I recently rented the movie Cold Souls. I usually enjoy that kind of Kaufmanesque film, but not this time, which got me thinking. I eventually decided the problem was that the filmmakers were confused about how having no soul would affect a person. In the film, the soul isn’t the same thing as the mind, because Paul (the main character) is still intellectually competent after his operation. Instead, the writers seem to equate the soul with emotion. Paul’s feelings are altered by the operation. But even then, the film is inconsistent; Paul doesn't suffer from complete loss of affect. (For example, he worries about being soulless.)
Unintentionally, the film reveals that modern cognitive science has rendered the whole notion of a soul superfluous. If the soul isn’t thought, or feeling, or personality, what is it?
Everyone admits that thoughts and feelings come from the physical brain. Ritalin doesn’t help the soul to focus better. And even Christians take anti-depressants; they don’t believe that they’re medicating their souls. Increasingly, the functions of the soul have been replaced by the chemistry of the brain.
People also admit that personality is a function of the brain; look at all the ways that changes to the brain (strokes, injuries, drugs, etc.) alter personality. Does that mean that the immortal soul has no individual personality? If so, why would somebody even hope for a bland, thoughtless, emotionless, soul with no recognizable personality? What exactly is it that is supposed to walk through the pearly gates?
Modern science has forced God to become what Bonhoeffer referred to as the God of the gaps. The soul, likewise, has become the Organ of the gaps. But, in the case of the soul, there is no discernible gap left for it to fill. Descartes found the seat of the soul in the tiny pineal gland. But I don’t think there’s a gland small enough to do what the soul does—nothing. It's the ultimate vestigial organ.
No comments:
Post a Comment