The classic debate between those who believe that consciousness is merely the result of the operation of the brain, and those who believe that it is apart from the brain, like the idea of a soul or the classic dualistic distinction between mind and body, is a well-known one.
However the thought has occurred that when people try to convince me that the soul cannot be real; soul in the sense of consciousness being a separate thing to the operation of the brain, then really the materialistic non spiritual view is in fact a rehash of animism, strange as that might sound.
Animism is the idea that soul, spirit, consciousness, or whatever it might be called, exists in plants, animals, things, objects, places or basically in everything and anything in the material world. The view of some is that very primitive cultures had this wide category of spiritual belief, which eventually evolved into the all the religions, faiths and spiritualties of today. Some of the faiths of modern times are not defined as animistic because these draw a distinction between soul and body or in modern parlance, consciousness and brain.
So in very ancient times, at the dawn of human spiritual belief, the sun, for example, rising and setting was seen not so much as being caused by the proverbial spaghetti monster but as being the proverbial spaghetti monster. The sun moved not because of `why` in the descriptive sense, but `why` in the having a motive sense I.e. the sun wanted to move.
However today in the soul vs brain debate, that often has many, although not all atheists, on the side of the brain only view and on the soul side of the debate, many but not all monotheistic believers, we have an interesting picture emerging. The largely atheistic, materialistic and science only view, that says that an object called the brain has consciousness by virtue of its operation and restricted by that operation. Then the religious, soul view that has consciousness as not being caused or restricted by the brain.
So far it is inconclusive as to how any theory of consciousness can be proved to be as a result of merely the brain itself or indeed how any theory can be understood that attempts to do so. After all it is problematic to think that comprehension itself could be comprehended in any way that fits with common sense. On the other hand, the same issue is also true for the idea of a soul because by definition such would not fit with a materialistic theory of science, which itself is based on rational thinking.
However what I find fascinating is that the conscious mind, as seen merely as a brain and a machine that works according to defined laws of physics, much like any physical object does, albeit with differing levels of complexity, is deemed by materialists to have consciousness at all! Plants, rocks and brains are all the same in the sense that they are physical material, other than the complexity/organisation they contain. So to accept that brains create consciousness is in fact a form of animism. A merely organic like structure is said to have consciousness by materialists in effect, but this is virtually the same view that animism teaches. This is ironic because animism is seen by many materialist atheists as the start of human irrationality because animism is seen as the root of religion itself. It deems spirit or consciousness as being part of objects themselves, although in this case the object is organic like plants or cells and so forth.
What differentiates the objects that have consciousness which those that don’t in the materialist view, is the level or organisation or complexity! However all objects in the universe have a level of organisation and complexity. So really this often atheistic and materialist view implies not only a form of animism but the full blown version. Lesser objects than a brain can be seen to have a lower level of organisation and complexity and thus a lower level of consciousness. A stone should possess it, as well as a plant or brain in this view!
Personally I think the dualistic `soul` view of consciousness has more merit to it in the grand scheme of things. Even though it can be said that we don’t know yet what causes consciousness and some would argue that probably one day we will, when science comes of age, the problem will still remain one of animism by a different name. Will this mean that rationalism and irrationalism are part of the same spectrum, or is there some answer beyond the latitude of the human mind?
Thoughts?