"Can science tell us anything about the soul? A lovely clear answer came from Iain McGilchrist, talking at the RSA this week. "No," he said, and the room filled with laughter, not entirely kindly. He had been responding to a questioner who wanted to know whether the increasing sophistication of brain imaging would not reveal the soul to be an illusion, an unnecessary imprecision."
Brown agrees with McGilchrist's belief that science is only one way of knowing rather than a value-free 'view from nowhere'.
However, Brown believes that science has a good deal to tell us about what souls are not. He argues, for example, that the Big Bang Theory gives us reason to suppose that the soul is not immortal since it shows that whilst something can be enduring and perpetual, it cannot go on forever without beginning or end.
|'Science and philosophy are like|
the two sides of an arch.'
This seems to me to be exactly the position that McGilchrist has argued for elsewhere and I wonder if his remark at the RSA has been taken somewhat out of context. All the same, it's useful to be reminded that both sides of the 'arch' Brown describes are equally important.