Comments on: Theological Anthropology: Embodied Souls, Ensouled Bodies

By: Christology and anthropology – a very nice summary of my book | Everyday Theology

Sat, 24 Dec 2011 16:08:57 +0000

[...] Strobel has just posted a very nice summary of my book Embodied Souls, Ensouled Bodies: An Exercise in Christological Anthropology and Its [...]

By: brettongarcia

brettongarcia — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:43:37 +0000

Is so much emphasis on “spirit,” really BIblical? To the point of making spirit at least half of the universe? And the hierarchically-superior half, at that?

The OT spoke mainly about a rather concrete “God” or “Lord.” Jesus himself was a physical man. Only parts of the New Testament began to speak more of “spirit,” a HOly Spirit – and to find anything resembling OT precedent, it had to construe earlier references to the mere “wind” or air in our lungs (“pneuma”), as divine invisible, sustaining spirit … rather than just the air that keeps us alive.

The OT God was rather visible and material, often; as was JEsus. The HOly Spirit perhaps not even being such major a player, it would seem. Even in a triune god, spirit would seem outweighed 1 to 2.

Is a hierarchial mind/body, spirit/world dualism, with spirit as the favored term, therefore, really even biblical? And if not, then where did the idea come from?

Plato? Paul quoted Plato’s Theory of Forms.

By: Christology and anthropology – a very nice summary of my book « scientia et sapientia

Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:54:04 +0000

[...] 20, 2010 by Marc Cortez Kyle Strobel has just posted a very nice summary of my book Embodied Souls, Ensouled Bodies: An Exercise in Christological Anthropology and Its [...]

By: Bobby Grow

Bobby Grow — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:14:42 +0000

I think your starting point is where it’s at.

By: Marc Cortez

Marc Cortez — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 18:53:28 +0000

As with most things, that’s not an easy question to answer. I’ve always described myself as a theologian in search of an ontology. As I lay out in the book, I don’t think dogmatic considerations require us to hold any particular theory of human ontology, though they do allow us to rule some out. The problem for me is that all of the theories that I’ve seen so far have significant weaknesses. I’m not at all convinced that nonreductive forms of physicalism have yet addressed issues of mental causation and moral responsibility in ways that do not slide toward either reductive physicalism or dualism. Their strongest arguments press toward reductive physicalism, but their rhetoric continually suggests a more dualist approach. So, until I’m convinced that NRP is coherent, I can’t go there. Dualism, on the other hand, even in its more holistic forms, still runs into significant difficulties with respect to mind/body interaction and affirming the importance of physicality for human identity (rather than making it largely secondary).

So, to make a long comment longer, I remain strongly committed to the Christological framework that I developed in the book and the idea that this must serve as the starting point for developing a theory of human ontology. But, no particular theory that I’ve seen so far is fully satisfying. The search continues.

By: Bobby Grow

Bobby Grow — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:27:35 +0000

I haven’t read much on this stuff. All I’ve read, years ago, is Moreland’s and Rae’s “Body and Soul”; and we know which side that is slanted from (on the philosophy/theology divide).

Otherwise I would like to interact.

But along with Kyle, I’d like to know which direction you lean, Marc?

By: Kyle Strobel

Kyle Strobel — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:05:49 +0000

Thanks Marc, I appreciate it. I wouldn’t mind hearing a bit about your inclinations in the mind-body debates. I remember from your last book that you seem to lean more towards the physicalist side of the equation (of the non-reductive variety). Is that still the case?

By: Kyle Strobel

Kyle Strobel — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:01:05 +0000

Thanks Brian!

By: Kent Eilers

Kent Eilers — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:59:44 +0000

Thanks for the head's up Brian. I have been reading Green's Body, Soul, and Human Lifeand will listen to the podcast with interest. Perhaps I will invite some students along for the ride.

By: Marc Cortez

Marc Cortez — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 03:35:47 +0000

Hey Kyle, thanks for taking the time to provide a very nice summary of what I was trying to accomplish in this study. I particularly liked it when you said, “you can see his deep interest in a philosophical-theological approach to the mind/body question (grounded in a more dogmatic construal).” The grounding of philosophical-theological issues in dogmatic (Christological) considerations really was central to the entire project.

I can’t say I have anything specific to add to your summary, especially since you made it clear that you were summarizing what was already an attempt on my part to summarize a lot of information. But, I’d be happy to respond to or interaction with any questions/thoughts people might have on the basis of your post.