Weir Ralph Stefan
School of History and Heritage, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln, LN6 7TS UK.
Int J Philos Relig. 2022;91(2):115-138. doi: 10.1007/s11153-021-09811-0. Epub 2021 Sep 18.
This paper examines whether biblical descriptions of the intermediate state imply dualism of the sort that rules out physicalism. Certain passages in the Bible seem to describe persons or souls existing without their bodies in an intermediate state between death and resurrection. For this reason, these passages appear to imply a form of dualism. Some Christian physicalists have countered that the passages in question are in fact compatible with physicalism. For it is compatible with physicalism that, although we are necessarily constituted by physical bodies, we can continue to exist without our current bodies in the intermediate state by being constituted by replacement bodies. I argue that broadly Gricean considerations significantly weaken this response. In its place, I propose a new, linguistic objection to the biblical argument for dualism. The linguistic objection says that biblical descriptions of an intermediate state cannot imply dualism in the sense that contradicts physicalism because physicalism is defined by a concept of the physical derived from modern physics, and no term in the biblical languages expresses that concept. I argue that the linguistic objection is less vulnerable to Gricean considerations than the constitution objection. On the other hand the linguistic objection also makes concessions to dualism that some Christian physicalists will find unacceptable. And it may be possible to reinforce the biblical argument for dualism by appeal to recent research on 'common-sense dualism'. The upshot for Christian physicalists who wish to remain open to the biblical case for an intermediate state is therefore partly good, partly bad. The prospects for a Biblical argument for dualism in the sense that contradicts physicalism are limited but remain open.
本文探讨圣经中对中间状态的描述是否意味着那种排除物理主义的二元论。圣经中的某些段落似乎描述了人或灵魂在死亡与复活之间的中间状态中脱离身体而存在。因此，这些段落似乎暗示了一种二元论形式。一些基督教物理主义者反驳说，相关段落实际上与物理主义是相容的。因为与物理主义相容的是，尽管我们必然由物理身体构成，但在中间状态下我们可以通过由替代身体构成而继续脱离当前身体存在。我认为，大致上基于格赖斯理论的考量显著削弱了这一回应。取而代之的是，我针对支持二元论的圣经论证提出一种新的语言方面的反驳。该语言方面的反驳指出，圣经中对中间状态的描述不能在与物理主义相矛盾的意义上暗示二元论，因为物理主义是由源自现代物理学的物理概念所定义的，而圣经语言中没有任何术语表达该概念。我认为，与构成方面的反驳相比，语言方面的反驳较不易受到基于格赖斯理论的考量的影响。另一方面，语言方面的反驳也对二元论做出了一些基督教物理主义者可能认为不可接受的让步。而且有可能通过诉诸最近关于“常识二元论”的研究来强化支持二元论的圣经论证。因此，对于那些希望对圣经中关于中间状态的说法持开放态度的基督教物理主义者来说，结果有好有坏。从与物理主义相矛盾的意义上来说，支持二元论的圣经论证的前景有限，但仍未完全排除。
