This should be a fascinating lecture series worth following. As, Milbank explains:
This series of lectures will not be concerned with either the philosophy of religion or philosophical theology. Instead, they will be about the relationship between philosophy and theology.
Here’s the outline (I’ll try to remember to update this as each lecture becomes available):
19 January: The Return of Metaphysics in the 21st century
26 January: Immanence and Life
2 February: Immanence and Number
9 February: Transcendence without Participation
16 February: Participated Transcendence Reconceived
23 February: The Habit of Reason
2 March: The Realism of Feeling
9 March: The Surprise of the Imagined
Posted by no1kingsfan
[This post is part of a series that the Th.M. students at Western Seminary are doing this semester on understanding the relationship between philosophy and theology.]
I was reading James Beilby’s book For Faith and Clarity on the topic of Theological Anthropology. There is a chapter in his book written by William Hasker on this topic. It was a brief chapter focusing on the soul and body relationship, it is very well written and discussed many key parts and views of the debate. I appreciated this essay because he had a specific goal in mind and that was to understand how best to define the relationship between the soul and body. But I do not believe I agree with his conclusion. Hasker did a great job of describing some of the key concepts of anthropology. He began his chapter by defining the key terms of rationality, responsibility, freedom, and everlasting life. In defining these terms, he laid the groundwork to look at three different Christian views on anthropology.
The first view was dualism in the Cartesian sense. He believes that this view has a dependency and continuity problem. The dependency problem, as he says on pg. 249, “…becomes more and more difficult to maintaining the independence of mind from brain and body that is the hallmark of Cartesianism.” The continuity problem is defined as there being a, “…great similarity between us and other mammals in both structure and function” so the dualist needs to discern which creatures possess immaterial souls (pg. 249-250). The second view was Christian/emergent materialism. Hasker believes that Christian/emergent materialism cannot be a correct view because of the “causal closure of the physical domain (pg. 251).” This means that every physical event has a physical cause. He believes that “causal closure” removes rational inference and there can be no free will (if understood in the libertarian sense).
Hasker then gives his view called Emergent Dualism, which he believes can answer all four terms. He defines this view on pg. 256 by saying it combines, “…many of the advantages of both Cartesian dualism and materialism and at the same time avoids the major difficulties that afflict these views.” This view accepts the tenet of materialism that a human person “initially consists of nothing but ordinary physical matter (pg. 256)” arranged in great complexity. This view also holds to the understanding of “emergence” which means “when elements of a certain sort are assembled in the right way, something new comes into being, something that was not there before (pg. 256).” Hasker believes that what “emerges” is a new individual, which he sees as the mind or soul (pg. 257). So now, there are emergent properties and an emergent individual (defined as the mind/soul/consciousness). Thus, Hasker believes, that eternal life, freedom, rationality, and being morally responsible are all capable of being applied to this view (pg. 257-258). Hasker does say there is one main problem with this view. “It is that we will have to attribute to ordinary, everyday matter, the stuff of sticks and stones and baseball bats, truly remarkable powers—the powers, that is to produce, when arranged and functioning in certain complex structures, emergent minds with the capacity to seek truth, enjoy beauty, perceive good and evil, and enter into a relationship with God (pg. 259-260).” This to me seems to be more than a huge problem it seems to tear this view apart especially combined with his answer to this problem.
I personally don’t see what this Emergent Dualism has to offer that substance dualism or even traditional dualism can’t offer me. I don’t feel the need to make my view for acceptable to those who hold to evolution or even the neuroscientists he talks about. As stated above Hasker believes that a dualist cannot answer the dependency problem. But the way he responds to the challenge of emergent dualism is interesting. The problem as defined above in emergent dualism requires us to attribute to ordinary things highly remarkable powers. So this view seems to force us to hold beliefs far beyond “what we have been led to expect” (pg. 260). But somehow this isn’t a problem for Hasker since when this Being (God) “chose to make humans and other sentient creatures out of the dust of the earth, we may well suppose that this Being had the foresight to endow that dust with powers that would enable such a creation (pg. 260).” So when we are needed to accept something that we didn’t expect we should be okay with it because God-did-it. But why can’t this be the response of the dualist to say that God-did-it to the dependency problem. It seems to me that Hasker has a problem in his view that is not easily answerable either.
Posted by bcash32
[This is a post by Keith Mitchell. It is part of the continuing series on Philosophy and Theology that current ThM students are entrenched in. Enjoy!]
There are three common areas in philosophy that we have already discussed. Metaphysics asks, “what is?” Epistemology, “how do you know about what is?” and Ethics, “what should we be doing about it?” For Hegel the Metaphysical question of “what is?” can ultimately be understood as The Absolute Geist (aka Spirit or Mind). The essential stuff of what exists—the Geist—is non-material. The Geist got separated from itself and is now working back toward itself through history (this view of history retains a familiar Judeo-Christian progressive linearism). What is more tangible than all imminent idea moving history forward?
The process the Absolute Geist takes through history is dialectic; working in the same manner as a rational and productive conversation (Hegel is all about synthesis whereas Kant was fine with the dualism). The interaction (between the thesis and antithesis) makes for clarification on a deeper level (synthesis), verses impasses and compromise. The result is a resolution to a higher place, not just another place.
But what gives the dialectic momentum and energy for movement? Because for something to be ultimate reality (the Absolute Geist), it must be self-sufficient, we cannot be responsible for dragging it along. This is where Hegel’s logic comes in. By logic I do not mean syllogistics, but the reason for a thing; in this case the reason for the dialectical movement of what ultimately is.
For Hegel there is no logical concept of ‘being,’ without ‘not being.’ Thus, A cannot be ~A (the little symbol just means “not”). But, and this is key, A can become ~A. For Hegel then, becoming is a more fundamental reality than being. Thus any given idea needs its opposite in order to first exist, and then to evolve. Each idea is not complete; having within it the potential for inherent contradictions. All incomplete ideas give rise to an antithesis, which resolve into a synthesis. These contradictions are self-perpetuating. Thus, becoming is a dynamic process that works of its own accord and moves toward becoming more universal and concrete.
The final stage of the dialectic for the Geist is self-awareness. At this stage the Absolute will have no more antitheses inherent in it. All that exists will be harmoniously at one with itself. Individuals will finally experience true freedom since there will no longer be any areas of conflict. With it, there will be an end to the pattern of change. Hegel’s view is called “Absolute Idealism;” “Absolute” because it is encompassing everything, and “Idealism,” because the essential stuff of what exists (Geist) is non-material. For Hegel, reality is rational and this is its logic.
- The Chronicle of Higher Education has an excellent infographic showing the measures that various magazines use to put together their college rankings ( HT). And, in another Chronicle article, Camille Paglia argues that we need to Revalorize blue collar employment (HT).
- Mere Orthodoxy offers some interesting thoughts from Oliver O’Donovan on the necessarily metaphysical nature of moral reflection.
- Here’s a free mini-book from D.A. Carson, From the Resurrection to His Return: Living Faithfully in the Last Days, a lightly edited manuscript from his sermon on 1 Timothy 3:1-4:8. HT
- NPR does a piece on whether belief in God is evolutionarily advantageous.
- And, what do you do if prostitution has become too much of a problem in your neighborhood? Why, give the prostitutes more privacy, of course.
- Christopher Benson discusses whether Christianity entails a particular metaphysics, citing William Hasker in favor of the idea that although Christianity itself is not a metaphysical system, it does imply one.
- Pete Enns discusses the image of God, offering a pretty standard functional understanding of the image as kingly representation.
- Koinonia has posted an excerpt from Craig Blomberg’s commentary on James discussing why “Not many of you should presume to be teachers.”
- Mark Stevens has completed round one of his Christian scholars grudge match. The only disappointment was that Brueggemann lost to Waltke – clearly a tragedy.
- Phil Sumpter discusses why the early Christians were persecuted.
- Joel has a great interview with Matt Mikalatos about his book Imaginary Jesus.
- Westminster books is offering the 5-volume The Essential Edwards Collection at 50% off.
- Adam Kirsch explains why he thinks Slavoj Zizek is the most despicable philosopher in the West.
- And, an article at Religion Dispatches, “Medieval Multitasking: Did We Ever Focus?“, argues that medieval manuscripts have more in common with modern technology than we might think.