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

Karl, David, and Ted are going by definition 3b not 1.

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Bill Hamilton <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> 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.
Received on Tue Jun 10 11:34:44 2008