Reeks 1 — GrondslagSeries 1 — Foundation

Sessie 5 — Bewussyn, Rede en die Morele WetSession 5 — Consciousness, Reason and the Moral Law

— deurby Attie Retief

Die Raaisel van Gees en Bewussyn

Inleiding

Elke mens beleef daagliks die misterie van bewussyn, daardie innerlike wêreld van gedagtes en selfbesef wat so bekend, en tog onverklaarbaar diep, is. Ons kan die sterre en atome wetenskaplik ontleed, maar wanneer dit by die gees van die mens kom, staan selfs groot denkers verstom. Wat is bewussyn? Waarom sukkel materialistiese benaderings om dit te verklaar? En hoe werp die Christelike geloof lig op ons bewuste gees?

In vorige sessies het ons gesien hoe ‘n klassieke teïstiese wêreldbeskouing God verstaan as die bron van alle werklikheid: die grond van bestaan, rede en saligheid. Nou fokus ons op die tweede aspek: bewussyn (“Consciousness”). Ons subjektiewe ervaring wys na iets diepers as blote materie. Materialisme misluk om bewussyn voldoende te verklaar, en die Beeld van God-begrip bied ‘n sinvoller antwoord. Klassieke denkeksperimente (Nagel se vlermuis en Mary se swart-en-wit wêreld) toon hoe fisikalisme te kort skiet. Die verwarring in hedendaagse verklarings bevestig iets wat gelowiges nog altyd bely het: dat bewussyn ‘n geestelike kwaliteit is wat uiteindelik na ons Goddelike Oorsprong wys.

Wat is bewussyn?

Wanneer ons oor “bewussyn” praat, verwys ons na ’n verskeidenheid van kenmerke van ons innerlike lewe. Enkele sleutelaspekte is:

• Subjektiewe ervaring (qualia): Die eerste-persoon-gevoel van ons ervarings – hoe dit voel om iets te beleef. Niemand anders kan byvoorbeeld presies jou ervaring van die kleur rooi of die smaak van koffie “van binne” af ken nie. Hierdie qualia (latyn vir “watter soort dinge”) maak bewussyn intrinsiek persoonlik en ontoeganklik vir suiwer derde-persoon beskrywing.
• Selfbewussyn: Die besef dat jy ’n self is wat dink en ervaar. Bewussyn bring ’n sin van “ek” mee – ek weet dat ek bestaan en waarneem. Ons kan oor onsself nadink, ons eie gedagtes ondersoek en sê “dit is mý gedagte”. Dié vermoë om jou eie bewussyn te besin, onderskei menslike gees op merkwaardige wyse.
• Intensionaliteit: Gedagtes is altyd oor of gerig op iets. Ons denke het ‘n kwaliteit van “oor-iets-wees”: jy kan aan jou vakansie dink of oor ‘n wiskundeprobleem nadink. Hierdie gerigtheid van die verstand (intensionaliteit genoem in filosofie) beteken ons gedagtes verwys na werklikhede buite ons brein. ‘n Breingolf of neuron-opwelling op sigself het nie betekenisinhoud nie; maar jou idee kan oor Parys of oor geregtigheid gaan.
• Rasionaliteit: Die menslike bewussyn kan logies redeneer, waarhede ontdek en abstrakte konsepte verstaan. Ons het die vermoë om oorsaak en gevolg te begryp, wiskundige formules op te stel en argumente te evalueer op geldigheid. Hierdie rasionele strukture van denke stem ooreen met die rasionele orde in die natuur.
• Morele bewussyn: Laastens beleef ons ‘n innerlike gewete en besef van reg en verkeerd. Ons maak nie net keuses nie; ons evalueer keuses volgens ‘n morele standaard. Ons ervaar skuldgevoel as ons verkeerd doen en innerlike vrede as ons reg doen. Hierdie morele dimensie van bewussyn impliseer ‘n besef van objektiewe waardes wat ons nie self uitgedink het nie, maar waarby ons aansluit in ons gewete.

Hierdie vyf fasette is ‘n blik op die rykdom van die menslike gees. Maar hulle plaas ook ‘n uitdagende vraag voor ons: Hoe het hierdie nie-materiële eienskappe vanuit ‘n dooie materiële heelal ontstaan (as dit ál is wat daar is)? Waarom het blote atome en chemiese reaksies ooit begin dink en voel? So ‘n vraag lei ons tot die beperkings van ‘n materialistiese verstaan van die werklikheid.

Die mislukking van materialistiese verklarings

‘n Materialistiese of fisikalistiese siening hou vol dat bewussyn ten diepste niks meer as breinprosesse is nie. In hierdie beskouing is menslike gedagtes bloot die newe-effek van elektrisiteit en chemie in ‘n komplekse brein. Maar hoe suksesvol is sulke verklarings regtig? Hier is vier areas waar materialisme struikel:

Die Moeilike Probleem van Bewussyn (Qualia)

Navorsers onderskei tussen die “maklike” en die “moeilike” probleem van bewussyn. Die maklike deel (relatief gesproke) is om korrelasies te vind tussen breinaktiwiteit en ervarings: byvoorbeeld om te wys watter deel van die brein aktiveer as jy pyn ervaar of musiek hoor. Die moeilike probleem vra egter: Waarom gaan enigsins enige ervaring met daardie breinprosesse gepaard? Hoekom is daar iets wat dit is om mens te wees, ‘n innerlike belewing, eerder as net leë meganika? ‘n Rekenaar verwerk inligting sonder om enigiets te “voel”. Selfs al kon ons elke neuronale vonk in die brein in fynste besonderheid karteer, sou ons steeds moet verklaar hoe hierdie fisiese gebeurtenisse vanuit die eerste-persoonsperspektief beleef kan word.

Hierdie verduidelikingsgaping word geïllustreer deur qualia: ek kan alles oor die golflengte van lig weet, maar dit verduidelik nie hoe rooi vir my voel as ek na ‘n roos kyk nie. Thomas Nagel het beroemd gevra: ”What is it like to be a bat?” Hoe sou dit voel om soos ‘n vlermuis te wees wat in ultrasoniese frekwensies “sien”? Geen hoeveelheid biologiese data oor die vlermuis se brein kan my daardie belewenis laat verstaan nie. Daar is dus ‘n subjektiewe binnekant aan bewussyn wat nie vanuit ‘n objektiewe, derde-persoon wetenskaplike beskrywing afgelei kan word nie. Materialistiese verklarings loop hier teen ‘n muur vas: hulle kan die werking van die brein beskryf, maar nie die wees van bewussyn verklaar nie. Hierdie fundamentele kloof tussen materie en ervaring is wat die ”Hard Problem of Consciousness” genoem word in filosofie.

Waarom “bewussyn is ’n illusie” self-weerleggend is

Sommige materialiste probeer die moeilike probleem omseil deur te beweer dat bewussyn eintlik ‘n illusie is. Volgens hierdie siening is ons gevoel dat ons werklik innerlike ervarings het, bloot ‘n gesofistikeerde misleiding wat deur die brein voortgebring word. Daar is in werklikheid net dooie materie en seine; die res is ‘n soort hallusinasie. Maar so ‘n siening is by nadere beskouing self-weerleggend. Want wie is dit dan wat hierdie illusie ervaar? As jy sê “bewussyn bestaan nie regtig nie, dit is net ‘n truuk van die brein”, veronderstel jy klaar daar is ‘n bewuste iemand wat mislei word. ‘n Illusie is immers ook ‘n ervaring; dit verg ‘n bewuste waarnemer om mislei te kan word. Die stelling “bewussyn is ‘n illusie” saag dus aan die tak waarop dit sit: as dit waar is, kan dit nie as waar ervaar of geglo word nie.

Selfs die oortuiging van ‘n materialis dat mense bloot materie is, bestaan as ‘n gedagte in sy bewussyn. Materie alleen kon nie “weet” of formuleer sonder bewussyn nie. Voeg daarby dat ons innerlike lewe ons primêre toegang tot enige werklikheid is: alle wetenskaplike waarneming en denke gebeur deur ons bewuste verstand. Om dié bewustelike bronne van kennis as ‘n illusie af te maak, ondermyn die geldigheid van alle kennis, insluitende die materialis se eie teorie. Soos een filosoof spottenderwys opmerk: ”As bewussyn ‘n illusie is, wie is dan daar om dit te glo?” Die poging om bewussyn weg te redeneer eindig in ‘n teenspraak.

Intensionaliteit en die nie-fisiese gerigtheid van denke

Reeds in die 19de eeu het filosowe soos Franz Brentano opgemerk dat intensionaliteit – die “oor-iets-gerigtheid” van denke – ‘n teken is van die nie-fisiese aard van gees. ‘n Materiële voorwerp wys nie inherent na iets anders of beteken iets nie: ‘n klip lê bloot daar, ‘n elektriese stroom vloei sonder enige betekenis. Maar denke het altyd ‘n inhoud en ‘n betekenis. Jy kan nou dink aan jou ma, en daardie gedagte gaan oor ‘n werklike persoon buite jou. Jou brein bestaan uit neurone en chemiese bindings; geen van daardie fisiese dele op sigself “verwys” na “Ma” nie. Tog verteenwoordig jou gedagte jou ma.

Hierdie verbandskap, dat ‘n fisiese toestand (neurone wat vuur) ‘n nie-fisiese betekenis-inhoud dra, is iets besonders. Materialisme probeer dit reduseer tot ‘n soort rekenaarprogram: die brein is ‘n gesofistikeerde rekenaar wat simbole manipuleer en sodoende word betekenis “gegenereer”. Maar dit verduidelik nie werklik intensionaliteit nie; dit skuif dit net rond. (‘n Rekenaar se simbole het ook net betekenis vir ‘n buitestaande verstand, die programmeerder of gebruiker; self weet die masjien niks van wat sy simbole beteken nie.) Denke se gerigtheid wys na ‘n orde van begrip wat nie deur materie alleen voortgebring kan word nie. As die hele kosmos uiteindelik net uit doelloos bewegende deeltjies sou bestaan, is dit moeilik om te verstaan hoe enige van daardie deeltjies by betekenis en waarheid sou uitkom. Tog ervaar ons dat ons gedagtes waar of vals kan wees en na werklike entiteite verwys. Hierdie aspek van gees pas eenvoudig nie in ‘n naturalistiese prentjie in sonder om die gees se uniekheid weg te verduidelik nie. Dit herinner aan wat die filosoof Alvin Plantinga aanvoer: natuurwetenskap kan ons vertel hoe breinprosesse werk, maar nie of ‘n gedagte waar of sinvol is nie. Vir waarheid en betekenis het jy iets meer nodig: ‘n rasionele orde groter as blote materie.

Vrye wil en rasionaliteit teenoor biochemiese determinisme

Laastens loop materialisme vas by die vraag van vrye wil en rasionele keuse. As die mens net ‘n biochemiese masjien is, onderworpe aan deterministiese natuurwette (of lukrake kwantumgebeure), dan volg dit logies dat elke gedagte en elke “keuse” wat jy maak in beginsel vooraf bepaal is deur chemie en oorerwing, of bloot toevallig opborrel. Jou brein sou soos ‘n vooraf-gestelde rekenaarprogram werk, sonder werklike handelingsvermoë. Maar ons beleef onsself nie so nie: ons ervaar dat ons keuses kan uitoefen, dat ons redelike motiewe opweeg, en dat ons moreel aanspreeklik is vir ons dade. As ek eenvoudig móét doen wat my brein se materie-determinante voorskryf, kan ek nie werklik verantwoordelik gehou word nie. Tog weet ons instinktief dat ons soms tussen goed en kwaad kán kies, en dat daardie keuse werklik is.

Nog ‘n implikasie: ware rasionaliteit vereis dat ons redes oorweeg en gevolgtrekkings maak op grond van logika en waarheid. Maar as my gedagtes net die uitspeel van atoombewegings is wat moet gebeur, dan “oorweeg” ek niks; die uitkoms is klaar bestem ongeag rasionele oorweging. My brein sou kon glo 2+2=5 bloot omdat ‘n sekere chemiese reaksie so afloop, nie omdat ‘n persoonlike denke die geldigheid daarvan beoordeel het nie. Materialistiese determinisme eet dus aan die wortel van rede self. C.S. Lewis het hierop gewys: as ek geen rede het om my brein se voortbrengsels te vertrou omdat dit net blinde prosesse is, dan het ek ook geen rede om materialisme self te glo nie, want daardie geloof is dan eweneens net ‘n toevallige breinuitset. In sy boek Miracles skryf hy: as daar geen intelligente Skepper agter die heelal is nie en geen doelgerigte verstand nie, ”is dit maar net toevallig dat die atome in my skedel hulself in ‘n sekere rangskikking organiseer en my as neweproduk die sensasie van ‘n gedagte gee”. Hy vergelyk dit met melk wat uit ‘n omgestampte melkkan spat en per toeval ‘n kaart van Londen vorm. Pure toeval kan nie ware inligting produseer nie. Lewis se gevolgtrekking raak die kern: ”Tensy ek in God glo, kan ek nie in denke glo nie: dus kan ek nooit my denke gebruik om nie in God te glo nie.” As rasionele denke geldig is, is dit baie meer waarskynlik dat ons oorsprong by ‘n rasionele God lê as by blinde stof.

Die feit bly staan: ‘n wêreldbeeld wat materie bo als stel, maak uiteindelik afbreek aan menslike bewussyn. Dit moet ons innerlike ervarings afmaak as nietig (‘n illusie), of dit moet dit reduseer tot iets wat dit duidelik nie is nie: ‘n breinproses met geen werklike subjektiewe kwaliteit. Dit moet ons denke se vermoë tot waarheid verdag maak, en ons keuses tot fiksie verklaar. Maar dan sny daardie wêreldbeeld sy eie keel af, want waarom moet ons dan glo wat die materialis sê, as sy eie denke net ‘n breinreaksie is?

Indien materialisme waar sou wees, dan is bewussyn iets onverklaarbaars en moeisaam, dalk selfs ‘n fout van evolusie. ‘n Alternatief is om te sê: dalk toon bewussyn se uniekheid juis dat materialisme nie ‘n volle prentjie van die werklikheid gee nie. Miskien moet ons ons wêreldbeskouing verbreed.

Christelike teïsme as verklaring

Die Christen-gelowige wêreldbeskouing begin by ‘n fundamentele waarheid: God is Gees (Joh. 4:24), ‘n persoonlike, intellektuele, wilsmatige Wese. Die heel eerste vers van die Bybel leer reeds dat alles behalwe God geskape is (Gen. 1:1). Materie is nie al wat ewig is nie; ‘n Geestelike God met verstand en doel het materie ontwerp. Bewussyn is dus nie ‘n laat-ontluikende toeval nie, maar vanaf die begin ingebou in die plan van God.

Die hoogtepunt van die skepping volgens Genesis is juis die mens wat God maak ”na sy beeld” (Gen. 1:27). Dit beteken dat mense, anders as diere, geskape is met persoonlike eienskappe wat op ‘n manier God s’n weerspieël. Ons verstand en bewussyn, ons vrye wil en vermoë om lief te hê, dui daarop dat ons afstam van ‘n persoonlike Verstand eerder as van blinde toeval. Waar materialisme sukkel om te verduidelik hoekom doelloosheid persoonlikheid sou voortbring, sê die Bybel dit duidelik: ‘n persoonlike God wou hê daar moet persoonlike skepsels wees. Die menslike gees is dus nie ‘n spookagtige byproduk nie, maar deel van ons ontwerp: ”die lamp van die Here” in ons, soos Spreuke 20:27 digterlik sê.

Die Bybel bevestig verder dat ons verstand en rede nie losstaande wonders is nie, maar gewortel is in God se eie rasionaliteit. Johannes 1:1 verkondig: ”In die begin was die Woord (Logos), en die Woord was by God, en die Woord was God.” Hier word God self geïdentifiseer met Logos, ‘n Griekse term wat Woord, Rede of Intelligensie beteken. Alles is deur hierdie Logos gemaak, sê Johannes 1:3, en in Hom was die lewe en die lig van die mense (1:4). Hierdie ryk teks beteken onder meer dat God die bron is van alle lewe én alle verligting van die menslike gees. Ons kan waarheid ken en lig sien, omdat die ewige Lig (God se Logos) ons verstandsvermoë aanspreek en onderhou. “In U lig sien ons die lig,” bid Psalm 36:10 (Afr. 36:9), wat impliseer dat al ons kennis ‘n deelname aan God se kennis is.

Die klassieke christelike denke (soos by Augustinus en later by reformatoriese denkers) leer dat wanneer ons die wette van logika of ewige waarhede ontdek, ons eintlik ’n blik kry in God se ewige Logos. Dit maak sin: as ons rasionele siele na sy beeld geskape is, resoneer ons denke met sy denke, al is ons eindig en Hy oneindig. Daarom is dit vir ‘n Christen nie verbasend dat die heelal sin maak vir ons bewussyn nie: die heelal is ontwerp deur die uiteindelike Intelligensie. Ons rede “werk” omdat dit ontvanklik is vir die Goddelike Rede wat alles geskep het.

Die Imago Dei-leer (Beeld-van-God) bied ‘n raamwerk om bewussyn te verstaan. In plaas daarvan dat menslike bewustheid ‘n onverklaarbare flikkering is in ‘n andersins dooie kosmos, verklaar die Skrif dat bewussyn tuishoort in ‘n lewende, persoonlike heelal wat God gemaak het. Dit beteken nie menslike gees is gelyk aan God s’n nie; ons is eindige skepsels. Maar dit beteken ons het kapasiteite wat ver bo bloot materiële funksies strek. Ons denke kan waarheen strek? Na oneindige werklikhede, na God self, want God se beeld in ons is juis gegee sodat ons met Hom in verhouding kan tree. Ons gewete het ‘n ingebore oriëntasie na God se stem (Rom. 2:15), al kan dit deur sonde afgestomp raak. Ons wil is in staat tot keuses wat morele gewig dra, iets wat sin maak omdat God ons as verantwoordelike agente geskep het wat kan liefhê. En ons het ‘n selfbewussyn wat ons laat sê “Abba, Vader.” Ons weet ons is “self” in verhouding met ‘n groter Self wat ons gemaak het.

Christelike teïsme beklemtoon ook dat ons brein nie op sigself al ons denkvermoë verklaar nie. Daar is ‘n geestelike komponent aan mens-wees, wat ons tradisioneel die siel of gees noem, wat wel met die liggaam saamwerk (‘n integrale eenheid), maar wat nie net materiaal is nie. Prediker 12:7 sê by die dood keer “die stof terug na die aarde … en die gees keer terug na God wat dit gegee het.” God is dus die outeur en bron van ons gees. Spreuke 20:27 noem die menslike gees “die lamp van die Here.” God het ’n lig aangesteek binne-in die mens om hom van binne te verlig. Al kan dié “lamp” dowwer brand weens sonde, is dit steeds God se gawe wat ons onderskeidingsvermoë en persoonlikheid moontlik maak. In die Nuwe Testament sien ons hoe hierdie gees van die mens nuut gemaak en verlig moet word deur die Heilige Gees: ”Word verander deur die vernuwing van julle gemoed” (Rom. 12:2). Hier word duidelik gestel dat die denke (verstand) ‘n sleutelrol speel in ons heiliging: God wil ons denkwyse suiwer sodat ons Hom kan ken en sy wil kan onderskei. Rasionele insig en geestelike groei loop hand aan hand. In die Bybel transformeer God juis ons denke na sy waarheid toe, omdat Hy die God van waarheid is. Christelike geloof is nie ‘n uitklim uit die lig van rede na die duisternis van bygeloof nie. Dit is ‘n inskakel by die hoogste Lig van die rede wat self ‘n Persoon is: God.

Kortom, die Christelike wêreldbeskouing verwag dat bewussyn iets besonders en sentraals is, nie ‘n evolusionêre nagedagte nie. Dit sien in die eienskappe van ons gees die handtekening van ons Skepper. Soos Genesis ons leer, is ons na God se beeld gemaak; soos Johannes ons leer, is God die Logos wat lig aan ons verstand gee. Materialistiese pogings om gees te verklaar skiet te kort omdat hulle begin met ‘n verkeerde aanname: dat daar géén oorspronklike Gees is nie. Die geloof begin by die ware oorsprong: ”In die begin, God…” En daarom is alle werklikheid, óók die innerlike werklikheid van bewussyn, deur Hom en tot Hom.

Voorbeelde en denkeksperimente wat fisikalisme uitdaag

Teoretiese redenasies ter syde gestel, kan eenvoudige gedagtespeletjies wys hoe ontoereikend ’n suiwer fisiese verstaan van gees is. Twee bekende voorbeelde in die filosofie van bewussyn is:

• Thomas Nagel se vlermuis. Nagel het in ‘n beroemde opstel (1974) voorgestel dat ons daaraan moet dink wat dit sou beteken om ’n vlermuis te wees. ‘n Vlermuis navigeer en vang prooi deur eggo-nawaarning (ultraklank). Ons kan die biologie en fisika hiervan volledig beskryf, maar weet ons dan hoe dit voel om as ‘n vlermuis rond te vlieg en die wêreld te “sien” in ultraklank? Klaarblyklik nie. Daar is iets radikaal subjektiefs aan elke bewuste ervaring, ‘n perspektief van binne, wat ons nooit kan kry deur bloot eksterne, objektiewe inligting te versamel nie. Selfs al weet ek alles wat ‘n derdepersoon-waarnemer oor ‘n vlermuis kan weet, sal ek steeds nie weet “hoe dit is” om daardie ervaring te hê nie.

  Nagel se punt is dat bewussyn altyd ‘n subjektiewe karakter het wat nie gereduseer kan word tot ‘n derdepersoons-beskrywing nie. Dit onderstreep weer die Harde Probleem: om ‘n bewuste ervaring te verstaan, moet jy dit beleef. Geen hoeveelheid kennis van breinstrukture of gedrag gee vir jou daardie belewenis self nie. Fisikalistiese teorieë kan dus in beginsel nooit bewussyn volledig verklaar nie, want hulle verloor juis daardie eerste-persoon-essensie wanneer hulle dit probeer verobjektiveer. ‘n Wêreldbeskouing moet rekening hou met hierdie onuitwisbare subjektiwiteit. Teïsme doen dit deur te erken dat bewussyn van oorsprong af deel van die skepping is, deur ‘n God wat self bewussyn het. Materialisme staan hier leeghandig. (Nagel self, ‘n agnostikus, erken dat bewussyn die materialistiese wêreldbeeld ”hopeloos” maak.)

• Mary die kleurwetenskaplike. ‘n Speelse denkeksperiment deur Frank Jackson (1982) gaan so: Mary is ‘n briljante wetenskaplike wat haar hele lewe in ‘n swart-en-wit kamer spandeer het. Sy bestudeer die fisika en biologie van kleur-sig tot in die fynste detail. Sy weet alles wat daar wetenskaplik te wete is oor liggolflengtes, die oog, neuronale seine en die breinprosesse wanneer mense kleure sien. Sy het die wiskundige en fisiese beskrywing van rooi tot op die letter bemeester, maar sy het nog nooit self die kleur rooi gesien nie. Nou verlaat Mary vir die eerste keer haar monokromistiese kamer en sien ‘n rooi roos. Die vraag is: Leer sy iets nuuts? Volgens ons intuïsie: natuurlik, ja! Sy ontdek nou eers hoe rooi lyk, iets wat al haar boekekennis nie vir haar kon gee nie.

  Mary se nuwe ervaring wys daarop dat daar feite of kennis bestaan wat nie in fisiese terme uitgedruk kan word nie. Al sou sy al die fisiese inligting gehad het, was daar nog iets meer: die qualia van die belewenis van kleur. Hierdie gedagte-eksperiment ondersteun die idee dat bewussyn nie gereduseer kan word tot bloot inligting of fisiese beskrywing nie. Daar is ‘n ervaringsdimensie wat nie maklik in objektiewe terme vasgevang kan word nie. Vir ‘n streng fisikalis sal Mary se verhaal ongemaklik wees: as sy régtig alles van rooi geweet het, sou sy kon voorspel presies wat met haar brein gaan gebeur as sy uitgaan. Tog sou sy steeds nie geweet het hoe dit voel om rooi te sien alvorens sy dit ervaar nie. Dit impliseer daar is meer aan die mens as net ‘n “wetende brein.” Daar is ‘n ervarende subjek, ‘n siel met ‘n bewussyn wat eers in kontak met die werklikheid tree in die ontmoeting daarvan.

Sulke denkeksperimente is eenvoudig, maar doeltreffend om te wys dat ’n volledige en omvattende verklaring van die werklikheid nie net bestaan en wette moet verklaar nie, maar ook ervaring en belewing. Indien ’n wêreldbeskouing dit nie kan regkry nie, moet dit óf sy aansprake prysgee, óf ’n ander uitweg soek (soms hoor mens: “ja, bewussyn bestaan, maar dit ontsnap ons begrip nou – eendag sal ons dit verstaan.”). Intussen spreek hierdie voorbeelde tot ons almal se intuïsie: ons bewussyn is iets werkliks en besonders wat meer as net materie is. Dit behoort dus aan ‘n werklikheidsperspektief waar gees van begin af deel is van die storie, net soos die Bybel dit inderdaad bevestig.

’n Verwarrende moderne landskap

Jy mag jou afvra: Hoe gaan hedendaagse denkers hierdie raaisel te lyf? Die kort antwoord is: op soveel uiteenlopende maniere dat geen konsensus in sig is nie. Die filosoof en wetenskapsprogrammaker Robert Lawrence Kuhn het onlangs probeer om ‘n ”landskap van bewussynsverklarings” te versamel. Hy wys dat teorieë omtrent bewussyn op ‘n spektrum lê van fisies tot geestelik, met allerhande mengvorms tussenin.

Heel aan die een kant is daar streng materialisme wat sê bewussyn is net brein, klaar. Effens meer na die middel vind ons teorieë soos opkomende eienskappe (bewussyn “kom te voorskyn” wanneer materie ‘n sekere kompleksiteit bereik) en allerlei pogings om kwantumfisika by bewussyn te betrek. In die middel-area is ook idees soos die Geïntegreerde Inligtingsteorie (GIT), wat voorstel dat bewussyn gelykstaande is aan hoogs geïntegreerde inligting in ‘n stelsel. Nog verder na die regterkant kry ons moderne herlewings van panpsigisme: die gedagte dat bewussyn ‘n basiese eienskap van alle materie is, al is dit in eenvoudige vorms oral teenwoordig, wat in mensebreine dan saamkom tot volwaardige gees. Gaan ons nóg meer regs, kom ons by dualiste wat sê gees is ‘n afsonderlike werklikheid naast materie. Uiteindelik vind ons idealisme of gees-monisme, die idee dat alles in die heelal ten diepste Gees of Bewussyn is, en materie ‘n manifestasie daarvan. Verder is daar denkers wat ‘n goddelike komponent betrek, soos teïstiese dualiste wat sê die mens het ‘n siel van God ontvang, of panteïste wat glo die wêreldsiel is God.

Waarom hierdie mondvol? Omdat die blote feit van soveel uiteenlopende verklarings iets duidelik maak: die wetenskaplike en filosofiese gemeenskap is diep verdeeld oor hoe om bewussyn te verstaan. ‘n Paar meen nog “bewussyn is net ‘n illusie” (‘n uitsig waarvan ons reeds die probleme gesien het). Ander hoop vir een of ander “teorie van alles” wat ook gees sal insluit, maar dié drome is tot dusver leeg. Kuhn self merk op dat party verklarings mekaar direk weerspreek, en tog is geen van hulle oortuigend genoeg om die res uit te skakel nie. Dis asof moderne denkers almal ‘n olifant in ‘n donker vertrek betas: elkeen publiseer ‘n teorie oor wat hy voel, maar niemand sien die volle prentjie nie.

Vir ‘n Christen is hierdie verwarring op sigself insiggewend. Dit bevestig wat ons al vermoed het: as jy die gees probeer verklaar sonder om Gees (God) by jou prentjie in te sluit, tas jy in die duister rond. Jy sal allerhande teensprekende gedagtes moet probeer vereenselwig: bewussyn is tegelyk niks en alles, ‘n neweproduk en ‘n basiese bousteen, ‘n illusie en die enigste werklikheid. Suiwer natuurwetenskaplike vertrekpunte gee nie antwoorde nie. Soos Robert Kuhn tereg noem, hierdie probleem lê buite die bereik van eksperimentele bevestiging; dit gaan oor ons wêreldbeeld-grondslae. Die geestelike aard van bewussyn tree na vore juis in die onwilligheid daarvan om gemeganiseer te word. Dit verklaar waarom materialistiese wetenskap dikwels net swyg oor bewussyn. Hulle noem dit die “harde probleem” en hoop iemand anders sal dit eendag oplos. Dit pas net nie by die inerte-materie-benadering wat tot dusver so suksesvol was nie.

Christene kan hierby aansluit en sê dat bewussyn iets fundamenteels oor die heelal openbaar: dat die grondslag daarvan geestelik is, en dat Rede en Lewe die kern van werklikheid in beslag lê.

Ons bewussyn is ‘n venster waardeur ‘n lig skyn van die ewige Gees wat alle dinge onderhou. ‘n Stoflike heelal verduidelik nie gees nie, maar ‘n gees-gegronde heelal kan stof insluit. Die evangelie van Johannes sê: ”die Lig wat elke mens verlig, het in die wêreld gekom” (Joh. 1:9). God se Seun, die Logos, is daardie lig. Bewussyn is uiteindelik ‘n weerspieëling van Hom. Wanneer ons ons eie gees ondersoek, is dit gepas om in verwondering te sê: ”Dankie, Here, vir hierdie gawe wat my nader aan U hart bring.”

Noemenswaardige Aanhalings

“Consciousness is the most conspicuous obstacle to a comprehensive naturalism that relies only on the resources of physical science. The existence of consciousness seems to imply that the physical description of the universe… is only part of the truth.” -– Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos

• (Bewussyn is die duidelikste struikelblok vir ’n alomvattende naturalisme wat net op fisiese wetenskaplike bronne steun. Die feit van bewussyn impliseer dat ’n fisiese beskrywing van die heelal… slegs ’n deel van die waarheid uitmaak.)

“Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” -– C.S. Lewis, Miracles

• (Tensy ek in God glo, kan ek nie in denke glo nie; daarom kan ek nooit my denke gebruik om God se bestaan te ontken nie.)

Bybelkommentaar oor Sleutelteksgedeeltes

Genesis 1:27 – “En God het die mens geskape na sy beeld; na die beeld van God het Hy hom geskape; man en vrou het Hy hulle geskape.” (1933/53-vertaling)

In die heel eerste hoofstuk van die Bybel kry ons hierdie plegtige uitspraak. In kontras met die res van die skepping, wat deur opdragte voortkom (“Laat daar wees…”), neem God persoonliker aksie met die mens en maak hom “na sy beeld”. Hierdie vers lê die fondament vir ’n Bybelse antropologie: mense het ’n unieke posisie omdat hulle God se beelddraers is. Dit beteken onder andere dat ons, soos God, ’n rasionele en morele natuur het. Ons kan dink, skeppend wees en heers (vers 28 volg direk hierop met die opdrag om te heers oor die aarde) juis omdat God hierdie kapasiteite in ons ingeplant het. “Na die beeld van God” impliseer ook ’n verhouding: soos ’n seun die beeld van ’n vader dra, staan ons in ’n verhouding tot God as ons Vader. Hierdie kort vers is ryk: dit leer dat die mens nie ’n blote dier of voorwerp is nie, maar ’n spesiale skepping met ’n geestelike komponent wat direk van God af kom. Ons persoonlikheid, bewussyn en waardigheid vloei hieruit: in elke mens (man en vrou, let op die gelykheid daarin) is iets Goddeliks weerspieël. Dit gee aan elke mens ’n ontsaglike waarde en roeping. Geen materialistiese siening kan hierdie hoë status van die mens bevestig nie; dit kom uitsluitlik uit God se openbaring dat ons meer is as stof: ons is lewende siele gemaak deur die asem van die Almagtige (vgl. Gen. 2:7).

Johannes 1:1–5 – “In die begin was die Woord, en die Woord was by God, en die Woord was God. Hy was in die begin by God. Alle dinge het deur Hom ontstaan, en sonder Hom het nie een ding ontstaan wat ontstaan het nie. In Hom was lewe, en die lewe was die lig van die mense. En die lig skyn in die duisternis, en die duisternis het dit nie oorweldig nie.” (1933/53-vertaling)

Johannes se proloog is een van die diepste teologiese paragrawe in die Bybel. Hier leer ons dat Jesus Christus die ewige Woord (Logos) is – God self wat by God was (’n verwysing na die tweede Persoon van die Drie-eenheid). Vir ons doeleindes val die klem op wat die Logos doen: alle dinge ontstaan deur Hom, en in Hom is lewe en lig. Lewe verwys na beide fisiese lewe en geestelike lewe; lig dui op waarheid, verstand, openbaring. Wanneer Johannes sê “die lewe was die lig van die mense”, verbind hy die konsep van lewe direk aan insig en rede wat God aan mense gee. Ons kan dit só verstaan: omdat alle dinge deur die Logos geskep is, dra die skepping die stempel van rasionele orde (dink aan natuurwette en wiskunde wat die heelal verstaanbaar maak). En omdat die mens deur die Logos gemaak is, het ons die lig van verstand om dié orde te kan raaksien. Ons lig (ons vermoë om te ken) kom van die Lig (die Goddelike Verstand). Vers 5 beklemtoon dat hierdie lig sterker as duisternis is; die duisternis van sonde en onkunde kan dit nie uitdoof of oorweldig nie. Al het die sondeval die menslike verstand beïnvloed (ons dink nou dikwels verdorwe of verward), het God se Lig in Christus die duisternis binnegekom om ons weer ware lewe en kennis van God te gee. Hierdie teks is ’n “hermeneutiese sleutel” omdat dit wys dat rasionaliteit en geestelike lewe uit dieselfde bron kom: Jesus die Logos. Wanneer ons dus as gelowiges ons geloof verstaan en verdiep, wandel ons in die lig wat God vir menslike rede bedoel het. Ons sien ook dat God self die brug is tussen die onbegryplike God en die menslike verstand: die Woord word vlees (Joh. 1:14) om ons verlossing en verligting te bewerkstellig. Bewussyn en rede word hier op die hoogste vlak verhef: God self neem menslike natuur (insluitende ’n menslike bewussyn) aan, wat beteken dat menslike gees vir altyd verenig kan word met die goddelike. ’n Gedagte so ontsagwekkend dat Paulus uitroep: “Ons het die denke van Christus” (1 Kor. 2:16). Kortom, Johannes 1 leer dat God die oorsprong van alles is, én spesifiek die oorsprong van ons lewe en lig (bewussyn en verstand). Sonder Hom sou niks bestaan nie, en sonder sy lig sou ons niks kon ken nie.

Spreuke 20:27 – “Die gees van die mens is ’n lamp van die HERE, dit deursoek al die kamers van die binneste.” (1933/53-vertaling)

Hierdie wysheidspreuk erken dat die menslike gees (Hebreeus: neshamah, die lewensasem of siel) ’n besondere gawe van God is. Dit word beeldlik beskryf as ’n lamp van die Here binne-in die mens, wat die binneste kamers deursoek. Met ander woorde, God het aan die mens ’n innerlike lig gegee waarmee hy homself kan ondersoek en verstaan. Selfbewussyn, rede en gewete is alles funksies van hierdie “lamp” wat helder skyn in ons hart (die binneste kamers verteenwoordig ons gedagtes en motiewe). Dat dit “van die HERE” is, beteken God is die Bron van ons bewussyn en sin vir waarheid. Interessant genoeg wys kommentatore op ’n kontras: teenoor God se almag en onbegryplike wese (vers 26 en 24 van die hoofstuk praat oor konings en die Here se wete), erken hierdie vers dat God tog ’n stukkie lig in elke mens geplaas het (algemene genade sou teoloë dit noem) sodat ons kan onderskei tussen goed en kwaad en na Hom kan soek. In die lig van die Nuwe Testament besef ons dat hierdie “kers” in die mens egter beperk en soms flou is (deur sonde getemper), en dat ons die Lig van Christus nodig het om ten volle verlig te word (Joh. 1:9). Tog bly dit waar: elke mens het ’n God-gegewe bewussyn en gewete wat soos ’n kersvlammetjie die donker van ons diepste gedagtes kan belig. Dit maak ons onderskeibaar van diere. Hulle het nie so ’n lamp van die Here in hul binneste nie. Die tweede deel, “deursoek al die kamers van die binneste,” beklemtoon die ondersoekende aard van ons gees: ons kan onsself beoordeel, ons eie gedagtes dophou, introspeksie doen en onsself ken. ’n Materiële ding kan homself nie ken nie; ’n klip weet niks van sy binnekant nie. Maar God het ons geestelike vermoë gegee om selfs onsself dop te hou. Uiteindelik moet ons erken: hierdie “lampie” is van die Here. Ons selfkennis en gewete is daar omdat Hy, die Skepper, sy lig aan ons geleen het. Dit maak ons verantwoording teenoor Hom soveel groter: wat maak ons met die lig wat ons het? Gebruik ons dit om Hom te vind en te eer, of doof ons dit uit deur onsself te verhard? Spreuke 20:27 laat ons nadink oor die wonder dat God so naby elkeen van ons is. Hy het ’n vonk van sy lig in ons verstand geplaas.

Romeine 12:2 – “En word nie aan hierdie wêreld gelykvormig nie, maar word verander deur die vernuwing van julle gemoed, sodat julle kan beproef wat die goeie en welgevallige en volmaakte wil van God is.” (1933/53-vertaling)

Hierdie oproep van die apostel Paulus skakel direk met ons tema. Hy skryf aan gelowiges dat hulle denke (“gemoed” beteken verstand of denkingswyse) hernu moet word. Let op: God verwag van sy kinders nie om hulle verstand af te skakel in die geloof nie, maar eerder om dit te laat vernuwe. Die wêreld (die samelewing sonder God) oefen druk uit om ons in sy vorm te giet (“gelykvormig” te maak), ’n vorm wat dikwels bestaan uit verdraaide denkpatrone, leuens en selfgesentreerdheid. In stede daarvan moet Christen-gelowiges anders begin dink. Hulle denke moet getransformeer word deur die waarheid van God. Hier sien ons dat die Bybel ’n hoë siening van die menslike verstand het: dis juis die slagveld waar verandering plaasvind. God wil ons “koppe regkry” sodat ons harte en lewens kan volg. Wanneer ons denke deur sy Woord en Gees vernuwe word, kan ons uiteindelik onderskei wat sy wil is – wat waarlik goed en aanvaarbaar en volmaak is. Met ander woorde, geestelike groei behels intellektuele vernuwing: om ou leuens en skewe idees af te lê en God se gedagtes toe te laat om ons denke oor te neem. Hierdie vers weerspreek die idee dat geloof anti-intellektueel is. Inteendeel, dit bevestig dat ons rasionele bewussyn ’n sleutelinstrument is in God se proses om ons heilig te maak. Die vers gebruik die passiewe “word verander.” Dit impliseer dat God self deur sy Gees hierdie vernuwing in ons werk, terwyl ons ons daaraan moet onderwerp (deur sy Woord in ons gedagtes in te prent, ensovoorts). Vir ons huidige bespreking, is die implikasie duidelik: Die menslike verstand is nie bedoel om in rebellie teen God ontsyfer te word nie, maar om herskep te word volgens God se waarheid. Wanneer ’n materialis sê die brein is net ’n lukrake orgaan sonder hoër doel, kan ons wys op Paulus se lering: die verstand het ’n geestelike bestemming. Dit moet vernuwe word om God te ken. Ons gees is dus geskape met die potensiaal om ingeskakel te word op God se wil. Dit gee die menslike brein ’n byna heilige waardigheid: daardeur kan ons God se stem hoor en sy wil beproef. Geen stoflike evolusieteorie kan verklaar waarom blote materie so iets sou kon of móés doen nie. Maar as God die Skepper is, maak dit sin dat Hy sy skepsels se denke so ingerig het dat hulle met hul Skepper in verbinding kan tree. Romeine 12:2 is ’n troos en ’n uitdaging: God roep ons om anders te dink as die wêreld, en Hy maak dit moontlik deur ons denke nuut te maak. Die einddoel is kennis van sy wil, iets wat wys dat ons bewussyn se hoogste vervulling gevind word wanneer dit in lyn is met God se waarheid.

Besprekingsvrae

• Bewussyn en menswaardigheid: Hoe beïnvloed die wete dat jy na God se beeld geskape is, jou siening van jouself en ander mense? Indien die mens blote toevallige materie was, sou bewussyn en persoonlikheid net tydelike illusies wees – hoe sou dit menswaardige behandeling beïnvloed? Deel voorbeelde van hoedat ’n hoë of lae siening van bewussyn konkrete gevolge het in hoe ons mekaar behandel.

• Die Hardepad van Bewussyn: In watter opsig vind jy jou eie bewussyn moeilik om te verstaan? Dink aan dinge soos drome, kleure, smake, pyn of emosies – is daar iets waarvan jy voel: “Hoe op aarde kan my brein dít voortbring?” Hoe hanteer jy hierdie misterie in jou alledaagse lewe? Lei dit jou tot nuuskierigheid, tot verwondering, of dalk twyfel? Bespreek hoe ons as gelowiges oor die onverklaarbaarheid van sekere ervarings dink – sien ons dit as ’n gaping vir God se werking, of eenvoudig as ’n grens vir menslike wetenskap?

• Vrye wil en verantwoordelikheid: Glo jy dat jy werklik keuses kan maak, of voel jy soms alles is maar net “vooruit bepaal” deur jou biologie of omstandighede? Hoekom is dit belangrik vir jou om te glo in (of te twyfel aan) jou vrye wil? Indien ons geen ware keuse het nie, wat sou dit beteken vir hoe ons mense aanspreeklik hou (bv. in die regstelsel, of wanneer ons iemand vergewe of verwyt)? Hoe versoen jy God se soewereiniteit met ons menslike keuses – dink jy God se bestuur van die wêreld laat ruimte vir menslike wilsvryheid, en hoe versterk dit jou begrip van bewussyn?

• Rede en geloof: Het jy al die argument gehoor dat “geloof onredelik is” of dat wetenskap alle antwoorde het? Hoe reageer jy daarop in die lig van wat ons in hierdie sessie bespreek het oor die grense van ’n suiwer wetenskaplike verstaan van dinge soos bewussyn, moraliteit en rasionaliteit self? Deel of bespreek hoe jou Christelike geloof jou denkvermoë verbeter en lei, teenoor hoe dit dalk sou wees om sonder geloof te probeer sin maak van jou eie gedagtes. Kan jy saam met C.S. Lewis instem dat om in God te glo jou juis rede gee om jou denkprosesse te vertrou?

• Gees en verhouding met God: Romeine 12:2 praat van die vernuwing van die gemoed om God se wil te ken. Kan jy ’n tyd onthou toe jou denke (jou perspektief of verstaan van iets) verander het namate jou verhouding met God gegroei het? Deel gerus hoe ’n insig uit die Bybel of gebed jou manier van dink oor jouself, die wêreld of God verander het. Hoe verskil hierdie “vernuwings-proses” van blote intellektuele opleiding? Hoe ervaar jy die Heilige Gees se rol in jou gedagtes – byvoorbeeld om jou van verkeerde gedagtes te oortuig, of jou te herinner aan Skrifwaarhede wanneer jy dit nodig het? Hierdie vrae help ons prakties dink oor hoe ons bewussyn deel word van ons geestelike lewe: Waar sien jy die “lamp van die Here” in jou brand om jou nader aan Hom te trek?

Aanbevole Leeswerk

• J.P. Moreland – Consciousness and the Existence of God: A Theistic Argument (2008) ’n Grondige filosofiese werk deur ’n vooraanstaande Christen-filosoof. Moreland argumenteer dat die bestaan van onafhanklike, nie-reduseerbare bewussyn beter verklaar kan word deur te verwys na ’n immateriële siel en uiteindelik ’n Goddelike Gees, as wat dit kan deur enige materialistiese teorie. Hoewel tegnies en akademies van aard, bied die boek kragtige redenasies waarom die “argument vanuit bewussyn” ’n dwingende saak vir God se bestaan uitmaak.

• C.S. Lewis – Miracles (1947) In hierdie klassieke apologetiese werk ondersoek Lewis die gronde vir wonderwerke en bo-natuurlike ingrype. Veral relevant vir ons tema is hoofstuk 3-5, waar hy die “kardinale moeilikheid van naturalisme” bespreek – juis die probleem dat, as daar geen Intelligensie agter die heelal is nie, ons geen vertroue in ons eie denke kan hê nie. Met helder logika en kenmerkende beeldspraak (bv. die melkkan-voorbeeld) wys Lewis hoe rasionaliteit self ons lei na erkenning van ’n hoër Rasionele Bron. Die boek is met fiksie en voorbeelde geskryf en is toeganklik vir die algemene leser.

• Thomas Nagel – Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False (2012) Nagel is ’n ateïstiese filosoof wat tog een van die skerpste kritici van reduktiewe materialisme geword het. In hierdie opspraakwekkende werk argumenteer hy dat bewussyn, denke en waarde nie toevallige neweprodukte van blinde evolusie kan wees nie. Hy verwerp wel tradisionele teïsme, maar stel voor dat ’n soort teleologie of doelgerigtheid ingebou moet wees in die natuur. Lesers sal Nagel se eerlike erkenning van naturalisme se tekortkominge waardeer. Die boek daag aanvaarste aannames uit en bevestig ironies ons standpunt: dat die gees/materie-probleem die huidige wetenskaplike paradigma te bowe gaan. (Let wel: Nagel skryf uit ’n sekulêre oogpunt, maar baie van sy punte klop met Christelike insigte oor die uniekheid van verstand.)

• Alvin Plantinga – Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (2011) ’n Moderne klassieke teks deur een van die voorste lewende filosowe van godsdiens. Plantinga toon aan dat daar geen ware konflik tussen ware wetenskap en geloof in God is nie, maar wél ’n konflik tussen naturalistiese filosofie en die veronderstellings van ons denke. Hy bespreek die Evolutionêre Argument teen Naturalisme: die idee dat as ons brein net deur ongelykte evolusie gevorm is vir oorlewing, het ons geen rede om sy uitsette (geloofsoortuigings) as waar te ag nie – wat naturalisme ondermyn. Hierdie boek gee ’n wyer konteks, maar hoofstukke wat handel oor die betroubaarheid van kognitiewe vermoeëns en hoe bewussyn en rede eintlik verwag kan word in ’n teïstiese wêreld, sluit direk aan by ons tema. Dit is soms tegnies, maar Plantinga se humor en duidelike voorbeelde help om die argumente toeganklik te maak.

(Hierdie vier bronne bied ’n sterk fondament vir verdere denk oor bewussyn vanuit ’n Christelike perspektief. Moreland en Plantinga gee filosofiese diepte en argumente; Lewis bied ’n literêre en apologetiese benadering; Nagel gee ’n eerlike buitestander se kritiek op materialisme. Saam sal hulle jou help sien hoe geloof en rede hand-aan-hand gaan en hoe die raaisel van bewussyn helder word in die lig van God se waarheid.)

Bibliografie

Primêre Bron

• Hart, David Bentley. The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. (’n Moderne werk wat drie fundamentele aspekte van werklikheid – Bestaan, Bewussyn en Vervulling – ontleed as leidrade na God. Hierdie reeks is deels geïnspireer deur Hart se insigte oor hoe bewussyn binne ’n teïstiese raamwerk verstaan kan word.)

Filosofie van Bewussyn en Godsdiens

• Moreland, J.P. Consciousness and the Existence of God: A Theistic Argument. New York: Routledge, 2008. (Akademies geskrewe, stel die “argument vanuit bewussyn” sistematies uiteen. Moreland voer aan dat materialisme nie kan rekening hou met bewussyn se eienskappe nie, terwyl teïsme dit verwag. Bevat ook ’n goeie bespreking van nie-fisiese bewysgronde in die mens, soos libertariese vrye wil en intensionele objektiwiteit.)

• Plantinga, Alvin. “The Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism.” In Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism, 307–350. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. (Plantinga se invloedryke argument dat as mens sowel evolusie as filosofiese naturalisme aanhang, ondermyn jy die betroubaarheid van jou eie denke – ’n selfweerleggende posisie. Hy betoog dat geloof in ’n rasionele Skepper ’n meer koherente verklaring is vir hoekom ons kognitiewe vermoeëns oor die algemeen waarheid soek en vind.)

• Lewis, C.S. Miracles. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1947. (Sien veral Hoofstuk 3, “The Self-Contradiction of the Naturalist”, waar Lewis die argument maak dat blote materie geen bewussyn of geldige denke kan oplewer nie. Hy gebruik beeldryke taal om te wys dat as ons gedagtes net soos melk uit ’n omgestampte kan is, ons geen rede het om hul inhoude as *kaart van die werklikheid te vertrou nie. ’n Tydlose en leesbare klassieke.)*

• Nagel, Thomas. Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. (Nagel, ’n gerespekteerde filosoof van die gees, daag die wetenskaplike ortodoksie uit deur te sê dat die huidige materialistiese raamwerk onvoldoende is om bewussyn, denke en waardes te verklaar. Hy stel nie ’n God voor nie, maar sy erkenning dat iets wesenliks skort, word wyd aangehaal in die debat oor bewussyn. Die boek is tegnies op plekke, maar kort – en sy eerlikheid laat die leser met die vraag: as nie materialisme nie, *wat dan? Ons kursus beantwoord daardie vraag in teïsme.)*

• Kuhn, Robert Lawrence. “A Landscape of Consciousness: Toward a Taxonomy of Explanations.” ISSR Science & Religion Review (Augustus 2024). (’n Onlangse artikel/blog deur Kuhn – verbonde aan *Closer to Truth – waarin hy ’n omvattende lys maak van verskillende teorieë oor bewussyn, van die mees fisiese tot die mees geestelike. Hy gebruik ’n spektrum-model en bespreek oorvleueling en teenstrydighede tussen teorieë. Hierdie bron toon hoe kompleks en divers die veld is, en dien as bevestiging dat geen eenvoudige reduksionistiese antwoord algemeen aanvaar word nie. Kuhn se werk beklemtoon dat bewussyn verstaan moet word op ’n manier wat moontlik buite die grense van konvensionele natuurwetenskap strek.)*

Klassieke en Gedagte-eksperiment Bronne

• Nagel, Thomas. “What Is it Like to Be a Bat?” Philosophical Review 83, no. 4 (1974): 435–450. (Die baanbrekersartikel wat die onherleibare subjektiewe karakter van bewussyn bespreek. Nagel stel voor dat al weet ons alles oor ’n vlermuis se fisiologie, ons steeds nie sal weet *hoe dit is om ’n vlermuis te wees nie. Hierdie werk het die frase “what is it like” sinoniem gemaak met die bewussynsprobleem.)*

• Jackson, Frank. “Epiphenomenal Qualia.” The Philosophical Quarterly 32, no. 127 (1982): 127–136. (Artikel waarin Jackson die denkeksperiment van “Mary die kleurwetenskaplike” voorstel. Hy gebruik dit om te argumenteer dat daar *nie-fisiese kennis (qualia) is, wat impliseer dat fisikalisme onvolledig is. Alhoewel Jackson later sy posisie gewysig het, bly hierdie opstel ’n klassieke uitdaging aan enige full-blown materialistiese teorie van verstand.)*

• Chalmers, David. “Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 2, no. 3 (1995): 200–219. (Chalmers, ’n vooraanstaande bewussynsfilosoof, het dié invloedryke artikel geskryf waarin hy die onderskeid tref tussen die *“maklike probleme” van bewussyn (bv. funksies en gedrag verklaar) en die “moeilike probleem” (hoekom daar subjektiewe ervaring is). Hy argumenteer dat die moeilikste vraag onoplosbaar lyk met ons huidige begrip en dalk ’n nuwe benadering verg. Hierdie artikel populariseer die term “Hard Problem” en is relevant as agtergrond vir waarom qualia so ’n kopkrapper is in wetenskaplike kringe.)*

Bybelse Verwysings en Kommentaar

• Die Bybel: Afrikaans 1933/1953-vertaling. (Skrifaanhalings in hierdie lesing is uit die betroubare 1933/53-vertaling geneem. Sleutelteksgedeeltes sluit in Genesis 1:27 (die mens as beeld van God), Johannes 1:1–5 (Christus as die Goddelike Woord en Lig van mense), Spreuke 20:27 (die gees van die mens as lamp van die Here) en Romeine 12:2 (vernuwing van die gemoed).)

• Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (1706), kommentaar op Spreuke 20:27 en Johannes 1. (’n Toeganklike, vroom kommentaar uit die 18de eeu. By Spreuke 20:27 merk Henry op dat die mens ’n verstand het wat “soos ’n lamp deur God aangesteek is” – al is dit weens sonde nou gedemp, getuig dit steeds van ’n hoër Lig nodig vir volkome insig. By Johannes 1 beklemtoon hy dat alle lig wat mense het, geleende lig van Christus, die ewige Woord, is. Sulke ou kommentare verbind teologiese waarhede met praktiese toepassing in geloof.)

• Van Genderen, J. & Velema, W.H. Beknopte Gereformeerde Dogmatiek. Pretoria: VVW, 1992. (Hoofstuk oor die Mens as Beeld van God.) (Hierdie dogmatiek-handboek (oorspronklik in Nederlands, beskikbaar in Afrikaans) bespreek wat dit beteken dat die mens na God se beeld gemaak is – insluitend ons verstand en wil as deel van daardie beeld. Dit bied ‘n deeglike historiese en Skriftuurlike oorsig, en beklemtoon dat die volle herstel van die beeld van God in die mens tot stand kom deur die vernuwing in Christus – wat insluit die “vernuwing van ons denke” volgens Romeine 12:2.))

The Riddle of Spirit and Consciousness

Introduction

Every person daily experiences the mystery of consciousness, that inner world of thoughts and self-awareness that is so familiar, and yet inexplicably deep. We can analyse the stars and atoms scientifically, but when it comes to the spirit of the human being, even great thinkers stand amazed. What is consciousness? Why do materialistic approaches struggle to explain it? And how does the Christian faith shed light on our conscious spirit?

In previous sessions we saw how a classical theistic worldview understands God as the source of all reality: the ground of existence, reason and beatitude. Now we focus on the second aspect: consciousness (“Consciousness”). Our subjective experience points to something deeper than mere matter. Materialism fails to explain consciousness adequately, and the Image of God concept offers a more meaningful answer. Classical thought experiments (Nagel’s bat and Mary’s black-and-white world) show how physicalism falls short. The confusion in contemporary explanations confirms something that believers have always confessed: that consciousness is a spiritual quality that ultimately points to our Divine Origin.

What is consciousness?

When we speak of “consciousness”, we refer to a variety of features of our inner life. Several key aspects include:

• Subjective experience (qualia): The first-person feel of our experiences – how it feels to undergo something. No one else can know precisely your experience of the colour red or the taste of coffee “from the inside”. These qualia (Latin for “of what kind”) make consciousness intrinsically personal and inaccessible to purely third-person description.
• Self-awareness: The realisation that you are a self that thinks and experiences. Consciousness brings with it a sense of ”I” – I know that I exist and perceive. We can reflect on ourselves, examine our own thoughts and say “that is my thought”. This capacity to reflect on your own consciousness distinguishes the human spirit in a remarkable way.
• Intentionality: Thoughts are always about or directed at something. Our thinking has a quality of “aboutness”: you can think about your holiday or reflect on a mathematical problem. This directedness of the mind (called intentionality in philosophy) means our thoughts refer to realities outside our brain. A brain wave or neuron firing in itself has no meaningful content; but your idea can be about Paris or about justice.
• Rationality: Human consciousness can reason logically, discover truths and understand abstract concepts. We have the ability to grasp cause and effect, construct mathematical formulas and evaluate arguments for validity. These rational structures of thought correspond to the rational order in nature.
• Moral awareness: Finally, we experience an inner conscience and awareness of right and wrong. We do not merely make choices; we evaluate choices according to a moral standard. We experience guilt when we do wrong and inner peace when we do right. This moral dimension of consciousness implies an awareness of objective values that we did not invent ourselves, but to which our conscience connects us.

These five facets offer a glimpse into the richness of the human spirit. But they also pose a challenging question: How did these non-material qualities arise from a dead material universe (if that is all there is)? Why did mere atoms and chemical reactions ever begin to think and feel? Such a question leads us to the limitations of a materialistic understanding of reality.

The failure of materialistic explanations

A materialistic or physicalistic view insists that consciousness is ultimately nothing more than brain processes. In this view, human thoughts are merely a side-effect of electricity and chemistry in a complex brain. But how successful are such explanations really? Here are four areas where materialism stumbles:

The Hard Problem of Consciousness (Qualia)

Researchers distinguish between the “easy” and the “hard” problem of consciousness. The easy part (relatively speaking) is finding correlations between brain activity and experiences: for example, showing which part of the brain activates when you feel pain or hear music. The hard problem, however, asks: Why does any experience at all accompany those brain processes? Why is there something that it is like to be a human being – an inner experience – rather than just empty mechanics? A computer processes information without “feeling” anything. Even if we could map every neuronal spark in the brain in the finest detail, we would still have to explain how these physical events can be experienced from a first-person perspective.

This explanatory gap is illustrated by qualia: I can know everything about light wavelengths, but that does not explain how red feels to me when I look at a rose. Thomas Nagel famously asked: ”What is it like to be a bat?” What would it feel like to be a bat that “sees” in ultrasonic frequencies? No amount of biological data about the bat’s brain can make me understand that experience. There is therefore a subjective inside to consciousness that cannot be derived from an objective, third-person scientific description. Materialistic explanations hit a wall here: they can describe the workings of the brain, but they cannot explain the being of consciousness. This fundamental gap between matter and experience is what is called the ”Hard Problem of Consciousness” in philosophy.

Why “consciousness is an illusion” is self-refuting

Some materialists try to circumvent the hard problem by claiming that consciousness is actually an illusion. According to this view, our feeling that we truly have inner experiences is merely a sophisticated deception produced by the brain. In reality there is only dead matter and signals; the rest is a kind of hallucination. But on closer inspection such a view is self-refuting. For who is it that experiences this illusion? If you say “consciousness does not really exist, it is just a trick of the brain”, you are already presupposing that there is a conscious someone being deceived. An illusion is, after all, also an experience; it requires a conscious observer to be deceived. The statement “consciousness is an illusion” thus saws off the branch on which it sits: if it is true, it cannot be experienced or believed as true.

Even the materialist’s conviction that humans are merely matter exists as a thought in his consciousness. Matter alone could not “know” or formulate anything without consciousness. Add to this that our inner life is our primary access to any reality: all scientific observation and thought takes place through our conscious mind. To dismiss these conscious sources of knowledge as an illusion undermines the validity of all knowledge, including the materialist’s own theory. As one philosopher wryly observes: ”If consciousness is an illusion, who is there to believe it?” The attempt to reason consciousness away ends in a contradiction.

Intentionality and the non-physical directedness of thought

Already in the 19th century, philosophers such as Franz Brentano observed that intentionality – the “about-something-directedness” of thought – is a sign of the non-physical nature of mind. A material object does not inherently point to something else or mean something: a stone simply lies there, an electric current flows without any meaning. But thought always has content and meaning. You can now think about your mother, and that thought is about a real person outside you. Your brain consists of neurons and chemical bonds; none of those physical parts in themselves “refer” to “Mother”. Yet your thought represents your mother.

This connection – that a physical state (neurons firing) carries a non-physical meaningful content – is something remarkable. Materialism tries to reduce this to a kind of computer program: the brain is a sophisticated computer that manipulates symbols and thereby “generates” meaning. But this does not really explain intentionality; it merely shifts it around. (A computer’s symbols also only have meaning for an outside mind, the programmer or user; the machine itself knows nothing of what its symbols mean.) The directedness of thought points to an order of understanding that cannot be produced by matter alone. If the entire cosmos ultimately consisted only of purposelessly moving particles, it is difficult to understand how any of those particles could arrive at meaning and truth. Yet we experience that our thoughts can be true or false and refer to real entities. This aspect of mind simply does not fit into a naturalistic picture without explaining away the uniqueness of the mind. This echoes what the philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues: natural science can tell us how brain processes work, but not whether a thought is true or meaningful. For truth and meaning you need something more: a rational order greater than mere matter.

Free will and rationality versus biochemical determinism

Finally, materialism runs aground on the question of free will and rational choice. If a human being is merely a biochemical machine, subject to deterministic natural laws (or random quantum events), then it logically follows that every thought and every “choice” you make was in principle predetermined by chemistry and heredity, or simply bubbled up randomly. Your brain would function like a pre-set computer program, without genuine agency. But we do not experience ourselves that way: we experience that we can exercise choices, that we weigh rational motives, and that we are morally accountable for our deeds. If I simply must do what my brain’s material determinants prescribe, I cannot truly be held responsible. Yet we know instinctively that we can sometimes choose between good and evil, and that this choice is real.

Another implication: genuine rationality requires that we consider reasons and draw conclusions based on logic and truth. But if my thoughts are just the playing out of atomic movements that must happen, then I “consider” nothing; the outcome is already predetermined regardless of rational deliberation. My brain could believe 2+2=5 simply because a certain chemical reaction ran its course that way, not because a personal thinker assessed the validity of that claim. Materialistic determinism thus eats at the very root of reason itself. C.S. Lewis pointed to this: if I have no reason to trust my brain’s outputs because they are merely blind processes, then I also have no reason to believe in materialism itself, for that belief is then equally just a random brain output. In his book Miracles he writes: if there is no intelligent Creator behind the universe and no purposeful mind, ”it is merely a coincidence that the atoms in my skull happen to arrange themselves in a certain configuration and give me, as a by-product, the sensation of a thought”. He compares it to milk spilling from a knocked-over jug and by chance forming a map of London. Pure chance cannot produce true information. Lewis’s conclusion strikes at the heart: ”Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” If rational thought is valid, it is far more probable that our origin lies with a rational God than with blind matter.

The fact remains: a worldview that elevates matter above all ultimately undermines human consciousness. It must dismiss our inner experiences as trivial (an illusion), or it must reduce them to something they clearly are not: a brain process with no genuine subjective quality. It must cast suspicion on our thinking’s ability to reach truth, and declare our choices to be fiction. But then that worldview cuts its own throat, for why should we then believe what the materialist says, if his own thinking is merely a brain reaction?

If materialism were true, then consciousness would be something inexplicable and cumbersome, perhaps even an error of evolution. An alternative is to say: perhaps the uniqueness of consciousness shows precisely that materialism does not give a full picture of reality. Perhaps we need to broaden our worldview.

Christian theism as explanation

The Christian-believing worldview begins with a fundamental truth: God is Spirit (John 4:24), a personal, intellectual, volitional Being. The very first verse of the Bible already teaches that everything other than God was created (Gen. 1:1). Matter is not all that is eternal; a Spiritual God with mind and purpose designed matter. Consciousness is therefore not a late-emerging accident, but built into God’s plan from the beginning.

The pinnacle of creation according to Genesis is precisely the human being whom God makes ”in his image” (Gen. 1:27). This means that humans, unlike animals, were created with personal qualities that in some way reflect God’s own. Our mind and consciousness, our free will and capacity to love, indicate that we descend from a personal Mind rather than from blind chance. Where materialism struggles to explain how purposelessness would produce personality, the Bible states it plainly: a personal God wanted there to be personal creatures. The human spirit is therefore not a ghostly by-product but part of our design: ”the lamp of the LORD” within us, as Proverbs 20:27 poetically says.

The Bible further affirms that our mind and reason are not isolated wonders but are rooted in God’s own rationality. John 1:1 proclaims: ”In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Here God himself is identified with Logos, a Greek term meaning Word, Reason or Intelligence. All things were made through this Logos, says John 1:3, and in Him was life and the light of men (1:4). This rich text means among other things that God is the source of all life and all illumination of the human spirit. We can know truth and see light because the eternal Light (God’s Logos) addresses and sustains our intellectual capacity. “In your light do we see light,” prays Psalm 36:9 (ESV), implying that all our knowledge is a participation in God’s knowledge.

Classical Christian thought (as in Augustine and later in Reformation thinkers) teaches that when we discover the laws of logic or eternal truths, we are actually catching a glimpse of God’s eternal Logos. This makes sense: if our rational souls are created in his image, our thinking resonates with his thinking, though we are finite and he is infinite. That is why it is not surprising to a Christian that the universe makes sense to our consciousness: the universe was designed by the ultimate Intelligence. Our reason “works” because it is receptive to the Divine Reason that created all things.

The Imago Dei doctrine (Image of God) provides a framework for understanding consciousness. Rather than human consciousness being an inexplicable flicker in an otherwise dead cosmos, Scripture declares that consciousness belongs in a living, personal universe that God made. This does not mean the human spirit is equal to God’s; we are finite creatures. But it does mean we have capacities that extend far beyond merely material functions. Where can our thinking reach? To infinite realities, to God himself, for God’s image in us is given precisely so that we can enter into relationship with him. Our conscience has an inborn orientation toward God’s voice (Rom. 2:15), even though it can be dulled by sin. Our will is capable of choices that carry moral weight, something that makes sense because God created us as responsible agents who can love. And we have a self-awareness that lets us say “Abba, Father.” We know ourselves as a “self” in relation to a greater Self who made us.

Christian theism also emphasises that our brain does not in itself explain all our cognitive ability. There is a spiritual component to being human, what we traditionally call the soul or spirit, which works together with the body (an integral unity) but is not merely material. Ecclesiastes 12:7 says that at death “the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it” (ESV). God is thus the author and source of our spirit. Proverbs 20:27 calls the human spirit “the lamp of the LORD.” God has lit a light inside the human being to illuminate him from within. Though this “lamp” may burn dimmer because of sin, it remains God’s gift that makes our discernment and personality possible. In the New Testament we see how this spirit of the human must be made new and illuminated by the Holy Spirit: ”Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind” (Rom. 12:2, ESV). Here it is clearly stated that the mind (intellect) plays a key role in our sanctification: God wants to purify our thinking so that we can know him and discern his will. Rational insight and spiritual growth go hand in hand. In the Bible, God transforms precisely our thinking toward his truth, because he is the God of truth. Christian faith is not a climb out of the light of reason into the darkness of superstition. It is a plugging in to the highest Light of reason, which is itself a Person: God.

In short, the Christian worldview expects consciousness to be something special and central, not an evolutionary afterthought. It sees in the characteristics of our spirit the signature of our Creator. As Genesis teaches us, we are made in God’s image; as John teaches us, God is the Logos who gives light to our understanding. Materialistic attempts to explain mind fall short because they begin with a wrong assumption: that there is no original Spirit. Faith begins with the true origin: ”In the beginning, God…” And therefore all reality, including the inner reality of consciousness, is through him and to him.

Examples and thought experiments that challenge physicalism

Theoretical reasoning aside, simple thought experiments can show how inadequate a purely physical understanding of mind is. Two well-known examples in the philosophy of consciousness are:

• Thomas Nagel’s bat. In a famous essay (1974) Nagel proposed that we consider what it would mean to be a bat. A bat navigates and catches prey through echo-location (ultrasound). We can fully describe the biology and physics of this, but do we then know what it feels like to fly around as a bat and “see” the world in ultrasound? Clearly not. There is something radically subjective about every conscious experience – a perspective from inside – that we can never obtain by merely gathering external, objective information. Even if I knew everything that a third-person observer could know about a bat, I would still not know “what it is like” to have that experience.

  Nagel’s point is that consciousness always has a subjective character that cannot be reduced to a third-person description. This again underscores the Hard Problem: to understand a conscious experience, you must live it. No amount of knowledge of brain structures or behaviour gives you that experience itself. Physicalistic theories can therefore in principle never fully explain consciousness, because they lose precisely that first-person essence when they try to objectify it. A worldview must account for this indelible subjectivity. Theism does so by recognising that consciousness is part of creation from the very beginning, through a God who himself possesses consciousness. Materialism stands empty-handed here. (Nagel himself, an agnostic, acknowledges that consciousness makes the materialistic worldview ”hopeless”.)

• Mary the colour scientist. A playful thought experiment by Frank Jackson (1982) goes as follows: Mary is a brilliant scientist who has spent her entire life in a black-and-white room. She studies the physics and biology of colour vision in the finest detail. She knows everything there is to know scientifically about light wavelengths, the eye, neuronal signals and the brain processes when people see colours. She has mastered the mathematical and physical description of red down to the letter, but she has never herself seen the colour red. Now Mary leaves her monochromatic room for the first time and sees a red rose. The question is: Does she learn something new? According to our intuition: of course, yes! She now discovers for the first time what red looks like, something all her book knowledge could not give her.

  Mary’s new experience indicates that there are facts or knowledge that cannot be expressed in physical terms. Even if she had had all the physical information, there was still something more: the qualia of the experience of colour. This thought experiment supports the idea that consciousness cannot be reduced to mere information or physical description. There is an experiential dimension that cannot easily be captured in objective terms. For a strict physicalist, Mary’s story is uncomfortable: if she really knew everything about red, she should be able to predict exactly what would happen in her brain when she went outside. Yet she still would not have known what it feels like to see red before she experienced it. This implies there is more to the human being than just a “knowing brain.” There is an experiencing subject, a soul with a consciousness that only comes into contact with reality in the encounter with it.

Such thought experiments are simple but effective in showing that a complete and comprehensive explanation of reality must explain not only existence and laws, but also experience and awareness. If a worldview cannot manage this, it must either relinquish its claims or seek another way out (one sometimes hears: “yes, consciousness exists, but it escapes our understanding for now – one day we will understand it.”). In the meantime, these examples speak to all our intuitions: our consciousness is something real and special that is more than just matter. It thus belongs in a view of reality where spirit is part of the story from the outset, just as the Bible indeed affirms.

A confusing modern landscape

You may wonder: How do contemporary thinkers tackle this riddle? The short answer is: in so many divergent ways that no consensus is in sight. The philosopher and science programmer Robert Lawrence Kuhn recently attempted to compile a ”landscape of consciousness explanations”. He shows that theories about consciousness lie on a spectrum from physical to spiritual, with all kinds of hybrids in between.

At one end stands strict materialism saying consciousness is just the brain, end of story. Slightly more toward the middle we find theories such as emergent properties (consciousness “emerges” when matter reaches a certain complexity) and various attempts to involve quantum physics in consciousness. In the middle area are also ideas such as Integrated Information Theory (IIT), which proposes that consciousness is equivalent to highly integrated information in a system. Further to the right we find modern revivals of panpsychism: the idea that consciousness is a basic property of all matter, present everywhere in simple forms, which in human brains then comes together into full-blown mind. Going still further right, we encounter dualists who say mind is a separate reality alongside matter. Finally we find idealism or mind-monism, the idea that everything in the universe is fundamentally Mind or Consciousness, and matter is a manifestation thereof. Furthermore, there are thinkers who introduce a divine component, such as theistic dualists who say human beings have a soul received from God, or pantheists who believe the world-soul is God.

Why this mouthful? Because the very fact of so many divergent explanations makes something clear: the scientific and philosophical community is deeply divided over how to understand consciousness. Some still maintain “consciousness is just an illusion” (a view whose problems we have already seen). Others hope for some “theory of everything” that will also include mind, but such dreams have so far remained empty. Kuhn himself notes that some explanations directly contradict one another, and yet none is convincing enough to eliminate the rest. It is as if modern thinkers are all groping an elephant in a dark room: each publishes a theory about what he feels, but no one sees the full picture.

For a Christian, this confusion is in itself insightful. It confirms what we had already suspected: if you try to explain the mind without including Spirit (God) in your picture, you grope in the dark. You will have to try to reconcile all manner of contradictory ideas: consciousness is simultaneously nothing and everything, a by-product and a basic building block, an illusion and the only reality. Purely scientific starting points provide no answers. As Robert Kuhn rightly notes, this problem lies beyond the reach of experimental verification; it is about our worldview foundations. The spiritual nature of consciousness emerges precisely in its unwillingness to be mechanised. This explains why materialistic science often simply falls silent about consciousness. They call it the “hard problem” and hope someone else will solve it one day. It simply does not fit with the inert-matter approach that has been so successful thus far.

Christians can add here that consciousness reveals something fundamental about the universe: that its foundation is spiritual, and that Reason and Life occupy the core of reality.

Our consciousness is a window through which a light shines from the eternal Spirit who sustains all things. A material universe does not explain mind, but a mind-grounded universe can include matter. The gospel of John says: ”The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world” (John 1:9, ESV). God’s Son, the Logos, is that light. Consciousness is ultimately a reflection of him. When we examine our own spirit, it is fitting to say in wonder: ”Thank you, Lord, for this gift that draws me closer to your heart.”

Notable Quotations

“Consciousness is the most conspicuous obstacle to a comprehensive naturalism that relies only on the resources of physical science. The existence of consciousness seems to imply that the physical description of the universe… is only part of the truth.” – Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos

“Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.” – C.S. Lewis, Miracles

Bible Commentary on Key Passages

Genesis 1:27 – “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (ESV)

In the very first chapter of the Bible we receive this solemn statement. In contrast to the rest of creation, which comes forth through commands (“Let there be…”), God takes more personal action with the human being and makes him ”in his image”. This verse lays the foundation for a biblical anthropology: humans have a unique position because they are bearers of God’s image. This means, among other things, that we, like God, have a rational and moral nature. We can think, be creative and exercise dominion (verse 28 follows directly with the command to rule over the earth) precisely because God has planted these capacities within us. “In the image of God” also implies a relationship: just as a son bears the image of a father, we stand in a relationship with God as our Father. This short verse is rich: it teaches that the human being is not a mere animal or object but a special creation with a spiritual component that comes directly from God. Our personality, consciousness and dignity flow from this: in every human being (male and female, note the equality therein) something divine is reflected. This gives every person a tremendous value and calling. No materialistic view can affirm this high status of human beings; it comes exclusively from God’s revelation that we are more than dust: we are living souls made by the breath of the Almighty (cf. Gen. 2:7).

John 1:1–5 – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” (ESV)

John’s prologue is one of the deepest theological paragraphs in the Bible. Here we learn that Jesus Christ is the eternal Word (Logos) – God himself who was with God (a reference to the second Person of the Trinity). For our purposes the emphasis falls on what the Logos does: all things come into being through him, and in him is life and light. Life refers to both physical life and spiritual life; light denotes truth, understanding, revelation. When John says “the life was the light of men”, he connects the concept of life directly to the insight and reason that God gives to human beings. We can understand it thus: because all things were created through the Logos, creation bears the stamp of rational order (think of the natural laws and mathematics that make the universe comprehensible). And because the human being was made by the Logos, we have the light of understanding to perceive that order. Our light (our ability to know) comes from the Light (the Divine Mind). Verse 5 emphasises that this light is stronger than darkness; the darkness of sin and ignorance cannot extinguish or overcome it. Though the fall affected the human mind (we now often think in corrupt or confused ways), God’s Light in Christ entered the darkness to give us true life and knowledge of God again. This text is a “hermeneutical key” because it shows that rationality and spiritual life come from the same source: Jesus the Logos. When we as believers understand and deepen our faith, we walk in the light that God intended for human reason. We also see that God himself is the bridge between the incomprehensible God and the human understanding: the Word became flesh (John 1:14) to accomplish our salvation and enlightenment. Consciousness and reason are here elevated to the highest level: God himself assumes human nature (including a human consciousness), which means that the human spirit can be united with the divine forever. A thought so awe-inspiring that Paul exclaims: ”we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16, ESV). In short, John 1 teaches that God is the origin of everything, and specifically the origin of our life and light (consciousness and understanding). Without him nothing would exist, and without his light we could know nothing.

Proverbs 20:27 – “The spirit of man is the lamp of the LORD, searching all his innermost parts.” (ESV)

This proverb acknowledges that the human spirit (Hebrew: neshamah, the breath of life or soul) is a special gift from God. It is figuratively described as a lamp of the LORD inside the human being, which searches the innermost parts. In other words, God has given the human being an inner light with which he can examine and understand himself. Self-awareness, reason and conscience are all functions of this “lamp” that shines brightly in our heart (the innermost parts represent our thoughts and motives). That it is ”of the LORD” means God is the Source of our consciousness and sense of truth. Interestingly, commentators point to a contrast: over against God’s omnipotence and incomprehensible being (verses 26 and 24 of the chapter speak of kings and the Lord’s knowledge), this verse acknowledges that God has nonetheless placed a piece of light in every person (common grace, theologians would call it) so that we can distinguish between good and evil and seek after him. In the light of the New Testament we realise that this “candle” in the human being is, however, limited and sometimes dim (tempered by sin), and that we need the Light of Christ to be fully illuminated (John 1:9). Yet it remains true: every person has a God-given consciousness and conscience that, like a candle flame, can illuminate the darkness of our deepest thoughts. This makes us distinguishable from animals. They do not have such a lamp of the Lord in their innermost being. The second part, “searching all his innermost parts,” emphasises the inquiring nature of our spirit: we can judge ourselves, observe our own thoughts, practise introspection and know ourselves. A material thing cannot know itself; a stone knows nothing of its interior. But God has given us a spiritual capacity to even keep watch over ourselves. Ultimately we must acknowledge: this “little lamp” is from the Lord. Our self-knowledge and conscience are there because he, the Creator, has lent his light to us. This makes our accountability to him all the greater: what do we do with the light we have? Do we use it to find and honour him, or do we extinguish it by hardening ourselves? Proverbs 20:27 makes us ponder the wonder that God is so near to each of us. He has placed a spark of his light in our understanding.

Romans 12:2 – “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” (ESV)

This call by the apostle Paul connects directly with our theme. He writes to believers that their thinking (“mind” means intellect or way of thinking) must be renewed. Note: God does not expect his children to switch off their minds in faith, but rather to let them be renewed. The world (society without God) exerts pressure to mould us into its form (“to conform”), a form that often consists of twisted thought patterns, lies and self-centredness. Instead, Christian believers must begin to think differently. Their thinking must be transformed by the truth of God. Here we see that the Bible holds a high view of the human mind: it is precisely the battleground where change takes place. God wants to “get our heads right” so that our hearts and lives can follow. When our thinking is renewed by his Word and Spirit, we can ultimately discern what his will is – what is truly good, acceptable and perfect. In other words, spiritual growth involves intellectual renewal: laying aside old lies and distorted ideas and allowing God’s thoughts to take over our thinking. This verse contradicts the idea that faith is anti-intellectual. On the contrary, it confirms that our rational consciousness is a key instrument in God’s process of making us holy. The verse uses the passive “be transformed.” This implies that God himself works this renewal in us through his Spirit, while we must submit to it (by imprinting his Word in our thoughts, and so forth). For our present discussion, the implication is clear: The human mind is not meant to be deciphered in rebellion against God, but to be recreated according to God’s truth. When a materialist says the brain is merely a random organ without a higher purpose, we can point to Paul’s teaching: the mind has a spiritual destination. It must be renewed to know God. Our spirit is thus created with the potential to be tuned to God’s will. This gives the human brain an almost sacred dignity: through it we can hear God’s voice and discern his will. No material theory of evolution can explain why mere matter could or should do something like this. But if God is the Creator, it makes sense that he has configured his creatures’ thinking so that they can connect with their Creator. Romans 12:2 is both a comfort and a challenge: God calls us to think differently from the world, and he makes this possible by making our thinking new. The ultimate goal is knowledge of his will, something that shows that our consciousness finds its highest fulfilment when it is aligned with God’s truth.

Discussion Questions

• Consciousness and human dignity: How does the knowledge that you are created in God’s image influence your view of yourself and other people? If humans were mere accidental matter, consciousness and personality would be nothing but temporary illusions – how would that affect the dignified treatment of one another? Share examples of how a high or low view of consciousness has concrete consequences for how we treat each other.

• The Hard Road of Consciousness: In what ways do you find your own consciousness difficult to understand? Think about things like dreams, colours, tastes, pain or emotions – is there something about which you feel: “How on earth can my brain produce this?” How do you handle this mystery in your everyday life? Does it lead you to curiosity, to wonder, or perhaps to doubt? Discuss how we as believers think about the inexplicability of certain experiences – do we see it as a gap for God’s working, or simply as a limit to human science?

• Free will and responsibility: Do you believe you can truly make choices, or do you sometimes feel everything is simply “predetermined” by your biology or circumstances? Why is it important for you to believe in (or to doubt) your free will? If we have no true choice, what would that mean for how we hold people accountable (e.g. in the legal system, or when we forgive or blame someone)? How do you reconcile God’s sovereignty with our human choices – do you think God’s governance of the world leaves room for human freedom of will, and how does this strengthen your understanding of consciousness?

• Reason and faith: Have you ever heard the argument that “faith is unreasonable” or that science has all the answers? How do you respond in light of what we discussed in this session about the limits of a purely scientific understanding of things like consciousness, morality and rationality itself? Share or discuss how your Christian faith improves and guides your thinking, as opposed to how it might be to try to make sense of your own thoughts without faith. Can you agree with C.S. Lewis that believing in God gives you reason to trust your thought processes?

• Spirit and relationship with God: Romans 12:2 speaks of the renewal of the mind to know God’s will. Can you recall a time when your thinking (your perspective or understanding of something) changed as your relationship with God grew? Feel free to share how an insight from the Bible or prayer changed your way of thinking about yourself, the world or God. How does this “renewal process” differ from mere intellectual training? How do you experience the Holy Spirit’s role in your thoughts – for example, convicting you of wrong thoughts, or reminding you of Scripture truths when you need them? These questions help us think practically about how our consciousness becomes part of our spiritual life: Where do you see the ”lamp of the Lord” burning within you to draw you closer to him?

Recommended Reading

• J.P. Moreland – Consciousness and the Existence of God: A Theistic Argument (2008) A thorough philosophical work by a leading Christian philosopher. Moreland argues that the existence of independent, non-reducible consciousness can be better explained by referring to an immaterial soul and ultimately a Divine Spirit than by any materialistic theory. Although technical and academic in nature, the book offers powerful arguments for why the ”argument from consciousness” makes a compelling case for God’s existence.

• C.S. Lewis – Miracles (1947) In this classic apologetic work, Lewis examines the grounds for miracles and supernatural intervention. Particularly relevant to our theme are chapters 3–5, where he discusses the ”cardinal difficulty of naturalism” – precisely the problem that, if there is no Intelligence behind the universe, we can have no confidence in our own thinking. With clear logic and characteristic imagery (e.g. the milk-jug example), Lewis shows how rationality itself leads us to acknowledge a higher Rational Source. The book is written with fiction and examples and is accessible to the general reader.

• Thomas Nagel – Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False (2012) Nagel is an atheistic philosopher who has nevertheless become one of the sharpest critics of reductive materialism. In this provocative work he argues that consciousness, thought and value cannot be accidental by-products of blind evolution. He does reject traditional theism, but proposes that some kind of teleology or purposefulness must be built into nature. Readers will appreciate Nagel’s honest acknowledgement of naturalism’s shortcomings. The book challenges accepted assumptions and ironically confirms our standpoint: that the mind/matter problem transcends the current scientific paradigm. (Note: Nagel writes from a secular viewpoint, but many of his points agree with Christian insights about the uniqueness of mind.)

• Alvin Plantinga – Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (2011) A modern classic text by one of the leading living philosophers of religion. Plantinga demonstrates that there is no true conflict between genuine science and belief in God, but rather a conflict between naturalistic philosophy and the presuppositions of our thinking. He discusses the Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism: the idea that if our brain was formed merely by undirected evolution for survival, we have no reason to regard its outputs (beliefs) as true – which undermines naturalism. This book provides a wider context, but chapters dealing with the reliability of cognitive faculties and how consciousness and reason can actually be expected in a theistic world connect directly to our theme. It is sometimes technical, but Plantinga’s humour and clear examples help make the arguments accessible.

(These four sources offer a strong foundation for further thinking about consciousness from a Christian perspective. Moreland and Plantinga provide philosophical depth and arguments; Lewis offers a literary and apologetic approach; Nagel provides an honest outsider’s critique of materialism. Together they will help you see how faith and reason go hand in hand and how the riddle of consciousness becomes clearer in the light of God’s truth.)

Bibliography

Primary Source

• Hart, David Bentley. The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. (A modern work analysing three fundamental aspects of reality – Existence, Consciousness and Bliss – as clues pointing to God. This series is partly inspired by Hart’s insights into how consciousness can be understood within a theistic framework.)

Philosophy of Consciousness and Religion

• Moreland, J.P. Consciousness and the Existence of God: A Theistic Argument. New York: Routledge, 2008. (Academically written, it systematically sets out the “argument from consciousness”. Moreland argues that materialism cannot account for the properties of consciousness, while theism expects them. Also contains a good discussion of non-physical evidence in the human being, such as libertarian free will and intentional objectivity.)

• Plantinga, Alvin. “The Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism.” In Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism, 307–350. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. (Plantinga’s influential argument that if one holds to both evolution and philosophical naturalism, one undermines the reliability of one’s own thinking – a self-refuting position. He argues that belief in a rational Creator is a more coherent explanation for why our cognitive faculties generally seek and find truth.)

• Lewis, C.S. Miracles. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1947. (See especially Chapter 3, “The Self-Contradiction of the Naturalist”, where Lewis makes the argument that mere matter cannot produce consciousness or valid thought. He uses vivid language to show that if our thoughts are just like milk from a knocked-over jug, we have no reason to trust their contents as a *map of reality. A timeless and readable classic.)*

• Nagel, Thomas. Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. (Nagel, a respected philosopher of mind, challenges scientific orthodoxy by saying that the current materialistic framework is insufficient to explain consciousness, thought and values. He does not propose a God, but his acknowledgement that something fundamentally is amiss is widely cited in the consciousness debate. The book is technical in places, but short – and his honesty leaves the reader with the question: if not materialism, *then what? Our course answers that question in theism.)*

• Kuhn, Robert Lawrence. “A Landscape of Consciousness: Toward a Taxonomy of Explanations.” ISSR Science & Religion Review (August 2024). (A recent article/blog by Kuhn – connected to *Closer to Truth – in which he compiles a comprehensive list of different theories of consciousness, from the most physical to the most spiritual. He uses a spectrum model and discusses overlaps and contradictions between theories. This source shows how complex and diverse the field is, and serves as confirmation that no simple reductionist answer is generally accepted. Kuhn’s work emphasises that consciousness must be understood in a way that potentially extends beyond the boundaries of conventional natural science.)*

Classical and Thought-Experiment Sources

• Nagel, Thomas. “What Is it Like to Be a Bat?” Philosophical Review 83, no. 4 (1974): 435–450. (The ground-breaking article discussing the irreducible subjective character of consciousness. Nagel proposes that even if we knew everything about a bat’s physiology, we would still not know *what it is like to be a bat. This work made the phrase “what is it like” synonymous with the consciousness problem.)*

• Jackson, Frank. “Epiphenomenal Qualia.” The Philosophical Quarterly 32, no. 127 (1982): 127–136. (The article in which Jackson proposes the thought experiment of “Mary the colour scientist”. He uses it to argue that there is *non-physical knowledge (qualia), which implies that physicalism is incomplete. Although Jackson later modified his position, this essay remains a classic challenge to any full-blown materialistic theory of mind.)*

• Chalmers, David. “Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 2, no. 3 (1995): 200–219. (Chalmers, a leading consciousness philosopher, wrote this influential article in which he draws the distinction between the *”easy problems” of consciousness (e.g. explaining functions and behaviour) and the ”hard problem” (why there is subjective experience). He argues that the most difficult question appears unsolvable with our current understanding and may require a new approach. This article popularised the term “Hard Problem” and is relevant as background for why qualia are such a puzzle in scientific circles.)*

Biblical References and Commentary

• The Bible: English Standard Version (ESV). (Scripture quotations in this lesson are drawn from the ESV. Key passages include Genesis 1:27 (the human being as image of God), John 1:1–5 (Christ as the Divine Word and Light of men), Proverbs 20:27 (the spirit of man as the lamp of the Lord) and Romans 12:2 (renewal of the mind).)

• Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (1706), commentary on Proverbs 20:27 and John 1. (An accessible, devout commentary from the 18th century. At Proverbs 20:27 Henry notes that the human being has a mind “like a lamp lit by God” – though now dimmed by sin, it still testifies to a higher Light needed for full insight. At John 1 he emphasises that all light that humans have is borrowed light from Christ, the eternal Word. Such old commentaries connect theological truths with practical application in faith.)

• Van Genderen, J. & Velema, W.H. Concise Reformed Dogmatics. Translated by G. Bilkes. Phillipsburg: P&R, 2008. (Chapter on Man as Image of God.) (This dogmatics handbook discusses what it means that the human being is made in God’s image – including our understanding and will as part of that image. It offers a thorough historical and scriptural survey, and emphasises that the full restoration of the image of God in the human being comes about through renewal in Christ – which includes the “renewal of our mind” according to Romans 12:2.)