Van Inwagen infamously suggested the possibility that at the moment of death God snatches a core chunk of our brain, transports it to a different place, replaces it with a fake chunk of brain, and rebuilds the body around the transported chunk.
I think that, were van Inwagen’s suggestion is correct, it would be correct to say that we die. If not, then it is a seriously problematic view given the Christian commitment that people do, in fact, die. Hence van Inwagen's model is not a model of life after death.
Argument: If in the distant future all of a person’s body was destroyed in an accident except for a surving core chunk, and medical technology had progressed so much that it could regrow the rest of the body from that chunk, I think we would not say that the medical technology resurrected the person, but that it prevented the person’s death.
Objection: The word “death” gets its meaning ostensively from typical cases we label as cases of “death”. In these cases, the heart stops, the parts of the brain observable to us stop having electrical activity, etc. What we mean by “death” is what happens in these cases when this stuff happens. If van Inwagen’s suggestion is correct, then what happens in these cases is the snatching of a core chunk. Hence if van Inwagen’s suggestion is correct, then death is divine snatching of a core chunk of the brain, and we do in fact die.
Responses: First, if death is divine snatching of a core chunk of the brain, then jellyfish and trees don’t die, because they don’t have a brain. I suppose, though, one might say that “death” is understood analogously between jellyfish and humans, and it is human death that is a divine snatching of a core chunk of the brain.
Second, it seems obvious that if God had chosen not to snatch a core chunk of Napoleon’s brain, and allowed Napoleon’s body to rot completely, then Napoleon would be dead. Hence, not even the death of a human is identical to a divine snatching.
Third, I think it is an important part of the concept of death is that death is something that is in common between humans and other organisms. People, dogs, jellyfish, and trees all die. We should have an account of death common between these. The best story I know is that death is the destruction of the body. And the van Inwagen story doesn’t have that. So it’s not a story about death.
You said in one of your previous articles that you do not believe in reincarnation, which is one of the models of life after death. Is there a philosophical reason for this? Or is it due to your religious views?
ReplyDeleteThe Bible seems to limit death through Adam to animals with souls or nephesh chayyah. Therefore maybe we only need an account for 'dogs' and 'humans' not jelly fish and trees. Is the best story 'destruction of the body's? Wouldn't that rule as Christ's death? Best story might be 'loss of spirit ' eg ps 146:3-4 and Ecclesiastes 12:7 & 3:20-21.
ReplyDeleteChrist's body was destroyed: it completely stopped functioning. To destroy something, you don't have to smash into smithereens.
ReplyDeleteOk, so in your argument "destroyed" is equivalent to 'no longer functioning ". Fair enough.
DeleteVan Inwagen I believe came up with his theory as an attempt to explain how a purely material being could be resurrected after a significant gap . Would you agree that the problem he was trying to solve is a genuine one for materialists or do you think he overstated the problem?