Are there any contemporary philosophers or neuroscientists who uphold "substance dualism" (human souls)?

And not just ANY philosopher, I'm talking about philosophers who specialize in philosophy of mind and whom have the credentials to speak with authority on the subject. Philosophers of religion are not qualified. To analogize, would you go to a gynecologist for psychiatric problems? Substance dualism is the... show more And not just ANY philosopher, I'm talking about philosophers who specialize in philosophy of mind and whom have the credentials to speak with authority on the subject. Philosophers of religion are not qualified. To analogize, would you go to a gynecologist for psychiatric problems?

Substance dualism is the idea that a human being is composed of two substances: the physical substance of the brain that can be examined and studied with the scientific method, and a supernatural "soul" substance that defies all attempts at understanding or discovery with the scientific method.

In my various intellectual pursuits, I have not found one scientist specializing in neurobiology or any philosopher specializing in philosophy of mind to uphold this idea of substance dualism.

This is indeed a CRUSHING blow to religion in general, specifically Christianity, because the idea of an immortal soul is central to most religions.
Update: Let me be perfectly clear. Substance dualism is something very specific not to be confused at all with property dualism. The two are completely different. Hence, when one uses the non-specific term, "dualism" by itself, I am completely confused. Substance dualism entails belief in souls while... show more Let me be perfectly clear.

Substance dualism is something very specific not to be confused at all with property dualism. The two are completely different.

Hence, when one uses the non-specific term, "dualism" by itself, I am completely confused.

Substance dualism entails belief in souls while property dualism does not. Property dualists maintain that the mind emerges from the body, but that it is completely dependent on the physical substance of the body and not some mysterious ether.

Hence, when one states, "there are many philosophers who are dualists," he is as imprecise as saying "there are many philosophers who have philosophies". What kind of philosophy though? What kind of dualism?
Update 2: Andrew writes: "That being said, there is no reason to rule out philosophers of religion as not counting. Using a similar example, if I went to see a podiatrist and he told me that I had a concussion, I would listen to him. While he doesn't study the exact field in question, he has relevant knowledge.... show more Andrew writes: "That being said, there is no reason to rule out philosophers of religion as not counting. Using a similar example, if I went to see a podiatrist and he told me that I had a concussion, I would listen to him. While he doesn't study the exact field in question, he has relevant knowledge. Ruling out philosophers of religion is unfair."

I disagree. I see it as a matter of tool sets. Philosophers of mind and neuroscientists have the right "tools" to assess this question. Consider an astronomer who uses a microscope to study the stars. Wouldn't work would it?

Remember when the Catholic Church put Galileo on trial for his heretical beliefs on astronomy? They used the tool of the Bible to decipher the position of the Earth in the universe, whereas instruments that were capable of truly answering the question were in direct opposition.

In sum, I find that philosophers of religion have NO relevant knowledge or tools on this subject.
Update 3: One answerer writes: "Allow me just to respond to that. The disappearance of substance dualism might not be as crushing a blow as you would think. After all, Christianity incorporates the idea of bodily immortality. Jesus was resurrected after all, and ascended to heaven to the right hand of the father in his... show more One answerer writes: "Allow me just to respond to that. The disappearance of substance dualism might not be as crushing a blow as you would think. After all, Christianity incorporates the idea of bodily immortality. Jesus was resurrected after all, and ascended to heaven to the right hand of the father in his earthly clay."

Hmmm... Then what is the holy spirit? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the trinity is composed of multiple components, including the immaterial spirit.

Even if we are "resurrected" in bodily form, Christians still maintain that there is a "spirit" that is non-physical. If it requires a body... so what?

Occum's razor: Do not multiply entities beyond what is necessary.

If we don't need a "spirit" for our bodies to work, or our "spirit" is dependent on our bodies for existence, then are we just making things up? Perhaps the "mind" is simply an emergent property of the physical brain.
7 answers 7