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