Rethinking Human Nature
There's quite an interesting dialog going on in my post below, so I thought I'd add some thoughts about it in a new post. It has become clear in the previous (as well as others) posts that it is always important to define your terms; and I think that the book Rethinking Human Nature by Kevin Corcoran does a marvelous job (in what I've read of it so far) of defining terms and in analyzing dualist and materialist worldviews.In one of the comments, Brother Quotidian described a sort of dualism to which he prescribes, and Corcoran addresses this kind of dualism in his introduction:
"The Christian story, from the beginning of the narrative in Genesis to the dramatic climax in Revelation, is an 'earthly' story, a story that celebrates materiality, laments its perversion by human sin, and eagerly awaits its ultimate glorification in the resurrection. It is the position of this book that a materialist view of human nature, as opposed to a dualist view, fits this earthly picture of the Bible's grand narrative most comfortably.
The main lineaments of the Christian story are familiar to those of us who understand ourselves and the world in their terms. In the beginning, God created. All things other than God were created by God. When God completed his work, God rested and proclaimed all things created good, even very good!
Note that there is, to be sure, a kind of dualism in the doctrine of creation, but it is not the kind of dualism that will occupy our attention in the coming pages. The kind of dualism embedded in the doctrine of creation is that between Creator and created, between God and that which is not God. This kind of dualism rules out two sorts of error. On the one hand, it rules out devotion to and idolatry of creation. On the other hand, it rules out antipathy toward and rejection of creation, including the human bodies God created. I am an avid supporter of this kind of dualism. The kind of dualism at issue in discussions of human nature, however, is a dualism of human body and immaterial soul, where human persons are either identified with an immaterial soul or have an immaterial soul attributed to them as an essential part. It is this latter kind of dualism that is the focus of our attention and the kind of
dualism I reject" (14).
This is exactly what I have been thinking about lately, and what I was getting at in the last post, so I can't wait to read some more!
Any thoughts?
posted by DrewDog at 4:21 PM
6 Comments:
Ooooooooooooookay ...
I hope I can penetrate Cocoran's concepts here without reading the book (!), since my plate is overflowing for the next month.
Where Corcoran and I agree (in the quotation provided; I don't have his entire book before me):
1. The most fundamental metaphysical distinction that can be made (or, that the Bible makes) is the one between Creator and the Created.
2. The Created -- as a metaphysical category -- is very good. This is one point where Biblical faith opposes Gnosticism, which finds material creation to be evil.
Please note that the quote from Cocoran has room for immaterial entities which are, nevertheless, creatures (e.g. angels).
I think I would disagree with Corcoran about "a dualism of the human body and immaterial soul, where human persons are either identified with and immaterial soul or have an immaterial soul attributed to them as an essential part." He rejects this notion of dualism in the human nature, while I accept it. I do so because ...
Consider the Bible's statement about Adam's creation:
1. God formed man from the ground.
2. God breathed into his body the breath of life.
3. Man became a living being.
Every term in Genesis 2:7 is heavily freighted in this discussion; and, we may find ourselves digging into them. As a starter, however, I note:
1. Whatever "breath of life" means, it seems in this context to be other than material.
2. "Living being" (Heb. nephesh) would appear to be some sort of admixture, or intersection, or combination, or union (whatever) involving the material and immaterial dimensions of the first human soul.
This latter point allows us to read without contradiction every place in the Bible where "soul" sometimes appears to have materiality and other places where it seems to be immaterial. Depending on what you're saying about it, the soul would have either material or immaterial aspects.
Also, by this view, man's nature is dual: material and immaterial. You see this assumed in James 2:26 -- For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
At any rate, Corcoran at the end of the quote expressly rejects this view of human nature:
"It is this latter kind of dualism that is the focus of our attention and the kind of dualism I reject."
I look forward with interest to any further insight you can provide on how he construes passages like the ones mentioned above.
bq
Thanks, BQ. I'll post some responses to your comments after I've finished the book.
Life has been CRAZY lately.
No sweat, Drewdog. It's been more than a little nutzoid here too.
I am coming along with that learning to sing pointed psalm texts resource. I'll send you a sample [crossing fingers] if I can pull them together by the end of this week.
bq
That sounds great!
BTW, I never emailed you to tell you that I thought the newspaper adds were good. Made the point clear: This stuff is colorful fiction, and easily refutable.
I just finished reading the Davinci Code, and honestly, I can't see what all the hubbub is about! The "facts" contained in that book are thinks that many of the children in my ministry could easily refute; and yet I hear stories of people losing their faith after reading the book/seeing the movie. Well, all I can say is, we've (evangelicals) made this bed...
Cheers
The Da Vinci Code is demonstrating a couple of things:
1. That there is a strata of the populace with a settled and (probably) untouchable hostility toward Christianity, who rejoice exultantly over something like the DVC, because they suppose that FINALLY someone is debunking this hideous things called Christianity.
2. There is a strata of Christians, alarmingly large, who are utterly unequipped to debunk something like the DVC. Good for the children in your ministry!! They're WAY ahead of the game.
Locally, the event we're presenting on the DVC is going to do far more for uneducated Christians than anyone else; and, that's just fine. I'm pleased to see them learn some basic church history, and will give Dan Brown my thanks for placing that burr in their spiritual saddles.
bq
Sounds good, BQ. By the way, I wasn't bragging about my children's ministry; I was lamenting the current state of discernment among the evangelical church. Hope my comment didn't come off as pompous.
With regard to your first point, I think it's interesting that at the end of the novel, Brown betrays this group. His conclusion is not that we need to debunk any religion, but rather that it's good for people to have faith, so let them believe it. It helps them sleep at night, and makes them better people. Anything goes, it's true for them, and that's all that matters. Different strokes for different folks.
So the whole story is moving toward finally proving the church is wrong, and the Priory is right, and once they find the truth, they realize that truth is what you make of it. Good news, everybody's right! So let's not spoil their fun by exposing that they're wrong, that would be mean... and a powerplay... very machiavellian...
Ah, nuts.
Post a Comment
<< Home