I think you’d be really interested in the book I suggested above. The author talks about neuroscience, the human soul, dualism, and all that stuff a great deal, and settles on a stance that draws from emergentinistic philosophy, as opposed to reductionism.

Greg

But don’t forget that reductionists have feelings to…

Ok, I’ve given this a couple days, but I still can’t figure out what this means.

Stephen, I hope you find Murphy’s stuff as useful as I have. I’m sure you’ve already read N.T. Wright on the matter. I’ve got a few books by Murphy that I’m working through. I find that this view resonates also with my preterism.

But don’t forget that reductionists have feelings to…

I have never heard the term non-reductive physicalist before, but I have come to that conclusion myself only recently. I have been wrestling with how far to take physicalism for quite some time. In fact, I was still accepting the term “disembodied spirit” as descriptive of my view on Cliff’s blog within the last month or so, although if pressed I would have clarified by saying that by “disembodied” I mean “not the selfsame body/corpse” and by “spirit” I mean “essence” . Last week I wrote to a dualist preterist on another site concerning the resurrection:

Why does it have to be one or the other? My personality and memories are part of my “soulish” aspect, which is in the physical made up of chemicals and neurons firing in the brain; the “spiritual” vs. “physical” descriptions are not contradictory. I believe that our resurrection is post-mortem (I know you’ll disagree, but cf. 2 Cor 4.10-12, 5.1-10; also, what are we to make of Rom 8.11?) and will incorporate (apt word) our totality, physical and spiritual. True, it is not the selfsame flesh and blood, but a conversion of our essence from what Mike Beidler calls a “bio-physical” into a “bio-spiritual”, incorruptible form.

Let me put it this way, if being in heaven requires the elimination of the very things that make me uniquely “me”, namely the personality and memories recorded in my brain, how can it be said that I will be in heaven? Rather, my thoughts and memories will be no less a part of me because all of me will be “ported over” to the new me. I say again, the physical and the spiritual aspects are but two sides of one coin; neither more than the other.

Yes!

In skimming through the lecture link above, I think the term “non-reductive” physicalist is too demeaning. Of course, physicalists recognize hierarchies! We are not limited to studying only quarks and leptons as Nancy Murphy states. This is what Dennett describes as Greedy Reductionism. Plain ol’ reductionism is a method of understanding the world at various levels and we are capable of making definitions and speculations when the whole system is not completely known and we are able to study and perform valid science at various levels.

To use the term, “non-reductive” implies that reductionists/physicalists just don’t get the big picture and have lives without meaning. We materialists are apt wax existential, you know.

Thanks for the reply, but I still think you are “over-thinking” this. Examples:

“It’s the mind-body problem — that the spirit is separate from the body and the spirit is the Image of God.”

I probably opened myself up to that criticism by not being more clear. “Mind” is an abstract word that we give something we don’t undertand: how a particular dance of molecules and neurons constitutes one’s self. But I still believe that the phenomenon is strictly a material one. The contingency that results from one’s will, I believe, is some sort of quantum uncertainty/randomness amplified on the macro-level by our physical brains. Therefore, when our physical bodies cease, we cease. However, the Christian’s hope has always been in the resurrection, not in ultimately reaching a disembodied “spiritual” state. As Joepinion says, there is little about the afterlife in the OT and the NT was heavily influenced by Platonic (mind/body) dualism. But I think a scientifically-informed ontology can put these silly fabrications to rest. N. T. Wright has written along these lines from the evangelical perspective, Nancy Murphy has from the neuroscience perspective. You, Tom, would love to read anything by Nancy Murphy, by the way…

The imago dei, then, is not anything immaterial. But is the material consequence of a universe that tends towards complexity and organization, as the result of being created and sustained by an intelligence who acted with a purpose to imprint part of himself onto his creation. So everything does have the image of god stamped onto it to a lesser degree than do humans - who can actually create art, music, literature, etc… And yes, this even includes those who bend and twist this image to do evil. Even Hitler had a plan, a vision - as morally bankrupt as it was.

“You also say in response to one’s question “Where was God in a tragedy?” that “He was right there all along” by becoming human and dying.

I didn’t say that. My respons to that qeustion was indeed that “He was right there all along” - but merely as evidenced by the patterned behavior of the material world that led up to the tragedy. And by not intervening, he maintains the physical integrity of creation, something that is a net positive for humanity as a whole (it always nice to know what the rules are, and that they won’t change mid-way through the game - even if we ultimately lose by these same rules). But that was only the ordinary providence side of the coin. The incarnation was the answer to the question, “Why didn’t God intervene?” - intervention was on the cross, not via a personal divine force-field. You confused my two answers to my two questions. Do your stated objections still stand?

“…what difference does it make if we see God getting a taste of his own medicine?”

This is where I think your being unfair. On your site, I questioned what good our thoughts really do for somebody who has just suffered thorugh a tragedy. Your response was that by showing sympathy/empathy, we give comfort to those who are suffering by identifying with them in their grief. So presumably, you would give me kudos for simply thinking about those who are suffering. Now we have the creator and sustainer of the cosmos, not just “thinking about our suffering” - but actually partaking of the worst of it to meet the demands of cosmic justice that should fall on us. But to this you ask, “what difference does it make”? I think you’ll have do the explaining :).

Jesus experienced a separation from the father (hell) that is the endpoint of a life trajectory spent running from God - yet He was one with the father from the begining. As a result of this switcheroo, we no longer have to practice religion in the traditional sense (working to appease the gods), they have appeased themselves on our behalf. To a modern, enlightended, western person - this merely seems like “divine child abuse” - but in eastern “honor” cultures, only blood could cancel out such a debt. To them, a simple “hand-waiving” forgiveness (ie: no really, it’s cool, my bad…) would have only demonstrated that God was weak and his standards were flexible. No such entity would have been worthy of worship. Since the event happened in a particular time, in a particular place, and within a particular cognitive environment, we are forced to evaluate it on those terms, and not against our modern western cognitive environment. Certainly you wouldn’t say that our western/scientific culture is superior to all others, would you?

“If your answer is “ordinary providence”, then I would say that materialism is identical.” — YES - thank you (now we are getting somewhere). In Christian theology this is known as “common grace.” This is why we can share in the same human experience regardless of our different life philosophies. But for the Christian, God goes one step further than simply maintaining an orderly material universe. He tears spacetime and inserts himself into our world to demonstrate that we no longer have to keep “doing things in our own strength” to appease him. He fulfilled the requirements himself so that we can get on with life. He took the fall, so that the Ancient Near-Eastern honor culture to which He came could get of the hook and save face at same time. We enlightend moderns might not understand all of the face-save theatrics, but nevertheless, all Christ asks in return is that we recognize this, stop trying to earn favor, and live lives of gratitude (evidenced by living in peace withour our neighbors and extending to others this same grace and forgiveness that we have been shown).

I’ll let joepinion respond to those other comments.

I appreciated your perspective on the crucifixion. I’ve heard many of those “painful” sermons before. I also believe your perspective on our predilection with an eternal spirit is both a Western and even a New Testament subject. Since you are bound to read through the Bible before I do, let me know if you come across Old Testament passages that run counter to my thinking.

Regarding the video, you are right, that to show injustice and suffering does not mean that there is no God. It does, however, get at a number of questions about God if you believe he exists. For one, why was Joe’s spirit put into a body of an upper middle-class American family and Tom’s was born into a foodless, waterless African’s? What does it mean to be saved or not in this kind of context? As another point, that suffering like this occurs (again, seemingly randomly — these children did not choose to be born African) indicates that God is far removed and could be a deity of deism rather than theism. If God is a personal God, then we have to ask why prayers are ineffective or how they should be made, if at all.

That being said, I agree it was in poor taste that this video was done. It used these poor people to push an agenda, not to help them. While I personally don’t mind the command to stop praying and do something, that’s where the video ends. It doesn’t say what (non-proselytizing) charities are worth checking out or where to go for more information on how I can help, which is what I would have expected if there was an intent to help.

Thanks for the link to my site! Sorry to join the conversation a couple days late, but it was a busy weekend (and did you see the opening ceremony of the olympics?)

There is a lot here, but what it boils down to really is what you call “ordinary providence”. This is identical to what I would call Mother Nature. It encompasses the material world, which includes thought, pleasure, pain, empathy, etc., just like “ordinary providence” does for you. You seem confident that God is in these transcendent-yet-materially-based processes. It’s the mind-body problem — that the spirit is separate from the body and the spirit is the Image of God.

Here’s my problem with that idea. Every molecule would also have the image of God. Granted, you may say any molecule is a tiny reflection, and that we humans, built with lots of molecules arranged just so, reflect the image of God better than any other organism, but even viruses would have a smidgen. Let’s say this is true. Viruses could have been a principle driver of making us better apparitions of God by plugging in DNA to make us more complex and by getting rid of less fit individuals. We would still be left with a system where suffering was introduced, pain was a struggle, and death a necessity. In your scenario, God’s image would include doubters, troublemakers, and what we would call “evil” to evolve Good people. Is that what is meant by Gen 3:5 to “be like God and to know good and evil”?

You also say in response to one’s question “Where was God in a tragedy?” that “He was right there all along” by becoming human and dying. You will need several blog posts and books to fill in the gaps for me here. Why was God needed to become human by this particular virgin and at this particular time? What was fulfilled if “ordinary providence” was the status quo before Jesus’ life and since? As a spin on “HE DID THIS TO LEGITIMIZE/ENDORSE THE INEVITABLE REALITIES OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD BY PARTAKING OF THEM HIMSELF!”, what difference does it make if we see God getting a taste of his own medicine?

Concepts like evil, pain, suffering, unfairness and injustice have no universal meaning unless they preceded us.

If they preceded us, then they would have to be God, right? In which case, you have a problem with evil….

If they are ultimately fabrications of our own social convenience, then we can conveniently change them or ignore them whenever it suits us.

History seems to show that this is true — that laws and the response to unfairness and suffering are implemented by the state, and also that states inflict suffering and unfairness on subjects and would-be enemies. It’s cultural evolution. (If we were several small libertarian states, unable to have a large representative government, we might have to duke it out amongst ourselves. However, larger, representative governments might be able to plug along diplomatically.)

And why should tragedy even bother us? Why should injustice outrage us? Why should we feel sick when we visit the Holocaust Museum?

If your answer is “ordinary providence”, then I would say that materialism is identical.

I just finished reading a book called “The Sacred Cosmos” by Terence L. Nichols (ISBN: 1587430460) that you might find interesting. His main intent is restoring a view of the universe as “sacred”, as opposed to purely mechanistic. He talks a lot on free will, and how its made possible again through what science has discovered in quantum mechanics.

That’s the best way I can describe it, but I think this one would be right up your alley!

Keep up the good work!