#91: AoM Student Discusses the Soul
Apologetics on Mission (AoM) serves our brothers and sisters on mission and through online education. As is often the case, those we meet and who are introduced to apologetics while on mission usually request training that is initially best provided virtually.
Our introduction to apologetics course consists of 16 lessons and discusses such topics as truth, worldviews, reliability of the bible, historicity of the resurrection, and the problem of evil. Once completed and after having practiced what they’ve learned, many request additional training. Thus, AoM provides shorter but focused Master Classes in advanced topics of student interest.
Recently Dr. Stan Wallace, AoM Curriculum Director [1], gave a Master Class entitled, Bodies, Souls, and Human Flourishing. 56 students participated from 14 countries. [2] This is the opening paragraph of the course description:
“One of the strongest arguments for the existence of God is the reality of the soul. This dispels the myth that we, along with everything else, are merely physical beings. And if we have an immaterial dimension, the only way to account for this fact is a cause that is also immaterial–God. We must be able to make this case to an unbelieving world. [3]”
This is a “heady” subject but one that is crucial to our identity and faith as well as to evangelism.
Stan concluded the course by asking his students to write a short paper regarding a question they’ve had or a skeptic has raised concerning the soul. Specifically, each student was asked to “include a clear statement of the question, how you are now prepared to respond, objections that may be raised to your response(s), and your replies to these objections.”
The best student paper was submitted by Khalid Maqbool Khokhar, a Christian serving in full-time Christian ministry in his native country of Pakistan [4].
I want to share Khalid’s paper with you because I believe you will find it both interesting and informative. AoM appreciates the time and effort all the students put into this course. We are especially grateful for Khalid’s outstanding paper as well as his willingness to share it in this monthly AoM note.
“Can Neuroscience Explain Consciousness Without the Existence of an Immaterial Soul?”
-Khalid Maqbool Khokhar
Introduction
During this course, one question kept standing out to me more than others: whether neuroscience alone can fully explain consciousness, or whether something beyond the physical brain—what many call an immaterial soul—is still needed to make sense of human experience.
It is easy to see why this question matters. Neuroscience has made remarkable progress in mapping the brain. We now know that different regions of the brain become active when we remember, feel emotions, make decisions, or respond to pain. This has led many people to assume that consciousness is nothing more than brain activity arranged in a complex system.
At first glance, that explanation feels complete. If every thought and feeling has a corresponding brain signal, then it seems reasonable to say that the mind is simply the brain in action.
Before this course, I already believed in the existence of the soul because of my Christian background. However, I also felt a tension. Scientific explanations often sounded strong and self-sufficient, while my belief in the soul felt more like faith than reasoned understanding. I did not know how to clearly connect the two without feeling like one cancel the other.
This course helped me step back from that tension. I began to see that neuroscience and theology are not necessarily competing explanations. Instead, they may be addressing different layers of the same reality. Neuroscience describes the machinery of the brain, while philosophy and theology deal with questions about meaning, identity, and inner experience. From this perspective, I now lean toward the idea that brain science alone may describe the “how,” but not the full “what” or “why” of consciousness.
My Reflection
One of the clearest insights I gained is the importance of not confusing connection with sameness. Neuroscience strongly shows that mental life and brain activity are linked. If someone feels fear, we can observe specific brain regions activating. If someone recalls a memory, we can track patterns in neural networks. When the brain is injured, personality and memory can also change significantly.
All of this clearly shows that the brain is deeply involved in shaping our conscious life.
But involvement is not the same as identity.
Just because two things always appear together does not necessarily mean they are identical. A helpful way I started thinking about this is through the relationship between an instrument and the source of sound. If a guitar string breaks, the music changes or disappears. But that does not mean the musician disappears with it. The instrument is essential for expression, but it may not be the origin of creativity itself.
In the same way, it is possible that the brain functions as the medium through which consciousness is expressed, rather than being the total explanation of consciousness itself.
The Question of Inner Experience
Another idea that shaped my thinking is something philosophers often call the “hard problem of consciousness.” It is basically the question of why physical processes in the brain produce inner experience at all.
Neuroscience can describe brain activity with great precision. It can show what happens when we see colors, feel pain, or process sound. But there remains a deeper question that science itself does not fully answer: why do these processes feel like something from the inside?
For example, science can explain the nerve signals involved in pain. But the experience of pain—the actual “hurt”—is something more personal and subjective. It is not just data in the brain; it is lived experience.
This gap between physical description and personal experience makes me think that consciousness may not be fully reducible to biological processes alone. There seems to be something about inner awareness that resists being explained purely in terms of neurons and chemicals.
Rational Thought and Human Awareness
Another reason I find the idea of a soul meaningful is the nature of human thinking itself. Humans do not just react automatically to the environment. We reflect, question, and evaluate ideas. We can think about truth, morality, purpose, and even question our own existence.
What stands out to me is that human thought is not just mechanical response—it involves evaluation. We can say one idea is logically valid and another is false. We can argue, reason, and search for meaning.
If thinking were only a result of physical processes, it becomes difficult to explain why those processes should lead to truth-seeking awareness. Physical reactions, by themselves, are not concerned with truth or falsehood. They simply happen.
Yet human thought clearly aims at understanding reality, not just reacting to it. That raises the possibility that consciousness includes something beyond physical reaction—something that allows genuine rational reflection.
Biblical Perspective
From a Christian point of view, Scripture also presents humans as more than physical structures.
In Genesis 2:7, it is written that God formed man from the dust and breathed life into him. This imagery presents both a physical origin and something life-giving that is not purely material.
In Matthew 10:28, Jesus distinguishes between body and soul, suggesting that human existence cannot be reduced only to physical life.
These passages helped me see a more integrated picture: humans are both physical and spiritual beings. The body is real and important, but it may not be the whole story of who we are.
Common Objections
One common argument from a physicalist perspective is that neuroscience already explains mental life fully. Every thought and emotion, they argue, corresponds to brain activity. From this view, introducing a soul is unnecessary because it does not add explanatory value.
Another objection is that the soul cannot be measured or observed scientifically. Since science depends on observation, anything beyond measurement is considered outside its scope or even unreal.
A third argument comes from brain injury studies. When the brain is damaged, personality and memory often change. This is taken as evidence that consciousness depends entirely on the brain.
My Response to These Objections
I take these objections seriously because they are grounded in real evidence. There is clearly a strong connection between brain states and mental life. However, I do not think this connection automatically settles the question of identity.
First, dependence does not necessarily mean reduction. The fact that mental life depends on brain function does not prove that mental life is nothing but brain function. It only shows that they are related in a deep way.
Second, the idea that neuroscience will eventually explain everything about consciousness is still a prediction, not a completed result. Even today, scientists and philosophers continue to debate what consciousness actually is. That ongoing disagreement suggests the question is still open.
Third, brain injury does show that the brain plays a crucial role in how we express thoughts and personality. But it does not necessarily prove that consciousness itself is fully produced by the brain. It may also suggest that the brain is the physical interface through which consciousness operates.
Finally, science is extremely powerful, but it has limits. It is designed to study measurable phenomena. Questions about meaning, purpose, and subjective experience may require approaches beyond scientific measurement.
Conclusion
This course helped me rethink how neuroscience and the idea of the soul relate to each other. I now see neuroscience as extremely valuable in explaining the workings of the brain. At the same time, I do not think it fully captures the depth of conscious experience.
There are still questions that feel open—questions about inner awareness, rational thought, identity, and meaning. These do not disappear even with advanced brain research.
Because of this, I find it reasonable to consider that human consciousness may involve both physical and non-physical dimensions. This view does not reject science; instead, it places science within a broader understanding of reality.
In the end, I have come to believe that neuroscience and faith do not have to compete.
Neuroscience explains mechanisms, while theology and philosophy explore meaning and existence. Together, they offer a more complete picture of what it means to be human.
I pray you found this topic and paper helpful!
If you would like to enroll in an AoM course, please see upcoming announcements at AoM Introduction to International Apologetics Certificate course.
In Christ,
Doug
1 Peter 3:15
[1] Dr. Wallace is also Chairman of AoM’s Board of Directors and President and Chief Executive Officer of Global Scholars, a ministry that equips Christian professors to serve Christ in universities worldwide (https://global-scholars.org).
[2] The 56 students are from the Cameron, Congo, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Rwanda, South Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Uruguay, and the US.
[3] The remainder of the course description: “With advances in neuroscience, many Christians are confused about whether we actually have a soul, and if so, what the soul is, how it is related to the body (and especially the brain), and how this relates to the cultural issues of our day and ultimately human flourishing. Therefore, we must be able to help fellow believers understand and defend the reality of the soul as well.
This mini course will explore what the Bible says about our soul, what philosophy can add to this understanding, and how this all relates to the findings of neuroscience. With a clear understanding of the soul, body, and their relationship, we will discuss how we can use this in apologetic conversations and engage some contemporary cultural challenges, including gender ideology and biomedical ethics. The lectures will outline some of the high points of the author’s recent book on this topic: Have We Lost Our Minds? Neuroscience, Neurotheology, the Soul, and Human Flourishing.”
[4] From Khalid: I am Khalid Maqbool Khokhar, based in Pakistan, with a strong interest in Christian apologetics, theology, and discipleship. I am committed to studying and communicating the Christian faith in a thoughtful and biblically grounded manner. Through personal study, teaching opportunities, and engagement with others on questions of faith and worldview, I seek to encourage believers and help others better understand the truth claims of Christianity.
I am currently serving in full-time ministry. By profession, I have served as an educationist, dedicating many years to teaching and educational leadership. At 52 years of age, I continue to pursue theological growth and ministry preparation and am currently pursuing a Master of Divinity degree. My passion is to help equip believers to think clearly about their faith and to engage effectively with the challenges and questions of our time.