Christianity and (Cartesian) Dualism
I could simply say that I, as a Christian, am not committed to Cartesian dualism. In fact, I reject it, as do almost all the Christians whom I know. (Most Christians I know would agree with dualism’s central tenet – namely, that the soul is of a different “substance” than matter – while arguing that the body and brain can affect the soul and mind.) If someone tells me that Cartesian dualism is implausible, I can only say that I agree.
Unfortunately, “I agree” does not make for a very interesting blog post. But there are a few interesting things to be said on the matter:
A drawing by René Descartes illustrating his understanding of dualism
1. Why would very intelligent non-Christians think that most or all Christians accept Cartesian dualism? Where does this misconception arise? Perhaps many Christians do think that Cartesian dualism is true, in which case there is no “misconception” to speak of. But I think it is more likely that the Christian community is not communicating itself clearly and is allowing one minority voice to crowd out everyone else.
2. Whatever one may say about Christendom, one cannot say that it is monolithic. Not all Christians are dualists, let alone Cartesian dualists. I know of Christians who conceive of man as a tripartite entity and of some (admittedly few) who advocate a form of Christian materialism. To see how complicated this issue can be, consider the following question: Are the “mind,” “soul,” and “spirit” synonymous?
3. Not only is it the case that most contemporary Christians reject Cartesian dualism, I have reason to believe that the apostle Paul would have rejected it. The Greek word translated in the NIV as “sinful nature” is σαρχ (sarx), which literally means something akin to “flesh.” (See, for example, Romans 7.) Obviously, if our sinfulness inheres in our flesh – in our body – then the material world does influence the soul, and Cartesian dualism is false. (Also remember Jesus’ words in Matthew 26: “The spirit is willing, but the body is weak.”)
Good thoughts. I think it is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that Cartesian dualism is NOT the way the majority of Christians throughout history have thought about anthropology, though it is probably fair to say that most within the church have been dualists (body-soul) and not monists (Christian materialists).
Another interesting option was held (though it is, admittedly, quite rare in contemporary discussion) by Enlightenment theologians such as Jonathan Edwards, George Berkeley and Nicholas Malebranche: namely, “idealism.” NOT idealism as it is popularly thought of today (i.e. referring to a person who is naively optimistic about the future in spite of the grim reality of existence), but rather, the metaphysical view that spiritual reality is primary & foundational and material substance is secondary & derivative from spiritual reality. It is actually the extreme polar opposite of materialism (!), which posits that what we think of as “spiritual” (i.e. the soul, emotions, thoughts) are completely derivative of our physical bodies (particularly brain activity).
Edwards and company held that all reality is actually an “idea” in the mind of God, much the same way that the fantasy scene–conjured up only in my own imagination–of a beautiful beach along the Atlantic ocean with a young boy and girl building a castle in the sand exists only in my head, though it can also be said at the same time that the boy and the girl in my thoughts are NOT ME but distinct from my own personal identity. In the same way, Edwards argued that we are an “idea” in God’s mind, and though distinguishable from Him (he zealously preserved the Creator/creature distinction), our physical existence nonetheless depends entirely on this prior spiritual reality and is indeed upheld by it, moment by moment. So you might say Edwards (and other idealists) are spiritual monists!
Enough for now! Joel Green, who is widely read in both biblical studies (he teaches at Fuller Seminary in California) and modern neuroscience, recently published a short book arguing for a Christian monism view. Check it out here:
http://www.amazon.com/Body-Soul-Human-Life-Interpretation/dp/0801035953/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245194502&sr=8-1
One apparent problem for any kind of Christian monism, in my mind, is how to handle the fairly overwhelming biblical evidence for an “intermediate” state for those who die in the Lord before the final consummation and future (physical) resurrection of the dead, when presumably we will be disembodied spirits in the presence of the Lord Himself. Seventh-Day Adventists can avoid this question because of their doctrine that we are “asleep” in between our death and Christ’s return, but most Christians have (rightly) rejected this view on the basis of texts such as II Corinthians 5:1-10, Philippians 1:21-23, Hebrews 12:23, etc. (and many more could be adduced!). I would be interested to hear from someone who holds to a form of Christian monism how they would handle this seeming dilemma. I think it can be done without abandoning the position wholesale, but nonetheless would love to hear the reflections of others!
Hi Jops,
I’m not sure this is an accurate characterization of Cartesian dualism. Descartes did in fact believe that the body and brain can affect the soul and mind, e.g.:
“I remark, finally, that as each of the movements that are made in the part of the brain by which the mind is immediately affected, impresses it with but a single sensation, the most likely supposition in the circumstances is, that this movement causes the mind to experience, among all the sensations which it is capable of impressing upon it; that one which is the best fitted, and generally the most useful for the preservation of the human body when it is in full health.”
Meditation 6, Paragraph 22
etc. cf. http://www.wright.edu/cola/descartes/meditation6.html
In fact, my impression is that “Cartesian dualism” is synonymous with “substance dualism,” and in that sense you could be correctly called a Cartesian. So, it seems, could Paul.
Nick, that books seems interesting and I’d like to read it. Possibly I will blog about it at some point!
I’ve written about ideas sort of related to idealism before, but I never made the connection with Edwards or Berkeley. (If idealism is true, then the atheists are wrong: WE are God’s imaginary friends, not the other way around!) I think, however, that one could be both a dualist and an idealist; perhaps our physical reality is continuously causally dependent on God’s spiritual reality, yet ontologically distinct from the latter.
I haven’t made my mind up yet about soul sleep.
Nico, when I discuss Cartesian dualism, I mean what many people understand Descartes’ view to be, not what Descartes’ view actually was. Thank you for the pointer, though.
How pleased I am to stumble on this post (and website)!
I thought I was the only Christian grappling with the complex issue of Cartesian dualism and faith.. where I worship, it seems to be an accepted truth that soul and body are separate. And then I find this post! Thank you so much for making me aware that I’m not the only one questioning this issue.
I studied a degree in Psychology a couple of years back, and as extra curricular reading found myself totally engrossed in the work of Antonio Damasio (Descartes error). He studies amongst others the strange case of Phineas Gage and others with frontal lobe injuries, concluding that emotion and body cannot be separate. He draws incredibly convincing arguments for a non dualistic view of mind, and my faith became incredibly rocky after this! How great that there is intelligent discussion around the matter, and it’s not the “be all and end all of faith”. Kirsty
An “intermediate state” poses a problem for Christian monistic materialism, not idealism, I think. Edwards certainly had no problem envisioning a continued disembodied existence of the “soul.”
Was Edwards really a monist, though? Is the soul “of the same substance” as God? Don’t we Christians need to specify that our dualism is not anthropological but theological? Wouldn’t this remove a lot of our confusion on this matter?