Could a Non-Physical Being Possibly Affect the Physical World?
December 4, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall
To accept the existence of miracles, one would have to accept the idea that a being without material properties (i.e., God) could move about, change, and otherwise affect objects in the physical world. Is this, in itself, an absurd proposition? I don’t think so. I can’t show you how the affecting of the physical by the non-physical is possible — such explanations are beyond my capability, but I can certainly demonstrate that this is not only possible, but commonplace.
Imagine you’re sitting on a park bench and spot a good friend approaching. You raise your arm and wave.
Why did you wave? There was nothing in the physical world that compelled you through the laws of physics or chemistry or anything else to raise your arm. Your action did not begin with a physical process; your action began with your will. Your will to raise your arm was not a physical part of your body. Your thought was non-physical — it couldn’t have been measured because it had no mass and took up no space. Try describing your thoughts and your will in physical terms — what color are they? how big are they? how much do they weigh? These questions are meaningless because our wills are not in the same category as objects in the physical world which can be described in such terms.
Our wills are non-physical, and yet somehow our non-physical wills are connected to and have power over a part of the material world. Somehow our non-physical thoughts and wills are able to move physical objects — our own bodies.
Our limited minds are only able to move our own bodies, but is it so outrageous to think that it’s possible for there to be a greater mind out there who would have access to all physical objects? It’s difficult to rule out the possibility on principle when we see the same thing taking place on a smaller scale everyday, every time we make a move.
Related posts:
- Scientists Say Paralyzed Man Moves Physical Objects With His Mind
- Valuing Apologetics in a Postmodern World
- The Sacramental World of Harry Potter
- Maitreya and the Coming World Order
- The Supremacy of Christ in the Postmodern World
- USA vs. the World
Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Main Page, Religion (General)
content rss
December 5th, 2005 at 12:13 pm
I don't think too many physicalists (whether reductive or non-reductive) would consider a thought to be a physical property in itself, but the product of physical processes.
December 5th, 2005 at 2:40 pm
If our thoughts were all products of physical processes, then everything we do would be determined by physical laws. That doesn't seem to be the case.
Here's an example of how there seems to be an “us” separate from our physical processes: People suffering from depression have certain patterns of brain functions. However, they can actually choose to change the way they think through cognitive therapy which, in turn, changes the patterns in their brains. There's no way we could choose to change the processes in our brains if everything we choose only comes from processes in our brains.
December 5th, 2005 at 2:50 pm
Actually, the difference between reductive and non-reductive physicalists is that the reductivists do consider thought to be a physical property, while non-reductivists take thought to be an irreducible product of physical processes.
December 5th, 2005 at 4:23 pm
Timbo, you're correct on reductive physicalists.
Amy, I agree with you to a certain extent. Your understanding takes the fact that we can will to change how we feel into account. As you note that when we undergo cognitive therapy we are changing our thought patterns. This therapy also has a real physical effect on our brains: new physical connections are made within the neurons. This would support your thesis about the will on a neurological level. Your thesis, however, does not take into account the other side of depression — namely that much of depression has been shown to be a chemical imbalance in peoples' brains and psychotropic medication has been shown to have significant affects on these imbalances. (As I look back on this last point, it may be tangential. Apologies.) Secondly, what do you mean by, “If our thoughts were all products of physical processes, then everything we do would be determined by physical laws. That doesn't seem to be the case.” What examples can you give of this?
We had a long discussion about this issue on my old blog earlier this year. You can read it here.
As far as miracles go, I would recommend reading The God Who Acts edited by Thomas F. Tracy, and “Divine Action in the Natural Order,” by Nancey Murphy in Chaos and Complexity. Murphy's chapter deals heavily with quantum theory.
December 5th, 2005 at 6:16 pm
Wow! That was a long discussion! And you guys are far more qualified to get into the details on this.
As far as your comments here, I do think the mind and body interact–that they affect each other. Issues in the brain can cause depression. But by showing that we can choose to change those issues in our brains, it does suggest that brain does not equal mind.
You asked, “What do you mean by, 'If our thoughts were all products of physical processes, then everything we do would be determined by physical laws.'” This is what I mean: Think about things in the world that are not living. They're governed by the laws of nature–e.g., if certain chemical reactions occur, that leads to other chemical reactions, etc. The effect is determined by the cause, that cause is determined by a previous cause, etc. Only living beings who can start off new chains of events by an act of will can change the natural course of things.
In the same way, if there's no will separate from the processes of the brain, then one process is determined by the previous one which is determined by the previous one, etc. However we aren't machines in this way. It at least seems on the face of it that we aren't forced into every decision we make.
December 5th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
If there is no will separate from the processes in the brain, and we are chemically forced into every decision we “make,” should we imprison those who break the law? And what about motive and intent? What consequences does this have legally? Seems like the legal system we have would need to be revamped.
-JT
December 6th, 2005 at 11:06 am
Amy's post assumes a dualistic metaphysic that both science and philosophy has showed as drastically insufficient. But assuming it for the sake of argument, JT, what's the difference between my actions being determined by chemical processes in my brain or by God as the ultimate cause of all my actions? Your post seems to be implying that if “the will” is solely determined by physical properties in my brain, a person ought not to be held accountable for their actions. Why would we, then, be held accountable for our actions if God is the cause?
Hopefully, through reconsideration of some of the philosophical and metaphysical assumptions, we can start considering God and our relationship to him.
December 6th, 2005 at 2:41 pm
Brian W,
I guess that would depend on if God controls our every action (like I control a character in a video game) or if God has imparted to us free will. If the former is true, there is not much difference. If the latter is true (assuming we have a will and a mind beyond chemical reactions), then I see a pretty marked difference.
If we are solely controlled by chemical processes, couldn't everyone explain away their actions as just a natural result of the chemical reactions in their brain? Whether my chemicals make me feed my dog or kick him would then be out of my control – because there is no mind beyond the chemicals. That would seem to take away some of the consequences of our laws, which take into account the notion of intent in many cases.
If we (as creatures with a mind outside of chemical reactions) have free will, we are responsible for our actions.
-JT
December 6th, 2005 at 4:58 pm
Most certainly, it would depend on various things. But what I want to suggest is that it is quite possible that philosophical presuppositions about our world lead us to questions that really are unintelligible. If we posit a dualistic understanding of the world (where there there is a material and immaterial world that somehow interact, but we don't know how), we only add philosophical headaches.
For example, your hypothetical assume a faculty psychology where humans have this immaterial “will” and “mind” (and probably “affections) that are free (presumably outside of God's power also, which would limit God). But there are loads of problems with some of the assumptions that the American evangelical church (in general) has continued to embrace. So when we hear about our grandpa losing “his mind” when he experiences dementia, we really don't know what to think about that because something physical (neurological malfunctioning) affects something immaterial (this assumed immaterial mind). Thankfully, some evangelical theologians are breaking away from outdated metaphysics to help with some of these categories.
December 6th, 2005 at 8:14 pm
Brian W,
Ok, I'm interested. Continue…who is breaking out of this “outdated” metaphysics and how are they doing it?
I could be wrong here, but it seems to me that if one posits a soul – or an ominipotent God- it seems that reality necessarily entails a material and an immaterial nature.
Just a note on limiting God… I do not mean to suggest that our free will in any way limits God's omnipotence. I do not see a contradiction in having free will within God's power. God has granted us free will. This seems totally within His power.
If one posits a soul – or even an ominipotent God- it seems that reality necessarily entails a material and an immaterial nature.
-JT
December 6th, 2005 at 10:30 pm
Amy did, originally. But one of my convictions is that we evangelicals have imbedded philosophical presuppositions that, for lack of a better term, are outdated. You ask a good question, “How are they doing it [using outdated metaphysics]?” I would argue that they are imbedded in our typical understandings of God and humanity. I don't disagree with you…when we think of a soul, or God (along with this world and us as humans) we most certainly are speaking about that which is material and that which is immaterial. What I disagree with in our typical evangelical theology is how we think of them, specifically in relationship with one another.
Unfortunately, much of evangelical theology assumes a highly dualistic understanding of reality. That there is a material world, and then set against it (but not as in opposition to it) is this immaterial world. Due to this metaphysic, we struggle greatly in understanding how the immaterial world and the material world interact. The gentleman who comments on the 'trackbacks' stated rightly that science has shown what was once considered part of the immaterial world, really isn't. So unless we change some of these presuppositions, we will never really speak pointedly towards some of these questions. The reason why I used the example in my previous post of a elderly man experiencing dementia is because when I had a highly dualistic understanding of the world, I couldn't make sense of my wife's career as she helped people who experienced neurological disorders, but these people losing their “minds”, which I always assumed was the “immaterial” part of their faculty of intellect. But I was confronted with a material problem affecting an immaterial faculty. And in study, I realized what I called immaterial really wasn't, or wasn't in the way that I thought.
Speaking about God's omnipotence and free will, I'll try to expand on some of your thoughts. Just for the record, I don't believe in a “free will” because it presumes a faculty psychology that I (along with many others) reject. But assuming this faculty psychology, God is omnipotent, all-powerful, and presuming divine simplicity and immutability (which many classical theists hold), this would necessitate that his will is all-powerful as well. But, God has created me with a will as well. And, as it is argued, due to his love, it is a “free will”. But if my will is free, that necessarily means that it is not constrained by an outside force otherwise it would not be free. So now, we have competing wills–Gods and mine. So now, there is a dilemma. Do I really have free will? Or is God limited in some way? Now, I would want to change a variety of things in this little example that I believe helps us stay away from some of these difficulties.
December 7th, 2005 at 6:41 am
One more thing, JT. We've implicitly referred to God in these posts as an “immaterial substance” (as opposed to a material one like us). But the biblical witness never refers to God as either “immaterial” or as a “substance” (I know no one is using that word, but certainly it is implied); scripture refers to God as a spiritual presence, and that is different.
December 7th, 2005 at 11:30 am
Brian, that's an interesting distinction. How would you describe the difference between a being who is not physical and a being who is a spiritual presence?
December 7th, 2005 at 11:56 am
Brian,
Interesting posts. This is good stuff.
I think what you are saying is that much of what people generally consider to be immaterial is actually the result of material processes. I would agree that that certainly could be the case in many instances. I think, however, that there is an “immaterial” part of reality, as we've discussed with reference to a soul and to an omnipotent God.
In regards to terminology, I agree that the word “immaterial” could seem a little strange to refer to God, as some people could misconstrue immaterial with “non-existent.” As for my posts, when I referred to God and the soul as “immaterial,” I meant the same thing expressed by “spiritual presence.” Does that make sense?
As for free will, I do not see that it would be a contradiction to believe that God has allowed us a free will. Of course there are limits- I cannot will myself into being omnipotent for example – but that is not so much a function of my will being limited as it is to my essence as a human being. In that sense, God has limits to His will as well. He cannot will himself into being a totally finite creature for example, because that is an impossible contradiction. So, within the obvious and necessary limits of my humanity, God has permitted me free will.
A quick analogy to illustrate this point: I could leash my dog and control every move the dog makes. In that sense, the dog does not have a free will. Or, I could let me dog run within the confines of my fenced backyard. In this case, he has the free will to go wherever he likes.
In this analogy, the fence is God's sovereign will in this example. I cannot violate God's sovereign will. I can't do absolutely anything I will (otherwise, who wouldn't will themselves gods?). But I do have freedom within God's sovereign will to act as I desire.
Also, I was wondering who are the current theologians who are rejecting the “outdated metaphysic” you talked about, and what are they proposing in its place?
-JT
December 8th, 2005 at 9:29 am
JT, you say, “As for my posts, when I referred to God and the soul as “immaterial,” I meant the same thing expressed by “spiritual presence.” Does that make sense?” It makes sense in that I understand what you are saying. But its exactly what I want to stay away from. Because as soon as you equate immaterial with spiritual, you relegate everything material or physical as non-spiritual, or at a minimum, neutral. This seems to be some of the same convictions as the gnostics. We are immediately back into a dualistic understanding of the world.
As for your discussion on free will, I sort of think your equivicating terms. We don't mean doing the impossible in reference to free will, we mean the steps or actions of my will are just that, mine. But if God is truly sovereign over all creation (including my decisions), we most certainly have a conflict between them being my decisions or Gods. I once used an anology of a mouse in a box. The mouse is free to go anywhere in the box, but the box is God's limitation (his sovereign control). But a true belief in God's sovereign ability over my life (from a more reformed perspective) isn't that he has set the limits of what I'm able to do and not do, its that he is sovereign over my movements within the box itself. So I want to say, “maybe we have some philosophical presuppositions that lead us to contradictory convictions” (a so-called “free will” and God's sovereign will over all creation).
The theologian that has been most helpful to me has been LeRon Shults. His recent book, Reforming the Doctrine of God, speaks directly about some of these things. What I like about his work is that he truly believes in the good news of Jesus Christ and he is speaks directly to how we have formed some of the faulty philosophical presuppositions in our evangelical theology.
December 8th, 2005 at 9:42 am
Thanks, Brian. I'll have to take a look at the book when I get a chance.
I didn't mean to equivocate terms – I truly thought that you might be talking about doing the impossible.
So, just as clarification, do you believe God controls our every move, like I control a character in a video game?
-JT (not Justin Taylor, though, who I noticed posted using “JT”…maybe I should just use my name….)
December 8th, 2005 at 1:53 pm
I don't think Justin has copyrighted “JT”, so don't sweat it. I don't think God control's us as we control players on a video game. When we think of God controlling us/the world, we envision God as a single subject, who knows and controls things like we control things (just with omnipotent power). But God isn't a single subject (a really big guy), God is the dynamic relationship of Father, Son, Holy Spirit. And God doesn't know things or “control” things like we do. So we need to do that hard work of pursuing how a truly infinite relation of Father, Son, Holy Spirit knows and experiences us. I'm still on that journey.
December 9th, 2005 at 8:06 am
Brian,
“And God doesn't know things or “control” things like we do”
Those are interesting statements. I'm not sure that I agree with you.
Believeing that humans are made in the likeness of God, I have always considered our rational minds, morality, etc. the very things that are like God (only in a finite sense – I don't have infinite knowledge and I'm not perfect morally).
What I'm wondering is, if these aspects of my being are not in some way similar to God, just what about us is made in His likeness? I don't think it's our physical nature. (Like you said, he's not “a big guy” in the sky somewhere.)
-JT
Side note: my real name is also Justin, so I'm not sure what that would solve if I used it anyway…
December 9th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
Is your last name “Taylor?”
I should qualify what I said. For us to understand any aspect of God's relationship to us, words and ideas must be similar to our use of terms. So our love and God's love are similar, or our knowledge and God's knowledge must correspond in some way otherwise there's no sense in using these terms. But I believe there is also some qualitative difference concerning the different aspects of God and me as a human. You say, “I have always considered our rational minds, morality, etc. the very things that are like God (only in a finite sense – I don't have infinite knowledge and I'm not perfect morally)”. What I'm inferring from your statement (which I hear and read everywhere) is that God's knowledge, love, everything is like ours, just infinite. So it's really a matter of quantity.
But an area that needs reforming is our understanding of infinity from a metaphysical point of view. Unfortunately, philosophers and theologians have lost a metaphysical understanding of infinity and have just adopted a mathematical understanding that is merely about quantity. And we begin slipping into the dualism that I despise so much.
Concerning our creation according to the image and likeness of God; I have a crazy (but biblical, in my opinion) conviction about this doctrine as well that runs contrary to what we typically hear in evangelical circles. Most discussions in evangelical theology on the imago dei are never tied to the NT. There are more references in the NT about “the image of God” than there is in the OT. So being created in the image of God has very little to do with functional or relational qualities as often argued, but has to do with being formed in the type or pattern of the true image of God, Jesus Christ, and our destiny to be made like him.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
Brian,
By qualitative difference, if you mean that God knows things in a different way than I do, I would certainly agree. God cannot “learn” things, for example. I, however, must learn things in order to gain knowledge. So, I also see a qualitative difference, as I don't just think that it is a matter of God knowing more information than humans.
Similarly, I guess, as far as morality is concerned, I would think that God is qualitatively morally different than humans, as He is not merely morally better than we are; He is the measuring stick by which all morality is measured.
I have a few more questions to try to understand your point of view:
What does the metaphysical understanding of infinity entail?
If we know things very differently than God, do you think it would even be possible for finite beings to grasp the nature of the infinite?
Also, I'm still not sure about what you believe as an alternative to the mind/body duality.
-Justin (“T” refers to my middle name)
December 9th, 2005 at 5:58 pm
I think we are tracking together. I'll expand a little bit on infinity. A couple of things. Most people think of infinity in a mathematical sense, almost like an amount. But metaphysically speaking, infinity is about wholeness, completeness, perfection and also “source”.
Also, most people think of infinity as the opposite of finitude. You'll hear people say, “Well, there's finitude (over here) and infinity (over there or out there).” So infinity and finitude are set against one another. But when we do that, what have we done to infinity? We've limited it. We've defined as one thing and not the other. When we do this, we essentially make infinity finite. You can't say “finitude is over here and infinity is over there” without limiting infinity, denying its very definition. For infinity to be truly infinity, it can't be set against finitude, it must embrace finitude while remaining distinct from it. Infinity is the source of finitude. Until we understand what I call True Infinity, we will always have difficulty talking about human freedom and God's sovereignty and the glorious doctrines like the incarnation, imago dei and others.
The reason why we have a dualistic understanding of ourselves (soul/body) is because we are working with centuries old assumptions that have been long rejected by most except American Evangelicals (and those we have taught). This immaterial soul that we seem so comfortable with was born out of a faculty psychology. The short version is this: We all have these immaterial souls with powers/faculties of the will, intellect and emotions. How these faculty actually effected our “material” bodies was kind of a mystery. And everything that psychologists and scientists couldn't explain 2 centuries ago was understood as part of the immaterial soul. But now, due to advances in science, we scientifically understand much of what we chalked up to this immaterial soul.
But even from a scriptural point of view, “soul” “spirit” and “heart” are words used very synonymously, especially in the OT. I don't think “soul” is meant to be understood in an “immaterial” sense like in Greek philosophy, but more as the “spiritual center” of a person (and again, spiritual does not equal immaterial). I do believe humanity is “wholistic” (lack of a better) and not in this dichotomist sense.
December 12th, 2005 at 7:41 am
Brian,
I don't know if you are still tracking this conversation, but are you familiar with Stand to Reason? There is an article there at the web address below that argues for dualism. I won't rehash the arguments found there, as I wouldn't do the article justice. Thought you might want to check it out, though!
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5474
-Justin
December 13th, 2005 at 4:59 pm
I'm still tracking… I'm always looking for good conversations. I'm familiar with STR and will check it out.
December 13th, 2005 at 5:23 pm
Justin, I've read the article and here are a couple of thoughts.
This is a quote from a letter to the editor: “If it turns out to be true that consciousness, the soul, is not a separate reality, but a consequential phenomenon of the material world, then a fundamental truth of Christianity is shown not to be true because the concepts of heaven, and hell, and eternal life are based on the immateriality and indestructibility of the soul.” You won't find anything like this in the scriptures. In fact, the opposite. The hope of the Christian is resurrection… physical, bodily resurrection.
Then the author writes, “Ladies and gentlemen, it does just that. Think about it for a minute. If there is no soul, if you are your only your body, then when your body dies, you die. When your body decays, you decay. When your body disappears, you are gone. There is no sense to any discussion about the reality of life after death if you die with your body”. I'm not sure who this author is (Gregory Koukl), but I hope he isn't a pastor or theology teacher. TThis isn't the case at all due to the promise of physical, bodily resurrection. I love the Eze. 37 and the imagery of a the Spirit of God bringing life back to decayed, dead people.
Later on, Koukl refers to “soulish functions–memory, thinking, choices, feelings”. I don't want to get into the issue of choice because that probably is the most difficult to discuss, but anyone who has elementary understanding of brain activity knows that memory, thinking and feeling are absolutely tied to brain function. I counsel a gentleman who is bi-polar and the drugs that he takes (that affect his brain) have basically made him non-emotional; it directly affects his feelings. Why do brain injuries cause memory loss? Because memory is a matter of brain activity. I'm not sure why Koukl didn't mention this.
In all due respect to Mr. Koukl, he never showed why the scientists were wrong. What he kept saying was, “If we have no soul….” But I don't subscribe at all to his view of the soul, nor do I think it is a biblical view. A person does have to either abandon the idea of a “soul” or view scientists as crazy loons if we insist that 1) the soul is this immaterial substance and 2) that reality consists of two poles (the material and immaterial). Neither of these ideas are biblical. So I want to suggest that we go back and see what the scriptures truly say about a soul and return to a view of infinity that is truly… infinite.
Those are some of my thoughts. Thanks for the article.
December 13th, 2005 at 8:28 pm
Brian,
I'm glad you're still interested in this conversation.
I, like you (and Greg Koukl), believe in a bodily resurrection, but I don't think that being resurrected bodily is incompatible with the idea of a soul.
As you stated earlier, I see that the words “soul”, “spirit” and “heart” are words often used synonymously.
However, in some passages (such as those below), I see a distinction made between either (a)the body and the soul or (b) the heart and the soul.
This is particularly true with the Genesis passage below, as well as the Deut. 11 passage and Thessalonians 5:23
In 2 Cor Paul talks about being caught up in the third heaven bodily or in spirit. (Would you attribute that to a “hallucination” of sorts?)
T
he strongest evidence among these that I've cited, though, I think comes from the passages from 2 Cor 5:7-9 where Paul talks about being away from the body and present with the Lord and also about pleasing the Lord while we are in our body or away.
What's your take on these?
-Justin
Gen 35:17-18
17When she was in severe labor the midwife said to her, “Do not fear, for now (A)you have another son.” 18It came about as her soul was departing (for she died), that she named him [a]Ben-oni; but his father called him [b]Benjamin.
Deuteronomy 6:5
” You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.
Deuteronomy 11:18
” You shall therefore impress these words of mine on your heart and on your soul; and you shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontals on your forehead.
Mark 8:36
“For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?
Mark 8:37
“For what will a man give in exchange for his soul?
1 Thessalonians 5:23
Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Corinthians 12:2
I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know
December 14th, 2005 at 1:41 am
Matthew 17:1-4 – The appearance of Elijah and Moses
Were Elijah and Moses bodily resurrected? Or were they spirit?
Luke 16:19-31 – The Rich Man and Lazarus
Yeah, you could chalk this one up to just storytelling, but why would Jesus bother telling a story of dead people having a conversation?
December 14th, 2005 at 9:36 am
Justin and Victor (welcome to the conversation),
Justin, you say, “This is particularly true with the Genesis passage below, as well as the Deut. 11 passage and Thessalonians 5:23″. I personally don't see such a strong distinction. The scripture writers frequently used various words (right next to one another even) to refer to the same thing, to heighten importance. To love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength means, “Love God with everything.” I don't think its wise to too hard in distinctions here. If so, I could argue, “But God doesn't care if we love him with our emotions because he didn't say that”.
Not only does the word “heart” refer to the soul at times, but even “kidneys” sometimes. The spiritual pain they often experienced was attributed to these bodily organs. I would argue its due to the fact that absolutely everything in life is connected; that I can't even experience spiritual pain that doesn't involve my body.
Again, I want to argue for a different definition of the term “soul”, not get rid of this word. In my humble opinion, we have to abandon this idea that a soul is this immaterial substance that has the powers of intellect, will and emotions. Science has shown that this doesn't fit who we are.
Also, we have to get away from this idea that spiritual things are immaterial. We get nothing like that from scripture. In fact, all spiritual activity involves physical activity.
As for some of the scripture passages you've listed, I don't believe you have to believe the soul is an immaterial substance to hold or understand these passages.
I'll comment on a couple:
The parable or Lazarus and the Rich Man: First of all, we have to remember this is a parable with a singular/main point. We don't want to infer more than what the scripture writer is saying. In the parable, heaven is referred to as Abraham's bosom. We don't want to make a deduction then and say, “Heaven is actually Abraham's bosom.” Nor, then do we want to draw hard hard conclusions from other inferences from this passage, other than, “if one doesn't believe the word's of Moses, he won't even believe if someone is raised from the dead (the point of the parable).
We do know that Elijah was “taken up” into heaven (2 Kings 2), presumably his whole self. This isn't the case with Moses. We are not told how Elijah and Moses appeared to Jesus at the transfiguration. The text doesn't say their “soul” appeared. We need to be careful to draw conclusions that the Bible isn't looking to give.
One of the more difficult passages is 2 Cor. 5. But again, I think we have to challenge some of our definitions. What does it mean to be “present” or “absent”? Does being present or absent merely mean being “close” to someone. I've read stories of best friends who've never met, whose friendship is completely online. They are not “present” to each other if we mean close in proximity, but they are “present” to one another as they “face” one another. Also, I know husbands and wives who sleep in the same bed with one another every night, but in reality, they are “absent” from one another as they refuse to share their life together. So, I think it might be helpful to redefine some terms.
I kind of rambled from one thought to another; sorry that the post isn't very succinct.
December 14th, 2005 at 10:43 am
Brian,
I think a lot of what you said applies – some of those passages can be taken to mean other things, such as “with everything” for “heart, soul, mind and strength.”
I do think it a little odd, though, if he is actually saying “Love God with all of your “heart, heart, heart, and strength,” which is what it would be if we took “heart, soul, and mind” to all mean the same thing. I think it is more likely that he sees a distinction between those things.
Also, I think one is hard-pressed to get the 2 Corinthians 5 passages to mean anything other than what they literally say if we don't want to infer more than the author is saying. It seems a bit forced to me to think he was talking about being just emotionally detached when he was talking about being away from the body.
It would have helped, possibly, if I had taken the time to do all of the research on the original languages, but admittedly, I have not done that.
On another note (that I think you've touched upon in earlier posts, but I'm still wondering about), what do you make of angels, demons, and God himself? Do you think there is a physicality to them, or are they immaterial? I was wondering if you are do not believe in the immaterial, or if you just don't believe in the human soul as immaterial.
-Justin
December 14th, 2005 at 1:44 pm
Justin, It's not that there isn't a difference between “mind”, “soul” and “heart”, the point is that there is more similiarity, more connection and congruence than not. So when God says, “Love me with all your heart, soul, mind and strength”, he's saying “love me in every respect”, but (and this important) we can't neatly divide these aspects apart. In fact, I would argue, you can't love God with all your mind, but not all your strength or soul. Nor can you love God with all your soul and not your heart and strength.
Concerning 2 Cor. 5, I think that a reading of this entire chapter leads us to several conclusions. 1) Paul is making a distinction between life on this earth and true life with God either after death and resurrection (and possibly, after Christ's second coming). 2) Paul is giving encouragement for life after death because we will have a “new building” (a resurrected body) to live in that exceeds our earthly body. 3) Our longing isn't to depart from our earthly body, but to have our earthly body perfected (“not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed”). So the “away from the body/home with the Lord” imagery that Paul is giving us needs to be understood in light of what he said in the previous few verses, which he never gives us the impression that our hope is to have our “immaterial soul” (which, again, is never found in the scriptures) leave our bodies.
As to your question about angels, demons and the such: the Bible never refers to angels, demons, or God (for that matter) as immaterial. The Bible refers to them as “spiritual” or (for God) as “spirit”. I'm still working out the implications of this for myself so I'm kind of going in areas that I haven't made firm convictions about. Here are a couple of things that I think are plain that we haven't incorporated into our understanding. 1) from 2 Cor. 5, I get the impression that physicality is dependent or contigent on that which isn't physical. I think this is considerable in light of strong separation we have always held concerning the material and immaterial poles. If they aren't separate or set against each other (which is dualism), we then may see that the immaterial is actually the source for the material and the hard separation doesn't exist. 2) I've said it before, but we need to be incredibly careful that we don't lable immaterial as good, spiritual and physical as “less spiritual/good” in some way. That is straight from greek metaphysics and not he Holy Scriptures.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:33 pm
Brian,
I don't think all things material are bad, just as all things immaterial (or “spiritual” things, such as demons) are good.
If, though, God is not immaterial, then I think we have a problem in God being an unchanging being. Material things change. I'm not even the same material I was when I was an infant. My cells are different. I have changed considerably, but I would still say that my essence (what I would suggest is my immaterial soul) has been consistent. I have been me my whole life.
You said” I don't think “soul” is meant to be understood in an “immaterial” sense like in Greek philosophy, but more as the “spiritual center” of a person (and again, spiritual does not equal immaterial)”
If not immaterial, it is material, right? Matter takes up space. Where is or what is this “spiritual center”? Does it reside within our cells or body chemistry? The brain? If it is material, and it is within us, it has to reside somewhere, right?
I hope I'm not way off-base here.
-Justin
December 14th, 2005 at 3:48 pm
Isn't it interesting to note that the Bible never refers to God as a “being”. We've labeled God a “being”, but the scriptures describe God as an dynamic relationship of persons. So I don't like to refer to God as a “being”.
Also, when God is a “being”, we run into huge problems when we think of him not changing. While the Bible clearly says that God doesn't change, there are also references where it clearly says God does change. So, the evangelical conservatives and liberals beginning arguing what passages should be understood metaphorically/anthropomorphically while the entire effort is conditioned on understanding God in finite terms and as a single subject. If we retrieve true infinity and view God as the scriptures suggest (the relationship of 3 persons), I think we could make a lot more sense out of all these scripture passages.
To understand a little better, why is the question of immateriality so important to you? Being that the scriptures never refer to this issue (material/immaterial), I tend to think “why is this important?”
December 14th, 2005 at 7:03 pm
Brian,
You ask: “To understand a little better, why is the question of immateriality so important to you?”
I guess it's important to me for the same reasons that the material nature of man and the absence of the immaterial soul is important to you.
-Justin
December 14th, 2005 at 8:26 pm
But its only important to me because I think its false. I wouldn't enter into conversations about the whether the soul is immaterial if others didn't presume it. I wouldn't be persistently telling my son Santa isn't real if he wouldn't bring it up. If Amy didn't presume the immateriality of the soul, I never would have enter into the dialogue.
But it seems important to you because some of your theological beliefs are tied to the soul being an “immaterial substance.” That seems different.
Which of your theological convictions seem most in jeopardy if the soul isn't an immaterial substance?
December 17th, 2005 at 8:34 am
Brian,
Still following, but I've been sick the last few days..
-Justin.
December 17th, 2005 at 9:04 am
Get better. Take some Vitamin C. Or as my coach would always say, “Rub some dirt on it.”
December 19th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
Brain,
Thanks for the well-wishes. I'm feeling much better now.
You said: “Isn't it interesting to note that the Bible never refers to God as a 'being'. We've labeled God a 'being', but the scriptures describe God as an dynamic relationship of persons. So I don't like to refer to God as a 'being'.”
I'm not sure I agree with this. I mean, the Bible rarely (if at all)explicitly states that anyone is a “being,” if you mean that it doesn't use the word “being” to describe God. I think the use of the personal pronoun He throughout the scriptures when referring to God implies that He is a being. I also don't think that God is the “relationship” between three persons. God is one essence in trinitarian form, and there is a relationship between the three persons of the trinity, but I don't think it is correct to label God as simply the “relationship” between the three persons of the trinity.
As far as the question of material and immaterial being important, I thiink that it affects the nature of God if he is a material being. Material things change. As far as I know, all material things are contingent, which means that they can't exist of their own power; they have to have a cause. If God is contingent, we have problems.
Further, if I am just a material being with no soul, where does my “spiritual center” reside? What makes me, me? Our physical bodies are constantly renewing themselves, sloughing off old cells and making new ones, yet I feel that I am the same person I was when I was born. . (Though I'm not, physically speaking.)
If I may repeat my earlier questions, If not immaterial, something is material, right? Matter takes up space. Where is or what is this “spiritual center”? Does it reside within our cells or body chemistry? The brain? If it is material, and it is within us, it has to reside somewhere, right?
You also asked:” To understand a little better, why is the question of immateriality so important to you? Being that the scriptures never refer to this issue (material/immaterial), I tend to think “why is this important?”
By my earlier post, I was just saying that this question cuts both ways. If what you say is true, it shouldn't matter to you either, but it obviously does.
I will end by posing the same question to you that you asked me: Which of your theological convictions seem most in jeopardy if the soul is an immaterial substance?
-Justin
December 19th, 2005 at 10:26 pm
Justin,
You pose good questions. They are questions I'm still looking to find direction for so I don't have “answers” for you. But let me comment on a couple of your statements.
By labeling God a “being”, you are beginning to define him, to set limits on him. “He's a being of a certain sort”. But as soon as you tag that label on God, you boundary-setting process has begun on God, who again, is infinite and can't be “defined”. I can't even say “God is love” (which scripture does), without qualifying what I mean because language itself is a culturally constructed set of symbols used to differentiate finite objects from other finite objects. That's why we have to be careful when we use words that aren't found in scripture.
Now, I'm not suggesting we can't use words that aren't found in scripture. We can and must. All of our creeds do just that, and they are important. My point is we have to be very careful in the words we use so that we don't lead ourselves and others away from what is truly real… who God truly is.
I believe scripture reveals that the Father, Son, Holy Spirit relationship is constitutive to the essence of God. To truly understand God as God, you must understand God as the relationships of Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Everything is derived from Trinity. God is not a God of love without Trinity. God is not sovereign without Trinity? Salvation isn't even possible without Trinity? You can't get more basic in God than Trinity.
My aim concerning the material/immaterial debate isn't an attempt to suggest God is a “material being” as apposed to immaterial. My point is: scripture seems totally uninterested in this question (for it doesn't address it in the least), so is it possible (which would be my contention) that our attempts to talk about God as material or immaterial come from other forces (modern views of reality).
Your view of the soul is that it's some sort of substance that “resides” in humans. So the question becomes, “where” does the soul reside? “how” does it interact with my material body? Is my body any part of “who” I really am? “What” truly constitutes a soul? But there are a host of problems with viewing the soul as a “substance” in this way and also, there may be other ways to view “soul” that is truer to the Biblical text and not so problematic (especially with science).
Thanks for the good discussion. This helps my own processing.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:50 am
Brian,
I agree that we both have to answer the same questions regarding our views of the soul, as you discussed in your last post with the questions: “Where” does the soul reside? “how” does it interact with my material body? Is my body any part of “who” I really am? “What” truly constitutes a soul?
I tend to think that the “where” is less of a problem if the soul is immaterial rather than material, as an immaterial thing doesn't literally take up space. The “who” seems a little less troubling if my essence is an immaterial soul, as one doesn't run into the problem of our material beings changing so drastically (cells dying, mutating, etc.), as an immaterial soul would not undergo the effects of aging, etc. The “what” an “how” questions are very intriguing with a body/soul duality, as it must be that the soul interacts with the physical body in ways that can be hindered by disability – as you talked about early in the discussion.
While scripture doesn't address the problem directly, I think it implies things about the nature (immaterial, in my view) of our soul and God (also immaterial, in my view).
I hope I didn't misrepresent your view of the trinity in my earlier post- I also agree that the nature of God is trinitarian.
This discussion has been fun. Not a whole lot of people are interested in hashing this stuff out, or even thinking about it, for that matter!
-Justin
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:23 am
Justin, I guess everyone else will just have to miss out. It appears we are coming to an end of our discussion. Here are some closing thoughts:
With my understanding of “soul”, I don't think questions like “where” and “how” come into the picture. If the soul is an immaterial substance, then those are appropriate. But if soul is spiritual, then that becomes moot.
Just to emphasize again, by rejecting the immateriality of the soul, I don't mean to embrace a material view. I embrace breaking free from from material/immaterial dualism that doesn't make sense in light of scientific and psychological discoveries.
For further reading, check out Shults' Reforming the Doctrine of God. It has helped me immensely. I'm sure we'll bump into each other again when someone puts up another article that peaks our interest.
Peace
December 25th, 2005 at 9:31 pm
Brian,
Merry Christmas! It's been a fun conversation!
Justin