Monthly Archives: July 2011

Does the Soul exist?

31 Sunday Jul 2011

Posted by in Things that Matter

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

The existence (or non-existence) of the Soul Matters. Think about it.

If man is entirely, completely, totally and only physical material then when we die, that’s it. There is nothing to live on; all that we are would be in the grave decomposing. There would be no afterlife.

Contrast that with the belief that there is a part of who we are (metaphysically) that is immaterial and non-physical, but somehow deeply connected to our physical bodies. This is generally how most people describe the Soul. This framework certainly allows for the Soul to survive the body’s mortality and live on in some type of afterlife.

Most find comfort in the belief that there is more than just the standard 78.7 years here on Earth. The problem is a comfort (or hope for an afterlife) is not a defendable reason to believe in the Soul. But in order for there to be a possibility of an afterlife; some type of immaterial & non-physical self must exist. If this is true, then we must consider the possibilities of what happens after our bodies past away and if there are consequences for our choices here on Earth. We should think carefully about this to get it right.

Or we can look at this question from a different angle: If there is no afterlife, then there certainly is no judgment for our actions during our time here on Earth. This obviously needs to be developed and defended more thoroughly, but I think if there is no afterlife we are under no obligation to adhere any moral standards, since they would all be ontologically subjective.

Even if the belief in the soul would make us all feel better, or release us from obeying moral standards; these are not arguments, only hopes or preferences. That is why I want to defend the existence of the Soul and refute Physicalism.

You see, whether or not the soul exists does Matter. Are humans made up of only one component (matter) or are we made up of two components (matter and an immaterial self)? This is what philosophers describe as the mind-body problem. Below is my brief defense of the Soul:

Does the Soul exist? Am I only a physical body? These are age-old questions that all people certainly have considered. It is safe to say that throughout human history, most people have believed in an immaterial self, namely a Soul, which is separate but somehow united to the physical body. For this reason, these same people believed their immaterial soul could survive their physical body in some kind of afterlife. Yet, only recently has this view been challenged. Largely due to the widespread acceptance of Darwinian evolutionary theory, many people (including some Christians) have abandoned the belief in the human Soul and found themselves deeply embedded in physicalism. My goal today is to explore physicalism to discover if it is a sound view of the mind-body problem.

The mind-body problem is best examined by exploring the following question: are human beings made up of only one component, namely matter; or are humans made up of two components, matter and soul (Moreland & Craig, 229)? If the former is true, then physicalism, the belief that human beings, along with all of their features are completely and entirely physical, must be true. Consequently on this view, the mind (or Soul) and all of its events would be identical to the brain.

Therefore, physicalism raises the question: is the mind identical to the brain? In order for physicalism to be true, mental entities must be identical to physical entities. For two entities X and Y to be identical, whatever is true of X will be true of Y and vice versa (Moreland & Craig, 232). Since physicalism claims that all entities are purely physical entities, to defeat it, we must only show that some the entities of human beings are not physical; thus making them non-identical.

Mental entities can be defined as something which only a subject has private, first-person access (Moreland & Craig, 231). Examples of mental entities are sensations or awarenesses like the experience of colors, sounds, smells, tastes, pain, etc. Acts of will or purposing are also considered mental entities. Purposing is like the story of a girl named Judy who fell asleep sitting in a chair. While asleep, her was arm is tied down without her knowing. As she awoke she tries to raise her arm while yawning. The act of will or purposing is the trying to bring about the event of raising her arm, even though physical act was unsuccessful. The act of will is an intentional action that was done by a conscious self, yet it is not a physical action (Moreland & Craig, 232).

If physicalism is true, then either these mental entities described above do not actually exist or they are identical to physical entities. It does not seem reasonable that these mental entities do not exist, as we have demonstrated above a list of real examples. Thus, the question remains; are these metal entities identical to physical entities? In other words, are all things true of mental entities also true of physical entities and vice versa.

One thing needs to be said about the relationship between mental and physical entities. There is no controversy that mental and physical entities could be in relationship with each other. Take for example when a neurosurgeon touches a part of one’s brain. When he does this, it likely will cause some type of mental entity to occur. What we must keep in mind is this example only proves that the mental entities are connected or have relationship with the brain, not that they are identical. Remember, for the two entities to be identical, all things true of one must be true of the other and vice versa.

Therefore, to show that mental and physical entities are non-identical, we need to look at their properties. A property is a characteristic or an attribute of something (DeWeese & Moreland, 30). For example, the Dallas Cowboys logo has the property of being blue. There are also things called self-presenting properties. These properties are mental properties like feeling joyful, the experience of the color pink, or the thought that the number seven is a prime number. Self-presenting properties present themselves directly to the subject, that is, the subject has awareness of them immediately, in her conscious state (Moreland & Craig, 234).

The following argument is used to show that mental and physical entities are not identical using properties. The argument goes like this: 1) No physical properties are self-presenting.  2) At least some mental properties are self-presenting. 3) Therefore, at least some mental properties are not physical properties (Moreland & Craig, 234). If this argument is sound, it proves that mental and physical properties are not identical. Let us explore the premises to see if the argument is sound.

The argument claims that there are no physical properties that are self-presenting. To illustrate, take Sally, who is in a position to know her own mental events in a way that is not available to anyone else. However, this is not true of physical properties. Think of a doctor, who studies a Sally’s brain. He can certainly know more about Sally’s brain then she can herself. The problem is that the doctor cannot know what Sally’s thoughts are, unless he is told by Sally. This is because physical properties of the brain are not self-presenting while the mental properties of the brain are. This example shows how the first two premises are sound and the conclusion that some mental properties are not physical properties necessarily follows (Moreland & Craig, 234-235).

A second way to find out if mental and physical entities are identical is by a thought experiment given by Dr. JP Moreland. Dr. Moreland asks one to picture a pink elephant in your mind. When you focus on the pink elephant you will have an awareness of the color pink inside of your mind of which you are incorrigibly aware. Obviously, there is no actual pink elephant or the awareness of the color pink inside of your physical brain. As such, if a neurosurgeon could cut open your head and dig around inside of your brain, he will never find the pink entity or your awareness of such an entity during the pink elephant experience. In fact, the neurosurgeon might see some neurons firing, but the only way he would know what your thoughts were, is by asking you for them. This is because the pink entity or awareness is a self-presenting property and not a physical one. Therefore, the mental entity of the experience of the color pink is not the same thing as the physical event associated with it in the brain. The mental entity is not stored inside of the brain nor does it have physical properties. It would not make sense to ask how much the experience of the color pink weighs nor to ask what it smells like. These questions are nonsense as mental entities are not physical and cannot be measured in such a way (Moreland, Recorded Lecture).

As a result, if some metal properties are not physical properties, then they are not identical. Remember, for two entities X and Y to be identical, all things true of X must be true of Y and vice versa. Given that physicalism requires mental and physical entities to be identical and we have seen this is not true; physicalism must be false.

If our mental properties and our physical properties are not identical, then they are two separate substances. One substance would be our physical body and the other would be an immaterial and non-physical self, which is normally thought of as the Soul. Keep in mind, these two may interact, but they are not identical or the exact same substance. Although space does not allow for a full explanation, this view is called substance dualism. Substance dualism seems to best correspond with reality and be the best explanation for the mind-body problem.

So, if you ask me, the Soul certainly exists; and in the end, that Matters.

Works Cited

DeWeese, Garrett and JP Moreland. Philosophy Made Slightly Less Difficult.  Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005. Print.

Moreland, JP. In Defense Of The Soul. Biola University. La Mirada, CA. n.d. Recorded Lecture. MP3 file.

Moreland, JP and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview.    Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003. Print.

The final step

25 Monday Jul 2011

Posted by in Insights from Clive Staples

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

“I know very well when, but hardly how, the final step was taken. I was driven to Whipsnade one sunny morning. When we set out I did not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and when we reached the zoo I did. Yet I had not exactly spent the journey in thought. Nor in great emotion. ‘Emotional’ is perhaps the last word we can apply to some of the most important events. It was more like when a man, after [a] long sleep, still lying motionless in bed, becomes aware that he is now awake.”

-CS Lewis (Surprised by Joy)

Whipsnade Zoo

Whipsnade Zoo

Adapting the Message II

16 Saturday Jul 2011

Posted by in Things that Matter

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

(This post was actually intended as a comment on my previous blog post “Adapting the Message”. However, 2,000 words later, I decided this ought be an entire new blog entry. In order to understand this post in it’s full context, please read “Adapting the Message” along with the comments from Jeff Cook & Kyle Dellevoet. And most importantly, when your are done reading, let me know what you think!)

Kyle, thanks for your thoughts. Good stuff.  Jeff, if you are still reading this, thanks again for yours. To both of you, I hope my comments do not come across as curt or rude. I’m simply just trying to be precise and unequivocal. Please read my comments knowing I respect you both and enjoy a good, meaty theological discussion.

By way of analogy, I would like to submit what I think is going on here.

One day Billy gets home from elementary school and cannot find his dog, Fido. (Unbeknown to Billy, just three hours before he walked through the door, Fido was dramatically killed. In fact, Fido was chasing a squirrel onto the busy highway in front of Billy’s home at the same time an 18-wheeler was barreling down the road. Fido was viciously ran over by the 18-wheeler causing his canine body to be torn into dozens of pieces and his blood was littered carelessly across the road, staining the concrete.) Curiously, Billy asks his father where he can find Fido.

At this point his father has, from what I can tell, only three options. 1) He can tell Billy the dramatic story of Fido’s death, including all the graphic images of the blood with the smashed, mangled and distorted body parts. 2) He can calmly and lovingly tell Billy the truth of Fido’s death, without all the graphic language and unnecessary offensiveness. 3) He can lie to Billy and tell him, for example, that Fido actually was taken to a farm, out in the country, so he can have more room to run. Although the message is untrue, it certainly makes it much more pleasant & palatable.

Let’s look at the merits of each option. 1) This option is factual, true but unnecessarily offensive and harsh. The father is telling Billy exactly the situation without any grace. 2) This option is also factual and true. However, this option offers grace and does not add any offensiveness that is not absolutely necessary. 3) This option is plainly false. The father knows the truth of the situation, but in an effort not to offend his son, he gives him a false representation of the facts.

Ok, you might be thinking: Thanks for that weird story, Allston. Now, how does this relate to our discussion? 

Option 1) This option seems to be what you (Kyle) are talking about with your experiences at the Christian concerts, parties and events. I think we both agree this method is not effective. I’ve heard Greg Koukl say many times: “The Gospel is offensive enough, don’t add anymore offense to it!” I couldn’t agree more. The idea that we all are fallen, selfish people who are completely helpless and in need of a Savior; and without Christ’s provision, there are serious consequences. This Gospel is wildly offensive to the masses. So, if at all possible, I don’t think we should add any offensiveness to it by carelessly throwing around hateful rederick like: ‘repent or Hell will be awfully hot!’ or ‘If you don’t believe in Jesus, you get what you deserve: flames, flames, flames!’ or ‘have fun in Hell!’. This to me (although technically in line with the traditional view of Hell) is misrepresenting the message and wildly ineffective. If the father where to present the graphic details of Fido’s death to Billy, what good would that serve? I believe that he would be adding unnecessary offensiveness to the message.

Option 2) Here is the place where I think Christians ought to be. We must keep the message factual and true. We must stay within what God has revealed to man. If something is not exactly neat, tidy and pleasant (but we are convinced it is what God has said) we still have to present it so it’s aligned with God’s revelation. With that said, let us remember Koukl’s phrase: “The Gospel is offensive enough, don’t add anymore offense to it!” But what I did not mention above is what Koukl adds to the end of this phrase: “But we must not remove any of the inherent offensiveness.” This is key. Just like the father in the story, he told Billy the truth, which leaves the inherent offensiveness of Fido’s death. But with grace, he did not add any unnecessary offensiveness to the harsh news.

Option 3) This option is what I want to (and think other Christians should) keep at arms length. This option is simply a lie. It’s not factually true. It does not matter how great of story the father can tell, Fido is dead and not at the country farm. If one has come to the conclusion that God has revealed conscious eternal punishment for those without Christ’s provision, then they ought proclaim that message with the clarifications mentioned in options one & two. If one thinks that God has revealed something else, then they ought proclaim that with the clarifications mentioned in options one & two. Let us not adapt the message to (essentially) a lie only to remove the inherent offensiveness that we do not have the authority to remove in the first place.

(This may raise the question: What if I think the Scriptures teach something other than the traditional view of conscious torment in Hell? If you have evidence from the Scriptures that you think God has revealed something else, then defend it and proclaim it.  I think this is a valid method of reasoning. Conversely, adapting the message, I think, is a misguided methodology. Like I mentioned in my original blog, I’m really not debating the doctrine of Hell proper, but trying to show a certain methodology is flawed.)

I also want to talk a little about the comments regarding rejection of gods. I think both of you (Jeff & Kyle) mentioned that people accept or reject gods based on (their own view) of each particular god’s character. While I admit this could factor into the decision-making process; I also think there are many more factors that contribute a great deal more. Do most withhold their devotion and worship of Osiris based on his character? I would be willing to defend that Osiris is rejected primarily because most do not think he actually exists, objectively. People first look to the evidences of the existence of a certain god named Osiris. They ask: What evidences are there for Osiris’ existence? Has he left man a certain revelation? If he has, is the method of transition (of the revelation) reliable? What reasons are there to believe that Osiris not just a myth? Does the revelation of Osiris align with historical fact and with archeology? Does the worldview given by Osiris correspond with what I find in reality? After these questions are answered, I think then a person will look at Osiris’ character. And here is the big point that I want to drive home: If all of the above questions leave little doubt that Osiris really does exist, then our evaluation of Osiris’ character is a bit irrelevant. If Osiris really does exist, but has poor character, we may not worship him, but he still exists. In the same way, as Americans if we don’t like the character of a certain President, is he still not in authority over us? Our opinion of the President’s character changes nothing of his (earthly) sovereign authority over us. If Osiris really is the supreme being of the Universe and he offers us the only chance of salvation through our worship and devotion, then ought we not worship him regardless how we view his character? What I’m trying to get at is that we ought to decide which god we worship not on which one (in our opinion) has the best character or which one fits our view of ‘good’. But rather on the God that we have good reason to believe is the Sovereign of the Universe and then we are informed of His character and goodness through His revelation.

I also want to respond to Kyle’s comment: “So, when someone (I don’t know if Chan said this or not but for instance) says, God can do what He wants, He is God. If he feels like it He can throw 1,000 screaming babies into a lake of ECT and it’s “just” because He is God. That raises some red flags for most thinking people because none of us can throw 1000 screaming babies into anything without dying 1000 deaths of sodomy and potassium chloride, and experiencing “justice.”

Just to be clear, I understand where the question comes from and I see the red flags. I don’t think there is anything wrong with asking the question. However, I think we ought to look at what God has revealed. Do not the Scriptures say that God is perfectly good and just? Do not the Scriptures say that God is sovereign over all? Do not the Scriptures say that the Creator (the potter) can do what He wills with His creation (the clay) (Romans 9)? Do the Scriptures not warn us: Who are we to say what the Creator can do with His creation if he intends one for honor and another for dishonor (Romans 9)? Now, there is nothing wrong with honest questions, but if we use these red flags to dismiss or change the Scriptures (I’m not saying either of you are doing this, but only the those who use the methodology I’m trying to refute), I think we are in danger of the warning that Paul is giving in Romans 9. Let’s ask the questions and have good discussion on these things, I have no problem with that. In fact, I love discussing these things, because I think they Matter. But I think we should keep the methodology of adapting the message at arms length.

Last, I want to respond to this comment from Kyle: “So, the truth is that it may be true that God can and does (the screaming baby bit), but there are more helpful ways in framing the character and nature of God that don’t in any way change the truth of God’s word. So, maybe I misinterpreted Cook, but I think He was just saying that we need some more creative ways to help people understand God and Hell and to help bridge the gap for people that see eternally flaming infants as a barrier to submitting to and worshiping a just, holy, loving….etc., etc., etc. God.”

I agree completely with you, Kyle. I think what you have described above is what I’m trying to get at in option two.  I may have misunderstood Cook’s post. (That is why I have been trying to identify this methodology not Cook directly, which I mentioned in my original post.) If Cook was looking to accomplish option two in the above analogy, then all three of us are in complete agreement. At first glace, it may have looked like I was part of the group that utilizes option one, but I’m not. I’m in favor of option 2. Only if you (or Cook) are promoters of option three, then I would have to respectfully disagree.

Sorry that was really long. This dialogue has made me think a lot. Thank you both. As I mentioned above, I think talking about things like this is important. I think it Matters.

Thoughts?

Adapting the Message

13 Wednesday Jul 2011

Posted by in Things that Matter

≈ 4 Comments

Browsing through my Facebook feed today, I noticed that a friend referenced a blog post by a guy named Jeff Cook.

In a nutshell, Cook mentions a new book by Francis Chan that is essentially a response to Rob Bell’s most recent book; Love Wins. Many evangelicals have claimed that Bell’s new book flirts with Universalism; a belief that all people will be saved regardless of their faith in Jesus.

After reading the blog, here is what I came away with: If we want to effectively evangelize the non-believer, we must tailor our theology around what non-believers find acceptable. Please read the article for yourself and see if you see this as the theme.

This may or may not have been Cook’s message. If not, no problem; I’m then not speaking to Cook directly. But this idea is quite popular among our postmodern society these days.

Therefore, if I’m allowed to, I respectfully disagree with this idea. According to this reasoning, wouldn’t we have to adjust our view of God in light of the stumbling blocks of the non-believers? Regardless of anyone’s view of Hell, isn’t God’s nature & revelation objective by definition? If so, then it really doesn’t matter if some of the Creator’s creation finds part of his nature ‘repugnant’. For if something to be objective it means that it is true regardless of how people feel or think about it. If God is objective then, He is what He is and is not changed by the views of His creation.

Say, for example and for the sake of argument, that it is an objective fact that God annihilates those who are without Christ’s provision. (Annihilationism is the view that the souls of those who are not saved by Christ will be destroyed and removed from existence, rather than in eternal conscious punishment. The latter is the traditional Christian doctrine of Hell.) What if a non-believer thinks annihilation is unjust and any God that annihilates some of his creation is not worthy of worship? Maybe, he thinks that there should be justice paid for certain moral crimes committed. What if annihilation is too big of a bridge for him to cross for belief in Christ? Should the Christians then change their message to say that Hell is the actual truth to accommodate this particular non-believer? Does the non-believers problem with annihilation change God in any way?

I certainly don’t see why this would be a reasonable position to hold. Are we not obligated to find out what God has actually revealed to man and then proclaim that as truth? It sounds like the writer is indicating that we ought to adapt our message to what non-believers think God should be like? Now, I agree that we need to present the Gospel in a relevant way, but if we change the essentials of what God has objectively revealed, then it seems that we could be presenting another Gospel? This seems like a bad idea in light of the Scriptures.

You see, if a person thinks that they should adapt their message of God’s nature to what the non-believer wants to hear, then where does it stop? It seems to me that if we use this methodology, then we are on a very slippery slope.

Think about it, what else could be tailored to fit what the non-believer thinks God should be like? Maybe the non-believer thinks that a God who calls for chastity, charity or temperance with alcohol is repugnant. Should then the Christians adapt their message and claim that God doesn’t care about these things? Should they build this bridge even though they know it is in opposition to God’s revelation in the Scriptures?

I don’t think so. You see, ideas have consequences and I think this one is bankrupt.

What do you think?

(Keep in mind here I’m only speaking about methodology and not the doctrine of Hell proper. I have my own views on Hell, which I have not expressed in this blog.)

The full treatment

09 Saturday Jul 2011

Posted by in Insights from Clive Staples

≈ Leave a Comment

“I find a good many people have been bothered by….Our Lord’s words, ‘be ye perfect’. Some people seem to think that this means ‘Unless you are perfect, I will not help you’; and as we cannot be perfect, then, if He meant that, our position is hopeless. But I do not think He did mean that. I think He meant ‘The only help I will give is help to become perfect. You may want something less: but I will give you nothing less.’

Let me explain. When I was a child I often had toothache, and I knew that if I went to my mother she would give me something which would deaden the pain for that night and let me get to sleep. But I did no go to my mother – at least, not till the pain became very bad. And the reason I did not go was this. I did not doubt she would give me the aspirin; but I knew she would also do something else. I knew she would take me to the dentist next morning. I could not get what I wanted out of her without getting something more, which I did not want. I wanted immediate relief from pain: but I could not get it without having my teeth set permanently right. And I knew those dentists: I knew they started fiddling about with all sorts of other teeth which had not yet begun to ache. They would not let sleeping dogs lie, if you gave them an inch they took an ell.

Now, if I may put it that way, Our Lord is like the dentists. If you give Him an inch, He will take an ell. Dozens of people go to Him to be cured of some on particular sin which they are ashamed of (like masturbation or physical cowardice) or which is obviously spoiling daily life (like bad temper or drunkenness). Well, He will cure it all right: but he will not stop there. That may be all you asked; but if once you call Him in, He will give you the full treatment.”

-CS Lewis (Mere Christianity)

The Full Treatment

New perspective…

08 Friday Jul 2011

Posted by in Insights from Clive Staples

≈ Leave a Comment

“Christianity asserts that every individual human being is going to live for ever, and this must either be true or false. Now there are a good many things which would not be worth bothering about if I were going to live only seventy years, but which I had better bother about very seriously if I am going to live for ever. Perhaps my bad temper or my jealously are gradually getting worse – so gradually that the increase in seventy years will not be very noticeable. But it might be absolute hell in a million years: in fact, if Christianity is true, Hell is the precisely correct technical term for what it would be. And immortality makes this other difference, which, by the by, has a connection with the difference between totalitarianism and democracy. If individuals live only seventy years, then a state, or a nation, or a [civilization], which may last for a thousand years, is more important than an individual. But if Christianity is true, then the individual is no only more important but incomparably more important, for he is everlasting and the life of a state or a [civilization], compared with his, is only a moment.”

-CS Lewis (Mere Christianity)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.