The Current Body-Soul Debate: a Case for Dualistic Holism John W

The Current Body-Soul Debate: A Case for Dualistic Holism John W. Cooper

Overview ics. It surveys why the debate about the body and he title of a recent anthology, In Search soul developed, introduces the current positions, Tof the Soul, reflects the current diversity of and identifies the important biblical, theological, opinion and occasional confusion among Chris- philosophical, scientific, ethical, and practical- tian scholars about the constitution of humans as pastoral issues involved. It argues that dualistic body and soul. Four evangelical philosophers each holism—the existential unity but temporary sepa- present different theories of body and soul, only ration of body and soul—remains the most ten- 2 John W. Cooper is Professor of some of which are consistent with able view. Philosophical Theology at Calvin historic doctrine, and the book’s Theological Seminary in Grand introduction raises more ques- Historical Background of the Rapids, Michigan. tions about the traditional view Current Positions 1 Dr. Cooper served in the United than about recent alternatives. Traditional Positions States Army as a Chaplain’s It may surprise ordinary church Throughout history, the ecumenical Christian Assistant. From there he continued members to learn that, for a gen- tradition—Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catho- his studies at the University eration, Christian academics have lic, and most historic Protestant churches—has of Toronto and then at Calvin Theological Seminary. He taught vigorously debated which theory of affirmed that God created humans as unities of Philosophy at Calvin College body and soul best reflects proper body and soul but that disembodied souls exist in from 1978 to 1985, when he joined exegesis of Scripture, sound phi- an intermediate state between death and resurrec- the seminary faculty. Dr. Cooper 3 has written many articles and is losophy, and cutting-edge science. tion. In other words, body and soul are distinct the author of Body, Soul, and Life The traditional view that our souls and normally integrated, but the soul can exist Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology are separable from our bodies has separately, sustained by God. They are unified in and the Monism-Dualism Debate been challenged by many scholars, creation, redemption, and eternal life, whereas (2d. ed.; Eerdmans, 2000). including evangelicals. separation is a temporary consequence of sin and This article attempts to make sense of this situ- death. An appropriate term for this view is dual- ation for those who are not professional academ- istic holism, which emphasizes the union of body

32 SBJT 13.2 (2009): 32-50. and soul but recognizes the dichotomy. Dualistic challenged the distinctness of the soul. Evolution holism is a general position represented by more implied that consciousness gradually emerged than one theological and philosophical definition from matter as organisms became more complex, of body and soul. and thus it claimed to explain human mental and There are two main kinds of dualistic holism in spiritual capacities without postulating a soul. traditional Christian thought. Substance dualism In addition, study of brain functions and inju- holds that soul and body are distinct substances ries revealed the dependence of personality and (things, entities) that are conjoined to form a mental functions on the brain, and many thinkers whole human being. Adapted from Plato, this view concluded that mind and personality are produced is held by Augustine, Anselm, Eastern Orthodox by the brain. For more than a century, a growing theologians, Calvin, Descartes, many Protestant number of intellectuals have affirmed the physical theologians, and contemporary Christian phi- basis of the soul. losophers such as Alvin Plantinga and Richard Christians persuaded by this paradigm have Swinburne.4 Christian substance dualism could be adopted philosophical theories consistent with called Augustinian dualism. The other theory was it. One is called emergentism, the idea that the proposed by Thomas Aquinas, who adapted Aris- soul (personality and mind) gradually emerges totle and taught that humans consist of a substan- from the physical body and brain during normal tial soul that informs matter to constitute a bodily development, but that the soul is distinct from the human person. A human is not two substances but body, acquires its own powers and characteristics, one being consisting of a spiritual soul and matter. and reciprocally affects the body. Some emer- We can label this theory soul-matter dualism or gentists believe that God sustains the soul apart Thomist dualism. Most Roman Catholics, some from the body after death.6 Physicalism asserts that traditional Protestants, and contemporary Chris- personality and mental activities are functions of tian philosophers such as Eleonore Stump, Brian the brain. Most Christians who hold this view are Leftow, J. P. Moreland, and Scott Rae are Thomist non-reductive physicalists.7 They claim that the soul dualists.5 All dualists affirm that body and soul and mind are generated by brain processes. But are distinct and that the soul can exist apart from they also admit that the mind and the brain have the body. Thomist dualism is more holistic than different characteristics, and that science cannot Augustinian dualism because it emphasizes that explain how the brain generates the mind or the a human being is one thing, not the conjunction mind affects the brain. In this way they aim to of two things. preserve room for human freedom and genuine personal interaction with God and other human Modern Challenges to Traditional beings. However, physicalism precludes the pos- Dualism sible existence of the soul apart from the brain, Philosophy and Science and so they cannot affirm the intermediate state. Developments in modern philosophy and sci- A few Christian philosophers are material consti- ence challenged traditional Christian dualism. tutionists, which means that human persons are Already in the seventeenth century, philosopher constituted (generated, organized, and empow- Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) anticipated current ered) by, but not identical with, their bodies.8 physicalism by claiming that the soul results from Some constitutionists allow for persons to exist in the movement of parts of the body, and Baruch an intermediate state by postulating that the mate- Spinoza (1632-77) was a monist who argued that rial body divides (“fissures”) at death into a corpse soul and body are inseparable aspects of a single and a body that continues to constitute the person. substance. Nineteenth-century science further

33 Modern Biblical Scholarship and Theology ism, emergentism, non-reductive physicalism, and Developments in modern biblical scholarship material constitutionism. and theology also undermined belief in a separable soul. Studies of the Hebrew and Greek words Scripture and Scholarship: for body, soul, and spirit concluded that biblical Two Books of Revelation— anthropology is more holistic and less dualistic the Bible and Nature than had been supposed. To explain traditional Before proceeding to interpretations of bibli- dualistic exegesis, historians pointed out that the cal teaching, we must consider the relationship church fathers, such as Justin Martyr, Origen, between Scripture, philosophy, and science, and Augustine, were trained in Platonic philoso- which can affect how we interpret Scripture. One phy and often read the biblical terminology for reason for disagreement about body and soul is body and soul accordingly. Modern theologians that Christians do not relate doctrine and scholar- have advocated more monistic views of human ship the same way. nature and repudiated dualism as residual Greek Theologians have long spoken of God’s revela- philosophy that is incompatible with holistic tion as two books, the book of Scripture and the Hebrew thought.9 book of nature, also called special or supernatural But if we do not have separable souls, what revelation and general or natural revelation (cf. Ps happens when we die? Two modern alternatives 19, Rom 1:18-25). Until modern times, Scripture to the traditional doctrine of a disembodied inter- was regarded as the final authority on everything mediate state are current. One is immediate resur- that it addresses, including topics also studied by rection: at death we instantly acquire resurrection philosophy and science. From Augustine through bodies that generate our personalities without Aquinas to the Protestant Reformers and dog- interruption. The other is non-existence-resurrec- maticians, theology derived from the Bible was tion: at death our personalities cease to exist until the queen of the sciences, and the conclusions of God raises us as bodily beings in the future. philosophy and science were read and evaluated through the lenses of interpreted Scripture. But Positions in the Current Debate modern science posed a problem because some In sum, to understand and evaluate the cur- of its conclusions seem to conflict with Scripture. rent debate about body and soul, we must con- Since the seventeenth century, most Christians sider three competing doctrines of the afterlife have conceded that the Bible’s references to nature in the light of Scripture: intermediate state- are not always intended to teach scientific truths. resurrection, immediate resurrection, and non- For example, even Christians who reject evolution existence-resurrection. If the Bible teaches that have different beliefs about the size, structure, and human persons exist between physical death perhaps the age of the universe than the writers of and resurrection, then a sufficient body-soul or Scripture did. Modern Christian thinkers have body-person duality is necessary to make this handled this tension in two general ways; one possible. Other biblical teachings that a theory affirms a comprehensive biblical worldview; the of body and soul must reflect include the unity other views Scripture and science as autonomous of human nature and the spiritual and moral sources of knowledge. responsibility of human action—the free- Many contemporary Christian scholars con- dom of the will. There are five theories of body tinue to affirm the comprehensive authority of and soul that we must evaluate in the light of Scripture and Christian doctrine. They grant the Scripture, philosophy, and science: Augustinian validity of science on empirical matters but recog- substance dualism, Thomist soul-matter dual- nize that science is limited, rests on philosophical

34 principles, and requires interpretation. They also scholarship is one significant issue involved in the understand that philosophy is not self-validating current body-soul debate. or conclusive on basic questions of God, human On this question I side with the Christian tra- nature, and worldview. Biblical doctrine finally dition of Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and leading answers those questions. In this way Christian contemporary thinkers, including Alvin Plantinga intellectuals continue to affirm the traditional and John Paul II, who insist that Holy Scripture order of revelation and reason, which recognizes presents an enduring and reasonable perspective the limited autonomy of science. in terms of which the rest of life and learning Other Christian scholars advocate complemen- should be integrated.11 That is the main reason tarism, the idea that Scripture and science do not why I am a body-soul dualist. In addition, comple- conflict because they address different topics or mentarism is unnecessary because contemporary approach the same topics in different ways. Each neuroscience does not really conflict with tradi- source of knowledge has its own authority. The tional theories of the soul, as explained below. Bible reveals the way of salvation and other truths unavailable to reason, whereas science tells us The Biblical View of Humanity: about the structure and functions of the natural Dualistic Holism world. Thus science cannot contradict Scripture, Overview and Scripture cannot contradict science. Comple- During the last century, numerous studies have mentarism is evident in the maxim, “Scripture addressed the biblical view of human nature. Any tells us that God created the world, and science summary or conclusion risks over-generalization tells us how he did it.” If they do apparently con- and caricature. I remain convinced, however, that flict, then one or both sources is reinterpreted dualistic holism best describes the presentation of to restore complementarity. Thus, for example, Scripture as a whole. Holism means that humans either Genesis does not affirm a recent creation or are created and redeemed by God as integral per- science does not affirm an old universe.10 sonal-spiritual-physical wholes—single beings Different ways of relating Scripture and science consisting of different parts, aspects, dimensions, are behind the current debate about body and and abilities that are not naturally independent soul. Some of us insist that Scripture provides the or separable. Dualism means that our core per- comprehensive framework or worldview in terms sonalities—whether we label them souls, spirits, of which philosophical and scientific concepts persons, selves, or egos—are distinct and, by God’s of the soul must be construed, and others look supernatural providence, can exist apart from our primarily to science and philosophy for concepts physical bodies after death. The emphasis of Scrip- of the soul. A major reason why traditional dual- ture is on holistic unity because God’s revealed ists hold their position is that Scripture presents intention for creation and redemption is that we souls as separable. Those who oppose body-soul are whole bodily persons. Separation occurs only dualism are typically more persuaded by science because of sin and death. Had Adam and Eve not than Scripture on this issue. They might even sinned, the separation of body and soul would not concede that the biblical writers believed in sepa- have occurred and perhaps we would not even rable souls, just as they believed a three-tiered have thought about the possibility of disembodied universe, a flat earth, and recent creation. But existence. Christ, the Second Adam, took on our opponents of dualism do not consider such beliefs mortal human nature, body and soul, to redeem, to be enduring teachings of Scripture that bind restore, and glorify it. Our eternal destiny is to be modern Christians. In sum, the proper authority immortal, resurrected, bodily persons on the new and relationship between Scripture and modern earth, not disembodied souls in heaven. What fol-

35 lows is a brief consideration of the biblical basis for a soul but is a soul, a single being consisting of dualistic holism within the biblical worldview— formed earth and breath/spirit (neshamah, a syn- the creation, fall, redemption, and consummation onym of ruach). In philosophical terms, a human of God’s kingdom.12 being is one substance, entity, or thing constituted of two distinct ingredients or components. Earth The Physical-Spiritual Biblical and spirit are irreducible: spirit does not come Worldview from earth, and earth is not a form of spirit. How- A worldview is an understanding of reality ever, earth and spirit are not substances—distinct as the context of human existence—the natu- entities—that are conjoined to form a complex ral order, the moral order, possible supernatural entity, like bread and cheese make a sandwich. beings and/or God, a possible afterlife, and so Earth is a physical or material ingredient—dirt, forth. The biblical worldview includes more than soil, clay—in bodily form. Spirit is an empower- God plus the physical universe. Scripture distin- ing non-material force—the whole set of human guishes God from creation absolutely, and it views powers and abilities: The power of life and repro- creation as having both natural and supernatural duction is shared with other living things, but our dimensions. Angels, demons, and invisible pow- personal, cognitive, moral, and spiritual abilities ers are part of the picture. God and the angels uniquely image God. God combines earthy stuff are spiritual beings with powers of knowledge, in bodily form and spiritual power to make liv- agency, and communication. Animals do not have ing human individuals. The wholeness of human such powers. The biblical view of human nature nature is basic—thus holism. is cut from the same cloth. God made humans The anthropology of the entire Old Testament from and for the earth, but we are also part of the reflects the psychophysical holism of creation for spiritual realm. We are dust and spirit, natural life in this world—distinct parts and capacities and supernatural (but not divine) beings, a little networked within whole beings.15 To illustrate, higher than the animals and a little lower than the Hebrew terms translated as spirit, soul, heart, the angels. flesh, and inward parts have both physical and An issue behind the body-soul debate is intellectual-moral-spiritual meanings. There is whether the biblical worldview is still normative no systematic division between the physical and for contemporary Christian thought. The vast spiritual parts during life which implies that soul majority of Christian thinkers since the church and body are distinct substances, as in the philos- fathers have affirmed a physical-spiritual universe ophies of Plato and Descartes. However, refined and have rejected materialism as incompatible versions of substance dualism are not necessarily with biblical teaching about humanity as well as ruled out by the Old Testament, as monists fre- God.13 But currently some Christians believe that quently claim.16 a materialist ontology of the universe and humans The corresponding New Testament terms can be a friend, or at least a neutral party. I affirm (pneuma, psuchē, kardia, sarx, sōma) come from the the traditional correlation of Scripture’s world- Septuagint, the Jewish translation of the Old Testa- view and its understanding of humanity. ment into Greek, and preserve their holistic meanings. Thus when Jesus speaks of loving God with Life and Holism our whole “heart, soul, mind, and strength,” and Genesis 2:7 states that God made Adam as a Paul refers to “body, soul, and spirit,” these terms soul or living being (nephesh chayah), forming him almost surely indicate integral aspects and powers from the dust of the ground and giving him the rather than separable parts.17 Traditional exegetes breath of life (neshamah).14 A human does not have claim too much when they appeal to such texts

36 as proof that body and soul are distinct things. view, probably influenced by Plato’s philosophy, affirms an immortal soul without bodily resur- Death and Dualism rection. A third doctrine, developed from the Death, like sin, was an avoidable possibility in Old Testament by the Pharisees and some rabbis, the good creation that God foresaw and permit- affirms both that disembodied souls or spirits ted our first parents to actualize. Death is both exist after death and that bodily resurrection will spiritual and physical, separating us from God, occur at the coming of the Messiah. the source and sustainer of body and soul. It is important to keep all three positions in Although some traditional Christian thinkers mind because modern scholarship often acknowl- have argued that the soul was created essentially edges only two options—either psycho-somatic immortal and indestructible, there is nothing in unity with bodily resurrection, or body-soul Scripture which implies that a part of humans dualism with an immortal soul.21 Given this is naturally impervious to death and disintegra- choice, if we reject the immortality of the soul tion. The fact that we exist beyond physical death as Greek dualism, then we must affirm monism is more surprising than predictable from com- as the biblical position. Many biblical exegetes mon human experience. But it is clearly affirmed have approached the New Testament assuming throughout Scripture. that it either presents Old Testament monism or In the Old Testament, the dead are thought Greek dualism. Historians of doctrine have often of as ghosts who depart to Sheol or Abbadon, a accused the church fathers of incoherently syn- dark and lifeless place below the earth, quite thesizing Hebrew and Platonic views of the soul. unlike Paradise.18 They are not joyful or active But this is dilemma is false. There is no con- in any meaningful sense, but they do continue tradiction between a holistic view of life and a to exist even after their flesh and bones decay. dualistic view of death. The Pharisees taught both Saul’s encounter with Samuel at Endor is the bodily resurrection and an intermediate state. clearest example. Samuel is at rest, but he can More significant, a straightforward reading of the still prophesy for God. But Sheol is not the end. entire New Testament yields “both-and” rather Believers hope to “dwell in the house of the Lord than “either-or.” The writers continue the holistic forever” (Psalm 23; also Ps 49:15). A few Old Tes- emphasis of the Old Testament with respect to tament texts envision bodily resurrection when salvation in this life and the life to come, and they the Lord returns to establish his Kingdom.19 In envision temporary personal existence between sum, although human life is holistic, some kind of death and the general resurrection. dualism is actualized at death. An essential aspect Key texts consistently affirm the general res- of living persons survives death and is eventually urrection at the return of Christ. Limited space physically resurrected. Thus the Old Testament requires listing them without quotation or com- outlines an intermediate state-resurrection doc- mentary. In the letters of Paul, 1 Thess 4:14-16, trine of the last things. 1 Cor 15:23-24 and 52, and Phil 3:20-21 explic- After the Old Testament, the story becomes itly locate the resurrection at the second coming. complicated. Second Temple Judaism, the Jewish Romans 8:18-23 links our resurrection with the religion between the Testaments, developed at renewal of creation, which will occur at Christ’s least three different views of the afterlife.20 One, return. In the Gospels, Luke 20:35, John 5:28- held by the Sadducees, emphasizes bodily life in 29, and John 11:23-24 speak of the resurrec- this world and does not envision future resurrection as a single event at a future time in history, tion or any significant afterlife. Sheol—also called not beyond time. Revelation 20 places resur Hades—is the final destination of all. Another rection at the return of Christ and the final judg-

37 ment. These texts must be given full weight in If there is any doubt about the straightforward debates about the biblical view of the human con- interpretation of the New Testament on its own, stitution. Thinkers who avoid disembodiment then placing it in the context of Second Temple by affirming immediate resurrection must either Judaism, especially the doctrine of the Pharisees, show that their position is more tenable than the provides strong corroboration. In Acts 23:6-8 traditional reading of these texts, or that a general Paul states his position unambiguously. He iden- resurrection at Christ’s return is not permanent tifies with the Pharisees against the Sadducees biblical doctrine. in affirming the resurrection of the dead. Luke Other texts refer to the souls or spirits of the explains that the Pharisees also believe in angels dead, sometimes implying their existence in an and spirits, the latter term almost certainly refer- intermediate state. Spirits in Heb 12:23 and most ring to deceased humans. Without an equally likely in 1 Pet 3:19-20 are instances. Matthew sound alternative explanation, this text confirms 27:50, Luke 23:46, and John 19:30 assert that Paul’s commitment to the intermediate state- Jesus gave up his spirit (not merely his last breath) resurrection eschatology.22 to God at death. Mark 7:49 and Luke 24:37 use Current defenders of monism often portray spirit to mean a ghost, a deceased human, which dualism as an academic anachronism held by indicates that this notion was commonly under- a few traditionalists who are out of touch with stood. In Matt 10:28 Jesus clearly implies that the current biblical scholarship.23 But this picture is existence of the soul is not dependent on the body. inaccurate and self-serving. Although dualism is Revelation 6 and 20 envision souls of the dead out of fashion, a number of world-class scholars awaiting resurrection and final vindication. Paul continue to endorse the intermediate state-res- does not use the terms soul and spirit for the dead urrection interpretation of Scripture from which but instead refers to himself, I [egō], as able to exist it follows. Best known is N. T. Wright, whose apart from his body (sōma) or flesh sarx( ) in 2 Cor 800-page The Resurrection of the Son of God is 5:6-9, 12:2-4, and Phil 1:21-24. The intermedi- the most thorough study of the biblical texts in ate state is certainly real for Jesus—his presence their historical context to date. He corroborates in Paradise between his death and resurrection the reading of the Pharisees, Acts 23, and Paul’s (Luke 23:43). An intermediate state is logically position stated above. Summarizing the eschatol- entailed by all the New Testament references to ogy of the entire New Testament, he concludes, the existing dead in books which also affirm the “Christianity appears as a united sub-branch of final resurrection. Pharisaic Judaism,” which affirms the “two-stage” In conclusion, although the emphasis of the sequence of intermediate state and final resur- New Testament is on the resurrection, it also con- rection.24 Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI, tains a number of significant references to souls, also cogently defends the traditional position in spirits, and an intermediate state that cannot be Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life.25 It is not a ignored, denied, or explained away. Those think- marginal anachronism. ers who try to avoid dualism by affirming non- For all the reasons summarized, dualistic existence between death and resurrection must holism remains the most responsible conclusion show either that their reading of these texts is both according to traditional exegesis and modern more tenable than the traditional view or that the biblical scholarship. Those who reject this conclu- intermediate state, like the three-tiered universe, sion have yet to produce a counter-proposal that is is not permanent biblical doctrine. nearly as thorough, comprehensive, and coherent as the case for the historic Christian position.26

38 Conclusion: Dualistic Holism and body is a distinct organization, like a magnetic Current Theories of Body and Soul field is distinct from its magnet. God can miracu- A philosophical model of body and soul that lously sustain persons in existence without the fully comports with biblical teaching must be bodies on which they normally depend. How- both holistic and dualistic in the ways speci- ever, emergentists who do not affirm supernatural fied. To test for holism, let’s take Gen 2:7, which miracles cannot suppose that persons exist when presents humans as single integral beings consti- their brains cease to function. tuted of two irreducibly distinct components— Even material constitutionists have devised a formed earth and spirit—material and immaterial theory of possible personal survival. Miraculously, ingredients. Some philosophical theories fit this atomic fission might take place at death, resulting description better than others. in two bodies—the corpse and another body that Full-blown substance dualism recognizes dis- continues to constitute the person. The soul is sus- tinct constituents but treats them as substances tained by a body in the intermediate state. (distinct entities), which implies that humans are Only physicalism precludes personal existence compounds of two things, a body and a soul. This between death and resurrection. If the soul or seems more dualistic and less holistic than the person is identical with or totally dependent on biblical picture. Thomism comes closer because processes in the neurosystem, then when that it affirms that two distinct ingredients constitute system ceases functioning, there is nothing left for one living being. But like Augustinian dualism, it God to sustain. Physicalists must either affirm an holds that the spiritual component is a subsistent immediate bodily resurrection or non-existence soul. It also claims that the soul forms the body, between death and resurrection. whereas the body is already formed by God in In conclusion, Thomism is the body-soul the- Gen 2:7 and Ezekiel 37. So the fit is not exact. ory that most closely fits both holism and dualism. Physicalism, materialism, and emergentism do Augustinian dualism is a near second, a bit more not fit the holism of Genesis 2 very well because, dualistic than holistic. Emergentism and mate- although they distinguish spirit and matter, they rial constitutionism qualify in some respects, but hold that spirit is generated by matter, which they do not recognize the basic duality of dimen- denies that there are two irreducible original prin- sions and constituents affirmed by the worldview ciples. At least emergentism affirms that the soul and anthropology of Scripture. Physicalism is the or person is a non-physical organization or force- most difficult to reconcile with Scripture. field distinct from the body. A model that would fit Gen 2:7 holism and With respect to dualism, conformity to Scrip- post-mortem dualism is this: God originally cre- ture requires a theory to allow that the soul, spirit, ated humans as single personal-bodily beings person, self, or ego is sufficiently distinct from the from distinct physical and spiritual components, brain and bodily organism that it can exist when not by conjoining an existent soul to an existent the body dies, perhaps sustained only by God’s body. Human reproduction passes both physi- miraculous power. Obviously both Augustinian cal and spiritual aspects to our offspring.27 What and Thomist dualisms meet this condition. They continues after death—the soul or spirit—is not conceive of the body-soul relation differently, but simply one original component without the other. both affirm that the conscious, active soul is sepa- Rather, God supernaturally sustains the immate- rable from the body. rial form of the whole person without the mat- Emergentism can likewise be sufficiently dual- ter of his/her physical body but still possessing istic. Although it begins as physicalism, it holds consciousness, bodily shape, and location. (God that the soul or person who emerges from the preserves us in this “unnatural” condition just as

39 he could have chosen to sustain our heads in exis- urrection postulates that we receive resurrection tence separate from our bodies.) Samuel in Sheol bodies the instant we die. But if the person is gen- and the martyrs under the altar in Revelation 6 erated by the body, then the resurrected person is still wear robes. Ghosts in the Bible and in world a different person than the earthly person because literature still have immaterial bodily form and the resurrection body is different than the earthly location, as do the deceased envisioned in near- body. Non-existence until final resurrection also death experiences. Perhaps the dead do retain has this problem, compounded by a gap in exis- non-physical bodily form and presence between tence. Is the resurrection body that comes into death and resurrection. existence after perhaps millennia identical with the earthly body, especially if there is no part of Philosophical Issues in the one that is part of the other? Perhaps the resur- Body-Soul Debate rection body is a different entity made of wholly A Christian theory of body and soul must qual- different stuff. And if the person is generated by ify as good philosophy as well as sound theology. the body, then perhaps the person is different even It must be conceptually clear, logically coherent, though she appears the same. What is the basis for and adequately address such standard philosoph- essential individual identity? ical problems as personal identity, interaction Those who hold these views of the afterlife between mind and body, and freedom of the will. respond that identity does not depend on continu- We briefly survey how the five theories fare on ous existence but on having a unique set of char- these three topics.28 acteristics. Bob Smith is physically and personally unique. If someone exactly like him is immediately Personal Identity resurrected or resurrected after a period of non- Each human remains the very same being existence, then that person is Bob Smith. But this throughout his or her existence even though we explanation is not sufficient. It does not preclude constantly change from the moment we are con- the possibility of multiple replication—that two ceived, and even though our awareness of self- or more persons with Smith’s characteristics could identity may change or be lost. Individual identity come into existence—each one qualifying as Smith, is metaphysical and logical, not just a matter of fact which is impossible. Defenders respond that God or of self-consciousness. It is absolutely impossible could or would not create multiple replications. But for me to be another person or for there to be two even so, the mere conceptual possibility illustrates of me. A fully adequate philosophy of human that individual identity is contingent for the imme- nature must account for personal identity in this diate resurrection and non-existence until resurrec- life and the life to come. tion scenarios, whereas it is a matter of necessity for Dualist theories and any theory that affirms common sense and most philosophy. the intermediate state should be able to do so. The This issue is not decisive. But it demonstrates soul, spirit, or core person that exists during this that the dualist, intermediate state-final resurrec- life endures after death until bodily resurrection tion position of Christian tradition is philosophi- and beyond. One and the same being continues cally stronger on personal identity than most of its from the beginning of existence forever, whether modern challengers. or not there is continuity between the earthly body and resurrection body. Mind-Body Interaction and Theories that make the person and mind Neuroscience dependent upon the body and brain have prob- Common sense and traditional philosophy lems with identity in the afterlife. Immediate res- recognize that the body affects the mind, will, and

40 personality—currently referred to as “bottom-up framework for scientific study of the brain and the causation”—and vice-versa—“top-down causa- philosophical mind-body problem. Christians can tion.” Bottom-up, hot metal on one’s hand causes retain a robust view of the authority and scope of pain, and drinking too much alcohol impairs one’s biblical teaching and avoid complementarism. mind and will. Top-down, trying to fold one’s Both kinds of dualism and emergentism assert hands in prayer moves one’s hands, causing many that soul/mind and body are sufficiently distinct other events in the brain and body to occur as and capable of engaging in reciprocal action. well. Soul, spirit, mind, will, brain, and body inter- Physicalism and materialism handicap themselves act. No plausible philosophy can deny or fail to because they assert that the soul, personality, and allow for this fact. mind are functions of the brain, which has evolved Thus an adequate philosophy must recognize from matter. This dependence implies that our that mind and body are both capable of acting and personal and mental capacities are entirely subject being acted upon by the other. Each has its own to the forces and laws of physics. No room is left organization, activities, and initiatives. But no for uniquely immaterial events and causes. For philosophy is capable of identifying and explain- materialism and physicalism, the physical causes ing the causal chain or mechanism by which such the mental, but it is hard to see how the mental interaction occurs because body and mind are can be non-physical or causally affect bio-physical different categories of being with utterly different processes. Non-reductive physicalists attempt characteristics. Strictly speaking, all we can do to mitigate the problem. They concede that the is notice their correlation. For the same reason, causal dependence of the mind on the brain can- science cannot help to explain the causal connec- not be explained by science, and that the mind tions. It can explain how genes cause blue eyes does have different characteristics and processes and how smoking causes cancer because these than the organism upon which it “supervenes.” processes are entirely bio-physical and partially They also affirm that there are “top-down” effects accessible to scientific observation. But no one can of the mind on the brain as well as “bottom-up” observe the brain secreting thoughts, or decisions effects of the brain on the mind. But the problem triggering synapses. We simply notice the regu- remains if mind is generated and governed by lar sequential correlation of physical and mental physical reality. The concessions of non-reductiv- states and events and conclude that there is a ism do not leave room for a possible resolution; causal relationship. they circumvent the problem. The implication of The mind-body question is a matter of philo- physicalism is that physical forces rule, whether sophical modeling, not scientific explanation— or not we can explain how. Bottom-up causation metaphysical, not physical. Honest physicalists is real, whereas top-down causation is merely how admit that science cannot justify physicalism.29 interacting brain processes appear in conscious- Current brain science is conceptually compatible ness. Dualism and emergentism are better suited with various theories of body and soul. In fact to accommodate genuine interaction. some prominent neuroscientists are dualists.30 Another philosophical problem is even deeper, This point cannot be over-emphasized, because and it also afflicts emergentism: It does not seem many thinkers assume or claim that neuroscience metaphysically possible for merely physical reality vindicates or favors physicalism and the evolu- to cause mental reality in the first place. Accord- tion of the soul. Neither substance dualism nor ing to the principle of sufficient reason, a cause the traditional reading of Scripture are incom- must be capable of producing its effect. It is pos- patible with the verified results of contemporary sible for a magnet to produce a magnetic field, for science. Dualistic holism can still function as the winds to form a tornado, and for a single cell to

41 become an organism, because these effects are both monists and dualists, hold their views pri- different modes of the same kind or level of being. marily for philosophical and/or scientific reasons. But is it possible for space to produce color, for Others, including myself, look for a tenable philo- brain events to generate justice, for hormones to sophical model of body and soul that fits best with become selfless love? Mental events and qualities biblical teaching. are utterly different than physical ones. Given the principle of sufficient reason, it is perennially Responsible Agency and Freedom of questionable whether physical stuff can produce the Will thoughts, values, and aspirations, much less the Common human experience confirms the spirits, souls, minds, and persons who have them, biblical teaching that humans are responsible either by the long process of evolution or in the agents—beings who know and can do what is right development of an individual from a fertilized egg. or wrong. To be sure, we are determined, limited, As stated above, there is no scientific way to deter- enabled, and influenced in many ways by physical, mine whether matter can produce mind without emotional, social, cultural, and spiritual factors, begging the philosophical question. All forms of including our sinful nature. Normally, however, materialism, physicalism, and emergentism are we are also significantly free. These involuntary open to the question of sufficient reason. Maybe factors do not make us do what we do. We are they are valid. But maybe they invoke metaphysi- moral-spiritual agents who are able and obligated cal magic—attempting to pull an immaterial rab- to deliberate among possible actions and motives, bit out of a material hat. Dualism begins with choose the right ones, and act accordingly. Our spiritual as well as physical ingredients, and so wills are free because the determinations, limi- in principle it does have sufficient reason for our tations, inclinations, beliefs, and commitments distinctly spiritual and physical capacities. that bear on our choices and actions do not cause But there are challenges to both kinds of dual- them, or make them inevitable, or (usually) make ism as well. Philosophers have two issues with only one of them viable. Even if I love God and substance dualism. First, is it justified to conclude affirm his commandments, I can choose not to that there are two different kinds of entity—a obey him. Neither God’s sovereignty nor our sin- soul/mind and a physical body—from the dif- ful nature eliminates the freedom and responsibil- ferences between physical and mental properties ity of the will. and events? Second, the two substances are so This capacity for free choice is crucial, because completely different that it seems impossible for if our actions are determined, then it is hard to them to interact. Thomist dualism also has its crit- see how we are morally responsible for them. To ics. One objection is that its concept of the soul as illustrate, a person who is hypnotized to tell a lie a subsistent principle seems to be an incoherent is not morally responsible for lying. Similarly, we mix of a substance (entity) and a principle (form distinguish between criminally responsible and individuated in matter). Another objection is from legally incompetent persons. Freedom is crucial in science: the genetic code, not the soul, structures the biblical perspective because if the sin of Adam the body and determines some personal-mental and Eve was the inevitable result of their nature, characteristics. then sin is God’s fault—wired into the world he In the end, all philosophers adopt models of the created. Christian theology teaches that sin was body-soul relation after weighing their strengths foreknown and permitted by God, but God is not and weaknesses. No position is entirely free from the cause of sin, and it was genuinely avoidable in objections or convincing to all. All philosophers his good creation. In sum, Scripture and human offer reasoned responses to their critics. Some, experience require any Christian philosophy of

42 body and soul to ground a robust account of free- explain how it occurs. Non-reductivism is an epis- dom and responsibility, as well as recognizing our temological position—addressing what we cannot natural and sinful limitations. know. Physicalism is a metaphysical position— Dualist and emergent theories of body and soul addressing the nature of what there is. In my view, can provide full accounts of responsible agency it is unpersuasive and fallacious to claim that real because they consider the soul, mind, and person moral responsibility is possible if physicalism is distinct from and sufficiently independent of the non-reductive instead of reductive. body and brain that deliberation and action can The concept of freedom actually operative here transcend natural determination and physical is compatibilism, the idea that moral freedom and causality in the requisite sense. responsibility are compatible with complete deter- Physicalist and materialist theories have a prob- mination of the will. Compatibilism is determinis- lem because they imply that all things and events tic because it asserts that one’s choices are caused in the world consist of physical stuff and operate by one’s nature, desires, beliefs, and inclinations according to physical laws. In the material world, in response to the factors of one’s situation. The everything that happens is causally determined combination of personal and situational factors with the possible exception of subatomic random- collectively determines one choice and eliminates ness. If human minds are generated and operated others. Yet that choice is free and responsible if by brains, and if brains are physical things, then it expresses one’s own nature, beliefs, and val- human minds, including their choices and actions, ues, and it is neither internally compelled (like operate according to the laws of physics. Thus they obsessive behavior) nor externally coerced (like a are entirely causally determined except for sub- gun to one’s head) against one’s will. In this way atomic randomness, which is irrational spontane- determinism, freedom, and moral responsibility ity, not rational-moral freedom. So if physicalism are thought to be compatible. Respected think- or materialism is true, then there is no genuine ers, including Hume, Hegel, William James, and moral freedom. Our sense of freedom and respon- Jonathan Edwards, are compatibilists (but not sibility is an illusion allowed by our ignorance of physicalists). Perhaps compatibilism is tenable what actually causes our choices and actions. The for Christians if it rejects physicalism and affirms apparent influence of our minds and decisions on genuine spiritual, moral, and intellectual factors. our brains, bodies, and the world—top-down cau- But many philosophers, determinists and libertar- sality—is merely the reflection of complex brain ians alike, consider it incoherent. Either a choice functions interacting with stimuli from the exter- is wholly determined or it isn’t. It can’t be both.31 nal world, not genuine mental causation of physi- Body-soul dualism does not guarantee a Chris- cal events. Physicalism and materialism entail tian view of the will. A dualist could affirm deter- determinism of the will. There is no wiggle room. minism or deny the sinful nature of the soul. But Non-reductive physicalism attempts to wig- dualism does provide space for a Christian view of gle, however, by claiming that there is room for moral freedom and responsibility that physicalism freedom because science cannot “reduce” our and materialism do not. Emergentism likewise thoughts, deliberations, and efforts to brain events allows sufficient personal transcendence of and and their interaction with the external world. affect upon the physical world, but it may be guilty But this move changes the subject and avoids of metaphysical magic, as suggested above, for the problem, as stated above. Physicalism is a claiming that moral-spiritual agents emerge from metaphysical position that entails determinism purely physical organisms. of the will. Determinism does not evaporate just because someone concedes that physics cannot

43 Ethical Issues and the Body- are members of the human family who deserve Soul Debate our care, or simply that such acts are against God’s Moral responsibility is a crucial issue for our will. Thus it is unfair to allege that thinkers who status as persons, but it is not the only one. Theo- hold these body-soul theories are weak on Chris- ries of body and soul also have implications for tian ethics. The point remains, however, that dual- fundamental ethical questions about persons at istic holism provides a stronger foundation for the beginning, end, and during life—issues such right to life ethics than the other theories do.32 as abortion, fetal research, euthanasia, and treat- ment of the severely impaired. If a human being is Practical and Pastoral essentially and irreducibly both soul/person and Concerns about the Body-Soul body, then biological death is always the death of Debate a human person, even if that soul/person does not In one way or another, all the issues that arise yet have, no longer has, or never in this life will in the body-soul debate are matters of practical have the capacities for self-consciousness, thought, and pastoral concern because all God’s truth is communication, or moral and spiritual activity. But important for our spiritual health and disciple- if the soul/person is produced by the body or is just ship. I close with four specific concerns: dealing the brain’s capacities higher human activity, then with death, trusting doctrine, faithful academic a human body is not always a human person, and witness, and holistic practice. biological death is not always the death of a person. Embryos and fetuses are not yet persons; babies What Happens When We Die? with severe impairments will not become persons; The body-soul debate can be troubling to ordi- wives in vegetative states and grandparents with nary Christians because it calls into question advanced dementia are no longer persons. deeply-held beliefs about death and the afterlife. It is easy to see that body-soul dualism is a We might not be bothered by the idea of an imme- much stronger foundation for “right to life” ethics diate resurrection, but non-existence until the than physicalist, materialist, or emergentist theo- resurrection can be disturbing. “Do you mean ries. The latter do not regard the soul/person as an that Mother is not in heaven with Jesus?” “So essentially original and enduring component of a when I die today, I’ll be nothing but a memory in human being. Because the soul/person is gener- God’s mind, possibly for centuries?” Some find ated and sustained by the brain, if the brain does these thoughts deeply upsetting. It is little comfort not yet function in those ways, or does not func- to point out that the dead could not be conscious tion properly, then the soul/person does not exist of their non-existence but would instantly experi- or is diminished. Active or passive termination ence resurrection. of a sufficiently non-functioning biological life is If traditional doctrine were clearly tenuous not the death of a human person. For the dualist, or mistaken, it would be proper to re-educate however, a human being is always a soul/person ordinary believers in a pastoral manner. But the even if he or she currently lacks the capacities to doctrine stands up well. Those Christians who function as a person. challenge it publicly should acknowledge its dura- Of course emergentists, physicalists, and mate- bility, and they should take responsibility for the rialists can reject abortion, embryonic experimen- effect that their views might have on the spiritual tation, and euthanasia for other reasons. They can security of less educated believers. argue that abortion and fetal research are wrong because they kill potential persons, or that eutha- Has the Church Been Wrong? nasia is wrong because the impaired and elderly Body, soul, and the afterlife are among many

44 doctrines currently challenged by Christian Christian Academic Witness intellectuals. Among evangelicals, open theism I have a similar concern about Christian wit- and the theological eclecticism of the emerging ness in professional scholarship. Two positive church are examples. The argument of revisionists features of postmodernism are its challenge to is standard: Either the traditional doctrine got the the monolithic secularism of modernism and its Bible wrong, or it was once a valid reading that openness to diverse meta-perspectives. Christians is now obsolete, or Scripture can be interpreted should take advantage of this attitude to produce in different ways. But no one can claim that the academically excellent mainstream scholar- traditional doctrine is the only right one. ship from a Christian perspective. I believe that At stake is the trust of ordinary Christians in the classical Christian worldview approach to the church’s proclamation of biblical truth. If the all of scholarship is a more faithful witness than best Christian minds got it wrong for centuries, complementarism, which concedes unwarranted or if core doctrines are merely possible readings autonomy to philosophy and science. I agree that of Scripture, then we ought to embrace doctrinal Scripture does not speak in scientific language or pluralism or agnosticism. Constant criticism and present scientific explanations, and that science revision without affirming what endures exacer- does have its own sphere of authority. But the bate the pernicious dynamics of postmodernism body-soul question is not primarily a scientific (which also has healthy dynamics). issue, as explained above. It is more a matter of I recognize the fallibility of human formu- philosophy shaped by worldview and theology. lations and the diversity within Christianity. In addition, apologetics ought to press the case Debate and reform have their rightful place. But for as many Christian truth-claims as it can, not disagreements do not mean that truth is inac- preemptively concede ground in case scientific cessible. In fact debates have validated common materialism becomes compelling. doctrinal affirmations that underlie our diver- I respect the Christian conviction and commit- sity.33 The Nicene Creed is a powerful example. ment to truth that motivates those with whom I These core doctrines stand up well against mod- disagree. But I regret what I regard as concessions ern objections. Revisionists occasionally prevail to modern biblical scholarship, theology, phi- on peripheral issues. But their challenges usually losophy, and science. I am especially concerned reflect non-traditional views of Scripture, biblical about the effect of their approach on intellectually authority, hermeneutics, and/or the church’s role immature college and seminary students whose and responsibility for preserving biblical truth. doctrine and worldview are still being formed. The body-soul relation—dualistic holism— Their approach models accommodation to cul- and the intermediate state-resurrection doctrine ture, not confrontation of culture with biblical of the last things are part of the traditional ecu- truth. Those who disagree with the traditional menical consensus, still affirmed by Orthodox, Christian view of body, soul, and the afterlife Catholic, and most historic Protestant churches. I ought at least to acknowledge its strength as they have argued that this position is more tenable than present their alternatives. its modern challengers, given traditional views of Scripture and Christian scholarship, and that the Holistic Christian Life and Ministry challenges arise mainly from weighting science and Orthodoxy and orthopraxis go together. Like philosophy more than Scripture. My concern is that most Christians doctrines, models of body and Christians who are not academics realize what is soul can shape Christian life and ministry, so it at stake in the body-soul debate and not have their is worth examining their practical implications.34 confidence in established doctrine undermined. Scripture teaches that body and soul are integral

45 to creation, redemption, and the Christian life. dualistic holism to implement the world and life Thus our approach to Christian living and min- view taught in Scripture. istry should be comprehensive and holistic. But Scripture also teaches that spiritual well-being is Conclusion more important than physical well-being in this This article has surveyed the current debate life and that our eternal destiny is more impor- among Christians about the nature and relation tant than the quality of our present life. Holistic of body and soul and the doctrines of the afterlife discipleship and ministry must be consistent with involved. I have argued that sound scholarship Scripture’s spiritual focus and Kingdom-seeking still favors dualistic holism. If that conclusion is priorities. too bold, it is clear that dualistic holism follows Critics have frequently blamed traditional from a traditional approach to Scripture and a dualism for distortions of the Christian life. They Christian worldview perspective on philosophy allege that a real body-soul distinction promotes and science. Having considered five theories of otherworldly spiritualism, individualism, con- soul and body on matters of biblical interpreta- cern for soul but not body, culturally insensitive tion, theology, philosophy, ethics, and Christian evangelism, and other practical aberrations. They practice, I rank them as follows: Thomist dualism, claim that monism is more conducive to biblically Augustinian dualism, emergentism, material con- obedient life and ministry. stitutionism, and physicalism. But these broad allegations are largely mis- Thomist dualism fits more closely with bibli- directed or false. Although some dualists have cal holism and is more than adequate on all the advocated reductive views of the Christian life, other issues. But some philosophers wonder if its most have attempted to practice dualistic holism. concept of the soul is coherent. Although Augus- Most missionaries have fed the hungry, tended the tinian substance dualism is more dualistic than sick, and educated people for a better life in their holistic, it can account for the unity of human cultures as they preached the gospel of salvation. nature and ground a comprehensive view of the Most Christians have contributed to the common Christian life. But some philosophers question the good as well as cultivating personal holiness and logic of two different substances. On its surface, piety. In the end, the entire issue of anthropology emergentism is adequately dualistic and holistic, and orthopraxis is probably irrelevant because but its underlying materialism seems inconsistent until recently virtually all Christians—whether with Scripture’s physical-spiritual duality and holistic or otherworldly, zealous or slothful— raises the metaphysical question whether soul and were dualists. Failures of orthopraxis are due mind can emerge from mere matter. Material con- mostly to factors such as sloth and greed, rather stitutionism and non-reductive physicalism dis- than body-soul dualism or monism. tinguish person/soul/mind from body. But their Furthermore, simply endorsing monism materialist ontology seems to undercut the actual is inadequate. Denying a separable soul does distinctness of the soul and its functional tran- emphasize that humans are bodily beings made scendence the body, as well as conflicting with for life in the world. But if the replacement for the original physical-spiritual duality of Scripture. dualism is physicalism or materialism, then we Constitutionism can account for the possibility of may have an imbalance toward physical-bodily personal existence between death and resurrec- life and determinism, as stated above. Christian tion, but physicalism cannot. advocates of physicalism reject reductionism, and Exciting work on the Christian view of body I accept their claim even if it is undercut by their and soul remains to be done. It seems possible to ontology. But materialism must work harder than revise or construct theories that reflect biblical

46 perspective even more fully than those consid- 1997), argues that the soul could not have been gener- ered above. However, Christian scholars need not ated by evolution. wander In Search of the Soul because it has not been 5Moreland and Rae, Body and Soul (see note 1 above); lost. Unless compelling new interpretations of Eleonore Stump, “Non-Cartesian Substance Dualism Scripture are forthcoming, dualistic holism should and Materialism without Reductionism,” Faith and remain the standard for Christian theories of the Philosophy 12, no. 4 (October 1995): 505-31; Brian human constitution. Leftow, “Souls Dipped in Dust,” in Soul, Body, and Survival (ed. K. Corcoran; Ithaca, NY: Cornell Uni- Endnotes versity, 2001), 120-38. 1In Search of the Soul: Four Views of the Mind-Body 6William Hasker, The Emergent Self (Ithaca, NY: Problem (ed. Joel B. Green and Stuart L. Palmer; Cornell University, 1999) defends an intermediate Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005). Green’s intro- state as a supernatural act of God. Philip Clayton, duction provides an overview of many reasons for Mind and Emergence: From Quantum to Consciousness the debate and the issues involved. Steward Goetz (Oxford: Oxford University, 2004) does not address presents substance dualism, William Hasker defends the issue explicitly but would find disembodied exis- emergentism, Nancey Murphy argues for non-reduc- tence difficult to postulate. tive physicalism, and Kevin Corcoran promotes mate- 7Warren Brown, Nancey Murphy, and H. Newton rial constitutionism. I explain each theory below. A Malony, eds., Whatever Happened to the Soul? Scien- significant omission from the book is Thomist dual- tific and Theological Portraits of Human Nature (Min- ism, also explained below. J. P. Moreland and Scott neapolis: Fortress, 1998); Nancey Murphy, Bodies B. Rae’s Body and Soul: Human Nature and the Crisis and Souls, or Spirited Bodies? (Cambridge: Cambridge in Ethics (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000) is an University, 2006). excellent exposition of this model. 8Lynne Rudder Baker, Persons and Bodies: A Constitu- 2I defend this position in Body, Soul and Life Everlast- tion View (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2000); ing: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Kevin Corcoran, Rethinking Human Nature: A Chris- Debate (Eerdmans 1989; Eerdmans and Apollos tian Materialist Alternative to the Soul (Grand Rapids: 2000). The first edition argues for holistic dualism; Baker, 2006). the introduction to the second edition recommends 9Joel Green (“Body, Soul, Mind and Brain: Critical dualistic holism to recognize that body-soul unity is Issues,” introduction to In Search of the Soul) surveys natural and primary whereas separation is accidental developments in biblical scholarship. and temporary. 10J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig explain but do 3See, for example, Catechism of the Catholic Church not advocate complementarism in “Philosophy and (1994), exposition of Articles 11 and 12 of the Apos- the Integration of Science and Theology” in Philo- tles’ Creed; Rt. Rev. M. Aghiorgoussis, Bishop of sophical Foundations of a Christian Worldview (Down- Pittsburgh, The Dogmatic Tradition of the Orthodox ers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003), chapter 17. See also Church, “The Creation of Man” and “Orthodox “Religion and Science: Compatible or Incompatible?” Eschatology” (http//www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/ in Reason and Religious Belief (ed. M. Peterson, W. articles/article8038.asp); The Heidelberg Catechism, Hasker, B. Reichenbach, and D. Basinger; Oxford: Question/Answer 1 and 57 on unity in life, separa- Oxford University, 1998, 2003), chapeter 11. John tion at death, and reunion at resurrection. Polkinghorne advocates complementarism in Theol- 4Alvin Plantinga, “Darwin, Mind, and Meaning,” ogy and Science (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998). Books and Culture, May/June 1996, defends dualism 11Two significant reiterations of the traditional position against materialism. Richard Swinburne, The Evolu- on revelation and reason are John Paul II’s encycli- tion of the Soul (rev. ed.; Oxford: Oxford University, cal, “Fides et Ratio” (1998); and Alvin Plantinga,

47 Warranted Christian Belief (Oxford: Oxford Univer- or spiritual entity without the physical component. sity, 2000). It is also evident in the title of Moreland 17Matt 22:37, Mark 12:30, and Luke 10:27 from Duet and Craig’s Philosophical Foundations for a Christian 6:5; 1 Thess 5:23. Worldview. Francis Schaeffer and Charles Colson are 18They are most often called rephaim, whose meaning popular evangelical leaders who have promoted this is uncertain, but nephesh (soul) refers to those in perspective. Sheol in Gen 35:18; Ps 16:10; 30:3; 49:15; 86:3; and 12Cooper, Body, Soul and Life Everlasting (chapters 139:8. Philip Johnston, Shades of Sheol: Death and 2-7), surveys the Old Testament, intertestamental, the Afterlife in the Old Testament (Downers Grove: and New Testament basis for dualistic holism that is InterVarsity, 2002) is very informative but argues summarized in the following paragraphs. that Sheol was for unbelievers, not faithful Israelites. 13Most traditional Christian thinkers adapted ver- 19Isa 26:14-19; Dan 12:2. Ezekiel 37 might mean sions of Plato’s philosophy to articulate and defend national restoration. Job 19:26 might mean regained the biblical worldview. There is validity to modern health. Christian criticisms that some aspects of Platonism, 20E. P. Sanders, “Life after Death,” in Judaism: Practice such as the essential immortality of the soul, do not and Belief, 63 BCE-66BC (London: SCM, 1992), reflect Scripture and should be rejected. But we must 298-303; Richard Bauckham, “Life, Death, and the be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath Afterlife in Second Temple Judaism,” in Life in the water. We should not reject biblical supernaturalism Face of Death: The Resurrection Message of the New even if we reject Platonic philosophy. Testament (ed. R. Longnecker; Grand Rapids: Eerd- 14Ezekiel 37 depicts a similar process for resurrection: mans, 1998), 80-95. God forms a physical body and then adds ruach or 21A prominent recent example is Alan F. Segal, Life after spirit to make it live. Spirit does not necessarily mean Death: A History of the Afterlife in the Religions of the a substantial soul; more likely it means the power of West (New York: Doubleday, 2004); also Joel Green, life and personal-mental-spiritual abilities. The same “Body and Soul, Mind and Brain: Critical Issues,” is true of Ecc 12:7, which speaks of spirit depart- In Search of the Soul. Caroline Bynum’s illuminating ing at death. It is helpful to know that animism was study, The Resurrection of the Body in Western Chris- common in the ancient near east: a generic spiritual tianity, 200-1336 (Columbia: Columbia University, (divine?) life-force animates all living things. The Old 1995), does not commit this fallacy but recognizes Testament adopts but demythologizes this idea: crea- both intermediate state and resurrection. turely ruach is not divine, but human ruach uniquely 22However, many higher critics doubt that Acts gives images God. an accurate picture of Paul’s beliefs. 15Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testa- 23See, for example, Joel Green, “Body and Soul, Mind ment (trans. M. Kohl; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1974) and Brain,” In Search of the Soul, esp. 18-21. remains the best, most comprehensive study. 24N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Min- 16A modified version of substance dualism is consistent neapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), summaries on 372, with the OT view: The formed body is a distinct but 424, and 448; quote from 477. Wright discusses all incomplete, non-living, physical entity that is inca- of the points I raise about the Old Testament, Second pable of continuous existence without spirit; spirit is Temple Judaism, and the New Testament. non-material power that becomes a subsistent entity 25Joseph Ratzinger, Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life when infused into a formed body to become a living (trans. M. Waldstein; ed. A. Nichols; Washington, soul. Thus neither spirit nor body is a complete sub- DC: Catholic University of America, 1988). stance (entity) on its own, but they remain distinct 26Recently Jaime Clark-Soles, Death and Afterlife in components when conjoined. At death God super- the New Testament (London: T & T Clark, 2006) naturally sustains the soul in existence as a “ghost” emphasizes the diversity among NT authors on many

48 particular issues and denies that there is a single brain events.… It follows, then, that no amount of coherent NT eschatology. But she acknowledges the evidence from neuroscience can prove a physicalist body-soul distinction and intermediate state-future view of the mental.” resurrection in some NT books and does not produce 30Sir John Eccles, a dualist neuroscientist, won a Nobel any arguments that invalidate the conclusions of the Prize in the 1970’s. His position is not out of date. See canonical approach taken by Ratzinger and Wright. I Mario Beauregard and Denys O’Leary, The Spiritual have not yet seen Joel Green’s Body, Soul, and Human Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible (Grand Rap- Soul (New York: HarperCollins, 2007), which exten- ids: Baker, 2008). But unless he goes far beyond what sively criticizes the use of neuroscience to justify he has already published, he is not close to providing physicalist monism. justification for an alternative to the traditional posi- 31Many Reformed theologians are compatibilists tion. See John W. Cooper, “The Bible and Dualism because they wish to affirm both divine sovereignty Once Again: A Reply to Joel B. Green and Nancey and human responsibility. My own position is Murphy,” Philosophia Christi 9, no. 2 (2007): 459-69. Reformed, but I affirm limited free will, as follows. 27I am a traducian (the soul comes from the parents) God eternally knows and ordains everything in this rather than a creationist with respect to the origin of world, which he has freely chosen to create. Thus individual souls. Sperm and egg are spiritual as well everything surely and inevitably occurs according to as physical. Scripture teaches that creatures repro- his sovereign will, sustained by his constantly con- duce according to their kind, and humans are both curring providence. But inevitability is not necessarily body and soul. Scripture teaches that what God cre- determinism. God’s knowledge, will, and providence ates is good, but creationism implies that God cre- do not directly cause the events that take place in the ates new souls infected with original sin. Scripture world, except for the occasional miracles and other teaches that God rested from creating on the seventh special supernatural acts that he performs. Sustained day, but creationism teaches that God continues to by God, creatures act according to the natures he create souls, even when humans fornicate or fertilize has given them, which means that humans regularly eggs in laboratories. Historically, the arguments for exercise their natural God-imaging ability to choose creationism are more philosophical than biblical. freely. Their choices are completely known and per- 28The literature, including works by Christians, on missibly willed but are not deterministically caused these topics is vast. Instead of providing references by God or by creaturely factors. Thus I reject both for each topic and point, I recommend the books cited open theism and theological determinism. elsewhere in this article. In Search of the Soul includes In Reformed theology, election and predestina- essays by four philosophers that address these issues, tion to salvation mean that God eternally wills to each with responses by the other three. The debated regenerate our hearts only because of his sovereign points are clear. Moreland and Craig, Philosophical grace and not because of his foreknowledge of our Foundations for a Christian Worldview, and Reason and positive response to the gospel. Regeneration, which Religious Belief, ed. Peterson, Hasker, Reichenbach, enacts election, is a sovereign act of God that does and Basinger, include sections that introduce these directly and involuntarily change us. But regenera- topics. tion is not the paradigm for everything that happens 29See, for example, Nancey Murphy, “Nonreductive in the world or for all human choices and actions. Physicalism: Philosophical Issues,” Whatever Hap- Furthermore, regeneration does not eliminate free- pened to the Soul (ed. Warren Brown, Nancey Murphy, dom of the will, which both fallen and regenerate and H. Newton Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress, humans possess as image-bearers. Regenerated by 1998), 139: “It is still possible to claim that there is a God and empowered by the Holy Spirit, Christians substantial mind and that it is neatly correlated with can again freely choose how to love and obey him

49 and to resist our residual sinful nature. In my view, Reformed theology can and should avoid determinism and compatibilism. 32Moreland and Rae in Body and Soul argue that dualism and right to life ethics are strongly correlated. 33Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant churches gener- ally agree on the divine inspiration, infallibility, and authority of Scripture. We differ over the authority of church tradition in addition to Scripture. 34Stuart Palmer, “Christian Life and Theories of Human Nature,” In Search of the Soul, 189-215, evalu- ates substance dualism, emergentism, non-reductive physicalism, and material constitutionism regarding their implications for Christian life and ministry. He is concerned that affirming the distinctness of the soul will lead to overly individualistic, spiritualistic, and otherworldly practices. His project is legitimate, but his analysis is sometimes flawed by use/abuse fallacies: He confuses distinctness with indepen- dence of body and soul, and he regularly infers the “danger” of faulty practices from their mere theoreti- cal possibility.