Are we immortal or not?

[jeremiah]

good morning Matt,

If you would, I'd like to explore a little further the reasons you gave back on 12/20/2012.

First though, If i take you rightly, what you call the immaterial aspect of man is not something I should be understood to be rejecting whole cloth. I pretty much agree with the what Paidion posted in response to the bit about "...if we're just a bunch of material." I think we can all rightly conclude this aspect of the human person. My objection is to the notion that it is immaterial. It would be a mistake to think I am saying your immaterial aspect is oxygen.

you said:

...As for reason, it is my understanding that, physically, we are basically completely new people about every 7 years... but amidst these enormous physical changes, we remain who we are. That continuity, it seems to me, is best explained by the continuation of an immaterial aspect...

Why is the continuation of an immaterial aspect the best explanation? You're correct in observing that our cells die off and are replaced seasonally, but I think to make so much of this is to make a mountain from a mole hill. We observe this phenomenon in everything that lives on earth. What does that mean? Pet dogs, shed their hair constantly, and their bodies go through the same cell renewal ours do. Does this mean they remain who they are by their immaterial consciousness? What about the snake who sheds his skin seasonally, does he need a immaterial aspect to remain the same snake?

We're agreed that this is how God has designed us, that is cell renewal, but I don't think an immaterial aspect has any explanatory power as to how continuity of identity is maintained throughout that process. If you have a explanation, I would like to hear it, but I don't think there is one that can avoid begging the question only to land on, "I don't know, but God knows how it all works." Though, neither do I as a physicalist have a universally satisfactory explanation for that maintenance of our identity. My point is that this argument swings both ways, I think making it clearly not a reason against monism.

You've heard the phrase, "I think, therefore I am." I thought this might help with how I believe we are to understand what you call the immaterial aspect. I think whatever this is, it's a fundamental consequence of how God has designed the human body to operate, and that design now being alive. And therefore can only be physically generated, sustained, or exist at all. So then, it's not ,"I think, therefore I am," for this gets the cart before the horse. Rather it's more like, I breath, therefore I think.

By the way, (on an unrelated subject ) I wholeheartedly agree with the original post.

Grace and peace to you Matt.

[mattrose]

I wasn't making 'much' of the cell replacement argument. It was 'an' argument in the 'reason' category of argumentation. I think it fits best with the theory that we have an immaterial aspect, but if you don't... it doesn't much matter to me.

I'm interested in knowing more what it is you believe. Am I right to assume that you do believe that there is such a thing as immaterial reality? If so, what is your objection to the possibility that humans have an immaterial aspect. Is it simply your biblical exegesis? If not solely exegesis, I'm not sure what motive there would be. I'm genuinely curious. Of course, you may come back and say it is solely exegesis, which is fine. I happen to think it is more natural to understand things in a what I call 'soft monist' way. But since there is not much practically at stake in the battle b/w hard and soft monism, I'm not eager to convince you of my view.

[jeremiah]

hello Matt,

I said:

...but I think to make so much of this is to make a mountain from a mole hill.

to which you replied:

I wasn't making 'much' of the cell replacement argument. It was 'an' argument in the 'reason' category of argumentation.

Sorry man, that was probably a poor choice of words. If I had anything in mind by "much" it was only with respect to you seeming to think it a substantial reason. Otherwise why would you mention it as one of the two you gave? All I had hoped to communicate, and then demonstrate with what followed, was that this is not a substantial reason for affirming such an immaterial aspect (IA) of humans. I didn't imagine you would affirm that humans and animals share a one to one similar IA, so I wondered how you might explain the difference since we all experience cell replacement.

I'm interested in knowing more what it is you believe. Am I right to assume that you do believe that there is such a thing as immaterial reality? If so, what is your objection to the possibility that humans have an immaterial aspect.

Yes, I believe that there is such a reality. Unless you mean anything other than God, angels, demons, the light in which God dwells, that sort of thing. I would say my objection to an IA of man's constitution starts from what I've learned in the scriptures, but at the end of the day I would list the same categories you listed in your 12/20 post for how you form your beliefs. Except of course most of the great theologians that I might argue favored monism would be those found in the scriptures. I'm definitely not a materialist of the ilk of Daniel Dennett (nor in the sense they would understand that label) if that's what you're wondering.

...But since there is not much practically at stake in the battle b/w hard and soft monism...

You keep coming back to this, I don't think there is anything overly dangerous one way or the other. But I'm sure you believe what you believe because you want to have true beliefs. Maybe you've met folks that are saying that God told them to beat themselves with a whip, or that it matters not what we do with the body for it's unimportant, so let's have fun. Unless this is the case, I can't imagine much that would be at stake with having a few platonic and gnostic errors in their theology. I believe this idea of an immaterial aspect of man is indeed false being a vestige of Platonism and Gnosticism among other pagan-isms before them. My intentions, like yours with those folks, is "to spark conversation against" what I consider still an error.

Above all, I hope it's still clear that my words are not thought in an aggressive way.

grace and peace to you brother.

[jeremiah]

hello Steve,

You wrote:

I am curious about how those who think man has no spiritual part that is divisible from the body interpret Paul's repeated ignorance as to whether the one he knew had his visionary experience "in the body or out of the body".

I am not saying it can't be answered, but I have just never personally heard it addressed.

A man was caught into heaven "whether in the body or out of the body, I do not know" (2 Cor.12:2, 3). If Paul believed that man did not have a part of him that could leave the body, why would he express this uncertainty?

.Why do you think the man was caught into heaven, assuming you mean heaven in a traditional sense?

[jeremiah]

hello Steve,

Sorry man, I should have answered your question first.

If Paul believed that man did not have a part of him that could leave the body, why would he express this uncertainty?

I don't think it's all together clear if the "whether in the body...whether out of of the body" language is to be connected to how Paul knew this man, or the man's experience. But if we take for granted that the language is Paul's uncertainty about the nature of this man's experience, and if we also grant Paul disbelieving in a soul that can exist without the body, then what he said is precisely how I think Paul would describe such uncertainty. Something like, "I don't know, I am ignorant of how this happened, but somehow this guy was taken to Paradise." Perhaps the man himself could not say for certain whether he was physically there or not, all he knew was that he experienced it.

I think one assumes too much in thinking that "whether out of the body..," must be affirming a certain possibility of a disembodied soul or spirit- failing to consider how this expression can easily be used by someone who disbelieves in such a thing, especially when that person is expressing ignorance. It also concludes and exegetes certainty from Paul's uncertainty, which I consider a mistaken conclusion.

I would ask why is Paul so indefinite about what he's relating? Is it merely the manner in which this man was taken to Paradise? Or is it also the fact that he was caught up to Paradise at all? This is the reason I asked why you think the man went to Heaven. I'm not sure Paul would be so confused by that, but more importantly, Paul's understanding of Paradise would come from the Hebrew scriptures. I think it would be difficult (to say the least) in attempting to make only one of the more than 25 occurrences of παραδεισος in those scriptures, to mean Heaven. On the other hand, I do think Paul would struggle to understand how someone could be caught up to a place that does not yet exist. If so, then I think his doubts about how it happened not only concern the nature of how it was experienced by the man, but also the when to which this man was caught up.

grace and peace to you Steve.

[Singalphile]

Any thoughts on the rest of Genesis 2 and 3? Whether you take it all as historical or figurative or whatever, what was the "tree of life" or what did it represent? Was it God's intention that men would never die until man disobeyed Him? Would animals and plants die? How did Adam/Eve know what death was? ... and so on.