Is the Christian View of the Self Empirically Adequate? The Tradition and the Future

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I truly enjoyed reading this paper. The author connects some classic philosophic and theological questions with contemporary scientific and philosophic approaches in a most creative and sovereign manner. The result is inspiring and it will certainly make a significant contribution to different contemporary discussions.

The paper is very well written and coherently argued.  I have only one essential remark:

In the opening paragraph, the author introduces his main focus as related to the concept of self which he identifies with a Christian traditional p[osition. Immediately after, in the same paragraph, he\she moves to Platonic and Aristotelian conceptions of self in a way that seems to imply almost a synonymity between those classic philosophic definitions and the "Christian tradition". The author expresses his awareness of the problematic aspects of this choice in the very last paragraph of the paper (lines 499-506), but this might be too late and too shorthanded.

when reading an assertion like the following: "Perhaps these research programs are inconsistent with the Christian tradition. After all, both the Aristotelian and Platonic conceptions contrast the soul with the body. (lines 217-220), I found myself wondering about two major methodological general questions the author would perhaps like to explain more explicitly and most important, already in the first part of his paper:

1. In what sense is Christian tradition deeply embedded with Platonic Aristotelian philosophic conceptions? is it especially the case in relation to the dualistic approach discussed here?

2, Why Christian? why not Jewish and Muslim adaptation of the same Greek philosophy? why not religious experience in general as against modern science? is there anything essentially different in Christian tradition as discussed in this paper or is it just a convenient case study?

see also in lines 432 - 435: "The traditional Christian views of the self are compatible with ontological schemes of this sort. In fact, there is good reason to suspect that many historical Christian communities implicitly affirmed such a view." The references at note 31, simply referes then to Aristotelian ontology, without reference to any Christia source. 

I believe this excellent paper will be even better once this crucial methodological question will be adequately addressed.

 

One textual correction: in line 24 there's a missing verb. could call? could name?

 

Author Response

First, I would like to thank Reviewer #1 for their helpful and encouraging comments. I have very much appreciated thinking through the methodological concerns raised in the comments. In response, I agree that much of what I have said in this paper is in defense of dualism in general, and not Christian dualism in particular. I have revised the opening of the paper to include a comment noting that much of what I have to say in this paper could be of use to other monotheists and dualists. I have also added some notes and references to sources documenting how Greek philosophy informed much of the Christian tradition. Of course, the tradition is rather diverse and various writers modified the Greek views in unique ways, but I do think the two types I have focused on in this paper are near ubiquitous in the historical and contemporary tradition and that a defense of these types amounts to a near de facto defense of other variants. At several places I have also amended the document so that my previously implicit concern to advocate a form of dualism that did not undermine other Christian commitments is now explicit. Chief among these concerns is my concern to affirm a broadly Chalcedonian version of Christianity consistent with my defense of dualism. With this change in mind, I hope it is now much more apparent why I am concerned to respond to both phenomenological objections that suggest dualism overlooks felt physiology and empirical objections that dualism is homuncular and inconsistent with trends in embodied cognitive science. It is important for the Christian dualist to defend dualism in such a way that respects and does not distort embodiment. Inserting this concern also helps integrate the paper in a way that it was not integrated before. In the final section, I raised some ethical and political concerns that may have felt tacked on. By making my concern with the Incarnation explicit, for example, I can reinforce my contention that theistic dualism is not problematic in these respects with the contention that Christian dualism is especially helpful. This also complicates my philosophical concerns in this paper with another consideration to balance and as a result buttresses my overall contention that the Christian tradition is fecund, adaptable, and yet firmly grounded in essential respects. Or so I would argue.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is well developed with sound and logical arguments. There are minor grammatical errors and word omissions. These must be rectified. The author also needs to pay attention to inter-referencing techniques. Where there are historical statements being made, or presentation of arguments from another scholar's perspective, there must be citations and/or sources to backup such statements or arguments. The reader needs to know that the views of the alluded scholars are properly captured, and the best way of doing that is by referring (referencing) to their works. Thus, sweeping statements and generalizations often compromises the value of the study.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I would like to thank Reviewer #2 for these comments. I have proofread the paper several times and made grammatological changes. I have removed the sweeping historical generalization about Christian tradition from page 11. Besides adding some citations throughout the paper, I have also modified some of my exposition in section three so that it is clear that some of the concerns I am addressing are my creative attempts to pull empirical objections from a research paradigm rather than my attempt to address a specific objection raised by a particular person. As I mentioned in my comments to Reviewer #1, I have also added several notes and sources documenting Greek influence on Christian tradition. If there is some particular place in the paper that the reviewer would still like me to address in one of these respects, I would be happy to do so.