The impetus for undermining the belief in the soul is that it is not only an unwelcome guest but a spooky, eerie ghost- like figure that no longer has relevance in a scientifically informed view of the world. In fact, it is commonly held by some scientists concerning ultimate reality that souls are not only irrelevant but spooky holdovers from an ancient era that no longer is motivated by what we know from science and has no evidence in its favor. This naturalist frame as I call it here has made its way into many of the ‘respectable’ disciplines of study all the way into cultural consciousness. Even worse, its creeping influence holds some force in other areas that still desire to retain something of the ancient view of the cosmos as having some relevance to explaining the world and what we hold dear.
Some of the reasons the soul is coming back into mainstream discussions (it never really left) has something to do with ongoing reports of the afterlife, out of body experiences, and near-death experiences that, if true, require, no demand, some explanation beyond the material world to something like a soul. But, it’s not just in the contemporary popular consciousness that we find these discussions.
Philosophers have made the soul-concept ‘respectable’again as a live view of persons worth taking seriously. This is particularly true of figures like Howard Robinson, Richard Swinburne, John Foster, David Lund, Charles Taliaferro and many others. David Chalmers who famously articulated a not ‘new’ (it is really only new in an age where materialism permeates) problem and called it the hard problem of consciousness (i.e., the problem of reconciling phenomenal qualitative experience with physics and biology with their explanatory reference being spatially extended objects that are measured by quantities; consciousness just is not the same as the material, nor is it reducible to it) aided in bringing the soul-concept back into discussions about human persons as a respectable option deserving the attention of philosophers.
In these ways, the notion of consciousness, and relatedly personal identity, has and continues to impact how the sciences and the results of the sciences are considered. One of the crucial questions from biological studies is the question of consciousness. Where did it come from? How did it evolve? Was it naturally selected? Does it adapt? And, does consciousness have any place in biological evolution at all? One of the concerns is whether or not the sciences have much of anything at all to say about consciousness or personal identity and the other is whether the sciences have effectively excluded the soul as explanatorily necessary.
Relatedly, the world of religious studies has been influenced by the sciences and some of the dominating patterns from varying scientific communities to rethink this age-old notion of the soul. Some have advanced a complete rejection of the soul as the center of consciousness, the core of personal identity, and the means by which persons will survive this life. Naturally, in an attempt to retrieve these religious ideas, there has been significant pushback to the attempt of a complete revision of the person as a soul.
In The Creation of Self, I address these concerns to the soul by energizing the reasons we should not only believe in the soul- concept, but that we must. While there are other competitors worth engaging as respectable options for consideration, I show the link that these have to their naturalist frame and why the soul traditionally construed is a better option. In fact, it might just turn out that what was once conceived as an unwelcome guest turns out to surprise us as a better option to its naturalist competitors.