Customer Reviews

Are Souls Real?

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I am writing this review in hopes of strongly encouraging others to try Jerome Elbert's book. "Are Souls Real?" is an intellectual journey sure to be enjoyed by both the generalist and specialist alike; the former will love its broad scope and survey of various fields of inquiry, while the latter will appreciate Elbert's ability to explain the details and nitty-gritty through it all.

When you think of the concept of a soul, do you think of your own or others' religious beliefs? Elbert offers such readers much to chew on here, providing a lucid and engrossing introduction to the world of Biblical scholarship and criticism.

Do you equate the idea of soul with that of "mind"? Do you ever wonder what it is that wonders, this thing called mind? Is the mind the brain? Any and all of these questions are tackled by Elbert in the book, and I cannot conceive of a thoughtful reader who will not find much to ponder on these pages.

Do you ever wonder just what someone means when they talk of free will? Is there such a thing, and does it require a soul? Does the last question seem, for whatever reason, preposterous to even ask? Elbert does ask these questions, and provides some rather convincing answers, drawing on the latest and best information we have gleaned from science to lead the way.

If any of the above questions piqued your interest, you will probably find Are Souls Real? a very worthwhile read. In the process of investigating the notion of soul, Elbert catches the reader up on the latest in the physical and life sciences, allowing one a degree of literacy perfect for acting as a springboard to further reading in the world of popular science writing. Elbert's coverage of the latest in New Testament scholarship seems particularly well-suited to "breaking in" those never before exposed to such ideas, as he is quite adept at summarizing the ideas and work of some of the biggest scholars in the field.

Are Souls Real? Why don't you read the book and decide for yourself?

This is an excellent book and one I would encourage every thinking person to read. I have downgraded it a little because it ends with some pointless moralizing, but it is a superb introduction to the history of the soul, the history of the universe, contempory theory on the workings of the brain, discussions of free will, determinism, chaos theory and quantum physics. This book will expose the lay reader to the implications of current thinking in various disciplines as it relates to the existence of the soul or other non-material principle of causation. In short, this book is a great introduction to thinking about these issues, and reading it will send you after more reading on the subject. Highly recommended.

This is a very important book and I really hope I can convince people to read it. The author very effectively takes on the challenge of answering: "What does it mean to be human? Do we have souls?"

The author combines the research of various fields to investigate the reality of the soul. The book is written in a very accessible manner and, many times, there is a sentence or paragraph or section that very simply and surprisingly makes a point crystal clear. Throughout, the author never seems to have an "ax to grind," he just presents his material in a very refreshingly logical way.

Early in the book, the author includes a wonderful discussion on how science works and how religion and science have "gotten along." He then researches some ancient ideas on the soul. Since Christianity is so prevalent, the author goes into some details about its origins. He gets the reader caught up on much of the recent research (by Burton Mack, Robert Funk and others) on Jesus and the New Testament. He also traces the origins of some of the ancient beliefs and stories. This historical look includes many of the people who have had an impact on modern-day ideas of the soul, such as Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, and Descartes.

He then discusses such things as the Big Bang, the formation of our solar system, the origin of life, and some of the fascinating theories of today. Don't worry, you don't have to be a physicist to understand!

The next part of the book discusses consciousness and other mysterious human abilities. He presents some recent and fascinating research on the brain. (Did you know what an electrified probe can make your brain do?) He discusses the subconscious and conscious parts of the brain, visual processing, innate values, attached values, feelings, and free will.

From all his research and study, the author comes to some very convincing conclusions. In the last section of the book, he gives some thoughts on what it would mean to one's self and to society if the views he presented were adopted. Near the end of the book, there is an excellent essay on why people believe in a "personal God."

I doubt any reader of this review would deny that humans make choices and that having knowledge helps us make better choices. Read this book. Become more knowledgeable. Make better choices.

In our age charlatans can make fortunes from the ignorant and credulous by selling books and hosting television shows about "talking with the dead," or else frightening them about missing the "rapture." It's refreshing to read a scientifically enlightened critique of this primitive muddle about the "supernatural soul" and its alleged condition after death.

Elbert is not likely to reach more than a few hundred readers with his hard but necessary message, but he should be commended for integrating into one volume a lot of what modern science has discovered about reality, especially about how human consciousness apparently works. His emphasis that our conscious awareness is ignorant of what most of the brain is doing helps to explain why we can experience moral ought-thoughts that seem mysterious in origin, but in fact just drop into working memory from unconscious mental processes, like an unsolicited memory of some event from long ago. Christian apologists (e.g., C.S. Lewis) argue that the moral sense has to derive from some supernatural source, but the findings of modern cognitive neuroscience suggests that materialistic explanations are sufficient. Definitely worth reading, though like most Prometheus hardcovers I think it's a bit overpriced.

As a Ph.D. Physicist, Elbert has written a coherent, easily read volume that explores the question of how the universe and conscious life originated. He has mined the rich veins of recent discovery and thought in Physics, and Biology to bring into sharper focus long suspected principles of cosmic creation and the rise of life on planet Earth. Upon reading this 400-page volume, the reader will doubtless appreciate the quality of the work that culminates 25 years of avocational study reviewing over 200 cited references, and years as a research scientist. From earliest pagan ideas about the human soul, Elbert proceeds through Judaism into Christianity. He concludes that all may not be well with these early traditional beliefs if they are examined under the glass of scientific inquiry. The author contends that all is not well with the extreme but preponderant soul belief identified as the "comprehensive immortal soul that gives the body life, personality, emotions, mental abilities, personal identity, and consciousness. Except for life, these are all supposed to continue after a person dies." He visits modern theories of chaos, nuclear structure, quantum mechanics, natural selection, DNA, and neurological studies in a well-written style that should appeal to a wide range of readers.

An interesting, deeply researched and considered work that spends much of the time debunking the idea of the mind-body dualism. Dr. Elbert submits that the "soul" is merely brain created consciousness. By way of conclusion, in an effort to allay the fear of death in a soul-less physical world, Dr. Elbert submits the rather depressing idea that "after you die, there will be no experiences, including the sense of time." Somehow, I did not feel better to know this. What Dr. Elbert ignores is that due to man's wiring, including the self-preservation instinct, fear of death is the main-spring of all human activity.

Further, his rather banal idea, that there is only a physical world, and the supernatural be damned, is just as limiting and narrow-minded as his opponents view.

Thus, the tome essentially fails to enlighten and ultimately reaches a disappointing climax. In the end, he told me, albeit quite well, what I already knew, but added nothing else.

This book is genuinely a valuable gift to society. It presents a thorough, well documented, eminently thoughtful, even handed appraisal of the concept of the soul and of free will. The factual material presented is readily distinguishable from opinion. The book is well written and easily read. The author's sincerity and moral integrity come through very clearly. Religionists and non-religionists alike will find it interesting as well as thought provoking and will benefit from reading it.

Jerome W. Elbert's Are Souls Real? reviews the ancient origins of the soul idea, examines Christian and pagan beliefs alike, then throws in advances in science and how new understandings of consciousness have evoked new theories. The result is a fine contemporary discourse on the idea of the soul.

The premise of this book is a good one - there are few books available that offer an overview of relevant research on the concept of the soul. Unfortunately, as is so often the case with Prometheus titles, this one turned out to be pretty worthless (especially at that price! [Price] for a hardcover?! I'm glad I got it from a library). Elbert makes several major errors in research and analysis:

1)Elbert's use of Robert Funk, Marcus Borg, John Crossan, and other Jesus Seminar members as representative of real New Testament scholarship is simply inexcusably dishonest and cannot help but raise strong suspicions that Elbert is merely seeking support for conclusions he had already decided upon. The Seminar is a publicity-seeking, ideologically driven fringe group that uses shoddy methods and unsupportable analysis to reach its conclusions. For a mainstream academic perspective on the historicity of the New Testament, try Phillip Jenkins' "The Hidden Gospels" - it deftly refutes the Seminar. Either Elbert was unaware of the Seminar's marginal scholarly status (which is hardly difficult to discover) or he ignored it to further his agenda; either is unacceptable in a serious work.

2) He assumes that the "religious" (which he often seems to use as a synonym for "Christian") definition of a soul is equal to the current neurological and psychological concepts of mind and consciousness. This is flat out wrong, as a little research would have shown - Elbert here sets up a straw man which he can then easily knock down. Christian theology in fact holds that the "soul" is much more than, but includes at a minimum, memory, personality, intelligence, reasoning ability, sense of self, personal and sensory awareness, and emotion. Each of these is a separate concept that should at a minimum have been examined individually, not glossed over by breezily equating "soul" with "mind". Elbert should also have examined Christian and other religious works on the nature of the soul - there are certainly plenty available, even if most focus on a theological or philosophical angle. He has apparently not bothered to do this, though, and as a result consistently misrepresents religious ideas - so consistently that one must suspect a willful blindness at work. If he had examined the *actual* Christian conception of the soul, instead of his straw man, this would have been a much more interesting and useful book. As it stands, Elbert is arguing against an idea that most Christians don't hold anyway.

Further, as a reviewer below notes, Christianity does not posit (as Buddhism and Hinduism do) that we are essentially spirits that will either reincarnate or return to some primitive essence; Christians believe that the soul and body were created to complement each other and thus it is natural that they should be linked (ie, in the form of physical memory centers in the brain). Nowhere does Elbert interact with this position, or acknowledge its existence. This category confusion, whether deliberate or not, is a fundamental failing that taints the entire book.

3)When sticking to medical and scientific information, Elbert isn't bad, although his conclusions often overreach the implications of the actual data. However, his foray into social policy is simply frightening. His recommendations that instruction in situational ethics be mandatory in schools, combined with a conviction that education will result in the demise of religion (again, read "Christianity") shows an igorance of basic political history and comes dangerously close to advocacy of totalitarianism. Elbert in this section also seems unaware of the influences of postmodernism and cultural relativism on the academy, influences which would relegate even his conception of "ethics" to the [stuff] as overly "Western". Finally, his suggestions here give the lie to the oft-heard atheist claim that "we don't really want to wipe out religion, just have our viewpoints heard"! Clearly, Elbert does want to wipe out religion, and here his semi-hidden agenda shines through.

4) His occasional attacks on supernaturalism, which he seems to equate with metaphysics, make little sense and are largely irrelevant in the context in which he makes them. He misses the point that the soul is not primarily a supernatural idea, but a metaphysical one, which makes his discussion of supernaturalism somewhat nonsensical. Obviously most religions (with the possible exception of Buddhism, which is in many ways more analagous to a philosophy) contain supernatural elements, but the concept of the soul is not one of them, as it does not require the violation of known physical laws. Again, category confusion sinks Elbert's analysis.

A long review, but to sum up: this is a work with a decent idea but shoddy, intellectually dishonest execution and a certain mean-spiritedness in the writing. I'd love to see a good treatment of this topic, but this isn't it. Not worth your money or your time.

A promising effort which "loses its soul" as it moves away from hard science into a predictable (!) bleat for determinism. The discussion on neuroscience would improve substantially with the added ideas of Calvin and Kauffman. About twice as long as it should be too - a three star effort gets docked one star for unnecessary time-wasting.