"I think the main point of the argument was that neuroscience experts and
many modern theologians now see the soul as emergence, as in a form of
monism. "
Obviously there has to be more to your concern than just this article, but
what makes you think that the author of this article is correct?
Personally, I agree with your position that without an eternal soul,
Christianity is meaningless. Monism, defined as a Christian philosophy
where there is no mind/body dualism that nevertheless allows eternal
salvation, leads to two possible outcomes, annihilationism, or universalism.
Either all unbelievers cease to exist after death and God "recreates" and
resurrects believers, or everyone is recreated and saved. (I have a theodicy
problem with God creating a body/mind just for the purpose of eternal
torture.) So, monism is not consistent with Christianity.
But there is nothing in modern science or philosophy, in my opinion that
convinces me that the traditional concept of an eternal soul is incorrect.
You have to keep in mind that we see, hear, understand, and reason within
our brain, so our seeing hearing and understanding are limited to those
functions that our brain can sustain. Which is not to say that there are
not experiences beyond our understanding, i.e. beyond our brains ability to
process it.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Sep 22 21:45:37 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 22 2009 - 21:45:37 EDT