Doesn't soul yield to science?

Question

The first part of the last sentence(bold type) is somewhat ambiguous to me. Can I infer soul doesn't yield to science because its issue is a matter unto itself? Or, despite the issue of soul is a matter unto itself, it could be analyzed by science like feelings, thoughts, morals, etc.?

The debate about how to understand social life has ancient roots and can be traced at least as far back as Plato, who analyzed the differing worldviews of poetry and philosophy (which was at the time an approximation of science). Echoes of this debate are still heard today in the endless dialogue between the humanities and the sciences regarding how the world may best be comprehended. Some thinkers argue that the internal states of humans cannot be examined scientifically at all and must instead be understood nonscientifically via intuitive, interpretive, or even religious methods. Even some scientists devoted to strong empiricism adopt this view. B. F. Skinner, the leading twentieth-century advocate of behaviorism and the author of Walden Two, famously reasoned that internal mental states are unobservable and unquantifiable subjectivities and thus belong outside the range of objective scientific scrutiny, in contrast to observable (individual and collective) behaviors. Some philosophers and theologians continue to embrace the age-old dualistic separation between the material world and the mental world. The underlying claim is that we cannot use science to fully understand the soul or even feelings, thoughts, morals, or beauty. While the issue of the soul is a matter unto itself, feelings, thoughts, morals, and even beauty — and their evolutionary origins — are, in fact, yielding increasingly to science in the twenty-first century with techniques as diverse as MRI imaging and behavior genetics.

Nicholas A. Christakis, Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society (Little, Brown, 2019)

Answer 1

@James K's answer about the meaning of "unto itself" is very helpful (thanks, @StuartF). But for this answer, I'm also drawing on what I know of the subject matter (philosophy, psychology, and theology).

In the 2,500 history of psychology in the Western world before the advent of modern psychology in the 19th century (which relies mainly on empirical science), the study of "how soul works" (which includes feelings, thoughts, morals, and perception of beauty) is exclusively done NOT by science, but by philosophy and theology.

Yes, since the ancient times, philosophers admit that human being is embodied soul and having a body intimately united with the soul should mean that the body as much as the soul CAN (in theory) contribute to feelings, thoughts, morals, and aesthetics. But traditionally, most notably in Aristotelian-Thomistic psychology, what the body senses ACTS on the soul producing phantasms, which in turn are processed by the soul. Thus memory, will, apprehension (abstraction from particular to a universal), understanding, comprehension, imagination, judgment, and reasoning are operations of the SOUL, and hence need to be studied exclusively by philosophy and theology. At most, if we need to do "experiment", it is done by introspection, which is definitely NOT how modern science operates. This is why the writer says "the issue of the soul is a matter unto itself", meaning the soul can only be studied by disciplines proper to the soul.

Answers to your questions

Can I infer soul doesn't yield to science because its issue is a matter unto itself?

Yes, that is how it was understood traditionally. See my last paragraph above. But esp. in the 21st century, most scholars concede that the soul is at least partly susceptible to scientific analysis.

Or, despite the issue of soul is a matter unto itself, it could be analyzed by science like feelings, thoughts, morals, etc.?

Of course the book argues that science SHOULD be able to (at least partly) analyze the operations of the soul, with neuroscience, cognitive science, social psychology, psychological pathology, behavioral psychology, etc. But ultimately, whether the soul can or cannot be analyzed by science, is a philosophical & theological position. For example, although most Christian philosophers today (especially of Thomistic persuasion), have agreed that science DOES have a place in studying the role of the brain for some of the soul's operation, they will say that science CANNOT 100% explain all the workings of the soul, especially in some higher functions like our desire for Beauty, our moral conscience, and our capacity to know and love God.

By saying "the issue of the soul is a matter unto itself", the writer implicitly acknowledges that although science can increasingly explain some operations of the soul, studying the soul is not traditionally done by science, although science more and more asserts its competence and some scientists are even brazen enough to deny that there is such thing as an immaterial soul !

On the other side, theologians who are friendly with science are usually willing to work jointly with scientists to more fully explain the workings of the soul, even though they will usually insist that the immaterial part of human nature belongs properly to philosophy and theology, "a matter unto itself".

Answer 2

Can I infer soul doesn't yield to science because its issue is a matter unto itself?

That is what the previous sentence says about the underlying claim: "The underlying claim is that we cannot use science to fully understand the soul . . ." However, that is not what the last sentence says.

---

Or, despite the issue of soul is a matter unto itself, it could be analyzed by science like feelings, thoughts, morals, etc.?

Yes, you've basically rewritten the last sentence.

You wrote:

1. "despite"
2. "the issue of soul is a matter unto itself"
3. "it could be analyzed by science like feelings, thoughts, morals, etc."

The sentence says:

1. "While"
2. "the issue of the soul is a matter unto itself"
3. "feelings, thoughts, morals, and even beauty . . . are . . . yielding increasingly to science"