The Relationship of Neuroscience and the Soul

The Lausanne Movement, a global network of ministries and ministry leaders, recently observed:

Today, the world is absorbed with the question, “What does it mean to be human?” This makes the Christian doctrine of the human person critically important. How we answer this question has profound implications for our witness in the world and our life in the church. [1]

So what are we? In 1995 Francis Crick made this astonishing claim:

“You,” your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. [2]

This view increasingly dominates higher education, our broader culture, and now even many of our churches. Is Crick right? Are we ultimately bodies—purely physical things? Or are we ultimately souls—immaterial things? Or are we a combination of the two? What are the implications of our answer to this question for how we follow Jesus’ greatest commandment to love God and others? [3]

Data from Contemporary Neuroscience

Science is a wonderful gift to help us understand the physical world and its processes, including our brains. Neuroscientists are discovering correlations between specific regions of our brains and our thoughts, beliefs, desires, and even our very sense of identity. They are also learning that our brain has “neuroplasticity,” or the ability to be reshaped so that it can function better. However, scientific data doesn’t speak for itself- it must be interpreted by people. So the real question is: how should this data be understood? Ultimately, there are two main interpretations. [4]

Interpretation One: Physicalism

The first option interprets the correlation between neural and mental events to mean that the two are identical. In this account, memories (and all other aspects of the “self”) are nothing more than the firings of neurons. Therefore “we” are identical to our brains. It follows that the brain itself accounts for its neuroplasticity: it reshapes itself. This interpretation is known as anthropological physicalism.

Historically, non-Christians have been the only proponents of anthropological physicalism, as part of the broader movement to reduce all reality to what we can see. However, today there are a growing number of Christian physicalists. Some identify themselves as neurotheologians. Curt Thompson, a popular neurotheologian, claims that “The left hemisphere [of the brain] sets me apart as ‘me.’” [5] Likewise, Jim Wilder states, “Our brain creates and maintains a human identity.” [6]

Interpretation Two: Dualism

The second interpretation does not take correlations between neural and mental events to mean that the two are identical. Rather, this view understands the mind and brain (or soul and body) to both be real, in such a way that neither is reducible to the other. Throughout the ages, most Christians have embraced this view, due to four aspects of biblical anthropology.

First, Scripture states clearly that our bodies (including our brains) are an important feature of what we are. As Paul summarises, “Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God” (1 Corinthians 6:19). Second, Scripture is equally clear that we are more than our bodies, having an immaterial dimension as well – a soul. Jesus cautions us to “fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body” (Matthew 10:28). Third, biblical texts (e.g., Proverbs 17:22) speak of the body and soul as deeply intertwined, creating a functional unity. Finally, as the Scriptures unfold it becomes increasingly clear that we are ultimately a soul that has a body. For example, though the body of Jesus and the thief dying next to him will be dead later that day, Jesus reassures this new believer that “Today you will be with Me in paradise” (Luke 23:43, emphasis added; see also 2 Cor. 5:8, Phil. 1:21-24 and 2 Peter 1:13-15).

In sum, Scripture teaches that we are embodied souls – immaterial beings deeply united with our bodies. This biblical anthropology is known as substance dualism. It is also supported by an increasing number of arguments from philosophy, [7] some of which will be summarised in the next article in this series. Therefore, as John Cooper observes, “Christian philosophers and scientists need not adopt conceptual paradigms that implicitly contradict sound doctrine.” [8] By this he is primarily referring to Christian physicalism.

Why Our Answer Matters

Only a proper understanding of what we are leads to true human flourishing. If we adopt the neurotheologians’ physicalism, spiritual formation is actually neural formation. In this case, we would need to learn more and more about neuroscience to grow in Christ. As Wilder says, we can now “explore, for the first time, how the brain learns Christlike character.” [9] Thompson adds:

New discoveries in neuroscience and related fields offer clues as to how you can develop these attributes [of] joy, goodness, courage, generosity, kindness, and faithfulness. [10]

On the other hand, if we follow the biblical and historic understanding of ourselves as ultimately souls, spiritual formation is truly formation of our spirit – our soul. Therefore, practices that shape our soul will be central to our flourishing (which, as embodied persons, will include bodily practices). As Dallas Willard writes:

The greatest need you and I have—the greatest need of collective humanity – is renovation of our heart. That spiritual place within us from which our outlook, choices, and actions come has been formed by a world away from God. Now it must be transformed. [11]

Our answer to the question “What are we?” will also shape how well we love and serve others. If we are ultimately a body, evangelism and missions are not about the salvation of souls but about enhancing others’ physical lives. Concepts such as sin, Christ’s incarnation, and his atonement must also be redefined as related to bodies, not souls. Furthermore, our professional lives will, in large measure, be determined by our understanding of what persons are. If human beings are ultimately physical in nature, our work will focus on meeting physical needs alone. If we are ultimately a soul with a body, we will seek to care for the whole person – body and soul – in our daily work.

Likewise, our anthropology has far-reaching implications for what we believe to be good for society in general. If people are ultimately material, the highest cultural value is the freedom to meet our physical needs, however we define them. Biomedical ethics will define life and value in terms of functional abilities, with significant implications for when life is said to begin and end.

Finally, if we are fundamentally physical beings, there is literally nothing we share in common to provide a basis for supporting our intrinsic value, fundamental equality, justice for all, and inalienable human rights. Yet if we are ultimately a soul, we will be concerned with meeting others’ physical and spiritual needs. We will define life and human worth ultimately in virtue of the soul, thereby grounding biomedical ethics and “justice for all” objectively, irrespective of functional, ethnic, or other differences between various individuals or groups.

These are but some of the logical implications of physicalism. Neurotheologians may wish to distance themselves from these ramifications, yet the more we treat human beings as simply the result of brain function, the more these inferences follow.

Conclusion

These few examples illustrate that for us to flourish and live the lives God desires, we must first and foremost understand our nature – what we truly are. Only then will we best love God and others. In my second article in this series, I will provide reasons to reject physicalism, and with it neurotheology, in favour of what I call holistic dualism. In my third and final article, I will draw out more of the implications of a proper anthropology for our everyday lives.

References

1. The Lausanne Movement’s “Seoul Statement,” Article IV, Introduction (https://lausanne.org/statement/the-seoul-statement, accessed January 28, 2025).
2. Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994), 3.
3. In this and the next two articles I summarise my recent Have We Lost Our Minds? Neuroscience, Neurotheology, the Soul, and Human Flourishing (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2024).
4. There are many nuances within these two interpretations. See Have We Lost Our Minds? for a discussion of a number of further distinctions.
5. Curt Thompson, Anatomy of the Soul: Surprising Connections Between Neuroscience and Spiritual Practices That Can Transform Your Life and Relationships (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2010), 244.
6. Jim Wilder, Renovated: God, Dallas Willard and the Church That Transforms (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2020), 68.
7. As J. P. Moreland and Brandon Rickabaugh observe, “It is no exaggeration to say that substance dualism is undergoing an unforeseen revival and is poised to make a strong return in the 21st century [due to] the rapid growth in sophisticated new work on substance dualism.” Moreland and Rickabaugh, The Substance of Consciousness: A Comprehensive Defense of Contemporary Substance Dualism (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2023), 5.
8. John W. Cooper, Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), xxvi.
9. Wilder, Renovated, 2 (emphasis added).
10. Thompson, Anatomy of the Soul,
11. Dallas Willard, Renovation of the Heart: Putting on the Character of Christ (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2002),