Re: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required?

Perhaps some of us are laboring under one definition of dualism, when Karl, Ted and David are using another. Thed Merriam Webster online dictionary defines dualism as

Function:
noun
Date:
1794
1: a theory that considers reality to consist of two irreducible elements or modes
2: the quality or state of being dual or of having a dual nature
3 a: a doctrine that the universe is under the dominion of two opposing principles one of which is good and the other evil b: a view of human beings as constituted of two irreducible elements (as matter and spirit)

The dualism that is rejected by Christian theology is definition 3. I think Karl, David and Ted are using definition 1.

 William E. (Bill) Hamilton, Ph.D. Member ASA
248.821.8156 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
http://www.bricolagia.blogspot.com/
Want to help a child?: http://www.compassion.com/sponsor/index.asp?referer=85198

----- Original Message ----
From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
To: Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu>
Cc: "karl.w.giberson@enc.edu" <gibersok@gmail.com>; ASA list <asa@calvin.edu>; Stephen Matheson <smatheso@calvin.edu>; Steve Martin <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>; George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 8:53:23 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required?

Thank you Ted. My understanding is that mind/spirit - matter dualism also is quite healthy in Roman Catholic philosophy and theology. And I know that dualism is a major theme in conservative evangelical philosopy and theology (J.P. Moreland of course and if I recall correctly Millard Erickson's Systematic Theology). My understanding also is that a sort of mind - matter dualism (or at least a mind-matter ontological distinction) is viable in dialectical critical realism (Roy Bhaskar et al), via emergentism -- and I could see Nancey Murphy et al.'s nonreductive physicalism being viewed this way, though I don't think Murphy herself goes in that direction.
 
Busy day, not much time to track some of this down today -- but I hope we can continue this discussion. This is great stuff.

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:

>>> "karl.w.giberson@enc.edu" <gibersok@gmail.com> 6/10/2008 8:44 AM >>>
writes:

The theologians and philosophers I talk to all reject dualism.
I am under the impression that it has a negligibly small place in
contemporary discourse. Many biblical scholars consider dualism to be
non-biblical, a Greek idea from Plato that is inconsistent with
Hebraic understandings. The whole point of affirming the
"resurrection of the body" is that there is no other way to recover
the person. If dualism were true, then our immaterial souls could
exist apart from our bodies.

Ted comments:
As my earlier post indicates, Karl and I are apparently not talking to the
same theologians and philosophers.

I entirely agree with Karl about affirming the bodily resurrection, but my
own view of that event, heavily influenced by my own reflection on scripture
and also by NT Wright, is that (so to speak) there is a time in between our
physical death and our re-embodiment in a glorified body. I don't know
whether or not Karl holds this view; perhaps Karl believes that our
re-embodiment is instantaneous (so to speak). If he does share this view,
however, then I would ask him: Karl, where do "you" go in between death and
resurrection (so to speak)? Does God hold you in God's own mind? If so, is
God's mind a material mind or not? Does being held in God's mind count as
being embodied, or not? Either way, what exactly is it that God remembers,
prior to our resurrection? Is it our "form", as the scholastic philosophers
(who weren't stupid) might call it? Is it our "soul"? Even if God
remembers us as embodied creatures, not simply as "forms" or "souls," what
exactly is it in God's mind, in between times? Isn't it something pretty
darn like a "form" or "soul" of you or me?

I don't pretend to have good answers to these really hard questions. Karl
might, in which case I'm all ears. But my overall point here is (again) to
avoid dancing on the gravestone of dualism, when (like Huck Finn), it might
be attending its own funeral.

Ted

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology 
      
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.