Joshua Farris [00:00:00]:

My my parents, their generation, you know, when they would, hear a scientist or a medical doctor speak on a particular issue, they would just take their authority for granted and just as if it's just true. A lot of the academic institute Christian institutions and seminaries have been influenced by a set of epistemic authorities that have been that have shaped them over a period of time, which has also begun to shape biblical studies over a period of time.

Jim Spiegel [00:00:32]:

Welcome to the Kalos Center podcast. Hello, everybody. Welcome to another episode of the Kalos Center podcast. Our guest today is doctor Joshua Farris. Joshua is an Anglican priest, canon theologian, research professor at Wur Universitat, Bocaum, and professor at Kairos University. Doctor Farris has spoken all over The United States and Europe. He has occupied some highly prestigious fellowships and is a regular grant holder through the Discovery Institute. Doctor Farris has authored or co edited 12 books and published numerous articles and scholarly publications as well as popular periodicals.

Jim Spiegel [00:01:22]:

His publications address a wide range of issues related to human nature and well-being, including classical learning, the sanctity of life, adoption, life after death, near death experiences, dementia, God and science, and the nature of the human soul. Joshua's most recent works include two books about the soul. One is The Creation of Self, A Case for the Soul, and another entitled The Origin of the Soul is a co edited volume published by Rutledge Press. Finally, Joshua is the founder and director of an organization called Spiritually Driven Leadership, which is a service for businesses at the intersection of business and spirituality. And he's also the founder and director of Soul Science Ministries, which we'll talk about shortly. So Joshua Farris, welcome to the Kalos Center podcast.

Joshua Farris [00:02:20]:

Hey. Good to be with you, Jim.

Jim Spiegel [00:02:22]:

Now Joshua, as is clear from my introduction, one of your main interests is the human soul, a subject that has all sorts of implications for most, if if not all, of the other issues that you speak and write about. And your organization, Soul Science Ministries, seems to be premised on that point. So let's start by talking about the purpose of that organization. Why do you think it's especially needed at this time in our culture?

Joshua Farris [00:02:53]:

Yeah. Yeah. Good question. I think it's, yeah, that's a big question. So there's a lot of motivations here. I originally thought about calling it education or an institution, an institute of some sort, and I I certainly have gone back on that. But it it kind of is motivated by, a dissatisfaction both personally and culturally. I keep seeing a kind of disconnect on the one hand.

Joshua Farris [00:03:18]:

We have these deep questions about what it means to be human, what it is that will happen, what the soul is. But on the other hand, in churches, there's this kind of, these kinds of questions become often flattened to a kind of vague spirituality, or sometimes even just absorbed into some kind of, mere escapism or, absorbed into a kind of materialist, a science or at least at least, motivated or influenced and shaped by kind of materialist views of human beings. And so I see this as pretty, massive and churches where there's a need for education and, a need, from there to the the educational institutes or centers of, higher learning, of which, we're seeing a great deal of transition right now, in terms of private educational institutions. They're going through a lot of changes right now, and we don't know how that's gonna work out. But there's a big need. There's lots of needs, it seems to me. And one of them is really driving this bigger question about what it means to be human, especially in light of, the scientific and technological developments that are occurring presently that are creating or, prompting certain questions and confusions or ambiguities about, human humanity, and, we're seeing that both in the broader culture as well as in the church. And, we need to get ahead of these questions and think about them carefully and critically and well.

Joshua Farris [00:04:52]:

And, oftentimes as evangelicals, we tend to be behind the curve. And I think, someone been a real prophetic voice. I'm not sure he's a a Christian or, who has, really, done a lot of work thinking carefully about these from a sociological point of view has been Neil Postman. And his, really, really helpful book, there's been more than one. Of course, he's famous for the book Amusing Ourselves to Death, kind of the age of TV. But but more recently, he wrote a book called Technopoly where he addresses the kinds of questions I think that, I really have an interest in as a Christian and as a Christian academic thinking theologically well, I mean, in light of these broader questions. There's a lot going on at the intersection of AI. Now we're seeing this sort of technological twilight zone if you've seen Black Mirror, which is a fascinating show.

Joshua Farris [00:05:48]:

But it offers, a whole host of prompts about, about humanity in terms of, like, whether or not we're kind of these bits of information that can be uploaded to the Google Cloud or, to the cloud and, what that actually entails and if that's actually a satisfactory sort of afterlife. And, so I think, there's a lot of underlying issues below that, but as a culture, like, we're really pondering, I think, these questions and at one level, even if we're not directly attending to them. It's there, and, and so it's not only fascinating and interesting, but it's a time where there's deep confusion, that that coincides with, I think, a lot of existential angst, practical issues of decision making about that impinge upon a whole whole host of issues in terms of how we see persons, how we see families, and the like. And so, I started Soul Science Ministries to kind of bring up these big questions educationally back to the center of kind of biblically, sign philosophically. And, obviously, some of it's a bit more, intellectual apologetics, but it's also really interested in the kind of the more fundamental cultural question at the heart of what's driving some of these questions where there's these varying influences on people and how we think about these issues. So I call it ministry. We call it ministry because it it isn't just education in the abstract. This is also about helping or aiding in the process of formation, even soul formation if we actually believe that there are souls.

Joshua Farris [00:07:35]:

A lot of times people use the word soul very loosely, but they don't actually mean that human beings are souls or embodied souls that could live on in into the afterlife. They mean something just sentimental. And so oftentimes, these older we believed once believed that were real, we we we we they've been kind of translated in a way that has, become something, again, that is more sentimental, and maybe even, linguistically or rhetorically useful to refer to something that's not real, not a real entity. Right? So I think it's also about bringing our lives. So I think this matters also to ministry. To ministry is past as you pastor your people, what kind of people are you pastoring, and how are you navigating, the future of, education as well as the future of how it is that we're going to form or become a people that engage with these issues. I have myself a whole host of questions about at the intersection of these issues in terms of how I'm raising my daughter, and how how she's, how her internal soulish appetite is being developed. And so I think these, issues matter even beyond the educational or academic centers.

Joshua Farris [00:09:40]:

Excellent. Yeah. So, I have defended something like substance dualism, and, it it's a view of of of, particularly focusing on human beings, a view of human beings that we are not just our bodies, but we are, embodied souls. And so, the soul isn't just a function, a sentiment, or a metaphor as it often might get used in literature or in political discourse or something of the sort. It's a real kind of entity that has, that's an immaterial you might call it academics would call it an immaterial substance that underlies who or what it is that we are as as human beings. You might even say it's the core of what we are that carries along personal identity as, that's almost an exact quote, I think, from Richard Swinburne in one of his books. And so, few things about this I I should say about this. It's different from, say, what's called property dualism.

Joshua Farris [00:11:06]:

So here we're getting a little technical. Stop me if I'm getting too into the weeds. But, there's this idea that there are, mental properties that are at least essentially, distinct from, physical property.

Jim Spiegel [00:11:24]:

Yeah. I love the the holistic approach you're taking, which is exactly the approach we take with the Kalos Center. We're an education and spiritual formation organization. We take a holistic approach. It's not enough just to learn more about such vital issues, even to get your Christian theology just right. It needs to translate into a certain way of life. Right? It needs to manifest in terms of certain personal virtues and affect the way that you, how you conduct yourself at work, at play, as a parent, all aspects of life. So great.

Jim Spiegel [00:12:02]:

I applaud you. Now like most Christians, you believe human beings have souls or rather we are souls, we might prefer to say. And more specifically, you advocate for a view known as substance dualism. So what is that view, and how is it different from other forms of dualism and views of the soul?

Joshua Farris [00:12:23]:

Yeah. So, I have defended something like substance dualism, and, it it's a view of of of, particularly focusing on human beings. A view of human beings that we are not just our bodies, but we are, embodied souls. And so, the soul isn't just a function, a sentiment, or a metaphor as it often might get used in literature or in political discourse or something of the sort. It's a real kind of entity that has, that's an immaterial you might call it academics would call it an immaterial substance that underlies who or what it is that we are as as human beings. You might even say it's the core of what we are that carries along personal identity as, that's almost an exact quote, I think, from Richard Swinburne in one of his books. And so, few things about this I I should say about this. It's different from, say, what's called property dualism.

Joshua Farris [00:13:28]:

So here we're getting a little technical. Stop me if I'm getting too into the weeds. But, there's this idea that there are, mental properties that are at least essentially, distinct from, physical properties and or material properties, if we take it that there are material substances of some sort or material material, events or something of the sort. It certainly stands apart from physicalism or, like, what I would call or have called or others have called substance physicalism, the idea that we are just bodies or complex brains or even animals. So, that's an important distinction and a common one in the literature where a lot of a lot of people are arguing that we really truly are just animals of a highly complex and sophisticated sort. And so property dualism has had an interesting history in recent history of analytic philosophy, which you're well aware of, since the fifties and sixties especially, where, prior to that point, we saw excessive dominance in metaphysics or even even just the the, the the skewing of or the dismissal of metaphysical projects altogether. And in the philosophy of mind, we saw this kind of, this, this move early on in the nineteen hundreds toward, various forms of physicalism that we are just kind of, brains or bodies, highly sophisticated, complex, neural events that we can tap, tap into and explore by way of empirical means alone or through some sort of neuroscience by brain scans and the like. And and and so, but in the in the mid nineteen hundreds, we started to see a shift and I think a really important shift, especially with certain figures philosophical figures like, like Thomas Nagel as well as, David Chalmers, who were starting to shake up the discourse quite a bit and have been massively influential in these discussions academically.

Joshua Farris [00:15:43]:

But even more than academically, they had quite, quite a wide range in terms of their their reach. And so the discussion started, recognizing there's a real problem with, reducing or identifying conscious events with with, material properties or neural properties. There's something that is distinct about them, basically distinct, fundamentally distinct, that, we cannot do that. Right? So physicalism as it stands as a project seems to be, according to this sort of narrative and as it's continuing to develop, it seems, it's continuing philosophers, thinkers, even scientists are beginning scientists who are actually even addressing these issues or these topics, they're beginning to realize even more and more since this time that the physicalist project is kinda broken, insufficient, incomplete as it stands. And so out of that came a recognition and a revival of interest in, something even beyond property dualism, namely something like substance dualism.

Jim Spiegel [00:16:53]:

Can you talk a bit can you talk a little bit about the particular aspects of consciousness

Joshua Farris [00:16:59]:

that

Jim Spiegel [00:16:59]:

are especially problematic for the materialist or or physicalist paradigm.

Joshua Farris [00:17:05]:

Yeah. I think in the, the, the narrative, the discussion has centered around these these questions of, the kind of the marks of the mental or the features of the mental. And, really, what, a big motivator in shaping this discussion and this narrative was the, what's called the hard problem of consciousness, that David Chalmers called it, early on. And that is that, there is a a fundamental distinction that cannot be identified or reducible to neural events, and that is that, consciousness itself seems to carry this mark or this feature of qualia, what philosophers call qualia, or, which is a word for qualitative experiences. There is, in other words, in consciousness, there is something of what it is like to be in this state or in this event. There is something of what there's a felt quality. There's a there's an experiential quality that, that defies any sort of identification with neural events or a reductive a reduction due, material events. To reduce it would be to eliminate ultimately these experiential qualities or properties that seem to define, consciousness itself.

Joshua Farris [00:18:28]:

And with that, you might say that things like intentionality, would fall in, as it may be as a mark of the mental intentionality. The idea that I think about something. There is something about, the, some sort of property in the world that is that that doesn't stand alone when I think about it. There's something added to there's something real about my thinking over something in the world, like having an having a thought about the blade of grass outside, and how the fact that my, say, my grass in the front yard is getting a bit too long, and I need to go out and mow it. So there's a thinking about it. There's something about the nature of intentionality related to qualia that is defies any kind of reduction to some sort of neural event. Neurons don't cause me to think, to to to have the thought of, that I need to, go out and mow my grass. There's something about the nature of the intention itself that is distinct from, the visual perception of the grass itself or even the properties that the the grass itself has.

Joshua Farris [00:19:45]:

There's something distinct about that. We could say something similar about the nature of rationality as well. Rationality seems to be something itself that is not it defies any kind of reduction to neural events. There's something about, logical rules of reasoning that, are higher order that can't be identified with neural events, can't be reducible to neural events, isn't basically just gray matter. But, the fact that there is, that that I am identical to me or that, that there's, there's some sort of law or principle of contradiction, that exists out there, that doesn't seem to be fully, explainable by the material itself, certainly by a conscious thinking individual thinking about the laws themselves. Those types of things seem to be defining markers of consciousness that relegate, consciousness to some other category altogether, where there are these properties. Once you accept these properties as real, it seems like, well, you're in the realm of asking the question of, well, what about the substance? And I think, I think, there's been a lot of sophisticated work recently arguing that, well, property dualism itself isn't quite enough. We need something more.

Joshua Farris [00:21:10]:

We need some kind of substance or substantial metaphysic undergirding the properties that make sense of those properties, and, particularly these types of properties. So property dualism seems to be pretty commonly the norm these days in terms of a lot or at least that's that's the direction that even consciousness studies is going, and it has been going for a long time since, again, David Chalmers when he raised the hard problem of consciousness. That's the direction.

Jim Spiegel [00:21:43]:

That was back in the nineties, I think. And that was, what, some almost half a century after, Gilbert Wiles, the concept of mind, which was, I think, it was about 1950, and there was a definite turn there. And it was very impactful, but that just there was already suspicion about Cartesian as in, Rene Descartes, kind of dualism. Ed Ryle's book really fueled the the whole movement towards a, really setting the research agenda for the second half of the twentieth century, for physicalism. But as you know, qualia that's a good overview you just gave. Qualia, intentionality, personal subjectivity, these are serious problems that even Thomas Nagel and he's a physicalist. He even noted in his famous article on what is it like to be a bat in the nineteen seventies that, okay, this is a serious problem with physicalism. We got, maybe not the house isn't on fire, but we have a serious problem.

Jim Spiegel [00:22:50]:

Though today, I think Nagel would say it's house on fire. And so more Yeah. Physicalists are opening their minds to really following Chalmers and now recently a guy that you had a conversation with, Philip Goff, to panpsychism. And we can Yes.

Joshua Farris [00:23:06]:

We

Jim Spiegel [00:23:06]:

can talk about that as well. But, I I'm wondering what your thoughts are on an area that you've done some research, and and speaking on, which is, near death experiences. And, what, if any, evidence for dualism do those experiences provide?

Joshua Farris [00:23:28]:

Yep. Yep. I think, so with near death experiences, we have a growing number of reports, and this is something I think in the empirical losing using the word empirical a little broadly there. But, we're seeing a growing number of reports that are, increasingly, increasingly harder to dismiss. And for the materialist, it's becoming overwhelmingly, hard for the materialist to dismiss and not supply, an explanation. Many would dismiss it before. Now they're trying to supply explanations, but they're, like, really I think I can say this even as an academic. They're really bad explanations for at least for certain very sophisticated reports, where you have, Gary Habermas wrote a good article in, Minding the Brain, book recently, that I drew from in an article that I recently worked on, and he basically categorizes, five different types of near death experiences and the reports that seem to be growing.

Joshua Farris [00:24:39]:

And one is, like, corroboration inside of a room, where you have these cases and a growing number of cases where, say, for example, somebody is a patient on an operating table, and the the doctors and the nurses are working on, their them, and, at some point, they they recognize and they determine that this patient is brain dead. Right? And effectively, dead. And, during this time so that would that would mean or entail that it seems that there's a ceasing of operations, where they could have certain types of experiences inter in terms of their embodied experiences that we would normally conceive of as as embodied. And during those times, these exact these patients are actually, brain dead, but they're resuscitated because of, modern means. And this is why we're having a growing number of of, reports about NDEs because of, modern technology and the ability now to resuscitate life back. So in many of these cases, these patients resuscitated back to life, as it were, and they're able to re to to report, their experiences during the time that they were, pronounced dead by the doctor. And, many of these reports have numerous, facts or properties about them that, can't be explained by if if we are in fact material things or brains and bodies because their brain is inoperative at that time. And furthermore, there's other properties where they're saying things like they're recounting that they have these perceptual experiences.

Joshua Farris [00:26:33]:

They're able to hear the doctor from a different kind of space in the room. They're able to see the doctor as if they're hovering above the operating table. So even if there was some sense maybe in terms of which they're, maybe there's some mystery sort sort of mystical sense maybe in in in which they're they're kind of still alive even though they're pronounced dead. Like, in a normal bodied situation, they wouldn't have these types of perceptual experiences that they're able to recount after the fact. It raises this question about what it is that is existing and perceiving and having these sorts of experiential events apart from the body. And, and so beyond that, there's there's a number of other cases that, become even harder to explain. But what does this show? It shows, it seems that, at least on a common sense view, that there's something else that, we in we that that intuitively, that is existing beyond the sort of the inoperative body or inoperative brain. There's something else, there's something else going on, there's a whole event, an event that's predicated of a something something, a substance as it were, And so, the natural or intuitive view is that, well, if the body's on the operating table, that assuming that's a substance, and the the the mind or the soul or spirit is hovering above it in a distinct kind or mode of existence, then there's something about the property of that mode or the property of that event that's predicated of a distinct kind of substance that it is having a different kind of experience of what it was previously, inhabiting or embodied as.

Joshua Farris [00:28:33]:

So there's something else going on. So substance dualism or something like substance dualism seems to be the kind of natural, or entailed, intuitive sort of view that follows if these NDEs are indeed legitimate and true, and they give us different information, beyond the brain, or beyond the, brain scans that we have, then it seems to indicate something else is going on. And it buttresses this idea, this old idea that we are in fact souls or something of the sort. We can't just do away with that or dismiss that kind of data.

Jim Spiegel [00:29:14]:

Yeah. Good. So when you add that to what seems to be a pretty straightforward reading of scripture regarding the soul or the spirit, I think you have a pretty strong cumulative case for something along dualist lines, at least the reality of a a spiritual aspect that isn't reducible to our our brain or other, aspects of our physical being. And yet, we are seeing a rise, aren't we, among Christian scholars, even in theology and biblical studies of, the, the kind of sympathy with or just flat endorsement of physicalism. Why do you think that's the case? Where is that coming from?

Joshua Farris [00:29:57]:

It's really odd that Christians have moved in this direction, and now they're they're being confronted with it in a different angle. The fact that they gave up many Christians and Christian academics and pastors even have given up this idea of the soul as a real entity, and they've they've imbibed so much, literature and, ways of reading the Bible that indicate, for them something like, this idea that we are just animals or material bodies or something of the sort. So what is motivating that? Yeah. That's a big question. I think there's obviously, there's some sociological things going on. There's, there's epistemic authority issues that have been present for a long time in, in, these academic centers and churches that have kind of, trickled down from the top from those that they perceive as the the authorities, the scientific authorities. I mean, my my parents, their generation, you know, when they would, hear a scientist or a medical doctor speak on a particular issue, they would just take their authority for granted and just as if it's just true. And, I think you I think, that sort of generation that has populated academic institute Christian institutions and seminaries have been influenced by a set of epistemic authorities that have be that have shaped them over a period of time, which has also begun to shape biblical studies over a period of time.

Joshua Farris [00:31:38]:

So I think, with the rise of kind of this materialist embeddedness and this materialist, worldview, we've been just shaped by materialism for a long time. So that's why these whole ideas that there are, like, minds and spirits, eerie things, and these ghosts is people like, these, naturalist and physicalist like,

Jim Spiegel [00:32:05]:

Churchlands?

Joshua Farris [00:32:06]:

Yeah. The Churchlands. Yeah. They have some great lines in in their their works that are are, you know, you hear it repeated over and over again. Like, these eerie spirits are just so unbelievable because of the net the the enlightened naturalistic world view that we have today. And so I think that's crept into

Jim Spiegel [00:32:28]:

You still believe in you still believe in ghosts?

Joshua Farris [00:32:30]:

Yeah. Exactly. Right? Yeah. It's crazy. Right? Crazy idea. And you Christians are crazy ideas. You have some crazy ideas for believing in spirits and the afterlife and all this weird stuff. So I think that's crept in as a kind of credibility issue.

Joshua Farris [00:32:46]:

I mean, even Nancy Murphy, the Christian theologian, she's been influenced by this overwhelming kind of scientistic world view where, that shaped her theological construction about, what it means to be human to such an extent that she takes it for granted that these authorities are basically right and that neuroscience basically she says something like this explicitly in several of her books, neuroscience has effectively, provided the explanations, or most of the explanations for consciousness that in history, we would give to the soul or the mind or something of the sort. And so there's a credibility issue that's being that has been challenged for a long time in these Christian circles, these silly Christians. And she even calls it in one place. She says, oh, those fundamentalist Christians who believe in the soul. I don't think I'm a fundamentalist, but

Jim Spiegel [00:33:42]:

It's a it's a great way to dismiss, right, of you as you put a certain tag on it, associating it with something that any thinking person despises, and then, okay, but they they won't take it seriously. Now you you mentioned scientism. I just wanna backtrack here. Define the Yeah.

Joshua Farris [00:34:04]:

Yeah. So what is scientism? Yeah. So there's, I think of scientism as kind of weaker and stronger versions of scientism. Yeah. Weaker or stronger versions. Like, so the stronger version of scientism and this is, a lot of people use these terms. JP Moreland uses it in his most recent and his more recent book on scientism, he defines it along basically, along these lines. It's a helpful book.

Joshua Farris [00:34:29]:

He says strong scientism is the view that basically, the scientific method or the empirical way of knowing through the sense perceptions are the only, a kind of strict empiricism. That's the only way of knowing. That's the only way of knowing. Right? And so that's a strong version of scientism. So, these other ways of knowing that we might refer to or in ancient tradition, we might have referred to as ways of knowing. Like maybe intuition is a way of knowing, or maybe, mystical experience is a way of knowing, or religious experience is a way of knowing that can't be necessarily, publicly or empirically verified by by way of, some sort of, positive public scientific experiment or something, that would be called into question altogether. So, maybe taking even the Bible, Revelation itself would be called into question as well as a real means of knowing reality or something about reality. So these ways of knowing would be called into question.

Joshua Farris [00:35:41]:

Of course, that's gonna call into question certain philosophical ideas that many philosophers throughout history have have held to be basically true. And so there's the weaker version of scientism that says something like the most certain way of knowing really just is the imp a pure kind of empirical bequeathed to us by the great, magisterium of scientists who have come prior, to us. And, so, this, even this version is quite, well, it's far too strong. It's far too strong. And and as Christians, we shouldn't be so beholden to that idea as it seems that many are, especially those who have been so heavily shaped by, physicalism itself. And that is because, well, it calls into question revelational knowledge, something that is part and parcel of our whole ecclesial a church, foundations. Right? We shouldn't be giving that up so quickly or giving in so so easily. That's, ridiculous at one level.

Joshua Farris [00:36:54]:

Right? But it's happening, and it has happened in many ways amongst these various figures that we've described. And it's it's seriously problematic because then down the line, it, this and I think this is one of the contributing causes why pastors are no longer like authorities. They don't have anything to say beyond the sort of privatized sort of faith that they talk to or morals that they talk to to their congregation. They're no longer public thinkers who have anything any real authoritative voice anymore. Okay. So I went on a bit of a tangent there.

Jim Spiegel [00:37:29]:

No. That's good. That's helpful. Yeah. And it's reflected in our language and and certain idioms, you know, when when we want to express the notion that, something is easy or not at least that difficult, we say, hey. It's not rocket science.

Joshua Farris [00:37:47]:

Mhmm.

Jim Spiegel [00:37:47]:

That's kind of, just a implied declaration that the hardest thing you can do is rocket science. We don't say, hey, it's not literary criticism, or it's not systematic theology. You know, we don't say that because we don't we don't think of those as rigorous disciplines. So if you really wanna do the hard stuff, the most respectable stuff, it's science. Right? So we do, whether it's, explicitly declared, it rarely is, or it's just assumed. There is this view that somehow science, empirical methodology, that's the standard for knowing. And then there's a lot downstream from that that is seriously problematic, including skepticism about the soul, skepticism about god, who's also not empirically testable or verifiable, but also skepticism about moral values or or the notion that beauty is a real quality of things. Think about the damage that this can do, therefore, to epics and, aesthetics.

Jim Spiegel [00:39:00]:

So

Joshua Farris [00:39:00]:

there are

Jim Spiegel [00:39:01]:

other things that are, downstream problems regarding the the physicalist or materialist view of human nature. Talk about some of those, whether, say, transhumanism or, maybe IVF or AI. What are some some problematic implications of a materialist view of human nature?

Joshua Farris [00:39:25]:

So as as we've suggested, the soul, of course, is something that is perceived as being outdated, even anti scientific. And anything that's perceived as anti scientific is, I mean, there's a perception. I think that perception is being challenged heavily right now in our culture moment, which is great. It's good. It's a good thing. But, anything that's stamped as anti scientific can't be true, and we can't know it to be true. Right? And so what this means, what this amounts to, there's a lot that's downstream from this. What this amounts to, I think, in part is that, as we've suggested that, the, there's an undercurrent that has implications for undermining, the very things that, well, I would say the things that we find most interesting and important in life, like the nature of romance and love.

Joshua Farris [00:40:21]:

Like, is that real or is that just a reduction to biochemical properties? If that's the case, then you have you have these cases where, our intuitions that it is real are being challenged. If you've seen the Black Mirror, there's a couple of Black Mirror episodes. You I'm sure I'm sure your audience probably is familiar with Black Mirror. It's like the updated Twilight Zone. Twilight Zone's my favorite show, by the way. I think it's the greatest show ever made. But anyway So but Black Mirror is really good too. But there's there's some episodes.

Joshua Farris [00:40:56]:

There's one in particular where this, this couple, the the husband dies. And, that's tragic. Right? It's very traumatic. Anytime your loved one, your spouse dies. Right? And you're left with this hole in this vacuum. Right? That's that's we can imagine that. And you would do anything to get them back. Right? I mean, I would.

Joshua Farris [00:41:23]:

Right? And so in the story, you see the struggle. And the the, because of technology, now there's this question, well, maybe she could bring him back by way of, making a clone of him through sort of through these technological means through AI plus, this, you know, scientific bio configuration, and she can get somebody that looks like him, smells like him, talks like him, thinks like him, has the characteristics of him, and all of that becomes sort of dominated or, controlled by this scientific advancement that we have, and she begins even to wonder maybe at first, maybe it is him. Right? Maybe it is him. And, so so what does that mean in terms of AI and transhumanism? Whole host of issues right here that we're talking about. But everything becomes a technical problem. Right? A technical problem to be figured out through some sort of rational or or more, not even rational, scientific means. Everything is a technical problem. But it's a technical problem that in theory and principle can be figured out, if we presume already that these sorts of things, like romance and love, and, these sorts of things, like persons even, are are are are are are programs of some sort or, bits of matter, complex bits of matter that can be reproduced or reduplicated as it were.

Joshua Farris [00:43:17]:

As if the human essence the individual human essence of of her spouse could be reduplicated through this this technical means. So it's just a technical problem at that at that point. It can be reproduced. The identity of the human can be brought back into being, as it were. That seems like a huge problem and a deep danger to fall into. It has ramifications for how it is that we conduct our life, how it is that we condition our lives, and how it is that we interact with people. It presumes something about the nature of the person that does seem to readily undermine the the very, dignity of the person, which we hold dear in our sort of democratic, egalitarian society. Everybody has dignity.

Joshua Farris [00:44:10]:

And it it seems to undermine this sort of, this deeper sort of mysterious, even mystical quality that, can't be quantified about the person. Is the person, are you really quantifiable? That, when you die, if I have as a scientist, which I don't, but if I did, hypothetically, if I had enough knowledge about your biochemical, construction that I could literally reproduce you in a lab, Right? That's, that's huge. But it's also hugely problematic.

Jim Spiegel [00:44:48]:

So I think, it also has a potential to create pseudo problems. So let's think about, AI, artificial intelligence, and which is advancing at just an an amazing clip at this point. I think we can envision, without having to strain our imaginations, a a a time when, there will be this debate. Do AIs have rights? If if really, my consciousness is just a function of the causal operations that are going on in my brain, and those can be reproduced in a nonorganic system, you know, that's with metal and silicone and so on, then that really is no less potentially conscious or even human than than I am. At least the claim of personhood becomes a legitimate one. So you have, an artificial system that does all the thinking I can do. In fact, even more advanced kinds of calculations, you know, lightning fast. We've already achieved that.

Jim Spiegel [00:46:10]:

But particularly, if you could house an AI in a robotic system that has a face, with eyes. Right? It always makes it more compelling from a sort of existential standpoint, but it can do all the processing and communicating through, say, an an auto an audio system. At some point, there will be those who are materialists who say we have to, grant that not only personhood, but what goes with personhood is a recognition of moral rights, that these are moral agents with at least rights, if not also, duties and obligations, which as a if you're a dualist and you believe that no personhood only resides in the soul, different, in in souled, bodies like yours and mine, then this is not really a problem. No matter how advanced the, the the calculations and processing manifested in, you know, human sounding voices, this is not really a person, and this is not. It could never be an entity that has rights. But I think it's pretty easy to imagine a a great a significant divide in the populace on that point. Do AIs have rights?

Joshua Farris [00:47:48]:

Yeah. That's a big question, and that's a big ethical question that's gonna probably come down the line. I mean, we've had, this kind of evolutionary chain questions like this that that that seem to follow eventually. I mean, obviously, years ago, there were some famous articles and discussions about, or maybe there still are. I mean, at some level, obviously, there there obviously, there are ethical problems with the maltreatment of animals. But then but there were several questions amidst that that had been raised and seriously discussed about, you know, whether animals are are persons, whether they have the dignity of persons, and presuming within that this sort of, web of issues, like do they have, like, some sort of volition, and do they have the, or sophisticated volition where they, have some sort of right, but also some sort of responsibilities like like normal human beings do that we presume everybody has some sort of responsibility to to treat others with respect of some sort or to not harm others, at least, in some physical way. Do they have these sorts of responsibilities and rights? And so there was a big question, that, yeah, occupied some some debate about whether or not we should start giving, personal rights to, higher level animals. And so, it's obviously gonna come down eventually, it's gonna come to the AI question when we start having more sophisticated AI bots, which I have no doubt we will, where they're going to, at some point, mimic, our behavior in really sophisticated ways that's gonna become more and more challenging to, make determinant whether or not, they have some sort of internal life.

Joshua Farris [00:49:52]:

And, you have you have these other questions. Now you have you have these you have these centers where people can, like, rent these bots. And you so you already have sex bots, for example.

Jim Spiegel [00:50:06]:

Yep.

Joshua Farris [00:50:07]:

And, where you can go and, you know, have your way with a a bot. So it's it's no doubt. I mean, as these get even more sophisticated, that question's going to emerge.

Jim Spiegel [00:50:18]:

Yep. Now here's another potentially relevant domain, that's seldom discussed among scholars generally, but especially in this context, is spiritual warfare. K? It would seem that to view human beings as purely material and having no spiritual aspect would discourage taking seriously the very notion of spiritual warfare, that the idea that demonic spirits or good angelic beings for that matter could have an influence on our lives. Do you see a connection there? And if so, do you consider that to be another major concern regarding the practical implications of the the materialism?

Joshua Farris [00:50:57]:

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's a it's yeah. I mean, somewhat anecdotally, I I rarely go to evangelical or Protestant circles and hear about angels and demons. I mean, it's a it's almost as if it's it's it's non existent. Some of that, I think, is is connected to, how we've been shaped as a people to to kind of doubt the belief in, the spiritual life, that there really are angels, demons, spirits of some sort, which has been a part of our Christian worldview. It's been a part of most of history and ancient, views of the world.

Joshua Farris [00:51:45]:

But now it's become such a, I think in Western culture, and evangelical circles, Protestant circles, it's it's not it doesn't seem to be talked about very much at all, as if it's a real problem. I remember one professor, whom I love, great professor, but, when when we would ask even him about these issues, he would respond and say, I don't know about those. You just need to worry about your own internal corruption. And I thought, Yeah, well, what about this whole vast of information in scripture that talks about literally a spiritual warfare going on all around us, that we don't seem maybe we don't see it in some ways. It's invisible to our physical eye or or to many, because we as Westerners have been trained to excise that reality, so we don't see very well. But it's all over scripture, it seems to me. And, and, we're just not trained to see it, interact with it, engage with it at all. Even raising the question is almost like you're you're you're toying with the occult a little bit.

Joshua Farris [00:52:59]:

But it's like, well, no. I mean, in Ephesians six, we talk about spiritual warfare. Paul seems to be talking about spirits of the air, and he tells us to put on the armor of God. Like, I don't even remember I rarely remember talking about that. It's we we do see it more in charismatic circles where these discussions are had, and I think that's good and healthy and right.

Jim Spiegel [00:53:23]:

And Roman Catholics.

Joshua Farris [00:53:25]:

And Roman Catholics, of course. Yeah. Roman Catholics, I mean, they have a whole tradition of knowledge in terms of how to deal with demonic infestations, oppressions, and even worse possessions. Yeah. That's why you see them in the movies all the time. Right?

Jim Spiegel [00:53:43]:

That's right. A whole dedicated office

Joshua Farris [00:53:46]:

Yes.

Jim Spiegel [00:53:47]:

To, dealing with demonization. And, of course, Jesus was an exorcist.

Joshua Farris [00:53:54]:

Yes.

Jim Spiegel [00:53:54]:

Right? So many of his signs and wonders had to do with casting out demonic entities, and I think that's a real challenge to the the contemporary materialist theologian Mhmm. To try to somehow reduce those problems that those people were struggling with to biomedical, say, biochemical issues, particularly when you have, you know, direct references to these demons, these dark angelic beings, cast into, say, a a herd of pigs.

Joshua Farris [00:54:37]:

Yes.

Jim Spiegel [00:54:39]:

I mean, it's it's very explicit, reference to this, which then as a biblical scholar who's a a materialist, then you have to deconstruct that language somehow that, well, the writer was was using the, the parlance of the time, which was kind of on the leash to a very primitive view of of human psychology. I mean, there's just a lot of adjustments

Joshua Farris [00:55:07]:

that you

Jim Spiegel [00:55:07]:

have to make, from a hermeneutical standpoint, that become, I think, problematic in their own right.

Joshua Farris [00:55:15]:

That's right. Yeah. Yeah. You have to you have to read those out as it were or fictionalize them or, you have to do something to, treat them as well, I mean, some obviously, as you know, many liberal biblical scholars would would treat demonic events in in the New Testament as being, just ancient ways of interacting or dealing with, you know, some sort of psychological disorder, maybe schizophrenia or something like that. And, yeah. So you but I yeah. I don't think that I don't think that works at all. I think that's disingenuous to the the text.

Joshua Farris [00:56:00]:

Yeah. Call me a fundamentalist.

Jim Spiegel [00:56:03]:

So, yeah. Well, now, presumably, presumably, all of your work in this area, is a is a manifestation of your own personal Christian faith. I mean, that, I I think, is, is clear, but can you talk a little bit more about it?

Joshua Farris [00:56:20]:

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. This is all, Soul Science Ministries, the soul is really more than an academic exercise or theorizing for me. It's more than abstract work. You know, I've I've spent a lot of time in academia, published a good bit on this, and, of course, from an academic standpoint, I I have a fascination with this. And and I think academics still matter.

Joshua Farris [00:56:46]:

I mean, clear, careful thinking that, that, academic training is provided is important, I think. And, but but this is but this is a it's bigger than that. It's deeply personal. So, the belief that you are a soul, a soul created in the image of God, and souls that are created by God to know God. Even most Christian materialists today who take God seriously would say that God is not a material being. And so they're, but there's this kind of weird mismatch going on when they start talking about humans as being material, who are called to know God and called to image God, even though God is not himself material being for most of them. Some of them will go that far, but, we're called to know Him, love Him, live with Him forever, and this is a deeply spiritual and soulish matter. And so we can't miss that.

Joshua Farris [00:57:48]:

I think in scripture, important sense in which yeah. There's a sense in which even when we're thinking about, like, moving toward the eschaton, there's been a lot of recent biblical literature on this, like, that that tunes toward, what the, grounded in heaven, Michael Allen. He, he wrote this book where he's he's criticizing what he calls, eschatological naturalism. Right? This view that everything about the afterlife is is deeply physical, this worldly, earthy, really earthy. Right? Physical, bodily. Right? It's all predicated upon solely this kind of mere physical resurrection of the body, which is important and is is certainly a part of the scriptural narrative. But the ancient tradition, as well as most of the Christian tradition in the Reformed world and the post Reformation, had a big place for looking at the afterlife as something that is much more God centric, and focused on this immaterial reality that extends beyond the physical reality that we've, for which we even see in Scripture. There's an emphasis there that's given to us that points us to look at God himself.

Joshua Farris [00:59:12]:

This is why we, as traditional Christians, we long for what's called the beatific vision. We long to, because as human beings, we know that we've been created and designed by God as his image bearers to know and love him and to see him ultimately. Something that is beyond, our physical perceptions, the senses that we have, that is the whole goal of humanity itself extends beyond that. So this issue of the soul isn't some mere intellectual curiosity. It's not a mere, even, as important as it is philosophical, concept that we get to play with even in terms of how we understand, like, neuroscience. It extends beyond that. And when we begin to peer back to Vell and open up that world, all these implications seem to be flooding. And this is why the whole hidden realm, the unseen realm, I think Michael Heizer's been famous for using that terminology, and I think he's been very helpful.

Joshua Farris [01:00:21]:

Whether or not you criticize him on other stuff, his stuff like opening up that veil, there's an unseen realm out there. It's an invisible realm, and the scriptures are replete with it. They talk about it all over the place, but ironically, as modern Christians, we've learned to look look past those, not not read it that way, kind of sideline it, dismiss it, or something, and we're missing, like, a big part of scripture. We're missing a big part of reality. And so this is deeply personal to me.

Jim Spiegel [01:00:52]:

We're like, or those who do that are like latter day Sadducees, which, you know, it wasn't long ago that, you know, at least more Christian thinkers, scholars would would just scoff at the idea, you know, that the Sadducees had, that it really was just here and now, and there's no resurrection. But, I guess for for the contemporary physicalist, they would at least, in most cases, provide some sort of account or at least attempt to provide an account for resurrection. It would just be a purely physical resurrection. So at least, they haven't gone that far. A question that, I like to conclude all of our, conversations with is, the big one that, you know, any Christian philosopher, hopefully, has done a lot of thinking about, but, really, any human being should be thinking about. And that is, what is the meaning of life? How would you sum up your view, Joshua, on the meaning of life?

Joshua Farris [01:02:06]:

Yeah. Yeah. Well, yeah, I think everything we've said relates to this bigger question that, I think naturalists and materialists and, those who don't believe in anything in the afterlife, they have to be con they're confronted with it, and, they have to make concessions to deal with this. But I think, to know God and enjoy him, love him forever, that's the classic answer. But it's a good one. I think it's a good one. The soul is a part of us that is, more than just an a mental entity. It extends toward eternity.

Joshua Farris [01:02:46]:

And that's why in Ecclesiastes, we, we see that God, when he created man, he created him, eternity in the hearts of men. And, there's a reality there. If you ignore the soul, the spirit life, you spend your life chasing things that pass away, material things. And we are, as an American culture, we are deeply materialistic in in a multitude of senses multiple senses of of the term materialist. We're deeply consumeristic. And I don't know how to how to how to even in my own life, I don't know how to completely transform that. I'm working on it. And, we tend to see if you see the soul through the faith, truth, beauty, love, you're looking at things that really matter at the end of the day, that last.

Joshua Farris [01:03:43]:

That's contrastive. And that's what I think really makes life more interesting. The romance of, spouse is really what makes life more interesting. So and I hope I and my spouse are not just blood and guts programs. DNA DNA, epigenetic, programs that can be, mastered and controlled. So life is about communion with God. We are wonderfully made creatures.

Jim Spiegel [01:04:16]:

Amen. That's good. And that's a great note to end this on. Thank you so much. This has been a wonderful conversation. Thank you, Joshua.

Joshua Farris [01:04:24]:

Thank you.