How are Christianity and Physicalism compatible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Young_Thinker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

Young_Thinker

Guest
Hello everyone. I am currently taking a course upon the philosophy of science and religion. I have recently learned that Ian Barbour, a physicist and theologian who authored one of our textbooks, claims to be a Christian(a Protestant according to my professor) yet denies the existence of a soul. Instead of experiencing an afterlife, Dr. Barbour believes that we are merely memories in the minds of God following our deaths. My professor said that Barbour is an adherent of neo-orthodoxy and that most thinkers of this theological schools are monists like Barbour, in that they accept that the mind and brain are one and attempt to accomodate religion to whatever science has asserted. I was wondering how a Sadducee-like denial of the soul and afterlife is compatible with Christianity. How would salvation by Christ come into play, if at all. In addition, according to the Church, are not such materialistic Christians in danger of the fires of Hell? I would appreciate any comments upon this interesting topic.
 
Personally I am not sure what the difference is between physicalism and naturalism.

All I can say is that what you describe is certainly incompatible with traditional Christian belief. The idea that we will all just be memories in Gods mind seems to rob any relevant or reasonable meaning that can be inferred from Christ’s living and dying. What was the point of the gospel? What good news are we talking about here?

Its seems at least obvious to me that while these people might retain the word Christian as a symbol of their beliefs, they are not Christians if by that we mean that Jesus died for our sins so that we could be raised up to eternal and moral bliss in God.
 
Physicalism is akin to scientific materialism and methodological naturalism(also known as methodological atheism); however, a “mere” naturalist may be an orthodox Christian. A naturalist does not use science to deny the existence of God or validity of religion or to necessarily explain the metaphysical world.
 
Physicalism is akin to scientific materialism and methodological naturalism(also known as methodological atheism); however, a “mere” naturalist may be an orthodox Christian. A naturalist does not use science to deny the existence of God or validity of religion or to necessarily explain the metaphysical world.
Methodological naturalism is not the same thing as metaphysical naturalism or simply “naturalism”. Methodological naturalism is a method of attaining a very specific type of knowledge. While this method rejects supernatural explanations, it does so only because such objects do not represent the kind of knowledge that a scientist wishes to obtain, and not because it is true that there are no supernatural objects. Metaphysical naturalism or physicalism is a philosophical position about what exists in reality, or what reality consists of. In both cases, as I understand it, they reject the supernatural, and is certainly incompatible with the Christian faith; even though some would wish to define God as physical. Thus it is meaningless to me to speak of a Christian naturalist or a Christian physicality unless these term are merely referring to a methodological position concerning a particular aspect of human experience, i e that there are physical things and the best way of obtaining knowledge about physical things is to ignore any assumptions about the supernatural and its causal relation to the world when experimentally seeking that particular kind of knowledge.

See here. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism

Metaphysical naturalism, or ontological naturalism, is a world view and belief system that holds that there is nothing but natural things, forces, and causes of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e. those required to understand our physical environment and having mechanical properties amenable to mathematical modeling. Metaphysical naturalism holds that all concepts related to consciousness or to the mind refer to entities which are reducible to or supervene on natural things, forces and causes. More specifically, it rejects the objective existence of any supernatural thing, force or cause, such as occur in humanity’s various religions, as well as any form of teleology. It sees all “supernatural” things as explainable in purely natural terms. It is not merely a view about what science currently studies, but also about what science might discover in the future. Metaphysical naturalism is a monistic and not a dualistic view of reality.

And here. plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

Physicalism
First published Tue Feb 13, 2001; substantive revision Wed Sep 9, 2009

Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on, or is necessitated by, the physical. The thesis is usually intended as a metaphysical thesis, parallel to the thesis attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Thales, that everything is water, or the idealism of the 18th Century philosopher Berkeley, that everything is mental. The general idea is that the nature of the actual world (i.e. the universe and everything in it) conforms to a certain condition, the condition of being physical. Of course, physicalists don’t deny that the world might contain many items that at first glance don’t seem physical — items of a biological, or psychological, or moral, or social nature. But they insist nevertheless that at the end of the day such items are either physical or supervene on the physical.
 
I’m not really sure. I suppose you could hold physicalism only in regards to the universe, hold that God by a miracle will preserve the mind, and expect him to resurrect your body and sustain it for eternity. I think Peter van Inwagen of Notre Dame is a physicalist of sorts.
 
Physicalism (which is equivalent to materialism) is absolutely incompatible with Christianity because it denies the the existence of entities beyond the physical. There is no such thing as materialistic Christians.
 
Methodological naturalism is not the same thing as metaphysical naturalism or simply “naturalism”. Methodological naturalism is a method of attaining a very specific type of knowledge. While this method rejects supernatural explanations, it does so only because such objects do not represent the kind of knowledge that a scientist wishes to obtain, and not because it is true that there are no supernatural objects. Metaphysical naturalism or physicalism is a philosophical position about what exists in reality, or what reality consists of. In both cases, as I understand it, they reject the supernatural, and is certainly incompatible with the Christian faith; even though some would wish to define God as physical. Thus it is meaningless to me to speak of a Christian naturalist or a Christian physicality unless these term are merely referring to a methodological position concerning a particular aspect of human experience, i e that there are physical things and the best way of obtaining knowledge about physical things is to ignore any assumptions about the supernatural and its causal relation to the world when experimentally seeking that particular kind of knowledge.

See here. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism

Metaphysical naturalism, or ontological naturalism, is a world view and belief system that holds that there is nothing but natural things, forces, and causes of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e. those required to understand our physical environment and having mechanical properties amenable to mathematical modeling. Metaphysical naturalism holds that all concepts related to consciousness or to the mind refer to entities which are reducible to or supervene on natural things, forces and causes. More specifically, it rejects the objective existence of any supernatural thing, force or cause, such as occur in humanity’s various religions, as well as any form of teleology. It sees all “supernatural” things as explainable in purely natural terms. It is not merely a view about what science currently studies, but also about what science might discover in the future. Metaphysical naturalism is a monistic and not a dualistic view of reality.

And here. plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

Physicalism
First published Tue Feb 13, 2001; substantive revision Wed Sep 9, 2009

Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on, or is necessitated by, the physical. The thesis is usually intended as a metaphysical thesis, parallel to the thesis attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Thales, that everything is water, or the idealism of the 18th Century philosopher Berkeley, that everything is mental. The general idea is that the nature of the actual world (i.e. the universe and everything in it) conforms to a certain condition, the condition of being physical. Of course, physicalists don’t deny that the world might contain many items that at first glance don’t seem physical — items of a biological, or psychological, or moral, or social nature. But they insist nevertheless that at the end of the day such items are either physical or supervene on the physical.
Indeed; thank you for finding those good explanations.
 
Although it is not an area that I do much work in, my understanding is that many contemporary philosophers who are Protestant find physicalism attractive. The supposed motivation for it, from faith, comes from the emphasis the Creed places on the “resurrection of the body.” Peter van Inwagen is one example and a big name, but there are quite a few more. Kevin Corcoran was an professor of mine as an undergrad, who is also a physicalist. His compilation of essays on the topic include four that are geared toward Christian physicalism (read through the TOC): Soul, Body, and Survival: Essays on the Metaphysics of Human Persons.

My impression is that the Church has dogmatically declared the human person to have a soul, which is why these options are pursued more chiefly by Protestants. I remember talking to Dr. Corcoran, who thought the Bible just wasn’t “interested” in doing metaphysics, so references to the soul in the Bible were non-issues. I suppose, if anything, it shows the uselessness of sola scriptura. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top