idea of the “unity” of body and soul. It is a human soul that makes a human body “human”. IOW, I think that accepting the evolutionary origins of the human person forces one to treat the human body as just another animal body with a human soul infused. (Maybe? – I’m open to reasonable persuasion that it’s not the case).
What do you think the overall goal is? Is the goal to accept as much that is (reasonably) demonstrated by science as is possible? What does this gain us, from the faith perspective, I wonder. I mean, we can assent and assent and assent away to the truths of science, but the bottom line is that we still must assent to the very things that science never will. Does it make us more sophisticated to Stephen J Gould if we accept the origins of human beings from common descent, but still hold that Mary was Immaculately conceived, that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and that we are, God willing, destined to do the same one day?
Comment by monica — May 6, 2006 @ 12:24 PM
Monica,
I read your link. It is very close to the WorldNet article except for the additional statement about infallibility. Br. Consolmagno’s comments about papal infallibility seem problematic on their surface.
This seems to compromise the idea of the “unity†of body and soul. It is a human soul that makes a human body “humanâ€. IOW, I think that accepting the evolutionary origins of the human person forces one to treat the human body as just another animal body with a human soul infused. (Maybe? – I’m open to reasonable persuasion that it’s not the case).
You are correct that it is the human soul that makes the body a human body. The body is informed by the soul which gives the body its existence and the entity its nature. We do have much in common biologically with animals. Some traditions explaining Satan’s fall from grace actually say that it is this similarity that was the motivation for his non serviam. However, the substantial source of man’s qualitative difference from animals is the apiritual soul created in the image of God. And recall that the unity of body and soul is not the joining of two “things” but rather the unity is a single entity with two principles–matter and form. One therefore cannot treat the body as solely animal without treating the entire person as such.
What do you think the overall goal is?
Nothing other than truth. Understanding the how and why of God’s creation helps to glorify Him all the more. It is also necessary for evangelizing some parts of the world. Evangelizing those engaged in modern science (and even those suffering from scientism) requires understanding the truth of the world that we share in common with those in the various fields of science. To reject out of hand even the possibility of common decent when it is not necessary for faith (even though I agree it seems unsatisfying), is interpreted by many in the various fields of science to confirm for them the erroneous view that they have to choose between reason and faith.
So no, the motivation must not be one of the appearance of sophistication. As you imply, I believe, this vanity as motivation rather will encourage the erroneous acceptance of error in the desire to be approved. Rather, the motivation must be growing closer to God by seeking Him in all things, including the understanding of His creation. And this for the sake of loving Him and also for drawing all women and men to Him.
Comment by David — May 6, 2006 @ 1:41 PM
Okay, so it looks like I have some erroneous ideas about the philosophical underpinnings of the essence of “human”, but I can’t imagine where I’ve picked them up. I was under the impression that a thing is what it is, essentially, and doesn’t become something else. A human is a human from conception,from the beginning (not just something that must be treated as a human by virtue of its telos).
Do you see any problems with accepting the Aristotelian biology? I admit, it sounds pretty arrogant to want to set aside part of a Thomistic tradition and then try to hold on to other parts.
Evangelizing those engaged in modern science (and even those suffering from scientism) requires understanding the truth of the world that we share in common with those in the various fields of science.
I do agree! I don’t think that we need to reject things out of hand; I think we need to determine if accepting something costs us to compromise a matter of faith. In this area we do have the freedom to believe or not (with some conditions). I’ve not been so sure that I have been able to believe that evolution as the origins of man doesn’t compromise something very fundamental, but I don’t seem to have a tradition to back that up, so I may need to abandon it and suck it up, so to speak.
Rather, the motivation must be growing closer to God by seeking Him in all things, including the understanding of His creation.
And I think that is the right formula, David – if it removes an impediment to accepting the faith, then it is the right spirit. I just don’t like it when it’s used to beat up the “simpler” positions that we are permitted to hold.
Thanks, by the way! I apologize for stretching out one little aspect of your post, but I admit it is something that interests me.
Comment by monica — May 6, 2006 @ 2:50 PM
Do you see any problems with accepting the Aristotelian biology?
Yes, at least as biological explanations of the world. Aristotle and St. Thomas did not have access to the same data as we have today. Neither would hold to their biology today. My reason for referencing Aristotle’s/Thomas’ biology was their metaphysical explanation for the sequential development of human beings from conception was to illustrate how progressive development from less to greater forms leading to a human being is not at odds with Catholic thought.
I just don’t like it when it’s used to beat up the “simpler†positions that we are permitted to hold.
I agree; it should not be. At this point, on this issue, there is no reason to reject either position (though one may certainly prefer one over the other). It seems to me the reasonable and charitable position is to recognize that as long as a position does not contradict revealed truth or incontrovertible findings of the sciences (and not just dominant theories) it ought not be derided as simplistic or a rejection of the faith.
Thanks for the discussion and please do not apologize; I appreciate your interest and your insights.
Comment by David — May 6, 2006 @ 3:42 PM
Monica – I forgot to clarify this comment:
I was under the impression that a thing is what it is, essentially, and doesn’t become something else. A human is a human from conception,from the beginning (not just something that must be treated as a human by virtue of its telos).
You are correct that the substance itself (the form) cannot change but one form can be replaced by another. For example, at death the soul/substantial form is replaced by the form of a corpse which then informs the body.
Comment by David — May 6, 2006 @ 3:55 PM
There are hints from physics that materialism is incoherent. Though certainly not universally agreed to, the so-called Copenhagen or orthodox interpretation contradicts claims of materialism. In some quantum experiments there are resulting paradoxes that can only be explained, according to this interpretation, if the mind of the observer exists, at least partly, outside the world circumscribed by that which physics is able to describe.
David, can you please describe some of these experiments?
Comment by JohnT — May 19, 2006 @ 10:55 PM
Any news on these experiments? I know you are busy. You don’t have to be rigorous. Thanks
Comment by JohnT — May 26, 2006 @ 8:41 AM
John: I was going to do a post but perhaps it might be enough to point to some links:
For Gödel’s theorem, here is a link that provides a few texts that help to explain it, and a link that does a top level tutorial of the mathematical derivation. In general, an important implication of the proof is that the mind envisioned as a computer program (which is the only possibility if there is nothing more than the material world) can be shown to be false with mathematical rigor.
The Copenhagen interpretation is more complex and its interpretation more controversial. How about a cartoon to help explain the issue? If you want more detail, here is a good link. I don’t generally like wikipedia but this issue seems to be trustworthily described there as well.
Comment by David — May 26, 2006 @ 12:00 PM
Thank you for the sites. This is a topic very dear to me. I did not understand it in college. At the time I could get my mind around modern ontology in more depth than this material. I hung out in that space.
What is your area of research?
Comment by JohnT — May 27, 2006 @ 9:35 AM
John – I am a generalist, but I primarily focus right now in the areas of theological anthropology and science/religion.
Comment by David — May 28, 2006 @ 12:00 PM
I read a lot of Turing, Hoffstadder, Minsky (?) Churchland(s) (UCSD) and Dennet et al in college. That’s the general crowd. It’s too long ago to remember all the names and topics. I wish I had more time for this now, but I don’t.
It’s time for application of the ideas. I started blogging recently due to, in a very small way, Rod Dreher’s book. I had been poking at it for about a year now. But I read the article Godspy about Liturgical Cities and that did it for me. One to many days in a gray drab cube did it for me.
Materialism kills the soul. I use the term in the broadest philosophical sense to include all forms from Marxism to Capitalism. I make very little distinction between materialists. The only delineator for me is how much liberty they allow the agent.
The goal of my site is to help people cope with the effects of materialism. I want to present practical ways of creating a sacramental life for self and family. It is not that easy to do when you have children. Kids don’t understand, and they are hit with it constantly. In my case now I have to choose between keeping up with the professional life, or pulling back. Pulling back might mean financial hardship. We are prepared. However, medical is a problem. We are prepared for hardship, but not financial ruin. I stay on the treadmill. Admittedly, being somewhat of an intellectual this is an issue of faith vs. reason. I am not complaining I am reporting.
What lessons I learn I want to make available on my site to those who are perhaps younger and can benefit from it. The effect of modern life is quite deadening. There is also an uncomfortable level of dehumanization that occurs in the workplace. People are not cruel in their open hostility to you as you might imagine a hundred years ago in say a steel mill. It is more a silent indifference to you. You become separated from your role. There is a palpable dualism between your humanity and your career.
I feel that the Church has done a poor job of assimilating the countercultural message. As a Christian you accept the teachings of Christ and by doing so put yourself at odds with the world. Many Christians in the surgically clean corporate environment have trouble coping with the great stresses this dichotomy puts them under. Some don’t some do. I’ve rambled too long here. I have to go. I hope this makes sense. On my site on the side bar there is a link to Retreat Teaching. I encourage you to listen, there is about 50+ hours of teaching.
Comment by JohnT — May 29, 2006 @ 12:09 PM