Rough notes on Hans Madueme’s plenary talk:
Context
- Philosophers and Theologians question the usefulness of dualism – in some circles physicalism is the standard position
- According to some – physicalism makes most sense of the world, especially in light of the work of some neuroscientists – Both the OT and NT teach monism
- Substantivalist accounts of the Imago Dei – lend themselves toward physicalism
- In spite of these developments – traditional dualism has been and should continue to be the position of the global church
“Most laypeople assume our capacity to sin requires dualism – and I agree”
- Three accounts of physicalism that provide an attempt to say how moral responsibility is possible
- Look at biblical material of sin
- Argue that the biblical material requires dualism
- Respond to one objection
Part 1
- The hard problem of Consciousness
- The “hard problem” on Sin
- Three accounts: Green, Murphy, and Clayton
Part 2
- Does Scripture have anything to say about human composition and sin?
- Matthew 5:27-30 – The inner thought not the external act is the real location of the sin – there is an implicit anthropology here.
- Romans 2:28-29 – Being outwardly Jewish is not sufficient – a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly – circumcision of the heart. This inward outward contrast is best understood with some form of dualism
- Ezekiel 36 & Jeremiah 31 – The heart is understood metaphorically as talking about the inner person
- Demons are immaterial creatures – and they are quintessential sinners – therefore one should think a body isn’t necessary for sin
- Because we are embodied – sin has an embodied character but embodiment is not necessary for our sin
Summary
- Physcialism can’t provide moral responsibility
- Biblical data assumes doctrine of sin
- One Objection – if one things theological determinism is true and still hold to moral responsibility, why not think physical determinism is true and hold to moral responsibility
- First, theological determinism does not entail physical determinism
- For the sake of argument lets conceded Calvinism entails physical determinism, this would be a problem if physical was all there is
Conclusion
- Is this account too dogmatic? Is the problem that we have differing intuitions? But there are two main questions:
- Does my Anthropology fit with current scientific findings?
- Does my Anthropology fit with the dogmatic deliverances of the faith?
- Most Christian physicalists acknowledge science cannot adjudicate the debate.
- Not only is dualism more plausible given the reality of sin but also other doctrines: The intermediate state (Rev 6).
- Does our theorizing actually preach, comfort the disturbed?
- Our thoughts on this topic must also fit with our Christology
Advertisements
According to Hazony the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures are “in fact closer to being works of reason than anything else.” (Hazony, 3) He laments the fact that Western culture, due to Christian influence, has read the reason-revelation-dichotomy into the Hebrew scriptures. This dichotomy, in turn, has affected the standing of Hebrew Scriptures within public spheres. By turning back to conceiving the Hebrew Scriptures as a work of reason, Hazony hopes to restore its standing in public dialogue. Not only does Hazony argue that the Hebrew Scriptures are works of reason, rather he argues that “Hebrew Scriptures can (and should) be read as works of philosophy, with an aim to discovering what they have to say to the broader discourse concerning the nature of the world and the just life for man.” (4)
