quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Besides, I'm not at all agreeing with your view that death terminates memory, understanding and will. There are a number of Church teachings that presuppose the persistence of the soul beyond death:
- Jesus' teaching the souls of the dead in Sheol;
- Purgatory
- the Particular Judgment
Some of these teachings are dogmas, one is even in the Creed -- all long before the rediscovery of Aristotle and the teachings of Thomas Aquinas, Scholasticism, etc. I think we have a situation, here, where Revelation and theology illuminate philosophy. [/qb]

I can only take from your interest in pursuing this sidebar an indication that we are successfuly wrapping up our more central considerations from the past few days

You wrote:
I think we have a situation, here, where Revelation and theology illuminate philosophy.

That was very well said. In the positivist, philosophic, theistic and theotic view of things (Helminiak's hierarchy), while these are otherwise autonomous domains of human concern and these different foci represent radically different commitments and logics, they are still intellectually-related. And our theistic commitments, for example, do make some demands on our philosophical perspectives, clearly excluding some even. Truth often comes flying in on the wings of beauty and goodness, uplifted by unity.

Consider this quote by Marc Cortez in EMBODIED SOULS, ENSOULED BODIES --- AN EXERCISE IN CHRISTOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE MIND/BODY DEBATE:

quote:

The thesis thus comprises two major sections. The first develops an understanding of Karl Barth�s theological anthropology focusing on three major facets: (1) the centrality of Jesus Christ for any real understanding of human persons; (2) the resources that such a christologically determined view of human nature has for engaging in interdisciplinary discourse; and (3) the ontological implications of this approach for understanding the mind/body relationship. The second part of the study then draws on this theological foundation to consider the implications that understanding human nature christologically has for analyzing and assessing several prominent ways of explaining the mind/body relationship.

This study, then, is an exercise in understanding the nature of a christocentric anthropology and its implications for understanding human ontology.

This doesn't deny that science and metaphysics and philosophy are autonomous and even narrower foci of human concern that get appropriated by theology as a broader focus of human concern, but it does illustrate how theology can inform some of our axiomatic commitments or presuppositions for these other foci, such as, for example, requiring moral and metaphysical realism, epistemological realism, fundamental human dignity and so on.

Cortez closes with:

quote:

In this study, we have not attempted to resolve this theoretical conundrum. In fact, the approach developed in the course of this study suggests that theologians should resist the temptation to wed Christian theology to any particular theory of human ontology.

This is echoed by Alfredo Dinis, who is the Dean, Associate Professor, and Lecturer of Logic, Philosophy of Science and Cognitive Science, Faculty of Philosophy of Braga, Catholic University of Portugal, in this paper , which is entitled Body, Soul and God: Philosophy, Theology and the Cognitive Sciences. Dinis writes:

quote:

The concept of a soul is not theological but rather philosophical. As a consequence, one may leave it out of the theological discourse. Concepts like �mind,� �soul,� �self,� and �consciousness� are not specifically theological concepts. They are rather philosophical concepts.

Theology has over the centuries used such concepts to express some religious beliefs, but such beliefs do not have a necessary connection with those concepts and certainly not with the metaphysical meaning they have in some philosophical traditions. Today, however, it is the sciences, especially the cognitive sciences, that wish to clarify such concepts.

In this task, they are most of the time against religious beliefs because such beliefs seem to be necessarily connected with those concepts. I want to argue that this is a mistake, and that most authors in the cognitive sciences are basing their analysis on misleading presuppositions.

But it is also true that a new theology needs a new anthropology, one that is less dependent on the traditional metaphysics of Thomas Aquinas and more in line with a relational paradigm.

And in the spirit of those two papers cited above, I commend the following work of Nancey Murphy to all:
THEOLOGY IN A POSTMODERN AGE: which included three lectures: 1) BEYOND MODERN LIBERALISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM; 2) BEYOND MODERN DUALISM AND REDUCTIONISM; and 3) BEYOND MODERN INWARDNESS.

A more concise summary can be found here and also here at Counterbalance, entitled Neuroscience & the Person and Neuroscience, Religious Experience and the Self, respectively.

Finally, here are some interview transcripts of Nancey Murphy's The Conscious Mind.

Alfredo Dinis amplifies this:

quote:

The metaphysical mind-body dualism is now being systematically challenged by a growing number of Christian philosophers and theologians (Murphy 1998, Brown 1998, Clayton 1999, Gregersen 2000). Nancy Murphy, for example, argues philosophically in favour of a non-reductive physicalism, which she describes as �the view that the human nervous system, operating in concert with the rest of the body in its environment, is the seat of consciousness (and also of human spiritual and religious capacities).� (1998, 131) These Christian philosophers and theologians believe that we do not need either the concept of a metaphysical self or that of a metaphysical soul. A relational self seems more adequate to understand the nature of human beings than a metaphysical self. Indeed, every traditional metaphysical category appears increasingly to be inadequate and in need to be abandoned in our search for knowledge. A relational view of the person, and indeed of God, needs no immortal soul to assure immortality. Instead, immortality is a relational situation. Human relationships constitute the individuals as persons. For those who believe in God, it is God�s foundational relation with the whole creation that makes human immortality possible.

Now, let me say that the metaphysics of the human person remain an open question, especially vis a vis philosophy of mind issues and the hard problem of consciousness. And let me reassert that, on matters metaphysical, I am agnostic. I incline, however, to the more nondual approaches to the human person. And to the human person's relationship to God as being only quasiautonomous. My panentheism is indifferent to metaphsyics, for the most part, and very much indifferent to whether or not any subjective aspect of human personhood is immortal.

Now, Phil, as to any teachings, dogmas or creedal elements, those are distinctly theological, necessarily vague, and certainly open to interpretation and rearticulation, metaphysically and philosophically. They certainly do not presuppose aristotelian or thomistic metaphysics, in general, or the soul, in particular. The "descent into hell" was possibly understood by the early church as an emphasis on Jesus' death and the resurrection of the body is foundational for the doctrine of the Communion of Saints, the church militant, penitent and triumphant. For those in the church penitent (a state) and the church triumphant (heaven), we needn't conceive of them as disembodied. With Kung, we can argue against the idea of a separated soul between particular judgment and the general resurrection as understood in either a platonic or aristotelian-thomist way, recognizing that, in Kung's words, "man dies a whole, with body and soul, as a psychosomatic unity � into that eternity of the divine Now which, for those who have died, makes irrelevant the temporal distance of this world between personal death and the last judgement."

While theology certainly does have implications for our metaphysical and philosophical presuppositions, as you noted and our authors above affirm, you will note that all of the above-listed authors consider other anthropological approaches, other than the distinctly dualistic conception, to be live options for the inquiring theological anthropologists.

You wrote:

quote:

Some of these teachings are dogmas, one is even in the Creed -- all long before the rediscovery of Aristotle and the teachings of Thomas Aquinas, Scholasticism, etc.

and, in fact, many of the earliest Christian writers of both the 1st and 2nd centuries, and even later Athanasius, did not believe in human immortality. It came later with hellenization and those guys you listed.

Nancey Murphy summarizes:

quote:

Both Judaism and Christianity apparently began with a concept of human nature that comes closer to contemporary nonreductive physicalism than to Platonic dualism. But, both made accommodations to a prevailing dualistic philosophy, and combined a doctrine of the immortality of the soul with a doctrine of the resurrection of the body. The pressing question now, concerns whether to return to those earlier nonreductive physicalist accounts of human nature, as many Christian theologians have urged throughout this century.

As for any persistence of the soul after death, while Kung, in Eternal Life, finds a two-fold view of human nature unscientific and any life based thereon untenable, he allows for resurrection, as does John Hick, right after death. Kung has tried to rehabilitate the concept of purgatory, which is less problematical conceived as a state not a place (thanks JPII for clearing that up).

Alfredo Dinis also wrote:

quote:

From this externalist point of view, it is possible to think about immortality within a non-dualistic framework - within a relational and dialogical framework. In his book Introduction to Christianity Joseph Ratzinger, the actual Pope, has put forward a relational view of the soul:
� �having a spiritual soul� means precisely being willed, known, and loved by God in a special way; it means being a creature called by God to an eternal dialogue and therefore for its own part capable of knowing God and of replying to him. What we call in substancialist language �having a soul� we will describe in a more historical, actual language as �being God�s partner in a dialogue�.� (2004, 355)
A dialogical concept of the human soul has for Ratzinger an immediate consequence: an equally dialogical concept of immortality: �man�s immortality is based on his dialogic relationship with and reliance upon God, whose love alone bestows eternity� (2004, 355). A dialogical concept of immortality needs no body-soul scheme, no natural-supernatural dualism. Thus, according to Ratzinger, �it is also perfectly possible to develop the idea [of immortality] out of the body-soul schema� (2004, 355), and so �it becomes evident once again at this point that in the last analysis one cannot make a neat distinction between �natural� and �supernatural�,� (2004, 355-6), since it is the dialogue of love between God and the human beings, and among the human beings themselves, that is truly the essence of every religious experience.

It is precisely Occam, who applied his razor to any philosophical demonstration of the immortality of the soul. Scotus, too, saw such arguments as inconclusive. Proper scriptural exegesis doesn't allow proof-texting either on this metaphysical issue. While it remains, in my view, an open question, parsimony doesn't needlessly multiply ontological layers for explanations that have ever increasing probabilities based on empirically falsifiable and verifiable observations regarding those faculties of the human brain once explained by those of the soul. With Peirce, I'm all for the mattering of mind and the minding of matter. Against Kung, however, I'm not ready to toss out psychic phenomena and other paranormal evidence. It is too early to draw such conclusions. Neither, however, do I want to foreclose on physicalist and/or naturalist accounts of the soul.

I think we have a situation where revelation and theology can certainly help us with an account that elevates human nature and dignity via a Christocentric anthropology. But I also believe that theology has overstepped its bounds if it leaves anyone with the impression that the metaphysics of philosophy of mind are loaded with inescapable philosophical presuppositions.

quote:

Originally posted by Ajoy:
[qb] Without memory & emotions how would one know they were unhappy or happy. Seems that life would just be. [/qb]

And why would the tone and tenor of their "dialogue" come across to others as so confrontational and defensive?

quote:

Originally posted by w.c.:
[qb] And so JB would probably consider this bordering on the epistemic, at least by the dying patient's self report, rather than revelations of theology near post-mortem. [/qb]

We cross-posted this evening/early morning. I am pleased to see you join us, w.c., and with such a hope-filled message. Yes, such reports remain open to different interpretations and are not conclusive, but, in my own personal life, I have drawn great consolations from similar experiences. And they deserve considerable weight as we hold different views in the balance.

quote:

Originally posted by w.c.:
[qb]If self annihilation were a true feature of the dying process, then those awakenings to the Eternal Presence would either have to be like what JB describes (God sheltering the soul until the general resurrection), or a cleverly wired Darwinian trick easing us into nothingness. [/qb]

Or maybe this dichotomy doesn't quite capture the process, especially if temporal distances are not relevant for eternal moments in the Divine Now, such as the "distance" between one's particular judgment and the general resurrection at the moment of death (as per Kung)? To be clear, I am referring to my prior post and Kung's belief that resurrection takes place immediately.

Indeed, what seems even more consonant with both the enhanced "epistemic" experience of the dying and the putative ontological manifestation of any deceased loved ones is --- not the metaphysical reality of what would, by definition, be badly impaired disembodied souls, but --- instead, the reality of what would otherwise be already ensouled, glorified bodies?

In other words, the deceased loved ones, presenting so robustly metaphysically are not suggestive of disembodied souls. And the person dying and transitioning as well as you describe, even recovering memory, understanding and will (as mediated as objectively known to the Divine Now) seems more consistent with one who's stepped into a vestibule of bodily glorification as opposed to some shadowy disembodied vestige of one's self?

Now, insofar as we believe that not all share the same destiny, these hospice accounts do not have to be taken as normative for every afterlife transitioning. No reason to believe that the dying process, for all its transcultural similarities, does not have, for each person, such idiosyncrasies that depend on the exigencies of their passing and as might be fitting to the manner in which they lived their life. IOW, who's to say every journey is the same?

This putative annihilation of self may not be temporally distanced from its own resurrection (via the mediation of its memory, understanding and will as objectively known to the Divine Now). Where Alzheimer's patients are concerned, especially those who "show strong signs of their personalities enduring, and can even experience the re-vivification of their lucid self-other sense," this mediation by the Divine Now might even suggest itself more strongly. The dynamic process account rather than the discreet event account may better capture what goes on, however temporal, however eternal, whatever the metaphysical reality.

Again, though, all the philosophy aside, that's a keeper w.c. and a consolation. Thanks for sharing it.

quote:

Originally posted by johnboy:
[qb]

quote:

Originally posted by w.c.:
[qb]If self annihilation were a true feature of the dying process, then those awakenings to the Eternal Presence would either have to be 1) like what JB describes (God sheltering the soul until the general resurrection), or 2) a cleverly wired Darwinian trick easing us into nothingness. [/qb]

Or 3) maybe this dichotomy doesn't quite capture the process, especially if temporal distances are not relevant for eternal moments in the Divine Now, such as the "distance" between one's particular judgment and the general resurrection at the moment of death (as per Kung)? To be clear, I am referring to my prior post and Kung's belief that resurrection takes place immediately. [/qb]

What would really protect us from the truth is a dogmatic clinging to any of these three accounts, or any other reasonable probabilities, as if the others were necessarily inconsistent with the faith or reason.

When my father died, the sense of peace in the room was palpable. On the moment of death, he turned to look at my mother with the most incredible look that said both thank you and I'll be waiting for you, or so it seemed to me. It was a most awesome moment, then he was gone. And despite my own personal grief, I was able to step back and consider the whole experience in wonder, with the realisation that, yes, there is something there, waiting for us, taking us through this, with love and care; and my father's own surrender to the moment, while still able to communicate love to his wife, convinced me of a great Grace given at the moment of extinction.

After his death, he entered my dreams like a shade and I was caught up in the most desperate love for him. People talk about a guiding presence and at times I must confess to having felt this.

Similarly, when a brother of a close personal friend died of a heroin overdose, I had an experience where I sensed his shade at night, sensed an incredible anger emanating from somewhere beyond my own earthly experience of that particular emotion, then dreamed some strange dreams which seemed to confirm his continuing existance, trapped in anger and regret in some dark place, only to be relieved by prayer.

All highly subjective, I know, but such experiences confirm for me the persistance of will, emotion, memory after death.

Jesus had invited me to spend an hour with him. I was a bit uptight about it, so for days I prepared by boning up on my seminary course in Christology and I re-read the documents of Vatican II. I glanced over my notes on Lonergan�s �Method in Theology�, read the latest work on process theology and breezed through another on liberation theology. After all, I didn�t want to seem too far out of it.
I looked through the four Gospels again, too, just in case he referred to something in his past recorded there.
And I cleaned up my room (as I faithfully do each year anyway), because he insisted on coming here instead of us meeting in the chapel or on neutral ground.
When he came I started to genuflect and kiss his hand, but he pulled me up and said, �Can�t we just sit down together?�
I felt awkward and didn�t know how to start the conversation. Reading my mind, he said, �Relax! I just like to be here with you and enjoy the scenery from your window. The river and skyline look beautiful today.�
Well, I could hardly believe that.
If I�m busy and can�t afford that waste of time, he must be infinitely busier.
And there were so many important things to accomplish during that hour. I really wanted to get the most out of it. But he just sat there in silence with his hand on my shoulder,
�Lord,� I broke the silence, �where do You stand on the Christological controversy on how humanly conscious you were of your divinity and future life before your death and resurrection?�
�What�s that got to do with our enjoying this scenery together� he asked.
More silence. I was uneasy. I reached for the book on process theology and said. �He really has something on the development of consciousness and the��
�What difference does it make,� he broke in, �to our time together here? Do you like the way my Father has fashioned those clouds in process and the flowing river?�
More silence. I opened the book on liberation theology. �How can your gospel be authentically proclaimed, Lord, to people enslaved by oppressive economic and social structures?�
�You haven�t forgiven your brother down the hall yet, nor let me heal your anger and unkind judgements of him, have you?� he countered.
�That doesn�t answer my question, Lord.�
�Your question does nothing to our precious time together except mess it up.�
More silence.
�Are you happy with Vatican II and the aftermath of it, Lord?�
�Are You?� he returned.
�Oh, yes � some of the new thinking and changes are really good, but I think some of the liberals have carried things too far and some of the far-right conservatives are obstructive and not thinking with the church.�
�You�re impossible,� he laughed. �Aren�t you happy to spend a few friendly minutes with me without trying to get some new insights for your lousy � I mean brilliant � class lecture?�
�You�re confusing me Lord. I was taught how to meditate 34 years ago in the novitiate. And I�ve studied ever since. I�m not exactly new at this, you know.�
�No, not new � just a bit slow � and dumb. But I love you anyway.� That helped � but not much.
More silence. I saw a shelf I forgot to dust and a letter that had to be answered and a message to return a phone call. I thought of the next class I needed to prepare. I was getting more restless.
�Lord, would you like a glass of juice or something? It would only take a minute to run down and get you one.�
�And what would I do while you�re gone? I prefer we just sit here together�
More silence.
�Do you love me?� he asked.
�Lord, you know everything. You know that I love you.�
�I liked that when Peter said it,� he chided, �but is it really you?�
�Honestly,� I protested, honestly, � you�re not making this hour very easy for me.�
�You�re the one who�s making it hard,� he replied. �I just like to spend time with you, sharing my presence with you and assuring you of my love. You don�t ever have to entertain me when we are together. Just be there, okay?�
More silence. �Who do you say I am?� he asked, nudging my shoulder.
�Well, I�m with the best of our theologians, Lord, who say that you are � you are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being; you are the incarnate word of God; you are our ultimate kerygma and the full revelation of the Trinitarian, Christological, soteriological, antithetic and ecclesial mysteries of our lives.�
There was a long pause before he said, �What?�
Then he, exploded with laughter, rose and raised his arms straight up with his head back, roaring.
He gave me a big bear hug.
�Yes. You�re impossible! But I still love you.� And he left, still laughing all the way down the hall.
I didn�t think that was very funny at all.
I stood gazing out the window for a few moments, still confused, before getting back to the important things on a desk full of work. Then I really missed him.


Armand Nigra SJ


(Smile)

JB:

Yes, this notion of Kung's could obviously be what explains the full-bodied presence of the dead, although Stephen's report is verified in the literature, and in my own impressions as well (along with the importance of praying for the dead who occupy various netherworld domains). My grandfather appeared to me at one point, about a year ago, and was able to transition back and forth between densities. At one point I could feel and hear him, at another barely see him, and then he was present in this radiant, full-bodied sort of way; it seemed kind of like altering frequencies on a radio dial, or taking a taxi or a plane. This world seems constructed of a living light, sort of like the breath or gaze of God generating all things. The new body seems to come with the territory. As Jesus' resurrection is Eternal, such a state may simply be the metaphysics of heaven for the communion of saints.

Now all of this is highly subjective, obviously, which I know doesn't pass the philosophical muster. But there is that point where we do reach the limit of philosophical rigor and must bow to the mystery. We even reach the limit of being able to take comfort from past private experiences, and this is consonant with how God is different than the consolations given. So we end up facing similar limitations in our attempts for discursive-based meaning. Not that the project of philosophy should, or could, be relinquished, as our minds seem automatically driven to resist uncertainty, which is perhaps part of the built-in hardware for the crisis of the Dark Night of the Spirit where all faculty-based comforts are lost.

A philosopher such as W. Norris Clarke comes to mind (for how uncertainty, if we're receptive to it, can generate an increasing aesthetic sensibility, or awe, for the mystery of life).

Good to see your name in lights again, w.c.

Lovely story, Clare. Thank you for sharing.

Stephen, thank you, too, for sharing about the experience of dead and dying loved ones. One of my spiritual directees is a chaplain at a nursing home, and she tells me that it often happens that dying patients communicate with family members, Christ, and angels. She says sometimes they're looking at a place in the room and when she asks what they see, the reply is, "Don't you see them?" or something like that.

- - -

re. disembodied souls -- the purest reference would be those inhabiting what Scripture calls Sheol, which is not "Hell" but the realm of the dead, something akin to what Catholics call Limbo. For Jesus to have preached to them, they must have had some capacity to be aware, to understand, and to respond.

I think the situation is different now, especially for those who've been baptized. Remember that Paul and the teaching Church since holds that with Baptism, we die with Christ and are raised with Him. This means that the human soul is already receiving resurrection life in it's "old body," and the growing of this life is what we mean by "theosis," or deification. I take that to mean that the transformation we experience in this life prepares us to fully enter into it after death, and that might explain the luminosity and splendor that w.c. and others have reported via their contacts with deceased loved ones.

JB, I hold out no hope for philosophy or science to resolve the matter of immortality. Even though it took the Church awhile to fully assimilate the implications of Christ's death, descent, resurrection and ascension, I understand the teaching about the soul to be a settled matter. Of course, it's a good thing for philosophers to continue to reflect on all this, but I think this is a topic that requires the vantage point of a "higher perspective" (i.e. revelation and theology) to clarify.

For those who are interested, a lengthy and somewhat dense review of the history of the Church's reflection on the meaning of the soul can be found here.

- -

There are implications in this new direction of discussion for the BR/JA exchange, but they're becoming increasingly remote. What I see is that there's just nothing in the tradition to support her view that human beings lose their individuality in the afterlife.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] JB, I hold out no hope for philosophy or science to resolve the matter of immortality. [/qb]

quote:

Originally posted by w.c.:
[qb]But there is that point where we do reach the limit of philosophical rigor and must bow to the mystery.[/qb]

To the extent one employs philosophical rigor and empirical scrutiny toward the end of recognizing that it is indeed too early on humankind's journey to rush to closure in favor of any particular metaphysical approach or positivist perspective regarding certain of life's ineluctable paradoxes, adjudicating many such competing arguments with the Scottish verdict, recognizing manifold interpretations as indeed live options consonant with faith, all this over against so many other dogmatic takes, whether derived from a scientistic or fideistic or pietistic stance --- then one may very well have already bowed to mystery, well tolerating life's ambiguities, well accommodated to life's paradoxes, well holding life's contradictions, well nurturing life's creative tensions and truly pondering in one's heart, with Mary, this Jesus and Who He is for me, for you, for humankind, for the cosmos and, through the Spirit, for His Abba and ours.

It has been a most fruitful engagement. I leave you all with: http://shalomplace.com/res/kgambit.html

pax, amor et bonum,
jb

quote:

Originally posted by Clare:
[qb] Jesus had invited me to spend an hour with him. I was a bit uptight about it ...Armand Nigra SJ (Smile) [/qb]

Clare, I can only surmise that you find this musing pertinent, in general, within the overall context of our discussion of the role of philosophical rigor and its limits? Of course, other faculties have their limits, too, as we seek the proper balance in emphases on the speculative and affective, apophatic and kataphatic, modalities in our engagement of reality (and to avoid the overemphases that yield pietism, fideism, rationalism, encratism, quietism, scientism and so on).

Your Nigra musing, in my view, highlights a certain dramatic irony in that, on one hand, one could truly, with no small amount of philosophical rigor and empirical scrutiny, embrace a certain metaphysical agnosticism, needing to banish certain of life's mysteries neither speculatively nor affectively but letting them live on while still holding to the essential elements of one's faith, while, on the other hand, one could indeed resist uncertainty and seek faculty-based comforts in one's clinging to otherwise dispensable metaphysical formulations, as if certain religious beliefs were necessarily connected to certain concepts, otherwise dulling one's aesthetic sensibilities for this immense mystery of life.

At any rate, I see the Nigra musing as a good critique of rationalistic approaches, but I certainly hope that no one is suggesting, implicitly or explicitly, that it is pertinent to any particular approach here in this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] JB, I hold out no hope for philosophy or science to resolve the matter of immortality.[/qb]

It would be wrong, in my view, to suggest that it could not be done, in principle. As Chesterton said: We do not know enough about reality to say that it is unknowable. As a practical matter, however, it remains, for now, one of life's difficult to penetrate mysteries. I came across an interesting essay that discusses NDE phenomenology: http://www.deathreference.com/...ath-Experiences.html Such data should increasingly become more amenable to empirical analysis, however indirect, as our statistical modeling becomes ever more rigorous (our word du jour?) and our phenomenological terms and categories become less and less ambiguous, culture to culture, psychologically and sociologically. Of course, we'll get nowhere if, on one hand, we adopt an a priori mysterian approach that occults such realities in principle, or, otoh, adopt a scientistic approach that a priori eliminates nonreductive approaches. If immortality does get resolved, it will be science and philosophy, not theology, that resolves it. Just like with creationism thrusts, in my view, it is best not to place God in such gaps.

quote:

Originally posted by w.c.:
[qb] As Jesus' resurrection is Eternal, such a state may simply be the metaphysics of heaven for the communion of saints. [/qb]

That makes for a rich meditation of glorification as process more than event.

From Johnboy: If immortality does get resolved, it will be science and philosophy, not theology, that resolves it.

Honestly, ole buddy, I don't follow, here -- how science or philosophy could prove or disprove immortality.

Whatever the case, the Church developed its teaching by reflecting on the implications of revelation, which, of course, is not binding on non-believers. I think what we have, here, is the kind of situation that the author of Meditations on the Tarot was referring to when he wrote:

quote:

Presumption? It would be, without any doubt, a monstrous presumption if it were a matter of human invention instead of revelation from above. In fact, if you have a truth revealed from above, if the acceptance of this truth brings miracles of healing, peace, and vivification with it, and if, lastly, it explains to you a thousand unexplained things -- that are inexplicable without it -- can you then consider it as an opinion among other opinions?

He's not talking about the immortality of the soul, but about religious truth, in general -- especially Christian dogmas.

What I was meaning to say is that we, as Christians, ought to avail ourselves of the teachings of the Church when reflecting on topics like the soul. So long as what we teach is not incompatible with what science or philosophy can affirm as within the realm of possibility, then I believe priority should be given to the Church's metaphysical teaching, which has been arrived at through a long process of discussion and discernment. So on matters of a spiritual and religious nature, I do not regard Church teaching to be merely "an opinion among other opinions." Asserting the immortality of the soul doesn't mean that the Church can't continue to learn from science and philosophy how this might be better understood or explained, however, and we certainly ought to be in dialogue with these disciplines along the way. What I do not see is how such a dialogue would bring forth anything that should lead the Church to reverse herself on this matter.

Not much else I have to say about this sidebar, I'm afraid. Yes, I know: I'm a stubborn bull-moose!

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen:
[qb]All highly subjective, I know, but such experiences confirm for me the persistance of will, emotion, memory after death. [/qb]

That was a powerful sharing, Stephen. From your own subjective experiences, you might better empathize with Bernadette and how her experiences similarly confirmed for her what also appear to be extrapolations in the order of metaphysical knowledge. Practical examinations of the circumstances might, at best, provide others with the ability to assign different levels of probability to varying interpretations, metaphysically speaking.

But that's just metaphysics. And either view is presently consonant with known facts of science and history and with revelation. If there is a metaphysics of heaven, and if death and subsequent glorification is experienced moreso dynamically and process-like, then perhaps we can accomodate all manner of otherwise seemingly disparate metaphysical interpretations?

Perhaps BR was frozen in one frame, such as one might experience in the liminal space between heavenly "mansions." It does not seem to me that any given account is necessarily mutually incompatible with other accounts, or that one's experience must be taken as normative for all other experiences. While it may very well have normative impetus for any given freeze-frame that we might all go through, one "day," it need not of necessity otherwise elevate that experience or state or stage or frozen-frame to some gold standard of the Golden Gates.

Experiences on "this side" are richly textured and elusive enough. How much more so those of the next realm(s)? Dogmatic pronouncements about experiences on the "other side" that exceed the necessarily vague and minimalist accounts of faith are of dubious origin, and what is good for BR is good for Peter Kreeft.

If all BR is really about is metaphysical speculation, then there will be no easy adjudication of her claims. If she has broken open new categories and terms, and it appears that she has, then it is not a logically valid move to place them in logical contradiction to terms and categories and arguments of other systems that do not even employ such concepts. That's like placing quantum mechanics and gravity in competition and suggesting they are contradictory and not rather complementary accounts of the same reality. Those have to be reconciled through an arduous process of renormalization.

If, otoh, or more appropriately, in addition to such metaphysical groundbreaking, BR is speculating theologically, then that is more readily adjudicable vis a vis the existing deposit of the faith. It is one thing to do inculturated theology, rearticulating truths of the faith within specific cultural and metaphysical hermeneutics, and quite another to do de novo revelation. But before we suggest that anyone is doing something that heterodox, we must step back and ask them to prescind from a strictly metaphysical articulation to a more phenomenological account and to tell us: "Do you believe in God, the Father almighty ... in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and in life everlasting?" And these creedal articulations must then be consistent with the forms of worship we cultivate and the sacramental economy we trade in and Christ present in the Eucharist in the presider, the people gathered, the word proclaimed, in the sacred species, as we celebrate meal, memorial, covenant, thanksgiving and presence. And it seems that, on a phenomenological level and praxis level, BR is good with all of this? It is far less important what one thinks about the relationship between the immanent and economic Trinity.

It is not so much important HOW these mysteries are accomplished in positivist and metaphysical terms but THAT they are realized. In our religious language, we employ beliefs that are dogmatic, which is to say that they are nonnegotiated and nonnegotiable. In our metaphysical langauge, our beliefs are still in negotiation, which is to say that they are heuristic devices, conceptual placeholders, but not robustly explanatory. In our scientific and positivist language, we deal with beliefs that have been negotiated by a wider community of inquiry, which is to say that they are not quite as dogmatic (always open to falsification), and moreso theoretic (robustly explanatory) and less so heuristic.

When we see people employing dogmatic approaches and using nonnegotiated universals to describe metaphysical realities, or, when we witness them using robustly theoretic approaches in their treatment of theological realities, which are otherwise best dealt with in metaphor and poetry and vague terms proper to the mysteries to which they refer but cannot otherwise fully decribe, chances are some major category errors are in play.

That's part of what I sense might be going on in BR's work. But these rubrics are good for both geese and ganders.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] From Johnboy: If immortality does get resolved, it will be science and philosophy, not theology, that resolves it.

Honestly, ole buddy, I don't follow, here -- how science or philosophy could prove or disprove immortality.[/qb]

Did you appropriate my distinction between theory and practice?

Our interpretive stances are in a recursive feedback loop with the interplay of our positivist, philosophic, normative, evaluative and other foci of human concern. There is nothing, in principle, that should a priori rule out the possibility of our attaining, one day, a very high level of confidence in our data and inferences regarding, for example, NDEs or other paranormal or psychic phenomenological data. At such a time, what are now mere heuristic metaphysical placeholders or otherwise controverted dogmatic beliefs could enjoy theoretic status as we would be able to move beyond the nonnegotiated and still-in-negotiation status to fully-negotiated status. It is too early on humankind's journey to say whether we are only practically constrained, methodologically and epistemically, or that we are otherwise constrained, in principle, by the permanent occulting of this aspect of reality. Of course, one could predicate the terms involved in such a way that they would not be falsifiable, but that would create a tautology with little traction pragmatically.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] I think what we have, here, is the kind of situation that the author of Meditations on the Tarot was referring to when he wrote:

quote:

Presumption? It would be, without any doubt, a monstrous presumption if it were a matter of human invention instead of revelation from above. In fact, if you have a truth revealed from above, if the acceptance of this truth brings miracles of healing, peace, and vivification with it, and if, lastly, it explains to you a thousand unexplained things -- that are inexplicable without it -- can you then consider it as an opinion among other opinions?

He's not talking about the immortality of the soul, but about religious truth, in general -- especially Christian dogmas. [/qb]

I'm glad you brought this up. It is precisely a point I wanted to make earlier. The norms the Tarot author set forth for our non-negotiable dogmatic beliefs should not be applied to still-in-negotiation heuristic devices. Christendom is all over the map on the immortality of the soul, Catholicism less so, to be sure, but give it time ... it is soooooo s...l..ll.....lo...oooooo....w.

Given the other sharing today your comment JB reminded me of a very
special memory of my mother-in-law. We had been called to come
and say our final goodbyes. She had been in a type of coma for
3 weeks and was not expected to live much longer.

When we arrived she was coming out of the coma to everyone's amazement.
The staff were coming in and simply observing her in disbelief. Thing was she had changed. She kept talking about where was Mary, beautiful Mary. We couldn't connect the name with any deceased relative & felt this could be Mother Mary.

A deeply unhappy & critical person was suddenly a very kind person. Very childlike almost. Her conversation with her roommate was no longer of criticism but words filled with loving kindness.
She died several months later.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Whatever the case, the Church developed its teaching by reflecting on the implications of revelation, which, of course, is not binding on non-believers. [/qb]

Metaphysics is not binding on believers either.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]What I was meaning to say is that we, as Christians, ought to avail ourselves of the teachings of the Church when reflecting on topics like the soul. So long as what we teach is not incompatible with what science or philosophy can affirm as within the realm of possibility, then I believe priority should be given to the Church's metaphysical teaching, which has been arrived at through a long process of discussion and discernment.[/qb]

More rigor is needed beyond mere logical possibility and that is provided by probability. I believe that the church is owed deference and assent and even obedience on certain moral issues and on creedal dogma and our sacramental economy. The church does not have a metaphysical system. That's not what the church is or does. The church does urge on the metaphysical enterprise and affirms the autonomy of philosophy recognizing that its methods enjoy priority over its systems.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] So on matters of a spiritual and religious nature, I do not regard Church teaching to be merely "an opinion among other opinions." [/qb]

Right. But do not conflate these with metaphysical systems. This has a tendency to wreak havoc with natural law interpretations such as regarding sex and gender issues. How much less should it be done with creedal formulae. The church has credible social justice teachings, highly regarded by secular society and in dialogue with the modern world because it employs new methodologies, like historical consciousness, personalism and relationality-responsibility. The old dualistic methodologies for conceiving theological anthropology need to appropriate modern methodolgies also when it comes to both ascetical and moral theology (which are the same enterprise when you think about it).

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]Asserting the immortality of the soul doesn't mean that the Church can't continue to learn from science and philosophy how this might be better understood or explained, however, and we certainly ought to be in dialogue with these disciplines along the way. [/qb]

Why dialogue? The matter has been settled by the church's ipsedixitism. A scientific and metaphysical matter at that!

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] What I do not see is how such a dialogue would bring forth anything that should lead the Church to reverse herself on this matter.[/qb]

This is how the church got in trouble with Copernicus and Galileo. If the church did make a positivist assertion of a scientific or metaphysical nature, which is doesn't do (any more), then I would hope that evidence would reverse it. And I hope it would not frame a metaphysical or scientific notion in nonfalsifiable terms, which would not only be disciplinary trespassing but bad science to boot.

At any rate, there are no church dogmas at stake for which anyone is clamoring for a reversal. We are rather talking about articulating a dogma with perhaps better positivist and metaphysical conceptions. Although, as I said before, I'm not staking out any given position as much as I am trying to ensure that all viable interpretations and articulations are treated as live options (and that all a prioristic scientistic and reductionsitic accounts are excluded, not due to bad theology but due to their impoverished epistemologies).

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]Not much else I have to say about this sidebar, I'm afraid. Yes, I know: I'm a stubborn bull-moose! [/qb]

Ahhh, beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself.

You are a child of the universe. You have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, the universe is unfolding as it should.

Who said that? It wasn't me! Where DID that come from?

quote:

Originally posted by johnboy:
[qb]

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] From Johnboy: If immortality does get resolved, it will be science and philosophy, not theology, that resolves it.

Honestly, ole buddy, I don't follow, here -- how science or philosophy could prove or disprove immortality.[/qb]

Did you appropriate my distinction between theory and practice? [/qb]

Well, I do know the difference, but am not sure what you mean in this context. I did note: Asserting the immortality of the soul doesn't mean that the Church can't continue to learn from science and philosophy how this might be better understood or explained, however, and we certainly ought to be in dialogue with these disciplines along the way. What I do not see is how such a dialogue would bring forth anything that should lead the Church to reverse herself on this matter.

I can't imagine anything coming out of science or philosophical reflection that would cause the Church to say, "Oh, wait, maybe souls aren't spiritual/immortal, after all!" That's what I was meaning to say. Of course, I could be wrong on all this, but it seems the current teaching has been well thought-out.

From JB: Although, as I said before, I'm not staking out any given position as much as I am trying to ensure that all viable interpretations and articulations are treated as live options (and that all a prioristic scientistic and reductionsitic accounts are excluded, not due to bad theology but due to their impoverished epistemologies).

And you just absolutely LOVE to do that kind of thinking, anyway!

Praise the Lord for powerful minds that work so diligently in behalf of the truth (err, Truth!).

Below are some practical implications for Nancy Murphy's view. And I do not at all offer this as any over against caricature of the good things I've seen especially at places like the Heartland Center, in general, and here at Shalomplace, in particular, where I, myself, appropriated many of these very same life lessons. It does demonstrate how a more nondual approach can be quite naturally holistic, quite naturally incarnational, forsaking some of the dualistic baggage that has plagued our tradition for too long. Again, it is not offered here as an over against, as overly normative, but in a dialogic reaffirmation of the many realities we have affirmed together for years.

quote:

Both Judaism and Christianity apparently began with a concept of human nature that comes closer to contemporary nonreductive physicalism than to Platonic dualism. But, both made accommodations to a prevailing dualistic philosophy, and combined a doctrine of the immortality of the soul with a doctrine of the resurrection of the body. The pressing question now, concerns whether to return to those earlier nonreductive physicalist accounts of human nature, as many Christian theologians have urged throughout this century.

If a nonreductive physicalist view of the person is acceptable theologically and biblically, as well as scientifically and philosophically, a variety of consequences follow in the fields of ethics, spiritual development, medicine, and psychotherapy.

For example, many arguments against abortion depend on when the human soul is presumed to appear. If the soul is present from the moment of conception, then abortion at any stage of pregnancy is full-scale murder. This argument no longer makes sense with a nonreductive physicalist account of the person, in which there is no soul upon which one's humanity depends. Similar sorts of issues arise with regard to euthanasia. It is certainly true that the concept of the soul has been valuable for ethical purposes; it needs to be shown that equally powerful arguments can be constructed using the nonreductive physicalist account of personhood. For example, Jesus' injunction to care for the "least of the brethren" (Matthew 25:40) can be applied supremely to children before they are born, as well as to the elderly at the end of their life. Notice that in Jesus' parable the emphasis is not on saving the souls of those who are in distress, but rather, on meeting their bodily needs for food, water, clothing, and companionship.

Spiritual formation throughout most of Christian history has presupposed a Platonic conception of the person. It has often been understood, for instance, that "mortification of the flesh" is necessary for the flourishing of the soul. It is likely that a nonreductive physicalist account of the person will lead to healthier and more effective approaches to spiritual life.

Psychotherapists have already come to realize the dependence of psychological health on physical health, such as when a serious illness leads to depression. Equally important is the less-frequently recognized dependence of physical health on psychological and spiritual factors. This includes, for example, the role of stress (a psychological factor) in causing ulcers, high blood pressure, and other psychosomatic ailments. Spiritual factors, such as resentment resulting from an inability to forgive others, also play a significant role in affecting one's physical health. Increasingly, studies are finding that prayer and church attendance are associated with better health. A nonreductive physicalist conception of the person can be expected to promote a more integrative practice in a variety of health-care professions. That is, it will not be possible to compartmentalize the person and to conclude that physicians treat only physical illnesses, psychologists only mental illnesses, and pastoral counselors only spiritual ills.

Something Phil has been trying to get through to
me for how long now, 2 yrs almost, has finally
sunk in. Don't mix practices from other
traditions with Christianity. May seem very
common sense to some but i couldn't seem to connect
with potential difficulties till this thread. Thing is it really complicated things for me when highly respected Christian teachers ( this is not a reference to BR as she has never been a mentor to me), are basically using
variations of Eastern methods and calling them Christian.

I am also appreciating the benefits of these indepth discussions. There's enough references
to keep me busy for quite a while. But really
thanks so much everyone.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] I can't imagine anything coming out of science or philosophical reflection that would cause the Church to say, "Oh, wait, maybe souls aren't spiritual/immortal, after all!" That's what I was meaning to say. Of course, I could be wrong on all this, but it seems the current teaching has been well thought-out. [/qb]

Well, what would more likely happen is that the church would not even use certain words from certain philosophical systems, except of course when inculturating its theology for those who remain epistemically stranded and are still fighting postmodernity on remote and isolated metaphysical islands in the middle of a platonic-aristotelian ocean whose shores do not touch the sands of post-postmodernity.

I could be wrong, too

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] And you just absolutely LOVE to do that kind of thinking, anyway! [/qb]

I have been most fortunate in my inveterate enneagram fiveness. You see, most of us practice our strengths to a fault. For me, this weakness would manifest itself in endless systematizing, trying to construct an architectonic that fits all of reality together into one coherent schema, never moving beyond a theoretical paralysis of analysis to gain a practical traction that could only come from a necessary but always provisional closure, never articulating exactly what it is I believe and not at all sure exactly what it is that I do not believe, never getting beyond the distinctly methodological to engage the robustly systematic, never escaping the trialectic between alternating apophasis, kataphasis & liminality, between the cognitive, affective and instinctual, between the body, mind and spirit to immerse oneself unreflectively and in simple enjoyment of the incarnational reality of life's deepest prayers and most superficial enjoyments, never traveling around the enneagram fully individuating and appropriating other charisms of the fully human, fully alive reality because I'd be stuck in my fiveness still trying to figure it all out. No, indeed, most people move on and individuate, for the exigencies of life urge them on. They must move on, with only provisional closures, to explore other aspects of the psyche and other resources of their humanity because they quite simply do not have the time to figure it all out. That's the normal path, indeed. I was lucky though. I DID have the time to dwell in my fiveness until I had found ALL the answers. So, what do you want to know?

quote:

Originally posted by w.c.:
[qb] One of the concerns people have with BR is her apparent insistence that ultimate reality, or how it will be for all others, is actually predicated upon her own experience. Now, it would be one thing if the profound impact of her experience led to a sense of how others haven't received the fullness of something she has, identifying with their path as involving a bit of her own history, but she seems to be mostly out there alone and at times rather impatient, even indignant (?) with folks who take slight exception to the view arising from her own process. She could regard this as you yourself have treated her own subjective declarations: "Maybe there's something else I'm missing, or can't quite see, given that I'm only one mortal person, and actually quite unique given distinctions made even with non-dualists of other traditions." But that kind of openness, which one would expect from such a profound state of wonder as is an abiding non-dual consciousness, doesn't seem to carry the day in this case.

[/qb]

Well said. That's what I was obliquely suggesting in my one sentence wondering aloud previously:

quote:

And why would the tone and tenor of their "dialogue" come across to others as so confrontational and defensive?

And I have given it much thought, w.c. and one thing that I came up with is the reminder to myself not to set my expectations of others too high nor for myself. Our society has a tendency to make icons of certain very public figures and then to make them idols, which is a very cruel thing to do to them, for they will invariably be found to have feet of clay and we will mercilessly slay them for disappointing our inappropriate expectations. This dynamic reminds me of what we do as adolescents in our youthful eros and limerance as we project Godlike qualities on our beloved in a manner that little resembles their true selves by definition and then, when they are found not to be God we are scandalized and we take it out on them for not living up to our expectations. Such was the scandal of the cross and the scandal of the One Who did not save Jerusalem according to the script of the zealots.

Now, not to caricaturize the other aspect of all this, which is her seeming inability to say, like we often do here: I dunno. I might be wrong. You could be right. In that case, someone holds themselves out for critique and is clearly arrogating authority that is not theirs to enjoy or bestow.

Finally, there is the tendency to think in terms of all or nothing about people. If they are imperfect, or they are mistaken here, then we throw the baby of the experiences out with the bathwater of their interpretations. And I feel strongly that there is something to BR's experiences that we could all learn from.