Re: mind/brain, the soul and immortality

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 08:55:15 -0500 Dawsonzhu@aol.com writes:
>
> I would tend to have some objections to the notion of the
> soul and spirit being a finction of the brain only. But
> seeing the effects of progressive illness like Alzheimer's
> has shook most of the dualist out of me. What we see as
> mind definitely appears to need a sufficient number of
> functioning brain cells, at least. However, there does
> seem to be a reasonable case that the mind is not just
> memory chips, cpu and a few algorithms. A soul based
> at this mechanistic view would be inadequate to express
> the mind, much less the soul.
>
> Nevertheless viewing the limitations set on a strongly
> dualist position, I don't see how we can get around the
> problem of what part of a soul would actually be preserved
> if it is not somehow in God's memory to reconstruct it.
> Paul talks about the dead rising, but I cannot think that
> should be taken too literally. What is claimed in the
> Bible is a new heaven and a new earth. So some kind of
> transformation seems to be implied even in scripture.
>
> Would you please suggest what would fit as an alternative
> to a "God's memory" as the primary means for ressurecting
> the soul?
>
> by Grace alone we proceed,
> Wayne
>
>
The obvious problem with God's memory is, on the orthodox view, that he
is omniscient. This has to mean that he is equally aware of us as we live
(ensouled), while we are dead (whether "asleep" or aware, for views
differ), and in the resurrection body. Paul seems rather clear that a
disconnect from the body involved his connection to presence in "heaven"
(II Corinthians 5). Nowadays there are those who argue for a limit to
God's knowledge of the future, making it impossible for him to know what
we'll do until we do it. Then God is somehow stuck in time. But I rather
think that time is part of the space-time continuum, of creation rather
than Creator. But I've run across one view that claims that God became
time-entangled when he created the universe. I'd place the connection at
the incarnation with involvement of the Son rather than the Triune
Godhead. It is obvious that the discussion gets abstruse when
philosophers and theologians try to draw their ramified conclusions.

The primary difficulty seems to me to be that we too often draw
conclusions narrowly, neglecting the full range of interconnected
matters. There is always the tyranny of unintended consequences or
related difficulties. "What am I missing?" should be always in our
consciousness as we try to formulate our explanations. Even with this we
are finite. It's distressing to be merely human, recognizing that we'll
not get it all right--except perhaps in the purely formal studies.
Dave
Received on Sun Mar 20 22:11:40 2005