# Clinton Ohlers: Two Parables on Divine Action

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/clinton-ohlers-two-parables-on-divine-action/476>\
**Category:** Office Hours\
**Tags:** Theology\
**Created:** [June 25, 2018, 12:48am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/clinton-ohlers-two-parables-on-divine-action/476 "2018-06-25T00:48:38Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 35

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [July 17, 2018, 3:15pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/clinton-ohlers-two-parables-on-divine-action/476/35 "2018-07-17T15:15:54Z")

</div>

Welcome @jrfarris, great to have you here.

## Invited to the Table

> [@jrfarris](#):
>
> My hope is that theologians (and philosophers) can come to the table and have discussions with scientists. It seems that for so long that has not been the case (or, at a minimum, theologians have not had the freedom to speak authoritatively on matters that impinge on issues within science), and Joshua S. has confirmed as much concerning the role of theologians at the table for science discussions. That said, I am not sure (1) what that table is? and (2) what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for being allowed or invited to the table?

**You _are_ invited to the table @jrfarris.** So are philosophers and theologians. Scientists love to talk with you all, and wish you were around more to engage with our work. The conditions, however, are to play by the rules of the scientific table when we are at that table: [The Rules of the Game](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-rules-of-the-game/226).

**At the “Scientific” table, we keep a _sharp line_ between the scientific arguments and findings, and our personal reflections on those arguments and findings.** There is both (1) a large public and “official” conversation that follows strict rules and protocols, and (2) and informal side-conversations where any rules are allowed, as long as basic politeness and honesty are valued.

The strength of this system is that no matter our personal beliefs and views, we can work with each other as scientists, understanding the basic presuppositions of scientific work. The strict rules are how science becomes a _common_ effort to expand our knowledge of the natural world. We are also granted autonomy to integrate in our own ways what this means for others fields and for us too. Also, that means there are well defined blind spots for science too. We all know from the get go that science does not tell us, for example, if God does or does not exist.

We can even hold personally that scientific conclusions are wrong: [A Better Way to Reject Common Descent](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-better-way-to-reject-common-descent/652). Science just does not care what you believe in your heart, and what you say outside science, as long as you do not misrepresent science.

Theologians and philosophers have _always_ been invited to the table to participate in the informal side-conversations, to explore the implications of scientific findings, and even their limits, ethics, and greater meanings. We might even ask you to speak up louder often, so others can hear your voice.

It is, however, considered very rude to burst into the “official” conversation to tell us that we do not do science right, and that our rules must change. That is not allowed. It takes an immense amount of training to understand how to do scientific work. There is an immense amount of tacit knowledge here, and we as scientists ourselves do not feel we have the right to change the rules. For that reason, it can even be taken as insulting when a transient philosopher tries to do such things. That breaks the rules. That, also, should be obvious.

Theologians and philosophers that play by the rules are welcome and embraced in science. Just be a good guest. **Explain the limits of scientific findings _outside_ of science.** Help scientists understand the true meaning of their findings. That is all welcomed and encouraged. It does not require, also, changing the rules.

> [@jrfarris](#):
>
> Just a bit of context, I met Joshua Swamidass at the Dabar Conference at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. I was fascinated by his proposal concerning Adam’s relationship to humans, specifically to one genealogical group rather than genetic humanity more broadly.

We’d love to hear more about that too. Maybe this fall we can do an Office Hours on just this. What do you think?

## The Origin of the Soul

> [@jrfarris](#):
>
> Particularly, I am interested to bring the origin of the soul back into the discussions, but it is not clear that substance dualism/the soul has been a topic of discussion within the scientific community or in the science and religion literature. Why? I am not sure. I would like to find out.

I’d love to talk about that with you. First off, it was considered.

> **[21 grams experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment)**
>
> The 21 grams experiment refers to a study published in 1907 by Duncan MacDougall, a physician from Haverhill, Massachusetts. MacDougall hypothesized that souls have physical weight, and attempted to measure the mass lost by a human when the soul departed the body. MacDougall attempted to measure the mass change of six patients at the moment of death. One of the six subjects lost three-quarters of an ounce (21.3 grams).
> MacDougall stated his experiment would have to be repeated many times befo...

I think the general consensus (both in theology and science) is that this experiment was misguided. There is no _a prior_ reason to think that the soul has mass. There is no reason to think it appears in exposed film. There is no reason to think it disturbs electrical signals.

The problem, it seems, is that the concept of a soul is too poorly defined to settle what we should or shouldn’t look for. We’ve talked bout this before with @purposenation. [The Souls of our Ancestors](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-souls-of-our-ancestors/486). It is such a flexible concept that I even convinced our resident atheist that he has a soul:

> [@The Souls of our Ancestors](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-souls-of-our-ancestors/486/12):
>
> > Everyone believes in a soul of some sort
> 
> Not everyone. There is absolutely no science that supports any notion of a soul that remains after the brain has ceased functioning. Certainly not neuroscience.

> [@The Souls of our Ancestors](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-souls-of-our-ancestors/486/13):
>
> One definition of a soul is our consciousness. May this lives on after we die, or not. This is the definition used frequently in SciFi, see for example _Altered Carbon_ . @Patrick, do you not agree we have a consciousness?
> 
> And I agree, there is no science that supports it lives beyond our body. Even some Chrisitians believe that, thinking that human minds can’t exist independent of a body! I never said everyone believes in an immortal soul, just that everyone affirms a soul of some sort or another.

> [@The Souls of our Ancestors](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-souls-of-our-ancestors/486/15):
>
> Sure, Daniel Dennett new book “From Bacteria to Bach and Back - The Evolution of Minds” is the latest in the scientific study of consciousness. If soul is equated to consciousness, no problem. When the brain no long functions, consciousness is lost forever. If soul is equated with something that survives beyond the active synapses in a living brain, well there is zero evidence of anything like that kind of soul.

> [@The Souls of our Ancestors](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-souls-of-our-ancestors/486/18):
>
> This just collapses into the question of the existence of God.
> 
> If God existed, we can agree that he could recreate us after we die, with our consciousness intact. Imagine a StarTrek transporter with a memory of passenger, that can recreate that passenger at will. One does not even need to grant that there is some non-physical soul “stuff” (other than information that is), just that God has the power and knowledge to recreate us. Then we have an immortal soul.
> 
> Such a view is 100% consistent with the evidence of science. There is no evidence for it, but no evidence against it. It all comes down to whether we believe God exists or not, and if He would care enough to bring us back.

Recall that even theologians can’t agree on what a soul “is,” whether it be a monist, dualist, or trichomist view. The best scientific accounts might be from “information.”

> [@The Souls of our Ancestors](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-souls-of-our-ancestors/486/18):
>
> Imagine a StarTrek transporter with a memory of passenger, that can recreate that passenger at will. One does not even need to grant that there is some non-physical soul “stuff” (other than information that is), just that God has the power and knowledge to recreate us. Then we have an immortal soul.

Yes, I am well aware of the objections of the dualist that arise (like the continuity of the self problem). However, we can construct examples of this that account for dualism. Moreover, if God is the only one able to duplicate us, and He chooses to keep the continuity of our identity intact (by never making more than one of us), then I’m not sure what the objection is.

In this view, then, the “immortal soul” arises at the point at which God decides to care enough about us to remember us. That is, I think, the best integration between science and the soul I can give, and it deeps necessarily into science fiction. 😄 As a theological anthropologist though, I wonder what @jrfarris would think about this.

We are not ready to change the rules of science, but the voice of the philosopher-theologian on the soul is very welcome here. Science, after all, is merely dreaming. Theology is the waking world.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/clinton-ohlers-two-parables-on-divine-action/476)._