> So I was wondering how the diverse advocates of TE on this list think
> about either souls or freedom in light of science.
As I have a few posts still to reply to, so I do not want to exchange
thoughts on this topic at the moment. However, a conference report
of mine is very relevant to Andrew's question. There are a
significant number of TEs in the US and in the UK who have abandoned
any thought that the "soul" is other than material in origin. They
have been advocating the hypothesis of "non-reductive physicalism".
Man is entirely physical, and "soul" is an emergent property of
matter.
The ASA/CiS conference last year had most of one day devoted to this
topic, and the relevant section of my report is headed: Portraits of
Human Nature. The opening para reads:
"The symposium was introduced first by Charles Harper of the
Templeton Foundation. A contrast was drawn between dualistic views of
human nature (which were linked to Greek philosophies) and monistic
views (which were associated with the Hebraic mindset). Current
thinking in the neurosciences supports monism and emphasizes the
naturalness of religious experience. This is an opportunity for
Christians to rethink their own perceptions of human nature and there
is good potential for ãengagementä with the world of scholarship.
Further introductory comments were then made by Malcolm Jeeves
(Andrews University) and Warren Brown (Fuller). This is a three-year
project based at Fuller, undertaken in the belief that a major
ãknotty problemä for the future will be concerned with the nature of
humanity. It is becoming increasingly difficult to hold to
traditional views of the ãsoul.ä This is because more and more
ãsoulishä traits have been linked to neurophysiological states and
because there has been a complete failure to develop any insight into
the mode of interaction between soul and body. The hypothesis
explored in the project is that the soul (and mind) is
physiologically embodied. This is a monist view of humanity which the
project team describe as ãnon-reductive physicalismä (NRP). That is,
every aspect of man is ultimately related to his 100% physical
makeup, but human behavior is not amenable to reductionistic analysis
because the soul and other distinctively human traits are ãemergentä
properties of his physical being."
For the rest, please see:
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/confreport192.htm
I will add that not all TEs think like this. One prominent TE here
in the UK told me that this position is "incoherent". I
would like to see TEs debate this - with particular reference to how
biblical revelation informs our scientific work. This seems to me to
be a classic area where the complementarity principle does not work
well.
Best regards,
David J. Tyler.