HillFaith, a Christian ministry to staffers on Capitol Hill started by former staffer Mark Tapscott, produced a video on the immateriality of the mind a couple of years ago. He drew attention to it again recently:

Ever hear of the “Hard Problem of Consciousness” in science? If you Google that term, you will quickly see that topping the list of unanswered questions about human beings and life is this intellectual challenge…

In other words, explaining consciousness may well be beyond the current capabilities of science, which suggest strongly that there is something beyond the physical, or what has long been referred to as the “supernatural.”

Inspiring Philosophy’s Michael Jones digs into the Hard Problem of Consciousness in a five-part video series that does a wonderful job of credibly translating a massively complicated body of evidence and discussion from multiple disciplines into terms we laymen can understand.

“Irreducible Mind (Part 1): How Do We Get Consciousness If We’re Just Material Objects? HillFaith, June 16, 2020

Here’s the whole series.

What feels remarkable is that ordinary people with an interest in political issues have even started to ask these questions. We used to be told that they would never consider such things.

But these are good questions. Why are we supposed to believe that the “science-based” position is that human mind is nothing more than the brain, that there is no free will, that there is no life after death, and no evidence for design in the universe? Science has not demonstrated any of these things. They are open controversies and the most significant evidence is on the other side of what “the science” is conventionally supposed to represent.

In the actual science world:

The mind can be detected by methods of science. Whether it is welcome is another matter.

Free will can be demonstrated.

Life after death is an active research area.

Design in the universe? Even people you might not expect, such as leading neuroscientist Christof Koch, appeal to design in the universe — in his case for support for his views on the conundrum of consciousness. And MIT cosmologist Alan Guth, who would very much like to avoid the idea that the universe is fine-tuned, admits that so far, “it’s our only sensible explanation.”

One barrier is that if prominent science writers don’t take up questions like these objectively, it may take years before other people simply begin to do so. But it may be starting to happen and we may soon see some very interesting discussions.

You may also wish to read: Why logician Kurt Gödel believed in life after death. He saw human folly as an opportunity to reform and learn, because our souls are immortal whether we like it or not. In a deeply rational, ordered universe, Gödel argues, human potential — frustrated in so many ways here — must flower afterward elsewhere.