SCIENCE AND TH E S O U L
Lyle J. Lowder—Department of Biology, Retired
T
he concept that living things are composed of a mortal body and an
immortal soul was generally accepted by ancient philosophers and
religious doctrines. Ancient cultures adopted the practice of assigning
unexplainable phenomena as functions of gods, such as the gods of thunder,
lightning, or war. The concept of the soul helped explain the activities of
living things which were not otherwise understandable. For example, it
was difficult to explain why living things could move themselves by some
internal energy source and rocks could not. It was proposed that living
things had souls whereas rocks were considered soulless.
My purpose is to review concepts of some ancient philosophers
concerning the functions of the soul, to present how scientific investigation
has explained many of these as functions of the mortal body instead of
the immortal soul, and to contemplate whether science has the ability
to explain incompletely understood phenomena that are still assigned
to the soul.
Early Philosophic a l I d e a s
Some pre-Socratic Greek philosophers mention a supposition about
the existence of the soul. Thales (ca. 600 B.C.) recognized the soul when he
proposed that all things were filled with gods, indicating a recognition of
something immortal about living beings. Heraclitus (500 B.C.) recognized
the existence of a soul when he said “eyes and ears are bad witnesses to me
if they have souls that do not understand their language.”1 He continued,
“It is hard to fight against impulse; for what it wants it buys at the expense
of the soul.” Democritus (500 B.C.) also recognized the existence of a soul.
He was the first to propose that all things are made of atoms. His idea
was that the soul is made of exceedingly fine and spherical atoms, and
interpenetrates the whole of the body. “Spherical atoms move because
it is their nature never to be still and that as they move, they draw the
whole body along with them and set it in motion.” The soul or principle
of life is therefore like everything else: material. And there is “another
finer and legitimate” form of knowledge available to the soul. Knowledge
based on reason is much more dependable than knowledge gained from
the senses. He recognized the existence of the soul as separate from the
body when he wrote, “Medicine cures the diseases of the body; wisdom,
on the other hand, relieves the soul of its suffering.”2
Of all of the philosophers, Socrates demands my greatest respect. To
me, he is the epitome of virtue and loyalty. The conversation with Crito,
as Socrates waits in prison to be executed, exemplifies the statement: I’d
tending our gardens
•
87
Knowledge based
on reason is much
more dependable
than knowledge
gained from
the senses.
Socrates was
convinced that not
only will the soul
continue after the
rather see a sermon than hear one any day. Socrates explains that he will
not escape but submit to the law of Athens, for he earlier accepted this
law of his own free will. To change his mind now that the law is against
him would be unworthy of a free man. As he prepares for death, Socrates
talks with Phaedo. In the Phaedo, Socrates recognizes the existence of
a soul as the eternal part of his being. He believes that what happens to
the soul is infinitely more important than what happens to the body. He
explains to Phaedo that, having no experience with his soul unencumbered
with his body, he looks forward to learning new things in new ways. He
approaches death as he would a great exploration.
What a fitting risk for a noble belief! A man should be of good cheer
about his own soul. During his life Socrates ignored the pleasures and
adornments of the body and seriously concerned himself with the pleasure
of learning—adorning his soul with its own ornaments: moderation,
righteousness, courage, freedom, truth. With these adornments he
awaited his journey to the underworld. Unlike Democritus, Socrates
didn’t speculate about what constitutes the soul.
Socrates was convinced that not only will the soul continue after the
body dies but also that it existed in a previous realm before it entered
the body. His experience with the slave boy’s ability to recognize certain
geometric principles without previous instruction convinced him that the
boy brought that knowledge with him from a premortal existence:
I am so far like the midwife that I cannot myself give birth to wisdom, and the
body dies but also
common reproach is true, that, though I question others, I can myself bring
that it existed in
nothing to light because there is no wisdom in me.
a previous realm
Those who frequent my company at first appear to be unintelligent, but as we
go further with our discussions, all who are favored by heaven make progress at
before it entered
a rate that seems surprising to others as well as themselves, although it is clear
the body.
they have never learned anything from me. The many admirable truths they
bring to birth have been discovered by themselves from within. But the delivery
is heaven’s work and mine.3
Plato (429 B.C. ), a student of Socrates, was deeply affected by the
death of Socrates. One sees in Plato’s writings an attempt to immortalize
Socrates. Since Plato was so dedicated to Socrates, it is understandable
that his concepts of the soul would be similar to those of Socrates. Plato
considers the soul immortal, that it had a pre-existence and that it would
continue when the body dies. Plato contrasts things that can only be
moved by external forces and those that have the ability to move by
internal forces: “Anything that has an external force of motion is soulless,
but a body deriving its motion from a source within itself is animated or
besouled.”4 He thought that the soul was the internal mover or motivator,
a source of activity or mobility. Plato considered that it was Socrates’ soul
88
•
perspective
that compelled him to remain submissive in prison; the soul of Socrates
would not let him do otherwise.
Plato divides the soul into three parts: desire, spirit and reason. Desire Desire is the
is the motivator; the spirit stimulates us to action; and reason determines
motivator; the
the action.
spirit stimulates
The first [part of the soul] we say is the part with which a person learns and
us to action; and
the second is the part with which he gets angry. As for the third, we have no
special name for it since it is multiform, so we named it after the biggest and
reason determines
the strongest thing in it. Hence, we called it the “appetitive” part because of the
the action.
intensity of its appetite for food, drink, sex and all the things associated with
them. But we also called it the money-loving part, because such appetites are most
easily satisfied by means of money. And doesn’t this part rule in some people’s
souls? While one of the other parts—whatever it happens to be—rules in other
people? That’s right. And isn’t that the reason we say there are three primary
kinds of people: philosophic, victory loving, and profit loving?5
Plato’s follower Aristotle (384 B.C.) believed that the soul is not separate
from the body but is the part of the body that gives life. Aristotle speaks
as a biologist. He suggests that everything that has life has a soul and
that there are three different kinds of souls. He believes that some living
things have only one kind of soul while others can have all three. The
ability to take nourishment and produce life is assigned to a “nutritive
soul.” The nutritive soul is found in plants and animals alike. However,
plants have only the nutritive soul:
For clearly they (plants) have within themselves a faculty and principle such
that through it they can grow or decay in opposite directions. For they do not
just grow upwards without growing downwards; they grow in both directions
alike, and indeed in every direction, provided they are always nourished and, so
continually living, for as long as they can receive nourishment. This nutritive
faculty can be separated from the other faculties, but the other faculties cannot
exist apart from it in mortal creatures. This is clear in the case of plants since
they have none of the other faculties of the soul. It is because of this primary
principle that life belongs to living beings.6
Aristotle continues, believing that animals (referring to beasts, not
including man) have both a “nutritive soul” and a “sensitive soul.”
Plants possess only the nutritive faculty but other beings possess both it and
the sensitive faculty. They must also possess the appetitive for appetite consists
of desire, anger, and will. All animals possess at least one sense, that of touch:
anything that has a sense is acquainted with pleasure and pain, with what is
pleasant and what is painful, and anything that is acquainted with this has desire,
since desire is an appetite for the pleasant.7
tending our gardens
•
89
Philosophers of the
Christian era agree
with the ancients
that the soul is
immortal while the
body is mortal, and
the body and soul
are separate entities,
yet the soul dwells
in the body.
The third kind of soul has the ability to think and is called the “rational
soul.” Only human beings have this soul. Thus, according to Aristotle,
there are three kinds of souls: the nutritive, the sensitive, and the rational.
Plants have the nutritive; animals have the nutritive and the sensitive;
and humans have all three.
In the preceding review of ancient philosophers’ thinking, the functions
of the soul are to 1) move from an internal source, 2) obtain and assimilate
food and nutrition, 3) control emotions, appetites, and sensations, and
4) think and make rational decisions.
Philosophers of the Christian era agree with the ancients that the soul
is immortal while the body is mortal, and the body and soul are separate
entities, yet the soul dwells in the body. St. Augustine concludes that
truth is available to humans and concerns our souls and ourselves. He
says the truths that concern mankind are about 1) his own existence, 2)
his thoughts, and 3) his feelings. These are often translated into existence,
knowledge, and life. Because people don’t understand their own existence,
how they think, or what causes their feelings, they simply assign more
functions to the soul.
St. Thomas Aquinas agrees with Aristotle about the soul and the
body in that there are several levels of the soul. The lower level of the
soul performs nourishment, growth, and reproduction. The higher level
of the soul provides sensitivity (the abilities to see, feel, taste, etc.), the
ability to think logically, set goals and devise methods to meet these goals.
Again more life functions are assigned to the soul. He also suggests that
the soul is an intellectual substance in the form of the body:
Reasoning souls take in species that can be understood without their matter
and material conditions, but as Aristotle proves, they cannot share that special
activity of theirs with any body organ, in the sense of having a body for thinking,
as art eye is the bodily organ for seeing. So the life principle of a thing with
understanding has to act on its own with an activity peculiar to itself, not shared
with the body. Because activity flows from actuality, the understanding soul must
possess an existence in and of itself, and not depended upon the body. For this
reason, then, later philosophers have judged that the understanding part of the
soul has something that subsists of itself.8
Descartes claims that he knows without doubt that he exists because he
is a “thing that thinks.” His famous dictum, “Cogito, ergo sum” (“I think,
therefore I am”) is based on the premise that he consists of a body united
with a soul, with the soul as the predominant part. He decides that this
thinking substance is distinct from the body and it does not change through
time. Again the ability to think is assigned as a function of the soul. From
the time of Descartes until now, the question bedeviling philosophers and
90
•
perspective
scientists alike is whether the soul and the body are separate or whether
the one is only a manifestation or function of the other.
The Soul in a Scie n t i f i c Ag e
Scientists believe that nearly all the functions formerly attributed to
the soul have now been shown to be body functions. A highly simplified
explanation follows. The energy cycle begins with solar fusion and the
emission of light energy from the sun and its absorption by plants. Plants
change the light energy to chemical energy in the light and dark cycles.
This energy is finally trapped in an organic molecule called glucose. The
plant uses glucose to energize its own life processes. Animals eat the plant
and absorb the glucose. The glucose is degraded in the enzyme systems of
glycolysis, the Kreb cycle, and the electron transport system. As glucose is
degraded, the sunlight energy that was trapped in it is released and used for
motion and other life processes. We use the motion to gather nutrition to
keep us alive and to build enzymes and hormones that control emotions
and maintain sensitivity and appetite. Conditioned responses and other
psychological information now available explain behavior not previously
understood. Through positive and negative feedback systems and systems
of receptors and effectors, scientists now explain many of the functions
that cause us to react to both external and internal stimuli.
However, many phenomena cannot be explained as functions of the
mortal body. Among these is the ability to absorb and dispense information.
As a human, I can gain and store massive amounts of information and
recall it when needed. Where is the knowledge stored? How can I recall
it when I need it? Is it stored in the brain cells or in an eternal (spiritual)
soul? Science has made some progress with answers to these questions.
The scientist uses the scientific method, reason, and inspiration to arrive
at the answers.
Evidence supports the proposition that knowledge is stored in the
proteins of our bodies rather than in an eternal soul. The evidence for this
is far from conclusive but has warranted further scientific investigation.
Two simple experiments will be sufficient to introduce the proposal.
One study entitled “Protopsychology” was presented in the Scientific
American of September 1962. A Planarian is a flatworm of the order
Platyhelminthese. A ganglion in its head contains sufficient neurons to
be considered a primitive brain. A maze was constructed to see if the
Planaria could learn to navigate it. They were able to learn to do this
with consistency. These Planeria were labeled “educated.” The educated
Planaria were minced and fed to a group of uneducated Planaria. A
control group was also used. The group of Planaria that ate the educated
Planeria learned to negotiate the maze in considerably less time than the
control group. Obviously, the Planaria that ate the educated Planaria
tending our gardens
•
91
Through positive
and negative
feedback systems
and systems of
receptors and
effectors, scientists
now explain many of
the functions that
cause us to react to
both external and
internal stimuli.
Silicon cannot hold
enough information
and cannot process
information fast
enough for such
applications as
artificial intelligence
or robot vision.
received something that helped them learn more quickly. The question
is: What happened?
The experiment was repeated with a group of educated Planaria, but
this time the RNA was digested out of them after they were minced and
before they were fed to the experimental group. A control group was used
again. The Planaria that had eaten the educated Planaria with the RNA
removed did not learn to go through the maze any faster than the control
group. Since RNA is responsible for protein synthesis, obviously something
involved with protein may be necessary for intellectual achievement.9
More experiments must be performed before anything conclusive can be
established, but these results were interesting and somewhat revealing.
Another experiment adds credence to the hypothesis that information
is stored in protein molecules, or at least protein is involved. A bacterium
called Holobacterium is found in salt lakes, in salt licks on ranches, in salt
flats or other environments with salt concentrations seven times greater
than the ocean. Researchers found the plasma membrane of Holobacterium
halobium has a red and a purple fraction. The purple fraction contains
a protein which makes up 75 percent of it and is similar to the retinal
pigment (Rhodopsin) found in the “rod cells” of the human eye, and
was named “bacterio rhodopsin.” At Syracuse University’s Center of
Molecular Electronics, Robert Birge grew Holobacterium for five days in
five-liter batches and then extracted bacterio rhodopsin from the cells.
With the bacterio-rhodopsin he developed a computer chip made of layers
of this protein. Conventional computers store information on silicon
chips which depend on the flow of electrons through circuitry switches
etched in the silicon. Electrons passing through a switch represent a one;
a switch that halts electron flows represents a zero. This information
provides the input from which the computer does calculations and
stores information. However, silicon cannot hold enough information
and cannot process information fast enough for such applications as
artificial intelligence or robot vision. In contrast, the bacterio-rhodopsin
chips will store considerably more information than a silicon chip and
process the information faster, more like a human brain. The bacteriorhodopsin chip functions with light, so it functions at the speed of light.
Green light causes the protein to fold. A folded protein is read as “one,”
whereas an unfolded protein is read as “zero.” A laser light is used to
“see” the configuration of the protein. At present, the protein chip must
be stored at -4 degrees C to maintain its structure, but Birge and his
coworkers are hopeful that they can develop more temperature-stable
chips. Apparently the military is already using the protein chips in some
combat planes. If such a plane crashes, the cooling system is destroyed,
thus denaturing the protein chip and keeping classified information secure.
These smaller, faster, and higher capacity chips may eventually make it
92
•
perspective
possible to develop computers that perform functions akin to human
neurology, such as prosthetic eyes for the blind.
These experiments support the hypothesis that proteins are somehow
involved in the storage and retrieval of information in the body. We have
assumed that our bodies need to be kept at a constant temperature of
98.6 degrees F for the metabolic processes dependent on enzymes and
other catalysts to function. Could it be that that temperature is necessary
to keep the proteins of our organic computer (the brain) from being
denatured? Is it possible that information is stored in protein molecules
found in other parts of the body rather than only in the brain? Could
this information be transmitted to the brain for processing, or is all
information stored only in brain cells? Is a soul necessary for information
storage and retrieval? Is it necessary for a living thing to have a soul in
order to have life functions?
These are additional questions to be investigated. Some scientists
do not think there is an immortal soul. They have been led to this
conclusion by their study of DNA and RNA , the unraveling of their
chemical composition, and the understanding of their many biological
functions. Human DNA contains all of the instructions for building
a complete human being. The ability of scientists to manipulate this
molecule and change genetic patterns leads them to think that an entire
human being can be produced in vitro.
The common practice of fertilizing an ovum in vitro and implanting
it in a woman’s womb suggests that maybe a child can develop in a
controlled environment outside a human female. If an environmental
chamber were built in which an embryo was placed, would it develop
into a full-grown human baby without ever having been inside a mother?
Would it be a living person at full development? With the rapid scientific
advances in this field of study in the past few years and with the natural
inclination and curiosity of scientists, future attempts will likely perform
such experiments. Some scientists think this is well within the realm of
possibility.
A friend commented to me, “they will never be able to put the spirit in
it, and it will never be a living thing. It is impossible.” A simple experiment
will give some insight into the thinking of those who think otherwise.
A single cardiac (heart) muscle cell can be placed in a solution containing
the necessary ingredients to keep it alive. This cell will sit on the bottom
of the beaker and beat with a definite rhythm. We say the beat is intrinsic
or built into the cell. If a second cell is placed into the beaker, it will beat
independently of the first cell with its own rhythm. But if the two cells
touch each other they will beat together in the same rhythm. From this
observation we conclude that the beat of the cell is intrinsic (built into
the cell), but some communication exists between the two cells.
tending our gardens
•
93
The ability of
scientists to
manipulate this
molecule and change
genetic patterns
leads them to
think that an entire
human being can be
produced in vitro.
Scientists are likely to suppose, then, that as an embryo develops,
life is intrinsic to it just as the beat is intrinsic to the cardiac cell, and
that the developing human does not require a spirit for life. They might
suggest that life is inherent in the embryo, a natural consequence of its
development, and the embryo will become a living thing without a spirit.
And they would ask: Are we continuing the practice of assigning life’s
functions we do not understand to something called a soul? In the future
will we learn that these functions are simply body functions instead of
functions of the soul, as we did with others in the past?
Studying Science a n d t h e S o u l
Schools must exist
where the scientist
has the advantage
of the revealed word
to guide research
and teaching.
As scientists continue without revelation to uncover mechanisms
of life’s mysteries, mistakes will be made. Many people, especially the
young, will have their testimonies challenged. I believe these challenges
will dwarf those we now observe in the creation, evolution dilemma.
This is why schools must exist where the scientist has the advantage of
the revealed word to guide research and teaching. Our church schools
have an enormous task, and those who teach there must remain focused
on the mission. We cannot justify the expenditure of tithing money
unless testimonies are built and students are prepared to advance the
Lord’s purposes.
I decided early in my career as a scientist that if knowledge gained by
scientific investigation was not consistent with the revealed word, I would
accept the revealed word instead. Truth gained by scientific investigation
and that which is revealed will eventually agree. To say so is a point of
faith, a testimony.
For example, the proposition that information is stored only in
bodily molecules is not consistent with Section 130 of the Doctrine and
Covenants: “Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life
will rise with us in the resurrection. If a person gains more knowledge
and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than
another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come.” If
information is stored only in the protein molecules of the body, at death
the protein will depolymerize and the knowledge will be lost. So how
could knowledge rise with us in the resurrection?
From simple Platonic reasoning, a connection exists between the
function of the mortal and the immortal parts of the human being for
obtaining, storing, and recalling information. The concept that information
is stored only in the protein molecule of the body cannot be the whole
truth. Some connection exists between the body and the soul with regard
to the acquisition, storage, and the retrieval of information.
Socrates’ conclusion that the shepherd boy brought knowledge of
geometric principles with him from a premortal existence presupposes
94
•
perspective
that the immortal part of the body can store and dispense knowledge.
Information must be stored in the immortal part of our being that is
available to the mortal portion, especially if the mortal portion is acted
upon by the influence of the Holy Ghost.
Revealed truth indicates that scientists such as Edison, Bell, Watson and
Crick, and Einstein and artists such as Michelangelo, DeVinci, Beethoven,
and Bach brought these talents with them in the immortal portion of
their being. Through the influence of the Holy Ghost, these capacities
were made available to the mortal portion of their being.
Throughout history, philosophers have struggled with the problem
of infinite regression. For example, considerable evidence exists for the
big bang theory as an explanation of the creation of the universe. If this
concept is accepted, one must ask, “What blew up?” Then, “Where did
it come from?” Then, “Where did that come from?” and “Where did that
come from?” The question continues and the answer is not forthcoming.
The alternative to infinite regression is for something immortal (something
that has always been) to exist. The religionist believes that an immortal
being created everything, and therefore does not encounter the problem
of infinite regression. For those caught in the trap of empirical infinite
regression, the universe and life can have no purpose. I am concerned
that our society is moving in this direction in its thinking and actions. If
so, materialism and pleasure will likely become our gods.
I believe Joseph Smith’s vision was the most important event since the
atonement. For me as a scientist the First Vision has special significance.
The vision tells me entities exist that cannot be investigated by scientific
means. Consequently, even if a child could be developed in vitro (which
I doubt), I believe it will need a spirit to give it life. Whenever form exists,
reason tells me, there has to be substance. The beings who appeared to
Joseph Smith had the form of man. Hence they had substance. What was
that substance? As a scientist, I ask, “What kind of substance would allow
them to defy gravity? Why didn’t they burn up?” Any fleshy substance
I know that would glow like the noon-day sun would certainly oxidize
and be reduced to ashes. I ask, “When Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith,
what substance would allow him to pass unobstructed through walls?” I
have tried to think of a scientific experiment I could perform to investigate
Moroni’s composition, but I have failed. Obtaining a sample with which
to work is impossible. Some things about the soul will remain unanswered
until the Lord sees fit to reveal them. The ability to expand the frontiers
of knowledge by scientific investigation obviously has its limits.
The scriptures and the revelations make much information available
to me as a scientist. I can use this information to guide my scientific
investigations, to know when I might be in error, and to help me evaluate
the concepts, models, and ideas which are suggested by others. The most
tending our gardens
•
95
Some things about
the soul will remain
unanswered until
the Lord sees fit to
reveal them.
exciting thing that could happen to me would be to sit at the feet of Him
who created it all and learn. I am certain that this is the only way I will
ever learn the answers to the questions I have raised in this paper and
many others that I have pondered. 
Notes:
1.
N. Melchert, The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy
(London: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1999), 33-4.
2. Ibid., 35.
3. Ibid., 103.
4. Ibid., 163.
5. Ibid., 146.
6. Ibid., 182.
7. Ibid., 183.
8. Ibid., 288.
9. V. McConnell, “Memory Transfer through Cannibalism in Planarians.” Journal of
Neuropsychiatry (1962): 42-48.
10. G. Tortora, B. Funke, and C. Case, Microbiology: An Introduction, 5th ed. (Redwood City,
CA: Benjamin Cummings Publishers, 1994), 131.
96
•
perspective