Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

fThe Enlightenment:

David Hume on miracles: Rejects the existence of miracles. Defines miracles as a violation of the laws
of nature, then adds brought about by the volition of a deity. Hume thus accepts the picture of the
universe as a place in which all events are governed by laws, and miracles are disruptions of these laws.
Three main arguments:
1. The nature of nature Nature is law governed but miracles run contrary to our experience
of nature. If we experience a miracle, we should dismiss it as some sort of illusion rather than
accept it as real.
2. Against miracle centers and testimony. Those who believe in miracles do not claim that they
themselves have witnessed miracles they appeal to other persons who claim to have
experienced miracles. We should not accept testimony about miracles as reliable.
3. Plurality of religions and truth. Different religions all claim that they are true because
miracles support them; however, they cannot all be true because their truths conflict with one
another. This further discredits miracles.

The foundationalist view of miracles: Foundationalist claim, found in Humes third argument against
the existence of miracles, is that miracles are the basis for or reason why people accept a religion as
true. Faith is based on miracles; religious faith is dependent on miracles.
Richard Dawkins on miracles: Dawkins definition of miracles is framed in the language of probability.
While Hume rejects the existence of miracles, Dawkins accepts them but proposes that they can be
explained without any appeal to God. They can be explained entirely through natural causes. People
would consider a marble statue waving its hand as a miracle whereas Dawkins attributes the movement
to a highly improbable natural event, in this case, the possibility of all of the molecules moving in the
same direction at the same moment. For Dawkins, miracles are highly improbable but yet still
The apologetic use of miracles: Spivey and Smith say that the relationship between religious faith and
miracles is the opposite of the foundationalist assumption. Jesus performs miracles in response to
expressions of faith. Thus faith comes first, and then miracles, which is the opposite of the
foundationalist assumption. Another way of stating this is that the miracles are not used apologetically
in the New Testament. They are not presented as a reason for believing in Jesus and his teaching. They
are not used as a defense of religious faith.
Spivey & Smith df. Of miracles, 3 types of N.T. miracles, relationship between miracles & faith,
eschatology & the Kingdom of God: Miracles in the New Testament do not have anything to do with
violations of laws of nature but rather they are understood as powers, wonders, mighty works, signs,
signs of the breaking in of the Kingdom of God which Spivy and Smith call the eschatological context of
New Testament miracles. Three types of miracles:
1. Some miracles may have had a symbolic role for the gospel writers. For example, the feeding
of the 5,000 may reflect the Eucharistic practice of the early church. The resuscitation miracles
may be symbolic for the gospel writers of Jesus own resurrection.
2. The relationship between religious faith and miracles is the opposite of the foundationalist
assumption. Jesus performs miracles in response to expressions of faith, thus faith comes first
and then miracles. The only exception to this is the gospel of John.

3. Miracles with respect to science. Spivey and Smith reject the notion to attribute miracles to
those areas of experience that have not yet been explained by science because 1) science
inevitably fills in these unexplained areas, and 2) this misinterprets the New Testament notion
of miracles, that is, for the New Testament authors, miracles are not violations of laws of science
but signs of the special presence of God. Spivey and Smith also reject the idea to regard all
events as miraculous because they have their source in God for two reasons: 1) it seems to take
away from human free will, and 2) it does not correspond to the biblical notion of miracles.
Even if miracles could be explained scientifically, this would detract from their significance. Remember
that Spivey and Smith say that miracles are signs or wonders of the special presence of God. Thus as
long as an event evokes the special presence of God, it does not matter whether the event is or is not a
violation of a scientific law.
Nichols df. Of miracles, closed & open conceptions of nature: Miracles are signs of Divine action
which action is consistent with but transcends natural processes. Nichols, unlike Hume, says that
miracles and modern science are compatible by beginning his argument by making a distinction
between viewing nature as either a closed system or as an open system.
-Closed system: From the scientific revolution through the 19th century, nature tended to be
thought of as a closed system. It was conceived of as a machine governed by deterministic laws;
it is a machine which grinds relentlessly away in a very fixed and rigid way.
-Open system: Beginning with the rise of quantum mechanics in the early 1900s, nature began
to be viewed as an open system. It is open in the sense that there is probability at a
fundamental level of reality, the quantum level. This means that there is a certain openness,
that is, a certain randomness in the behavior of nature. Nature is not governed by rigid,
deterministic laws.
Nichols notes that in a closed view of nature, God is on the outside and miracles are possible only if God
breaks into nature to violate its laws. But in an open view of nature, it is possible for God to act in and
through nature to bring about miracles.
Pannenbergs field model of the God-universe relationship: Spirit of God may be viewed as a dynamic
field, a field that can be accessed only by those who open themselves to God in faith, holiness, and
prayer. The analogy is tuning in to a radio broadcast the radio waves are always present but we are
unaware of them unless we have a receiver tuned to the proper frequency. The field is always rpesent
but only some access it. To access the divine energy, one must be surrendered to God in faith and
prayer and that few people are. It is not that God plays favorites an rewards those who grovel the most.
It is that those who are not deeply surrendered to God cannot access Gods power because they are not
tuned in. for God to act fully in our lives, we have to be receptive.
Theodicy: The term used in philosophy to refer to a theory which attempts to reconcile Gods power,
love, and goodness with suffering.
Moral & natural evil: A central distinction in most theodicies is between moral evil and
natural/metaphysical evil. Moral evil is that which is caused by human persons, such as stealing.
Natural/metaphysical evils are those instances of human suffering/evil that are not caused by humans
such as a tsunami, earthquake, illness, etc.
5 classic theodicies (in their ideal types) (1) evil is an illusion; (2) God is limited; (3) karma
theodicies; (4) harmony theodices; (5) free-will theodicies:

1. Evil as illusion theodicies: Claim that evil does not exist. What we experience as evil is not
really evil but, what Augustine calls, privatio boni, an absence of good. This avoids assigning the
cause of evil to God since all which exists has been created by God and is thereby good. Thus
evil cannot be anything positive. It must be the absence of something positive.
2. Limited God theodicies: Take away some attributes, such as the attribute of being allpowerful, then we can say that suffering exists in the universe because God does not have the
power to prevent it. Or if we take away all-loving, we can say suffering exists in the universe
because God does not love us and thus allows us to suffer. Manichaeism, the universe is ruled
by dual gods, one a god of all goodness and the other of all evil and suffering, both of whom are
engaged in a perpetual struggle.
3. Karma theodicies: The suffering one endures in this life, as well as the happiness one enjoys,
are the effects of deeds done earlier in ones life, or in a previous life, or by ones ancestors.
This doctrine is not necessarily tied to rebirth. God does not entire the picture in this theodicy
humans are entirely responsible for suffering. Principle of karma is found in Hinduism and
4. Harmony theodicies: Found in ancient Stoicism, with the central idea of this theodicy being
that the universe is rationally governed by a divine element. Human persons can avoid suffering
and achieve happiness by fitting in with the rational flow of the universe. Fitting in means
living virtuously, and for the Stoics, living virtuously meant living rationally, following reason. To
live rationally is the same as living virtuously, and it is to live in harmony with the rationality of
the universe.
5. Free-will theodicies: God created humans with free-choice (free will) and this means that
humans will sometimes choose moral evil acts. It is this choice of moral evil which introduces
suffering in the world. Freedom us such a great good, indeed humans would not be human
without it God permits evil for the sake of this higher good of freedom. Augustine is the
classic source of the free-will theodicy.
Stoicism: see above, harmony theodicy
Manichaeanism: see above, limited God theodicy
Buddhism thirst, karma, nirvana: see above, karma theodicy
St. Augustine (354-430) free-will theodicy, privatio boni (privation of the good), the fall of the
angels & the fall of Adam & Eve: All things that exist are good because they have been created by God.
Evil and suffering is this some sort of lacking or absence, it cannot be anything positive and must be a
privation of good, or privatio boni. God does not directly cause evil but still permits it why? God
permits evil for the sake of a higher good, namely, free-will. Much evil is brought about by choices and
the consequent actions of human persons. This source of evil could have been prevented if God had
created humans without free-choice but then we would not really be humans. Augustines position is
that God gave humanity this great gift but it is this gift which carries with it the possibility of introducing
suffering in the universe, moral evil.
What about natural evil? Augustine refers to the book of Henoch, the Second Letter of Peter,
and Letter of Jude in which God first created angels, spiritual creatures almost as perfect as God. But
some of these angels, out of a desire to be gods, turned against God. Before this rebellion of angels,
nature was in perfect harmony and thus there was no suffering. But the fall of the angels brought with
it a dissolution of the perfect harmony of nature. And this in turn resulted in natural evil. Both moral
and natural evil are caused by the choice of created beings, humans and angels, respectively.

John Hicks soul-making theodicy pilgrimage, image & likeness (the two stages of the pilgrimage),
Iranaeus (c.125-c.202), epistemic distance: Hick accepts the Irenaean idea that humans are on a
pilgrimage, a journey to grow morally and spiritually, a journey Hick calls soul-making. We view the
history of mankind as a long pilgrimage. We should regard this pilgrimage as going through two stages:
image and likeness. The evolutionary history of Homo sapiens emerging from earlier hominids is the
first stage of image when humans did not have much of a chance to grow morally and spiritually. But at
some stage, it became possible for humans to grow in knowledge of and relationship with God, to
develop a moral sense this stage is called the likeness of God. Perfection lies in the future.
In order to engage in a pilgrimage, humans have to have a free nature the very idea of a
pilgrimage does not make sense unless humans can choose to engage in a pilgrimage. Hick argues that
freedom, in turn, requires an epistemic distance since if there not this distance, we would be so drawn
to the goodness and glory of God that we could not possibly turn against him. Thus we would not be
free to engage in a pilgrimage in which we attempt to grow morally and spiritually.
The universe must also have a high degree of autonomy from God, that is, it must for the most
part be able to operate on its own without Gods continual intervention. If the universe were such that
God continually intervened in order that humans to not suffer, then humans could not engage in a
pilgrimage. They could never really be virtuous because there would be no need for being virtuous. The
fact that the universe is law-governed and that God does not continually intervene to suspend these
laws, means that humans often suffer. But these events of evil and suffering that we encounter in our
everyday lives which give us the opportunity to practice virtue, that is, to grow morally and spiritually.
Barry Whitneys aesthetic anthropodicy & theodicy: Anthropodicy and theodicy, anthropodicy can
stand alone with with main points:
1. Human beings have a deep inner drive to seek meaningful experiences.
2. Humans have an opportunity at every moment to have such experiences, even in the bleakest
of situations.
Whitney calls these experiences aesthetic experiences since he refers to the experiences which are
midway between the extremes of order and disorder, complexity and simplicity. They are experiences
of intensity, unity and harmony.
Whitney criticizes other theodicies for expecting too much of God and accusing God as the
cause of much of the evil in the universe. He then tries to combine the anthropodicy with a theodicy,
here is the theodicy:
1. First we should not expect too much from God. Expecting complete happiness with no
suffering is to expect too much.
2. Most of the evil and suffering experienced by humans has its source in the free choices of
human beings, not natural forces. Thus the responsibility for much of the suffering is ours, not
3. Whitney then brings in process philosophy, which emphasizes the evolutionary character of
reality, emphasizing change rather than static categories. It also stresses the inter-relatedness
of all entities. In process thought, God is limited in power; He is not all-powerful. Secondly, God
relates to the universe not by direct causality, not by controlling and manipulating events, but
rather his causality is one of persuasion or lure God tries to move the direction of the
universe and of individual human persons by attraction and lure rather than by direct causality.
Thus God does not coerce the universe and humans to do anything but He does try to pull or
persuade humans in a certain direction.

Whitney proposes that using the idea of God as the persuasive lure to human thoughts and
actions, we may regard God is continually providing significant opportunities for meaningful
experiences. These opportunities may be minimal, but they are enough to make life meaningful, and
this is all that we ought to ask of God.
Haughts use of process philosophy: Darwins theory seems to exacerbate the problem for four reasons:
1. Evolution involves a struggle for survival.
2. There seems to be excessive waste in evolution. Many species die out, many individual
organisms live very briefly.
3. There is an element of randomness in evolution. Evolution is driven by genetic change and
this occurs randomly.
4. The process of evolution seems to be, from the viewpoint of a loving God, excruciatingly long,
millions and millions of years.
Haught borrows from process thought to handle these issues. He proposes radically rethinking our
conception of God. First, God is all-powerful but intentionally limits his power, giving the universe a
high degree of autonomy to find its own way through trial and error which fits in perfectly with what we
find in the evolutionary process.
Creation is thus still going on and happens at every moment. According to the reconceptualiztion of God, one of the main attributes of God is humility which means that He allows
something other than God to emerge and become truly other. This also explains waste and extinctions
since allowing the universe to find its own way carries with it waste and suffering especially since finding
its way takes a lot of time. Process philosophers suggest that God is passible in the sense that He is
affected and changed by events in the universe. God suffers along with humankind.
Alfred North Whitehead & Teilhard de Chardin: Process philosophy is based primarily on the thought of
Alfred North Whitehead. Process philosophy emphasizes the evolutionary character of reality,
emphasizing change rather than static categories. It also stresses the inter-relatedness of all entities.
Whitehead influenced Whitney and Haught.
Teilhard de Chardin influenced Haught by proposing that Darwins theory of evolution is one of
the most important scientific theories since the Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries since
it brought about a change in the way humankind looks at the universe. Before Darwin, the universe was
regarded as relatively stable, containing fixed types (kinds, classes), and as a place designed for
humankind. After Darwin, the universe was viewed as constantly changing, containing evolving types
with many species of living things becoming extinct, and as a place where humans happened to emerge
after millions of years of evolution.
Haughts comparison of the classical conception of God with the process conception:
classical power, glory, distant, impassible, direct control
process humble, self-limiting, present, passible, persuasion
Haught on the autonomy of the universe and human life: See process philosophy above, high
autonomy, constantly evolving.
Haught on how God acts in the universe lure & persuasion: God is a providential God, that is, he is
present to the universe, cares for it, and sustains it. But he does not directly interfere in the autonomy
of nature. Rather he indirectly shows his care through attraction, a pull, a persuasion.
Haught rejects the idea of the God of the Deists of the 18th century. Deists believed that God
creates the universe and then stands back and lets it run according to the rigid laws of nature. Haught

rejects this on the grounds that it is incompatible with the biblical notion of God as caring for, looking
over, and constantly engaging with his people.
Haught on the direction of the evolution of the universe toward ever increasing complexityconsciousness and beauty
John Haughts process theodicy God self-limits his power, the autonomy of nature, Gods action by
lure & persuasion: See above in process philosophy, lure and persuasion, etc.
Richard Swinburnes taxonomy of religious experiences public-normal, public-unusual, privatenormal, private-unusual: Richard Swinburne proposes that there are four basic kinds of religious
experience: public-normal, public-unusual, private-normal, and private-unusual.
kinds of religious experience: Religious experience can range from hearing a voice, seeing a vision or
having a mystical experience to something much more ordinary such as the experience of the presence
of God in prayer, the experience of the love of another person. Heres a list of different religious
-The experience of the presence of God in a state of profound tranquility in prayer or meditation
or while participating in a liturgy
-The experience of the love of another person
-The experience of awe and wonder at the beauty of nature
-Seeing a vision or hearing the voice of God
-The experience of my finitude in the face of an infinite and of my dependence on a higher being
(defended by Friedrich Schleiermacher)
-Mystical experiences
-The experience of communication from God in dreams
knowledge by acquaintance vs knowledge by inference: To appeal to rational arguments for Gods
existence is to appeal to knowledge-by-inference. One begins with some phenomenon which does not
seem to have anything to do with God (causality or design or contingency), and then infers from that
phenomenon to Gods existence. Thus Aquinass second argument appeals to our experience of
causality in the world and then infers from this to the necessity of a First Cause, namely, God. This is
knowledge-by-inference. But to accept Gods existence on the basis that one has felt the presence of
God while praying is to appeal to knowledge-by-acquaintance.
Teresa of Avila two arguments for the authenticity of her religious experiences:
1. First argument centers on the difference between visions and any other experiences she has
had. The vision was imaginary but she saw it with the eyes of the soul, not the eyes of the body.
The visions were not like any paintings which she had seen or anything she had experienced. At
times it seemed like she was seeing an image but at other times it seemed as if she were seeing
Christ Himself.
2. Second argument appeals to the aftermath of the experiences, her personal and spiritual
growth, and mentions a little story about a visit with a friend. If her friend left Teresa some
jewels with her and never having had any before, Teresa would find herself rich instead of poor.
Teresa can then show people the jewels for all who knew her were well aware how her soul had

William James traits of mysticism & warrant for the truth of mystical experiences: There are
traditions of mysticism in many religions. Warrant for the truth of mystical experiences means
whether there is any way to determine whether the claims that persons make that they have had
mystical experiences are authentic are the claims of of-God experiences really experiences of
God? Answer to the warrant issue is threefold:
1. Mystical experiences should be accepted as authoritative for those who have the experiences.
2. But they do not offer sufficient evidence for those who have not such experiences to convince
those who have not had such experiences.
3. Mystical experiences are a complement to ordinary sensory experiences. Internal
experiences should be regarded with the same or similar authority as external (sense)
experiences. A genuinely open-mined person ought to accept the possibility that mystical states
are possibly superior points of view, windows through which the mind looks out upon a more
extensive and inclusive world. Mystical experiences may be a part of a wider world of
meanings which may be essential for our approach to the final fullness of the truth.
Richard Swinburnes use of the principles of credulity & testimony to defend the veridicality of
religious experiences (discussed by Geivett): Principle of Credulity: in the absence of special conditions,
if it seems (epistemologically) to a subject that x is present, then probably x is present; what one seems
to perceive is probably so. Swinburne is arguing that it is simple rational to accept ordinary sense
experience and what sense experience tells us exists as actually existing, and in pretty much the way my
sense experience reports the experience to me. Do not want to descend into radical skepticism.
Principle of Testimony: (in the absence of special considerations) the experiences of others are
(probably) as they report them. Swinburne is arguing that ordinarily, unless we have good reasons to
believe otherwise, we ought to accept what we read or what others tell us. Do not want to descend into
radical skepticism.
The parity thesis & modest parity thesis (Geivett): There is a close similarity between sense experiences
and of-God experiences.
Some of scientific naturalisms (various psychological & physiological pathologies) explanations of
religious experience (Geivett): Naturalism is the position that there is no distinction between the
natural and supernatural, and that all phenomena in the universe can be explained by purely natural
causes, where natural causes means, for the most part, scientific causes.
Pathologies have been accorded splendiferous power to explain away religious experience.
Recognized pathologies that have been credited with this vaunted explanatory power include, for
starters: hypersuggestibility (from self-induced hypnotic suggestion to brainwashing); deprivation;
sexual frustration; anxiety, panic, and amorphous foreboding that tend to trigger defense mechanisms;
regression; mental illness (from hysteria to delusions to manic depression); and abnormal physiological
states induced by drugs. With a list like that, it is easy to imagin that for every yet-to-be catalogued
pathology there is a new naturalistic explanation for religious experience waiting to be commandeered
for deployment against experience-of-God claims.
Homer & Plato on soul, body & destiny: Homer functioned as the Old Testament in the ancient nonJewish world; suggests that the dead are shades, that is, ghosts or phantoms, who reside in the
underworld, Hades. Hades is not hell because it is not a place of punishment. All dead persons go to
Hades where these former persons exist in Hades in a state which is not fully human. The real self is the
body and without the body, the soul is only a shell of a human person.

Plato functioned as the New Testament in the ancient non-Jewish world; his position is sharply
dualistic. Held that reality is made up of two realms 1) the spiritual, unchanging realm of Ideas or
Forms, and the 2) physical, changing realm of the physical. Ideas or Forms are made up of universal,
unchanging, paradigm categories (kinds, types) of everything in the physical world (i.e. tree) each class
of things in this world has a counterpart in the realm of Ideas. By contrast, the physical world is a realm
of imperfection. The soul is akin to the Ideas, it is spiritual and where the real person is located
(Homer would say that the real person is where the body is located). Plato says that the soul is better
off without the body. Platos dualism is often referred to as substance-dualism because he regards soul
and body as completely distinct and different realities (substances).
Sheol: the ancient Israelites believed in some sort of ethereal existence after death in a place called
Sheol. This is not a desirable existence. It is one of lethargy and borderline consciousness.
Resurrection & immortality in the Hebrew Bible: resurrection and immortality are two different things.
Paul argues that Christs resurrection shows us that resurrection is possible. It is a model of how we will
all gain ongoing life.
First, resurrection requires the special intervention of God whereas immortality does not
require the intervention by God or gods; it is a natural event. The soul continues to live because it is
different from the body and cannot be destroyed. Second, resurrection takes place in the future, when
God chooses to recreate the person. Immortality takes place at the death of the body; the soul simply
continues to exist. And thirdly, resurrection is of the whole person, not only soul, transformed into
some new person. By contrast, immortality requires a dualistic view of human nature, that is, that
human persons are made up of soul and body. Resurrection is not necessarily tied to dualism. It is
compatible with both monistic and dualistic positions on the nature of the human person.

Oscar Cullmann on the comparison of the death of Socrates & the death of Jesus: Observes that
Socrates faces death with complete peace and calm. By contrast, Jesus faces death with dread and asks
the Father to lift this burden from him. Why the differences? Cullmann suggests differences in the
notions of afterlife in the Greek and Hebrew cultures.
For Socrates, the real self, the soul, continues to live after death of the body. By contrast, for
Jesus, the whole person dies - it is the end. Renewed life is possible only through the special
intervention of God at some future time.
Oscar Cullmann on immortality vs resurrection meaning, historical origins, nature of the human
person, spatial vs temporal, natural vs supernatural:

4 positions on the mind/soul-body problem substance dualism (Plato, Augustine, Descartes),

matter-form dualism (Aquinas, neo-Thomists), reductive materialism (Crick & many others), &
nonreductive physicalism (Barbour, Murphy):
1. Substance dualism: see above Homer and Plato on soul, body and destiny.
2. Matter-form dualism: Aristotles theory closely tied to metaphysics, distinction between form and
matter. For Aristotle, everything which exists has these two aspects. Matter is the basic stuff of
everything. Form is what determines that kind of a thing something is a dog, or chair, or human
person. Matter never exists without form but if it did, it would be completely undefined. It would have
the potentiality to become anything, whatever form it takes on.
For Aristotle, the soul is the form of a human person; the body is the matter of a human person.
Since form and matter always exist together, the human person, although made up of these two
different aspects, form a tight unity. This is one of the most important differences between the position
of Plato and Aristotle Plato says the soul is not essential to being a complete human; the soul is better
off without the body and is completed only upon its separation at death from the body. By contrast, for
Aristotle, the soul and body form a tight unity; one cannot exist without the other. Although they are
different, they make up the human person. Thus Aristotles position is still a dualism the soul and
body are different aspects of a person but the human person for Aristotle is a unity.
3. Reductive materialism: the claim that humans are nothing more than a complex of physico-chemical
processes. Science has provided a massive amount of evidence suggesting that we need not postulate
the existence of an entity such as soul or mind in order to explain life and consciousness. Aquinas and
many other defenders of the traditional notion of soul identified the soul in terms of mental activities
such as thinking, willing, desiring, experiencing joy and pain, and so on; however, she points out that in
recent decades, neuroscientists have made great strides in locating these activities in certain parts of
the brain. She examines Aquinass list of mental activities, that is, activities of the soul, and points out
that biology, neuroscience, and cognitive psychology have made great strides in showing how these
activities are located in specific areas of the brain.
4. Nonreductive physicalism: see below.
Nancey Murphy on soul nonreductive physicalism: Defends a position on soul which is compatible
with modern science and with Christianity. Uses hierarchies and reductionism to claim that all mental
activities can be reduced to physical and chemical processes in the brain.
Nonreductive physicalism is the position that all mental activities are closely linked to the neural
system. She proposes that mental activities (reflecting, willing, calculating, and so on) are emergent
properties of a complex neural system. They are emergent in the sense that they emerge once the
neural system reaches a certain level of complexity. The important point for Murphy is that they cannot
be reduced to the neurological level with nothing left over.
Introduces supervenience, a kind of relationship that Murphy uses to characterize the
relationship between mental activities and the neurological system. A property on a higher level of
reality is supervenient on a lower level if that property can be realized in different ways on the lower
level, depending on the circumstances. The way a property from on level is applied to another depends
on the circumstances.
The importance of the notion of supervenience is to show that some properties from a higher
level cannot be completely reduced to a lower level; these properties are known as emergent
properties. Mental activities traditionally assigned to soul do belong to a distinctive level of reality.
Although intimately related, they are not identical with neurological systems.
In short, Murphys position is that what is traditionally called soul or mind is a level of our
human makeup which emerged in our evolutionary history when the neurological system reached a
certain level of complexity. This new level of reality cannot be simply reduced to neurology with nothing

left over - it is a distinctive level that is intimately related to the neurological level in the relationship of
supervenience. Murphy also argues that her position of nonreductive physicalism is compatible with
Christianity because the Christian position on afterlife is resurrection of the person, not immortality of
the soul.