Christian Physicalism?

“There are two different kinds of souls. One is the irrational soul, which is that of animals. The other is rational, belonging to human beings”.

Pray tell, how could an "irrational" soul survive in a complex natural world where generally it must not only fend for itself and avoid being preyed upon but attract a mate, reproduce, and then feed, teach, and protect its young, in the process solving a host of challenging problems?

In this is the template for all manner of supremacist thinking.

Well this is the Scholastic take, at least as much of it as I gathered from Feser. The rational soul refers to our grasp of Universals, IIRC this is an improvement upon the Affinity Argument Plato makes?

Because the Universals (Mathematical Truths, Syllogisms) are Eternal, and we can grasp them, we too share in the Eternal. Of course I don't think I am fully grasping Feser's argument, after all we know varied animals are capable of some logical reasoning...beyond that it's not clear what it would mean for us to potentially "uplift" an animal species and make it capable of rationality. Does this suddenly ensoul it?

And, of course, how this all fits into the continuity of life given via evolution is also in question...It seems more likely that the potential to grasp the universals would be in each creature's mind, if we're even willing to affirm the idea that only immortal souls can grasp the Universals...

Again, this is my speculation, I'm sure I'm missing some pieces of the argument Scholastics like Feser would make...

Well this is the Scholastic take, at least as much of it as I gathered from Feser. The rational soul refers to our grasp of Universals, IIRC this is an improvement upon the Affinity Argument Plato makes?

I was not familiar with the term "rational soul" but I assumed that it meant rational in the sense of being able to reason. Whether that means the same thing as a grasp of Universals I wouldn't know.

I do find it ironic that the very term used by the church fathers to indicate an advanced soul is precisely the same word used by skeptics to define their supposedly superior critical thinking skills.

I was not familiar with the term "rational soul" but I assumed that it meant rational in the sense of being able to reason. Whether that means the same thing as a grasp of Universals I wouldn't know.

I do find it ironic that the very term used by the church fathers to indicate an advanced soul is precisely the same word used by skeptics to define their supposedly superior critical thinking skills.

Heh your last line does point to an amusing comparison!

But yeah rationality is tied into the grasp of the Universals. Personally if one is willing to accept that there has been paranormal communication with animals at a high cognitive level (for example animals who speak perfect English or some other language and warn of disaster) a picture begins to emerge where all souls have capability of rationality but either don't talk to humans often or are in physical bodies that don't usually utilize rationality the way humans expect.

And, of course, how this all fits into the continuity of life given via evolution is also in question...It seems more likely that the potential to grasp the universals would be in each creature's mind, if we're even willing to affirm the idea that only immortal souls can grasp the Universals...

The evolution of the mind needs to be a more publicized area of research, IMHO.

I can't speak to immortal souls, but there appears a capability of mind to detect informational structure - such as the invariant and fix-patterned variables of physical interactions (universals and constants).  Knowing them is having mutual information with the environment.  This is measurable.  I would also suggest that there are patterned outcomes to mental decision-making of people and all living things.  This may or may not qualify as "soul", but it is the subject of study of psychology and the character or personality of people is subject to being objectified as the predilection of these outcomes.

Should Christians Reject the Soul for Biblical Reasons?

Dear Dr. Erasmus,

Tim Stratton shared your post, Objections to the Existence of the Soul, to the UK Apologetics and Evangelism Facebook group, of which I am a member. In that group, there is a very knowledgeable Christian who does not seem to believe in the existence of a soul yet says he is not a strict materialist or physicalist. I’m sending you a discussion he had with Lenny Esposito in which Lenny posted about atheism’s weakness regarding the lack of a soul and he took exception to it (click here).

So whilst I am a dualist, I do not know how to respond to his assertions. If you have time, I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Kind regards,

David

When trying to come to a conclusion about the existence of the soul, the Christian must explore the issue from three perspectives, namely, from (1) a theological perspective (what does the Bible say about the soul?), (2) a philosophical perspective (are there good philosophical arguments for/against the soul?), and (3) a scientific perspective (what does science say about the mind?).

Now, your friend seems to address the theological perspective only and does not engage with any philosophical arguments in favour of the soul. He also fails to recognise that most philosophers of mind agree that science (or neuroscience) cannot address the physicalism-dualism debate. Since science studies the physical, it cannot, by its nature, disprove the immaterial. Moreover, both the physicalist and the dualist agree that there is a strong correlation between the mind and the brain. Thus, the fact that Alzheimer’s disease affects the mind in no way supports physicalism; a correlation relationship is not an identity relationship.
...