Question about the soul vs. physicalism...

[derrick09]

Hello again,

I was wanting to ask you all some things about the debate between people who believe in the existence of a non material soul, ego, or self that continues to exist after the death of a person's body and people who believe that the brain and mind are one and the same, it is all chemical and physical reactions, and that when a person dies they cease to exist. Currently, regarding the soul, I consider myself a substance dualist (mostly my influence was from the readings of JP Moreland and Gary Habermas), but currently I'm somewhat in doubt as to whether they are correct. Currently, I feel like even though substance dualism has good evidence, I also think strict brain/mind physicalism also has good evidence as well. The good evidence that I see which would favor substance dualism are things like free will, near death experiences( the rare but convincing cases that Habermas and Moreland write about like the one about the "red shoe on the hospital roof"), and incidents that involve the mind inserting downward causation on the brain (an example of this would be the placebo effect or situations that involve a medical patient's positive attitude increasing their physical healing from injury or sickness). Also, the evidence that I see that would favor brain/mind physicalism would be examples of where brain injury or illness causing major changes in the suffering individual's personality, the consensus view on MOST near death experiences (being natural products of a dying brain, hallucinations from drugs and so forth) and the overall scientific consensus that the brain is the same as the mind and is all physical and chemical and the corresponding studies and evidences that establish that consensus. So from this assessment it looks like either view could be right, and here I was going to ask if anyone here could offer any "tie breakers" for either side and see what can be established as the most reasonable. Also, if brain/mind physicalism is indeed the most reasonable position, can it be reconciled within Christian theism? If so how? Thank you all for your time and God bless.

[Jac3510]

You may be interested in this thread. It is a short debate between Kurieuo and myself over this very issue. He is a substance dualist like yourself, whereas I am a composite dualist (which is the position held by classical Thomistic philosophy). I wouldn't go as far as claiming physicalism. I think that any form of materialism is really self-defeating. After all, if everything is material, what about the statement "everything is material." Is that also material? Obviously not. So materialism can't be true. But I don't think we have to jump into substance dualism (as far as the mind/body problem goes, anyway) from that. It's an issue Christians are free to disagree on.

[derrick09]

Interesting point Jac, I was wanting to ask, where do you stand specifically on the issue of life after death? Do you belief the moment we die we immediately go into a afterlife (either heaven or hell) or do we cease to exist completely or do we cease to exist for alittle while (soul sleep)? Thanks for your time. Take care.

[Jac3510]

Before I go off to bed, I'll quickly answer you here. I do believe in an immediate life after death - to be absent from the body is to be present with Christ, right? My explanation for this is that we get a temporary body in paradise while we await our resurrection bodies. That is a conclusion I draw from several ideas that I'll only list here and maybe defend later, if you want me to:

1. It seems to be a logical necessity - if we cannot be living persons without a body, but if we are living persons in heaven (or hell!), then we must have bodies there. But since we don't yet have our resurrection bodies, this only seems to leave us with a temporary body

2. Several passages in the Bible indicate people have bodies in heaven, i.e., the martyred saints at the altar in heaven in Revelation, Abraham and Lazarus in paradise, etc.

3. Several passages in the Bible indicate people have bodies in hell, i.e., the rich man who asked for Lazarus to come to him.

4. People seem to be conscious of their existence in heaven and hell, which seems to me absurd without having some sort of a body (what would it mean to be conscious if you have no body--WHAT would actually be conscious? The mind? But what is it then grounded in? Certainly, the mind is not omnipresent, so it seems that it is located, but location seems to require a body of some kind).

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head.

God bless

[derrick09]

You don't need to defend those points they were well put. But I was also curious, are you familiar with the dualism/physicalism debate that has gone on for sometime between neuroscientists Michael Egnor and Stephen Novella? This site has a interesting article about the two. Here is the link to that

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... alism.html

Just curious about your thoughts on this if you want to contribute. Take care and God bless.

[ageofknowledge]

All this body swapping is a result of the newfangled form of premillennial darbyism. Darby became dissatisfied with institutional Christianity and its various denominations, formed the Plymouth Bretheran (which has one of the most contentious histories imaginable for a Christian fellowship), and developed his seven-age dispensationalism theory. And that's a fact so don't wipe my post Jaq. We shouldn't be censured everytime we state a fact or legitimate criticism regarding darbyism. Darby ruled with an iron hand too regarding his theory actually excommunicating followers who disagreed with even a fine point from the Plymouth Bretheran. I would say definitely at some point you're going to have to start defending your ideas based on darby's theory and you can start with scripturally explaining why we have to change bodies multiple times just to conform with darbyism.

[Jac3510]

And that's a fact so don't wipe my post Jaq. We shouldn't be censured everytime we state a fact or legitimate criticism regarding darbyism.

What do you mean, wipe your post? Are you under the impression that I'm a moderator?

Concerning your post itself, I'll only make two brief comments. You can do with them what you like:

1. Dispensationalism is the necessary result of a consistently literal hermeneutic. Even a- and postmillennilists freely admit this. You may, then, object to my interpretation of Scripture, but you cannot say the position is not Scriptural, nor can you say that I am reading the Bible through a theological lense. Dispensationalism has the benefit of taking a standard methodology and taking it to its final conclusions.

2. Even if I was inclined to have a serious conversation about this, it wouldn't happen with your contempt. No one calls it "Darbyism," and your labeling it as such is nothing more than an attempt to poison the well. If you had bothered to actually read the history of dispensational thinking from someone other than a preterist, you'd find that's an old argument that has been thoroughly debunked. But I'm afraid we never will have that conversation, because you seem to have quite a strong emotional response to this subject, which, unfortunately, does make for a very edifying debate.

Thanks anyway, though, and God bless.

[ageofknowledge]

Now now Jaq. Don't get mad or bitter. It's just a discussion. Dispensationalism WAS systematized by Darby; however, there are various forms of dispensationalism. I don't know which one you follow. Obviously when Jesus came things changed. If you want to call that a dispensation fine. And when Jesus come back things will change again. If you want to call that a dispensation fine. But to view verses like the sheep and the goats through the dispensationalist lens and come to a conclusion that Jesus is not speaking to humanity but merely reciting how he will treat nations that weren't nice to Israel results in a misconstrued theology as I see it that doesn't benefit people and isn't what he meant.

Now how do you defend this body swapping theory?

[zoegirl]

Just to clarify things, even if Jac were a moderator, we don't wipe posts (at least, certainly not deliberatley...). Even you must admit, Age, that through all of the tiffs you and I and others have had with you, some of whom have been moderators, the posts have never been wiped. You insult our integrity as moderators by suggesting this.

[ageofknowledge]

Just to clarify things, even if Jac were a moderator, we don't wipe posts (at least, certainly not deliberatley...). Even you must admit, Age, that through all of the tiffs you and I and others have had with you, some of whom have been moderators, the posts have never been wiped. You insult our integrity as moderators by suggesting this.

I had a post disappear in the sheeps and goats section zoe. I assumed Jaq wiped it. He didn't. Of course I believe him. You might want to find out what's going on before jumping in. You could also find less inflammatory word choices imo. No matter. I'm through with that part of this discussion. Let's move on to the issues.

[zoegirl]

Just to clarify things, even if Jac were a moderator, we don't wipe posts (at least, certainly not deliberatley...). Even you must admit, Age, that through all of the tiffs you and I and others have had with you, some of whom have been moderators, the posts have never been wiped. You insult our integrity as moderators by suggesting this.

I had a post disappear in the sheeps and goats section zoe. I assumed Jaq wiped it. He didn't. Of course I believe him. You might want to find out what's going on before jumping in. You could also find less inflammatory word choices imo. No matter. I'm through with that part of this discussion. Let's move on to the issues.

Ummmmm,

*you* are the one assuming and accusing the moderators and jac have messed with your post and you have the...temerity to tell me not to jump in? You have a history, age, of saying things that you then have to retract. It would be far better if you actually think through things a bit before accusing Jac of doing something he didn't do (and didn't have the power to do) and also casting aspersions on the moderators here.

but of course...*you* suddenly are through with the discussion. Well, I'm not. You can't throw out something like that without thinking it through.

[cslewislover]

Just to clarify things, even if Jac were a moderator, we don't wipe posts (at least, certainly not deliberatley...). Even you must admit, Age, that through all of the tiffs you and I and others have had with you, some of whom have been moderators, the posts have never been wiped. You insult our integrity as moderators by suggesting this.

I had a post disappear in the sheeps and goats section zoe. I assumed Jaq wiped it. He didn't. Of course I believe him. You might want to find out what's going on before jumping in. You could also find less inflammatory word choices imo. No matter. I'm through with that part of this discussion. Let's move on to the issues.

By the sheeps and goats section, I assume you mean in this thread? I looked in our control panel where deleted posts are logged, and there are hardly any in the last week. There are none from this thread. Something odd must've happened to it.

[derrick09]

That's great instead of sticking with the discussion that I started, you all just want to argue with youselves of stupid trival message board admin issues. I guess that's shows the weakness in Christian theism. I'm really starting to have doubts about my faith. I was hoping one of you guys could help me out.

[cslewislover]

That's great instead of sticking with the discussion that I started, you all just want to argue with youselves of stupid trival message board admin issues. I guess that's shows the weakness in Christian theism. I'm really starting to have doubts about my faith. I was hoping one of you guys could help me out.

If you just read the bible on its own, what do you think? If you had no other data than that, what would it mean to you? The bible is God's word to us, and to me, there can't be any higher authority regarding spiritual matters - and our soul - than it. So would you want to start there?

[ageofknowledge]

That's great instead of sticking with the discussion that I started, you all just want to argue with youselves of stupid trival message board admin issues. I guess that's shows the weakness in Christian theism. I'm really starting to have doubts about my faith. I was hoping one of you guys could help me out.

For my part derrick09, I apologize. You are right and I am wrong. You should have your question answered to your satisfaction and Jaq was in the process of doing that. He is an intelligent man. Please continue your discussion with him and I'll bow out at this time. Again, my sincere apology to you.