X-Message-Number: 21747 From: "Mark Plus" <> Subject: Michael Shermer's Book Review: The Problem of the Soul Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 14:39:56 -0700 http://www.physicspost.com/articles.php?articleId=137 Book Review: The Problem of the Soul: Two Visions of Mind and How to Reconcile Author: Michael Shermer Added: 05/07/2003 Type: Review [ Not Rated Yet ] This article is also available online at Physics Post [http://www.physicspost.com] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 1 Review of The Problem of the Soul: Two Visions of Mind and How to Reconcile Them By Owen Flanagan. New York: Basic Books. Pp. 364. ISBN: 0-465-02460-2 $27.50 In June 2002 baseball legend Ted Williams died, a newsworthy enough story that then got legs when his son whisked the body away to Phoenix, Arizona where it was cryonically frozen at minus 320 degrees, with the hope that one day Teddy Ballgame would be resurrected to play again. If Williams s body were reanimated one day would it still be the cranky perfectionist who was the last to hit .400? In other words, even if future cryonics scientists could bring him back to life, would it still be him ? Is the soul of Ted Williams also in deep freeze along with his brain and body? Duke University philosopher Owen Flanagan would probably answer yes, if by soul we mean the pattern of Ted Williams s memories, personality, and personhood, and if the freezing process did not destroy the neural network in the brain where such entities are stored. But as for some ethereal entity that continues past physical death (whether buried, cremated, or frozen), Flanagan would offer an emphatic no. In his latest book, The Problem of the Soul, a courageous and daring look into the heart of what it means to be human, Flanagan builds a bridge between two irreconcilable views of the mind: the humanistic/theological versus the scientific/naturalistic. The former includes a place within our brains for nonphysical mind, free will, and a soul, but fails to offer any tangible proof that such things even exist. The latter is grounded in solid empirical data but fails to show how humans as evolved animals can lead moral and meaningful lives. Flanagan s purpose is to reconcile the two, and he has done so successfully in this crisply reasoned and beautifully written work. Can we do without the cluster of concepts that are central to the humanistic image in its present form the soul and its suite and still retain some or most of what these concepts were designed to do? Flanagan s answer is an emphatic yes. To that I add amen. It may simply be that I resonate well with Flanagan because I am a nonbelieving, nontheistic, naturalistic scientist. After a lifetime spent reading the obfuscating works of philosophers and theologians twisting logic into pretzelian contortions to prove such unprovable concepts as God, the soul, and free will, I want to stand up and cheer when I read passages such as this one from Flanagan s opening salvo: There is no point beating around the bush. Supernatural concepts have no philosophical warrant. Furthermore, it is not that such concepts are displaced only if we accept, from the start, a naturalistic or scientific visions of things. There simply are no good arguments theological, philosophical, humanistic, or scientific for beliefs in divine beings, miracles, or heavenly afterlives. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 2 How then, without such ephemera, can we find meaning in this meaningless cosmos? By broadening the scope of science. Flanagan convincingly demonstrates that the scientific quest to understand our place in the cosmos and our relation to other beings, including and especially our own species, itself generates both awe and reverence feelings that were previously the exclusive domain of religion: There is benevolence and compassion expressed by a feeling of connection to all creatures, indeed even to the awesome inanimate cosmos. This connection comes through knowing something about creatures and the cosmos, and Flanagan spends most of The Problem of the Soul discussing the nature of what it means to be human, how brains can create minds (that are not separate from neurons), why free will is not necessarily incompatible with the deterministic assumption behind making free moral choices, how natural selves exist and retain most of the benefits of supernatural selves (souls) with the exception of immortality, and how ethical principles can be derived (and consequent moral behaviors generated) through a purely naturalistic world view. Here the reading slows a little as Flanagan reviews all the major competing views before delivering his verdict on them along with his alternatives (for example, it takes 50 pages to dispense with the soul and another 50 pages to rebuild it through a natural system). But the effort pays off, as when he delivers this brilliant denouement showing how it is not the answers of science that provide transcendence, it is the quest: It is becoming, worthy, and noble. It is the most we can aim for given the kind of creature we are, and happily it is enough. If you think this is not so, if you want more, if you wish that your life had prospects for transcendent meaning, for more than the personal satisfaction and contentment you can achieve while you are alive, and more than what you will have contributed to the well-being of this world after you die, then you are still in the grip of illusions. Trust me, you can t get more. But what you can get, if you live well, is enough. It is enough for Flanagan. And it is enough for me and the (roughly) 60 percent of practicing scientists who, according to a 1996 survey by Ed Larson, have no belief in God or an afterlife. But will it ever be enough for the masses? Can we convince hundreds of millions of people even billions of souls that the scientific world view is good enough? The realist in me remains pessimistic. But the idealist in me wants more and is encouraged when encountering works like The Problem of the Soul, where science is presented as a humanistic and humane enterprise. Science is constructive, not destructive. A few structures (like the soul) may be demolished to make room for the new edifice, but many of the contents of the old building will be preserved in the new. That is the cumulative and uplifting nature of science, so wonderfully captured in this fine book. _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21747