|Body & Soul: Human Nature & the Crisis in Ethics|
J.P. Moreland, Scott B. Rae
CBD Price: $16.99
Buy 24 or more for $16.14 each.
( In Stock )
In this careful and thoughtful treatment J.P. Moreland and Scott B. Rae provide a reasonable and biblically accurate depiction of human personhood, relating it to crucial ethical concerns that affect each of us.
It is safe to say that throughout human history, the vast
majority of people, educated and uneducated alike, have been dualists,
at least in the sense that they have taken a human to be the sort
of being that could enter life after death while one's corpse was left
behindfor example, one could enter life after death as the very same
individual or as some sort of spiritual entity that merges with the All.
Some form of dualism appears to be the natural response to what we seem
to know about ourselves through introspection and in other ways. Many
philosophers who deny dualism admit that it is the commonsense view.
When we turn to an investigation of church history, we see the same
thing. For two thousand years, the vast majority of Christian thinkers
have believed in the souls of men and beasts, as it used to be put. Animals
and humans are composed of an immaterial entitya soul, a life principle,
a ground of sentienceand a body. More specifically, a human being is a
unity of two distinct entitiesbody and soul. The human soul, while not
by nature immortal, is capable of entering an intermediate disembodied
state upon death, however incomplete and unnatural this state may be,
and of eventually being reunited with a resurrected body. Augustine says,
"But the soul is present as a whole not only in the entire mass of a body,
but also in every least part of the body at the same time." Similarly,
Thomas Aquinas claims "we now proceed to treat of man, who is composed
of a spiritual and corporeal substance."
Today, things have changed. For many, the rise of modern science has
called into question the viability of dualism. In popular and intellectual
cultures alike, many argue that neurophysiology demonstrates the radical
dependence and, in fact, identity between mind and brain, that genetics
has shown genes and DNA are all that are needed to explain the development
of living things, that advances in artificial intelligence make likely
the suggestion that humans are just complicated computers and that cloning
seems to reduce us to mere structured aggregates of physical parts.
Interestingly, among contemporary Christian intellectuals there is a
widespread loathing for dualism as well. We are often told that biblical
revelation depicts the human person as a holistic unity whereas dualism is
a Greek concept falsely read into the Bible by many throughout the history
of the church. Christians, we are told, are committed to monism and
the resurrection of the body, not to dualism and the immortality of the
soul. In short, dualism is outdated, unbiblical and incorrect.
Concurrent with the alleged demise of dualism is the rise of advanced
medical technologies that have made prominent a number of very important
and difficult issues about ethics at both edges of life. Central to these
issues are questions about the nature of human personhood, about the
reality of life after death and about the existence, nature, accessibility and
degree of justification of ethical or religious knowledge as compared to
scientific knowledge. It is not too dramatic to say that we are facing a contemporary
crisis in ethics, a crisis that has lead to a good deal of moral
confusion, chaos and fragmentation.
In our opinion the concurrence of the demise of dualism (specifically a
Christian form of dualism) and the ethical and religious crisis just mentioned
is no accident. We believe that what is needed is a more careful formulation
and defense of Christian dualisma defense that renders
intelligible a solid Christian anthropology and that shows the relative
importance and specific roles science, theology and philosophy have in
the integrative task of developing a model of human personhood that is
adequate to what we know or justifiably believe from all the relevant disciplines.
Such a task requires a multidisciplinary effort, and even if we were
able to take on such a work (which we are not), a fully developed Christian
anthropology would be impossible to complete in a single volume.
Given these limitations, we shall offer what we hope will be an adequate
defense of the most reasonable and biblically accurate depiction of human
personhood, and we hope to relate that depiction to crucial ethical concerns
that affect us all. This task is important for some of the reasons just
mentioned. But it is also relevant because of the general human curiosity
and angst about what persons are and wherein lies their destiny. As Blaise
Pascal once put it, "The immortality of the soul is something of such vital
importance to us, affecting us so deeply, that one must have lost all feeling
not to care about knowing the facts of the matter."
In this chapter we shall look at a taxonomy of versions of dualism,
investigate the Christian understanding of a human person as it has been
traditionally conceived and discuss the broad contours of what a proper
approach to human personhood should look like.
What Is Dualism?
As does any broad philosophical and theological notion, dualism comes in
several varieties. At its root, dualism simply means "two-ism," and it
expresses a commitment to the proposition that two items in question
are, in fact, two different entities or kinds of entities instead of being identical
to one another. Cosmic dualism is the view that reality in general is
composed of two different entities (e.g., individuals, properties, realms of
reality) that cannot be reduced to each other. Cosmic dualists sometimes
go beyond this and accept the claim either that these two entities are both
metaphysically ultimatethat is, one did not come from or is not dependent
on the other for its existenceor that one entity is inferior in value
to the other. For example, Zoroastrianism teaches that Ahura-Mazda (the
good, wise Lord) and Angra Mainyu (the spirit of evil) are opposites
locked in a cosmic struggle between good and evil. In Taoism the yin and
the yang are bipolar forces (good-evil, male-female, light-dark, etc.) that
constantly react to and with each other in governing all of reality. Gnostic
dualism implies that spirit and matter are different and that the latter is of
little value compared to the former.
Is Christianity a form of cosmic dualism? The answer is no and yes.
Christianity does not affirm that there are two ultimate, independent realities.
Everything besides God owes its existence to him in some way or
another. Nor does Christianity teach that spirit is good and matter is evil.
Yet there are clear cosmic dualities presupposed by and taught in Holy
Scripture: God-creation, good-evil, truth-falsity, immaterial-material world,
being-becoming and, we believe, soul-body.
In addition to cosmic dualisms, there are various forms of dualism
regarding the constitution of human persons (and animals, though we
will focus here only on human persons). These anthropological dualisms
may be divided into three categories: metaphysical, eschatological and axiological.
Let us take these in order.
Metaphysical. The metaphysical category of anthropological dualism
centers on the question of the constitutional nature of human persons.
This version of dualism is the chief focus of this book. Property-event dualism
is the idea that mental and physical properties or events are genuinely
different kinds of entities. Thoughts, sensations, beliefs, desires, volitions
and so on are mental events in which mental properties are embedded
(e.g., they have intentionalitythe property of being of or about somethingor
the property of being self-presenting); various brain events
with physical properties are nonidentical to mental events. The rival to
property-event dualism (indeed, to any form of anthropological dualism)
is strict physicalism, or monism, the view that all properties, events, relations,
individuals and so on are strictly physical entities. Monists believe
that there may be an irreducible duality of language: for example, an
event that is caused by a pin stick can be described by the two nonsynonymous
terms pain and C fiber firing pattern. Nevertheless, monists insist
that these two terms have the same referent and that the referent is a
Substance dualism is the view that the soulI, self, mindis an immaterial
substance different from the body to which it is related. In order to
adequately understand substance dualism, one must get clear on the
nature of a substance, and we shall look at this topic in chapter two. But
for now, suffice it to say that the substance dualist is committed to the
claim that the soul is an immaterial entity that could, in principle, survive
death and ground personal identity in the afterlife.
Two major variants of substance dualism will be the focus of attention
in chapter six: Cartesian and Aristotelian/Thomistic dualism. (Hereafter,
the former will be referred to simply as Thomistic dualism.) Cartesian
dualism explicates the philosophy of René Descartes. On this view, the
mind is a substance externally related by a causal relation to the body, a
corporeal substance that is merely physical. For a Cartesian the mind is an
immaterial ego that contains the capacities for mental functioning.
By contrast, Thomistic dualism focuses on the soul, not the mind. The
mind is a faculty of the soul, but the latter goes beyond mental functioning
and serves as the integrative ground and developer of the body it animates
and makes alive. For the Thomistic dualist the soul contains
capacities for biological as well as mental functioning. Thus the soul is
related to the body more intimately and fully than by way of an external
causal connection, as Cartesians would have it. Some Thomistic dualists
identify the person with the whole body-soul composite whereas others
identify the person with the soul, which contains a natural exigency for
embodiment even while disembodied. As we will see in the next section,
at a minimum a Christian should hold that the human person can sustain
identity in a disembodied intermediate state and after the reception of a
new resurrection body.
Both versions of substance dualism are consistent with functional
holism but not with ontological holism. According to functional holism,
while the soul (mind) is in the body, the body-soul complex is a deeply
integrated unity with a vastly complicated, intricate array of mutual functional
dependence and causal connection. But functional holism allows
for the possibility that the soul (mind) may exist independent of the body
with which it is currently functionally integrated or in a disembodied state
altogether. It is a serious mistake to take substance dualism as being
inconsistent with functional holism.
Ontological holism is the view that the mental constituents of a
human personthe mental property-instances, states, relational complexes,
fields or selfare inseparable entities (although the self may be
identified as some sort of unity of the mental entities just mentioned
or as a more substantial, though emergent and dependent, entity).
The mental constituents are ontologically dependent upon a properly
functioning physical body or brain, and thus disembodiment is not
possible. Ontological holism is consistent with property dualism but
not with substance dualism in either form.
Eschatological. Besides the metaphysical versions of anthropological
dualism, there are versions of eschatological and axiological dualism.
Eschatological dualism categorizes versions of dualism according to their
view about the immortality of the soul. Platonic dualism held that the
soul had a natural immortality. Plato's version of dualism is quite sophisticated
in its totality, and much of what Plato taught is very much at home
in a Christian worldview, though some of his ideas are clearly not compatible
with Christianity. Only an issue-by-issue investigation can determine
whether Plato's dualism is compatible with Christian teaching. However,
this aspect of Plato's thought is obviously inconsistent with the Bible,
which teaches that God alone is immortal and that all human persons owe
their moment-by-moment existence to the sustaining power of God,
whether before death, during the intermediate state or after the final resurrection.
Does a rejection of Platonic eschatological dualism entail that there is
no sense in which the soul is immortal according to Christian theology?
No, it does not. In fact the most natural way to take the Scripturesindeed,
the way most thinkers in the history of the church have taken
themis to view the soul as immortal in this sense: the individual soul
comes into existence at a point in time; it is sustained in existence by God
throughout its existence, including a time of temporary disembodiment
in the intermediate state; and there will never be a time in which it will
cease to be after its creation. In the next section we will look at the biblical
support for this view and compare it to two rival depictions of the soul
and the intermediate state.
Axiological. Finally, axiological dualism divides anthropological
positions according to the relative value placed on the soul and body.
According to Gnostic and (on a traditional interpretation) Platonic
dualism, the body is inferior to the soul in value, and more generally
the material world is inferior to the immaterial world. Indeed, some
versions of axiological dualism have claimed that matter, including the
body, is evil. Some advocates of this form of dualism have used it to
depreciate the value of physical labor, sexuality, physical health and so
forth. It should be apparent that these versions of axiological dualism
are inadequate and that Christians affirm the value of both the body
and the soul and both the material and immaterial world.
This completes our brief survey of varieties of dualism. At this point we
must ask the question, does the Bible teach some form of anthropological
dualism that ought to be affirmed by Christian intellectuals and integrated
into their intellectual work and practical lives? In spite of the fact
that a growing number of Christian thinkers would answer this question
in the negative, we think the answer is clearly yes.