Death of the soul?

Neuroscientists continue to map the brain’s functions, but that is the Easy Problem, providing a better understanding of what it means to be human and improve the human condition. However, understanding how the brain causes subjective experience is another matter. “No one knows what to do with the Hard Problem,” Pinker said. Since a solution for the Hard Problem seems impossible, philosophers may see “an opportunity to sneak the soul back in.”

Meanwhile, neuroscientists think they can solve the hard problem by chipping away at solving the small problem. Pinker asserts that most scientists believe “they will locate consciousness in the activity of the brain.” However, this discovery will require some “unborn genius” who will come up with some “flabbergasting new idea that suddenly makes it all clear to us.” Pinker then proposes

… biology of consciousness [that] offers a sounder basis for morality than the unprovable dogma of an immortal soul. It’s not just that an understanding of the physiology of consciousness will reduce human suffering through new treatments for pain and depression. That understanding can force us to recognize the interest of others—the core of morality (p. 79).

In other words, Pinker seems to be saying that a messiah of consciousness science will reveal a “flabbergasting new idea” that will force people to meet his definition of morality while disproving the “unprovable dogma” that there is a soul. He asserts that this is a “terrifying prospect for non-scientists” because it means it will prove there is no soul and that people lack agency. In supporting the proposition that humans are little but biological machines and that consciousness is “nothing but a pack of neurons” (Crick, 1994, p. 3)