Sharon Dirckx gives a compact introduction to the so-called mind-brain problem, i.e. what is the relationship between the mind and the brain. Is mind=brain (reductive physicalism), is the mind more than the brain but the brain generates (all of) the mind (non-reductive physicalism), or is the mind beyond the brain (substance dualism)?
Dirckx introduces those three different approaches and investigates their implications, particularly relating to free will. Towards the end, there is a focus on the non-physical approach and how it relates to the Christian faith.
In the third chapter, she gives a quote from a philosophy professor, who distinguishes between two problems in this context. The „easy“ problem (which is not so easy after all): explaining correlations between conscious experience and brain activity; and the „hard“ problem: accounting for conscious experience in the first place.
One thought experiment from this chapter stuck in my mind. It’s called „Mary’s room“. Very roughly explained the thought experiment considers a person, Mary, who is a scientist with a detailed knowledge of all physical, chemical, biological aspects related to human vision. Mary was also born blind. One day she miraculously gains vision, and the question is: Does she learn anything new about vision, actually seeing stuff for the very first time? The author of the thought experiment makes the point that if the answer is yes, then physical facts alone cannot explain the first-person experience.
What I like is that Dirckx, coming from a Christian perspective, also explains alternative views (although briefly as this is a brief book), particularly relating to the nature of religion. She gives her take on some approaches to „explain religion away“, e.g. religion results from human error, religion is a product of evolution, or stems from our genes.
To me personally, a decisive question is „Is there any non-physical/ non-naturalistic part of reality“. Today, I would not only say yes, but I would say that the non-naturalistic part is actually the more relevant one. A core part of the Christian faith is that the relational part of reality (relationship to God and to humans) is more fundamental than the rational (or physical) part of reality - a thought that feels almost blasphemous considering the implicit philosophical assumptions mainly communicated during 8 years of education in the natural sciences.
I have never read a book (including this book) on the relationship between science and faith/ religion where afterwards I thought the Christian worldview is a logical necessity. There are some points where I always think „but that does not follow necessarily“. But each time it is a challenging and enriching experience, coming from the perspective of a firm Christian biblical faith.
Dirckx illustrates how the Christian faith is compatible with neuroscientific discoveries, with observed correlations between brain activity and conscious experience etc. Apart from the quite interesting thought experiments and discussed neuroscientific studies, one key takeaway to me is that a theistic Christian worldview is not by default any less intellectually plausible than any other, especially a purely naturalistic atheistic one. Each time I read a book on some part of relationship between science and faith, there is the same thought at some point of the book: there’s a part which is logical necessity and „facts“ (like classifications and statements such as that any worldview, atheistic or theistic, is a statement of faith and not deducible purely from observations of the physical reality around us), and then there is part which is a plausible train of thought, assumptions + implications, laying out and balancing different possibilities with varying degree of plausibility. But you never get from 0 to 1 in one continuous line - there’s the infamous leap of faith.