In class we're talking about whether substance dualism (the view that we just are immaterial, non-physical souls) or materialism/physicalism has the advantage when it comes to Christianity.
Peter van Inwagen seems to think that materialism at least fares no worse than substance dualism given Christianity while Trenton Merricks seems to think that materialism is best supported by the biblical data and best makes sense of core Christian doctrines like the Resurrection and the badness of death. (We'll see later how he thinks it best makes sense of the Incarnation as well.) Alvin Plantinga (we've seen) seems to think that Christianity better supports substance dualism over materialism.
So, at this point, what are you inclined to think here? Does taking Christianity seriously give us reason to prefer one view over another? [Bracket off as best you can other considerations germane to this conversation. Stick to what Christianity itself seems to yield here.]
As always, be sure to interact with each other. Give each other feedback. Make it a conversation, not just a reporting venue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I felt like Merricks offered a pretty convincing argument for considering physicalism a very Christian doctrine. There is a huge emphasis on the badness of death and the hope of Resurrection throughout both Scripture and the tradition of the Church, and it seems we somewhat escape that when we deny the lasting importance of our physical bodies. I also was, strangely, very satisfied with his explanation of how our physical bodies are resurrected, as in, actually reborn, without being composed of the exact same physical substances that composed our “original” bodies. His explanation, that it is the case that our glorious new bodies are one and the same in identity with our former bodies simply because they are, for some reason is actually a very sufficient way of looking at it.
ReplyDeleteAs far as explaining substance dualism, it did seem like Plantinga did a pretty decent job of presenting a coherent picture of what the relationship between self, soul, and body in a way that seems to tie together many other ideas of what it means to be human. But when I consider the fact that the resurrection of our bodies is so extremely significant, I guess I’m less than satisfied with the view he has offered, and I am not entirely confident that it is the most traditionally Christian way of thinking about things.
I am slightly inclined to support a substance-dualism approach to the human persons. While I do not think this view is without serious concerns, I feel it is MORE reasonably-coherent and biblically consistent than a materialist interpretation. I personally did not buy several of Peter Van Inwagen's attempts to justify materialism with Old & New Testament Scriptural passages. I find my own interpretation (and historical Christian tradition, which I do not thik should be understated in doctrinal value) lead to substance dualism. Merricks presents some interesting considerations concerning death & ressurection - I personally feel that any kind of informed response to these requires a solid understanding of Biblical passages that address much of the death, ressurection, eschatology stuff. I do not have such a good understanding of the biblical time-frame concerning these events, so I feel obligated to suspend judgment on these particular arguments until I can research futher biblical evidence.
ReplyDeleteDoes taking Christianity seriously give us reason to prefer one view over another? I am inclined to answer yes. Christianity does lead me to an affirmation of substace dualism.
Merrick said that death for a physicalist is worse than for a dualist. But we did not exist before we were born, and I can't remember "waiting" to be born either. I think then that if I did not "wait" to be born, and if I do not remember "waiting," then it would stand to reason that if I were a physicalist, death would not be so bad because it would be like "waiting" to be resurrected. I will not be impatient in my "waiting" it will just happen. So for a physicalist; I will be, then die, be no more, the become resurrected. For them it will happen as soon as they die. They will have no concept of time passing. Therefore death for a physicalist will not be so bad because to them they will not really cease to exist, or remember being non-existent.
ReplyDeleteI also do not see how being a dualist helps the matter either. For if I were a dualist, I die, and I am immediatly thrust before God. Therefore if I am already in God's presence, then I must have some sort of bodily or spiritual form. If then the ressurection does happen, will I loose my current form? Will I have two forms that I can go between on any given day?
Being a serious Christian means being serious about faith. Faith is believing without seeing. Therefore, no one has seen a resurrected body, except that of Christ, and his body was not decomposed, therefore it will not be like the resurrected bodies spoken about in scripture. Based on this no one really knows what kind of body we will have at the ressurection, therefore it does not stand that being a physicalist or a dualist will have significant implications on our resurrected bodies, or how we will be after the resurrection.
Where do I stand? I stand in the dualist thought. Christ told the theif on the cross "today, you will be with me in paradise." obviously his physical body did not go there, his body was buried. Therefore, what went to paradise? It may be possible that when we die, we do go to heaven and are given a new body that looks just like the ones we had on this earth. No one really knows. In this ignorance I do not believe that Christ will hold it against us if we choose one school of thought over another.
I do not see death as bad, either as a physicalist or a dualist. Our goal on this earth is to become closer to Christ, dying is the last link to Christ. Death to me is a good thing that will, in the most pathetic form, allow me to be ressurected into the throne room of God. Craig Farrell
Just a note: the little picture on the bottom left of the page...it still makes me laugh.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the post:
I am, pesonally, inclined toward substance dualism. I have difficulty seeing how materialism fits with Scripture, especially the incarnation, resurrection, and creation. For one, Christ died leaving his body behind and went to be with the Father. Something went to be with the Father: it makes sense to me to think that it was probably the "soul" part of Christ. When he was resurrected, his body came back to life. It makes sense to see that as part of his soul being reunited with his body. The second thing I think may be important is the creation.
Also, I don't think that the significance of our bodies should be (or actually is) in any way reduced from the perspective of substance dualism (though oftentimes it has been). If being fully human involves having both a body and soul, then the body is equally as vital as the soul. They are both necessary. They are both vital. And death (to me) seems FAR worse from a substance dualist perspective because the the person is being split in half, ripped apart. Death is a supremely violent occurence, and it destroys a person, ripping the soul from the body.
- Kaleb M.
I agree with the majority of people so far on this blog that the bible seems to supports a substance-dualism. But I can see why a Christian could believe in materialist view and still be fairly orthodox. Some Christian believes do seem to make more sense with a materialist view like the idea of the resurrection and regaining of bodies. If I was already in heaven or some heavenly waiting area waiting for Christ to come back why does it matter if I get a body again or not? Materialism seems to answer this by saying that at the resurrection we are re-formed and so the resurrection take a deeper meaning. Yet I can see verses that clearly support a dualistic view. 2 Corinthians 5:6 is the perfect example of this, “Therefore [we are] always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord.” How can we be at home in the body if we are our bodies? Another verse is Genesis 25:8, “ Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full [of years]; and was gathered to his people.” This verse seems to clearly point to the idea of there being something (called the ghost in the KJ) that is separate from the body that is spiritual in nature. This is my view on this please feel free to object.
ReplyDeleteI was very interested to read Merrick's defense of Christian materialism, and just how he thinks that would work out. I think the physical is definitely UNDERemphasized by Christians, but Merrick's view seems to be unbalanced at best.
ReplyDeleteIf we define "Christianity" in the post question as the institution/religion/tradition, the answer is pretty simple. The weight of evidence from the past two thousand years supports substance dualism for sure. Tradition points us firmly in that direction.
Going back to the Bible itself, I would really like to read original Greek & Hebrew in order to best understand this subject. But within the limits of my English translation, I think the Biblical evidence supports substance dualism. One passage that springs to mind is 2 Cor. 5:1 etc. which, although supporting the goodness of being "clothed" in a body, suggests that there could be something identifiable as "we" even if "we" were "naked", aka without a body. I understand the interpretation of this passage may be controversial, but it's what I'm thinking of off the top of my head.
--Faith B.
I have not decided if Christianity better supports materialism or dualism. I'm just not sure at this point. I do think that materialists have a good case, especially arguing based on the resurrection. Paul emphasized the centrality and vitality of the resurrection to our faith and to the Gospel. Even in a scenario in which the soul is stripped of the body... the person still exists in virtue of the soul still existing. Under a materialist picture, death literally results in the non-existence of the human person, in my mind making more sense of Paul's dire language regarding the resurrection. What is the hope for the resurrection? Christians should not mourn for the dead because they have hope... Materialism just seems to make more sense of this picture, at least intuitively - on the one hand you have the person existing and on the other you have the person not existing. Were the people to have hope that the person would be reunited with their body, or hope that the person would actually exist again? Were they mourning simply because the person was stripped of their body? How many people would actually do that? Without the resurrection of the body, under dualism, the person still exists. Under the materialism, the person does not. So in either case, hope for the resurrection seems to be the proper response, but in my mind, death only creates a dire circumstance under materialism, which better fits the biblical account of death and the resurrection.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the position of materialism and dualism in regard to other biblical issues, I am not sure, but I think materialism has the upper hand on the resurrection.
Tim.
At this point I'm inclined to say Materialism might best reflect the human person from a Christian perspective. Trenton Merricks made some very convincing arguments for why we as Christians should consider the body so important. The Materialist view makes more sense of the ressurection that is written of in the New Testatment. It seems as if our body, both early and heavenly, are considered important within scriptural teachings.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be an arguemnt for dualism that relies on our "natural" inclination to believe the soul and body are two different substances. This might be explained by looking at the Greek influence over our Western thought and the view of negative femininity/ positive masculinity and how this might still be influencing our view of negative body/ positive mind/soul. I don't pretend to have any sort of "God given" inclination that tells me souls are immaterial, seperate substances. So, perhaps i missed the Holy Spirit's memo...or perhaps some things really are the result of unfortunate social conditioning.
oh, also...
ReplyDeleteKaleb, you use Christ's death and joining with God as evidentiary support for substance dualism. You seem to be assuming though, that "whatever' joined with God was a soul. Could you give further reasoning for thinking that is true? Thanks!
I'm unsure whether Christian theism fits best with a substance materialist or a substance dualist picture of things, although I do think that Trenton Merricks has offered some thoughtful considerations in favor of materialism.
ReplyDeleteSt. Paul did seem to place a significant emphasis on being reunited with one's own body. I guess, at the end of the day, I think materialism has at least one thing going for it: When I yell "Is there a soul in there?!" down a person's throat, no soul answers back, just like in Planet of the Apes. So I guess souls don't speak.
Blake H.
It seems to me that at this point in my questioning, that substance dualism renders a more reasonable interpretation of scripture. Merrick’s “death” argument appear to fail to make its point. It would not seem that a hiatus of existence is any less palatable for the Christian than just being with God immediately. And is that not the point of the Gospel? When Paul says “death where is thy sting?” isn’t that to suggest that death is no longer to be considered “bad?” Our hope is not in the resurrection of “our” bodies but it is in the resurrection of “his” body. Though his resurrection the relationship with God to his people was restored and this is how death has been defeated.
ReplyDeleteI would also point back to what has already been said, that scriptures such as the thief on the cross and the death of Abraham seem to point to a substance dualism view.
However, I would not be so argent to say definitively that this must be the only view that the Bible promotes. There also seems to be something very real about the connection between us and our bodies. I wonder for instance, why did Jesus’ body have to be resurrected would not the soul’s glorification be sufficient? Why did he need to have the scars on his hand? And why did he need to share a meal in his glorified state? I therefore must also consent to suspend judgment due to my ignorance in this matter. But I believe the dualist has the upper hand at this point.
-Jonathan Susanj
I think Merrick brings up a good point regarding the resurrection. He basically says that spritual resurrection is less profound/powerful than bodily resurrection and that the bringing an entire body back to life is more miraculous. While simple, I think that's a pretty good argument for bodily resurrection. I think it should definitely be taken into consideration that bodily resurrection is ultimately more redemptive.
ReplyDeleteThe arguments for materialism, Merricks' in particular, are strong especially insofar as bodily resurrection would seem to be more miraculous if a person had ceased to exist for awhile. Also, the Apostle Paul emphasizes the importance of the body (I & II Cor., I Thess.), but the soul is also alluded to (spec. I Cor. 15). Therefore, substance dualism seems much more aligned to Scripture than materialism. There are just as many arguments against materialism as there are against substance dualism, but, like others have said, the most difficult one for me to side with is Merricks' "death" argument. The idea that we cease to exist until Christ resurrects us from the dead at the eschaton is just as absurd as the idea that a person's soul survives them as is present with the Lord until our bodies are resurrected. 2 Corinthians 5:6, in particular, seems to support the idea of some sort of immaterial soul being immediately present with the Lord once the body dies.
ReplyDeleteSo, which one of these views is true? I don't think anyone can definitely say one is ultimately true while the other is ultimately false because we simply don't have enough information/truth revealed to us. I don't think we're supposed to know in this life, hence the mysteries of God, but I do think substance dualism and the idea of a soul is supported much more fully in Scripture than materialism. Either way, death is not something to be feared for the believer because we have the hope of Christ's resurrection, which will be our own, when God comes back to set up His Kingdom once and for all.
-Alyson