This article is
delicated to my
brother-in-law
Engineer Ong Geok
Soo who always tell
me there is no soul
The Breath of Life Beyond Biology
Since ancient times, philosophers and cultures across civilizations have believed in a vital force, an invisible essence or energy that animates the living. This concept, known variously as the “vital force,” élan vital, prana, or qi, was seen as the mysterious current that separates the living from the non-living. Many traditions still uphold the belief that this force resides within the body and departs when life ends, leaving only a shell behind.
Modern science, however, dismisses the idea of such a non-physical “life energy.” It attributes life to the intricate interplay of chemistry and physics, to the organized dance of molecules, cells, and biochemical reactions. According to this view, life is not a mystical essence but an emergent property of complex systems capable of self-regulation, metabolism, and reproduction.
From Vitalism to Biochemistry
Vitalism once dominated biological thought. Its decline began in 1828, when German chemist Friedrich Wöhler synthesized urea, an organic compound, from inorganic materials. This landmark experiment shattered the notion that organic molecules required a “vital spark” from living organisms. Since then, molecular biology and biochemistry have demonstrated that all life processes, metabolism, growth, reproduction, and even consciousness, arise from intricate chemical and physical interactions obeying natural laws.
Urea is not life itself. It is merely an inert molecule, devoid of awareness, motion, or purpose. The puzzle remains: why do the same molecules that form a living being lose all vitality upon death?
When a person or animal dies, their DNA, proteins, and electrolytes remain initially intact. Chemically, little changes in the first moments after death, and yet the phenomenon we call life vanishes. The laws of chemistry alone do not fully explain why the same atoms arranged in the same way no longer sustain consciousness or motion. The “spark of life” seems to be more than the sum of its molecular parts.
The Unresolved Mystery of Death and Consciousness
Science explains death as the irreversible breakdown of physiological integration, the failure of circulation, respiration, and neural activity. Once homeostasis collapses, the system cannot self-regulate, and the organism ceases to live. Yet, this explanation still leaves a lingering question: what is the nature of the consciousness that departs when the brain stops functioning?
Accounts of near-death experiences (NDEs) challenge materialistic explanations. Individuals report traveling through dark tunnels, perceiving radiant light, or meeting deceased relatives in serene landscapes. More remarkably, some people born blind describe vivid visual scenes during NDEs, despite never having experienced sight.
Neuroscientists offer biochemical explanations: oxygen deprivation, endorphin release, or surges of neurotransmitters that cause hallucinations. However, such claims remain speculative. No ethically permissible experiment can measure real-time brain chemistry in dying individuals to confirm such theories. The hypothesis of “chemical hallucination” is itself untested and untestable.
Science, Faith, and the Boundaries of Knowledge
At this frontier, we must recognize the limitations of science. Science investigates matter, energy, and forces, the observable and measurable. But not everything that exists must be measurable. As the philosopher Karl Popper noted, “Science may be said to be the art of the soluble,” it can only solve what lies within its methodological reach.
Concepts like the soul, spirit, or divine breath are non-physical by definition and therefore fall beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. The inability to measure them does not disprove their existence; it merely reflects the boundaries of our instruments and intellect. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The Scriptural Perspective
The Hebrew Scriptures give a profound metaphysical description of life’s origin. In Genesis 2:7 (KJV), it is written:
“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
This verse captures the union of the material and the immaterial — the dust of the earth and the divine breath. Similarly, Ephesians 6:12 reminds us that our struggles extend beyond the physical:
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers… and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”
Such passages remind us that not all realities are physical. Science may describe how life functions, but faith asks why life exists — and perhaps who breathes it into being.
Complementary Ways of Knowing
Science and spirituality need not be enemies. They are complementary ways of seeking truth. Science explores the mechanisms of creation; theology explores its meaning. As Albert Einstein himself said:
“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”
A mature worldview accepts that both are necessary — science to understand the structure of life, and faith to understand its purpose.
Conclusion
The mystery of life endures because it sits at the intersection of two domains: the measurable and the immeasurable, the temporal and the eternal. Science may one day decode the deepest workings of the cell, but whether it will ever grasp the essence of being alive, that invisible breath that transforms dust into a living soul - remains uncertain.
Perhaps, as I like to conclude, humility is the truest mark of both science and faith. For in acknowledging our limits, we open the door to wonder, and to the possibility that life’s greatest truths may dwell not in the laboratory, but in the breath of God Himself.
Suggested References
1. Wöhler, F. (1828). Ueber künstliche Bildung des Harnstoffs. Annalen der Physik und Chemie.
2. Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge.
3. Greyson, B. (2000). “Near-death experiences.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 14(2), 233–256.
4. Beauregard, M., & O’Leary, D. (2007). The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul. HarperOne.
5. Einstein, A. (1941). Science, Philosophy and Religion: A Symposium.
No comments:
Post a Comment