Psychology (which literally means the study of the soul) provides us with a dilemma.

If the soul is a) non-material b) immutable c) eternal, and it comes from God, who is also a) non-material b) immutable c) eternal, then how is our soul “differentiated” from God? (NB: if two things share identical properties, then they are not “two” but one and the same).

If our soul is not “differentiated” from God (pure Being), then we “are” God—in which case, our “material being” (physical existence/human life) makes no sense whatsoever because when the body dies, the soul is reunited with God (from whence it came). Once the soul is reunited, then all aspects belonging to the body are irrelevant. And if we are unified with the cosmic unity of all reality (God), then material existence was pointless. If material existence is pointless, then there is no sin, no heaven, no hell, no individual consciousness…nothing. And if there is nothing, then there never was anything, so creation is a myth and our individual existence is an illusion.

If we have a soul which is re-united with pure Being upon separation from the body, which it has to be because a soul without the body cannot be “differentiated” from pure Being, then the body and all material existence was pointless. All of our “uniqueness” corresponds to our “material nature.” All souls being non-material, immutable and eternal, there can be no distinction between souls, or between souls and “pure Being.”  Therefore, we do not have an “individual soul,” because there can only be one “soul” (God) and we have “existence” only insofar as we participate in “soul” (i.e., God’s Being).  There cannot, on this account be multiple “souls” there can only be individual material beings which participate in the “one true soul” (i.e., God).  But again, if we only participate in Being (i.e., share in the one “soul”) then individual material existence is irrelevant and non-sensical.

If, on the other hand, we are not “God,” then we have to be able to explain how it is that we are “different than” God. There cannot be multiple beings that share the same properties (eternal, immutable, non-corporeal), because if they shared the same properties, they would be one thing, not many. Hence, the “differentiation” of beings (angels, humans, animals, plants, and God) occurs via the “matter.” Matter is that physical reality which differentiates one being from another. Matter is, therefore, the principle of “individuation.”

Now “matter” is no laughing matter! It is a complex notion which has been argued about since the time of the Pythagoreans in the 6th century B.C.  Pythagorus, who was the leader of religious cult, spent a tremendous amount of time and thought trying to understand matter and non-matter. In short, he concluded that the driving principle behind all material substance is “number.”  In other words, he theorized that that which makes matter what it is, is the same principle that makes “number” real. What he meant by number was “ratio.”  In other words, all things that exist, have existence only insofar as they are in relation to all else. The relational aspect of Being manifests in a “vibration.” Each thing that exists is a specific “vibration” (a harmonic ratio); which is itself concordant with other ratios. (This explains why we like some people and dislike others—it has to do with our ratio). Now, the principle behind ratio is what drives all matter. And each part of matter, having a vibration of its own, constitutes the cosmos which is a collection of sounds; or, as Pythagoras said: the cosmos is God’s symphony and each thing is merely a note in the symphony. Question: do you give off good vibes or not?

This explains how/why matter does what it does…but it does not explain why matter is here. If all that there is can be reduced to a mathematical principle (ratio) then we can understand its relations, but not why it’s here.

Democritus (circa 400 B.C), attempted to advance the debate by concluding that “matter is all that there is; and it is made up of infinitesimally small parts called “atoms.”  Each atom has a ratio which makes it what it is. It has a “charge” (an electric energy) according to the ratio of its atoms and it is cohesive so long as nothing messes with the ratio. All matter tends towards “harmonious” relation with other matter that has a compatible or similar ratio. Atoms can share the charge of other atoms—that is how molecules and compounds are formed. In other words, matter has an “attitude” (because the individual atoms that comprise matter each have an “attitude”) and matter is tending toward something other than the relationships it has presently. (Theory of entropy: all things are tending toward either order or chaos—we can’t be sure which—but that they are tending toward something other than what they are at the moment is absolutely true).

This idea, combined with the second law of thermodynamics and the fact that matter is a “constant” (E=MC2) leads to some very definite positions regarding the nature of our material existence. If matter, by definition and conflation with the theories from physics, always was and always must be, then our material existence can be explained as a cosmic accident. More importantly, all human behavior is simply a matter of “matter.” We act the way we do, not because we are free, but because we are driven by our matter.

This theory of Democritus serves as the foundation of “Philosophical Materialism.”  It is the belief that matter is eternal and constant and that humans are just a particular form of matter (which is temporary). Hence, psychology (as the study of human behavior) is really just the study of advanced, complex bio-chemical reactions. If we want to understand and predict human behavior, we need to study bio-chemistry.  If we want to change human behavior, we just give it different matter (i.e., synthetic drugs).

Of course, this philosophical materialism denies concepts such as the soul, human free will, God, and all other metaphysics, as nothing more than “stages of the material process occurring in the human mind; which itself is nothing more than the brain—a material organ predisposed toward advanced electro-magnetic impulses which have as much to do with diet as anything else.” Christian philosophy does not deny the laws of (sub-atomic) physics. In fact, the same principle is expressed in the Doxology of the Christian faith: “Glory be to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit…as it was in the beginning, is now, and forever will be!”  Yet, sharing the same view with regard to the primacy of matter does not reduce the philosophical conflict regarding the status of the soul.

Now, clearly, philosophical materialism has produced some outstanding thinkers (Democritus, Heraclitus, Epicurus, Hobbes, Freud, Skinner, Nietzsche, Marx, et al), as well as some outstanding science (synthetic medication, etc.). But the elimination of free will, God, soul, eternity, heaven, hell, etc., seems too much for some humans to bear. Freud, for instance, concluded that “God” was a projection of the human mind out of necessity. Why? Because if we were to embrace the idea that we are just a cosmic accident of “matter” we would go nuts. In other words, we have a deep-seeded “need” to believe that our existence counts for something. So, we conjure up significance and meaning for ourselves by positing the idea of “God” as the origin of all things [material]. This gives us a distinct purpose [to get back to God]—if not a contradiction [why would God create in the first place if everything just ends up back with him?]

What is interesting is to ask how humans (as a matter of matter) could have come up with the idea of God (a non-material being which gives meaning to our material context) as a simple result of matter doing what matter does?  As William James argued, my decision to believe in free will is proof of its existence.

Arguments against philosophical materialism notwithstanding, the problem of the “soul” doesn’t go away. The materialists have the better (more consistent) position. Everything reduces to matter which has always been. The stumbling blocks for materialism include questions regarding the “origin” of matter (how could it always have been?) and the idea of human freedom. Of course, even some of the most ardent subscribers to the “divine” origin of things still reach for an aspirin when they have headaches (proof that Pythagoras was right!)  The explanation and answer to Everything lies in ratio…when you have a headache, some of your atoms are out of whack…the chemicals (aspirin) have a different charge (polarity) which realigns your atoms (i.e., gets rid of your headache). Now, if a person really had “faith” (strong belief in the reality of non-material being) he/she could simply meditate and through the power of thought realign their atoms and get rid of the headache (or the cancer, or the disease, or the hunger, or whatever the material affliction is). But, most humans don’t reach that point—although it is possible in theory.

Stumbling blocks for those who subscribe to a theory of “realism” (the position that metaphysical conceptssuch as God and soul are “real”) include the “differentiation of soul from pure Being.”  If humans have souls, where did the souls come from? If the souls came from God, then they must be “perfect” (if not perfect, then how does God create and give that which is imperfect—and if it’s imperfect we can’t be responsible for its misuse).  More importantly, we are left with the problem of what becomes of the soul when its principle of individuation (the body) is no more.

Once the matter is shed (i.e., the body dies), the principle of its animation (which we call “soul”) returns to its origin, God. But what, then, is the point of the material existence? If “heaven” is unification of the soul with pure Being, then individual consciousness (your experience of the material life) is supplanted by the awareness (complete consciousness) of God. If that is the end result, then there was no point to material existence.

Christian philosophers, who were not comfortable with the philosophical materialists’ views, were forced to combat the problems with reference to their tradition. The rectification of “problems with the soul” comes in the RESURRECTION. The whole point of Easter (as separate and distinct from the Passion of Jesus Christ which saves humans from sin—a self-imposed psychological alienation from God in human beings—by demonstrating “unconditional love”) is the RESURRECTION.

The idea of the resurrection is that God (through human existence in Jesus Christ) overcame “death” [of the material body] by achieving a completely harmonious “ratio” within the matter [his body] by utilizing human reason and free will. By choosing an act of unconditional love, Jesus elevated the status of His body to a completely harmonious “state of Being,” to the point that he was no longer bound by the laws governing the physical universe (e.g., with his new and “glorified” body, He walked through the wall to see the Apostles (John 20:19; LK 24: 36ff; MK 16:14).

No other religion reconciles the contradiction of our material-spiritual existence by way of metaphysics.  Thought (which is an aspect of human reason) is “non-material” and yet, it carries with it a very “real” physical impact. The philosophical materialists are forced (by logical and theoretical implication) to maintain that “thought” is a physical manifestation (and that there is nothing in this universe that is “non-material.”) But their problem is that if “thought” is material, why can’t we control it more efficiently through matter. More precisely, why can’t we produce specific thoughts in people?

Now, there is no doubt that “thought” can be controlled “physically” through drugs, hallucinogens, starvation, controlling impressions, etc. But this only prevents or inhibits the thought process. Can we really control what thoughts are produced? Or, are thoughts free?

For moral theology, un-free thoughts are not worthy of punishment. For sin to occur, the thought process must have been uninhibited. (We don’t hold infants and small children, or retarded people, or insane people to the same moral standards as cognizant adults). If our highest attribute is “reason” then it stands to reason that our goal should be to increase our capacity to reason. It is no coincidence that the Gospel writer John, begins his Gospel: “In the beginning was the word; the word was with God and the word was God.”  What is interesting is that “word” in Greek is o logos and o logos actually means “reason.”  So, in the beginning was reason; reason was with God and reason was God. Later on in the evolution of Christian philosophy, St. Thomas Aquinas (1275 C.E.) defines God as: “thought thinking itself.”

We are created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis). God is immaterial (doesn’t have a body), so how is it that we are in God’s image?  Because God is reason, and we have the ability to reason—we share God’s divine nature. When we use our reason, we are that much closer to God. When we expand our capacity to reason, we move closer to God. As Aristotle said, the purpose of the human being is fulfilled when we contemplate the “eternal and the divine.” In other words, philosophizing is the most holy and sacred act. It uses reason most appropriately. And as St. Augustine says, “the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”  That means that our material nature sometimes gets in the way of our spiritual nature (which is reason). The complication for us is that when we go against our reason, we alienate ourselves from God.

We are in the likeness of God insofar as we too, are free…free to follow our reason or to go against it. The Hebrew people actually knew how to get around the “problems” of the “soul.”  Once you look at the structure of the human person (as a “free rational being”) the problems with our status and the afterlife melt away—especially in light of the resurrection (that it is entirely possible for each of us to conquer death by reaching our pure potential as reasoning beings). The resurrection conquers death and establishes the relational nature we have with our Creator while at the same time preserving our unique experience as a material being. However, the resurrection of the body (into a “glorified state”) is complicated by the choices we made in our lives.

Choices involve thought and thought is non-material. So, in the final analysis…when the body is resurrected, it will face one final choice. If it was accustomed to choosing out of material nature (as opposed to rational nature) it might just make a mistake and choose alienation from God instead of unification with God. In other words, reason recognizes itself. If we acted unreasonably during our life, we might act unreasonably in our afterlife.

Ultimately, the problems concerning the nature of the soul and humans as relational beings cannot be easily understood or overcome. The philosophical materialists have the more logical and consistent answer, but Christians (armed with the belief in the resurrection) have the more fulfilling answer.  It is the resurrection alone which makes sense of the soul and its need to be individuated by matter (by existing temporarily in the body).

Another point is that the sacred nature assigned to “ratio” by the Pythagoreans works in both schemes. If we take seriously the notion that the cosmos is a cosmic symphony and each of us is a note in God’s symphony, then what we need to do is make that note clear and precise by using reason to maintain the proper vibration (ratio). We are not here to ignore the body for the sake of the mind, or vice versa. Rather, we are here (in this unique arrangement) that a higher good may result from achieving the proper balance between the two. And when all is said and done, the body will be reunited with the soul after death and that way, we maintain our individual experience while at the same time being united with God. It all comes full circle.  Angels do have wings (if they had no such nature, they could not be distinguished from God); and you will see your dog in heaven. And Pythagoras was right!! Math is sacred—if you don’t believe it, then go listen to your favorite song and be moved! (music is math in motion and yet it helps us transcend!!!!!!)

The final point is simply to highlight the power and importance of the RESURRECTION in the PSYCHOLOGICAL sense. Psychology is the study of the soul. The soul’s relation to the body is tenuous at best. The resurrection resolves that tension. Once Christianity introduced the idea that the resurrection of the body is a reality for us all, then Salvation took on a whole new value. Other religions have some concept of salvation (like Nirvana in Buddhism), but it loses the personal aspect necessarily (which is why it is not problematic for Buddhists to be reincarnated 400 times before they get it right). If all personal experience is lost, then what’s the point of the material existence?  Christianity introduces a way out of the complication…namely, the resurrection of the body. That concept carries a significant amount of weight “psychologically.”