Wednesday, March 02, 2016

"The case for conditionalism"

Pacifist and annihilationist Preston Sprinkle has hosted Chris Date's case for annihilationism:


Having discussed annihilationist prooftexts for the "destruction" of the wicked on various occasions, I won't repeat myself here. 

Instead, I'd like to note that Date's case suffers from a central fallacy. His argument is vitiated by equivocation because he defines biological "death" as equivalent to oblivion. Conversely, "life" is equivalent to biological life or revivification. 

Problem is, that only follows if physicalism is true. That only follows on the tendentious assumption that humans are merely a collection of particles. 

If, however, humans are embodied minds, if minds are essentially incorporeal, then brain death does not entail the extinction of consciousness or personality. 

To make his case, therefore, Date needs to disprove substance dualism. He needs to refute empirical and philosophical evidence for the ontological independence of the mind in relation to the body, viz. the hard problem of consciousness, psi, apparitional evidence, veridical NDEs, veridical OBEs, terminal lucidity, John Lorber's hydrocephalic patients. 

58 comments:

  1. I don't, actually, define biological death as equivalent to oblivion. Thanks for linking to the article, though!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hm, what then do you mean when you say the following:

      "The risen lost will instead be annihilated: denied the gift of immortality, dispossessed of all life of any sort, and painfully executed, never to live again."

      Delete
    2. Well, the meaning of the statement is self-explanatory. It contains no argument that this is true simply because death means oblivion. Date doesn't argue that (he rejects it). It is a straw man that annihilationists commonly have to deal with. It occurs because traditionalists typically proceed on a definition of death construed as an event, and one which must encompass circumstances around it (specifically, after it). Evangelical conditionalists typically do not do this—which explains why there are many dualists among us—but those who might, just don't argue that this *means* annihilation.

      Life is the biblical reference point—continuing life—which death can judicially private. Whether and how it does so is a function of divine sovereignty, God being in no way bound by human "definitions," and that's why you'll find Date eschewing arguments from science and philosophy, in favor of biblical arguments about the content of God's revealed will. Arguments about word meanings are in service to ascertaining divine intent.

      Delete
    3. Respectfully, I think I'll wait for Chris Date's explanation since it's his statement after all.

      He may or may not subscribe to what you've said. If he does, then we can deal with it then. If not, then we can deal with his response.

      Delete
    4. Date has been shown that when his allegedly purely biblical arguments are analyzed, they assume stances in philosophy he, even by your admission, is incompetent to handle. For example, once I pressed him on what 'life' means. He restored to a physicalist-friendly answer, "a thing's function." But that makes computers living! As we've seen, Date doesn't really know what he means by the two crucial annihilationist terms, death and life.

      Delete
    5. Chris Date

      "I don't, actually, define biological death as equivalent to oblivion."

      In which case his argument collapses.

      Delete
    6. Peter Grice:

      "It is a straw man that annihilationists commonly have to deal with. It occurs because traditionalists typically proceed on a definition of death construed as an event, and one which must encompass circumstances around it (specifically, after it)."

      Here's some of what Date actually said:

      "#1: Scripture consistently teaches that the fate of the unsaved is to die, to perish, to be destroyed forever—in ways those words are ordinarily understood."

      Notice how he treats death as equivalent to perishing or destruction (unless God revives the decedent).

      He links "death and destruction" language as either synonymous or cause and effect.

      "#2: Scripture consistently teaches that human beings are mortal and will not live forever unless God grants them immortality."

      "Instead, when God carries out the sentence of which he had warned, that sentence is clearly literal death. Hence he says that 'to dust you shall return' (Gen 3:19), and he evicts Adam and Eve from the garden so that they will not 'live forever,' lacking access to the tree of life (Gen 3:22–23)."

      Notice how he makes biological death equivalent to oblivion. Biological death results in cessation of the person unless God revives the decedent.

      Back to Grice:

      "Evangelical conditionalists typically do not do this—which explains why there are many dualists among us."

      A red herring inasmuch as I'm discussing Date's stated position in particular.

      "God being in no way bound by human 'definitions'…"

      I'm responding to Date's implicit definitions. Responding to Date on his own terms.

      "…and that's why you'll find Date eschewing arguments from science and philosophy, in favor of biblical arguments about the content of God's revealed will. Arguments about word meanings are in service to ascertaining divine intent."

      i) When the Bible speaks of life and death, the meaning of those words is, in the first instance, informed by the human experience of physical, biological life and death. Likewise, Bible writers and readers certainly construe biological death as an "event". By extension, the terms can also be used in a more abstract or figurative sense.

      ii) I appreciate why annihilationists like Date would eschew evidence to the contrary. Best to ignore what you can't refute.

      Delete
    7. Your interpretation of the above quotes are pressed through your own lens, not Date's. I happen to know with precision what Date means and says, so it's easy for me to see how you're misreading what he said.

      I made the single counter-claim that Date does not *define* death as "oblivion," and your original claim had to do with resulting equivocation.

      From quote #2, you declare that Date "makes biological death equivalent to oblivion." No, he does not. He defines it as the ending of life (here in this context, the ending of bodily life, which is compatible with any anthropology). "Cessation of the person" is your phrase, not his. Try "cessation of life" and you'll be closer to the mark—and try not to assume the anthropological category when you say it. Dualism on conditionalism is normative holism, which is an option for physicalists and agnostics as well. This allows for the cessation of life to yield quasi-conscious dead that are less than whole persons, and it allows for a lack thereof; either way. Chris was a conditionalist before he was a physicalist, and he frames his "case for conditionalism" independently, in the way I described.

      Any regular listener or reader of his stuff will know that he adamantly rejects what you're trying to say he affirms. His definition of death allows for ongoing consciousness, because it's not "oblivion." He could have gone the route you seem to prefer, but he's on record many times as having gone this other route.

      // When the Bible speaks of life and death, the meaning of those words is, in the first instance, informed by the human experience of physical, biological life and death. //

      I thought that was *our* contention...

      // Likewise, Bible writers and readers certainly construe biological death as an "event". //

      Just not in the way you have in mind. Death involves an event, but its meaning or judicial significance is that it prevents ongoing life, which is not an event. What I noted was that biblically, death should not be reduced to an event that passes in the blink of an eye. How is that any kind of punishment? The relation to "not live forever" makes this clear.

      // A red herring inasmuch as I'm discussing Date's stated position in particular. //

      Not at all. Date is a thoroughgoing "evangelical conditionalist." What I said holds for dualists, physicalists and agnostics alike. In particular, it holds for Chis Date, who, just as I said, simply does not join you in insisting that death must be defined inclusive of the matter of post-mortem consciousness. He even said as much on this thread, and has said as much repeatedly elsewhere. How he does define it is clear and cogent. Whether you think so or not, you obviously aren't/weren't even aware or can't/couldn't articulate his actual view and definition, which can only continue now in lack of charity.

      Delete
    8. "I happen to know with precision what Date means and says"

      You happen to know with precision Date's confused and incoherent position. Glad we cleared that up.

      "From quote #2, you declare that Date 'makes biological death equivalent to oblivion.' No, he does not. He defines it as the ending of life (here in this context, the ending of bodily life, which is compatible with any anthropology). 'Cessation of the person' is your phrase, not his. Try 'cessation of life' and you'll be closer to the mark—and try not to assume the anthropological category when you say it."

      Since you tactic is to confuse the issue rather than clarify the issue, let's spell it out. According to physicalism, the brain produces the mind. Brain death results in the cessation of consciousness. Personality is the product of brain states. When the brain ceases to function at all, mind, consciousness, personality are extinguished.

      It's a cause-effect relation. Like a light bulb hooked up to a power generator: if I destroy the generator, the light goes out.

      This isn't a difficult concept to grasp. You're just to unethical to honestly state the relation.

      "This allows for the cessation of life to yield quasi-conscious dead that are less than whole persons, and it allows for a lack thereof."

      Not according to physicalism. The brain generates consciousness, and the brain depends on the body. You can't have a quasi-conscious corpse. And you can't have "quasi-consciousness" separate from a functioning brain.

      "Any regular listener or reader of his stuff will know that he adamantly rejects what you're trying to say he affirms."

      Because his position is evasive and incoherent.

      "His definition of death allows for ongoing consciousness, because it's not 'oblivion.'"

      That's incompatible with physicalism unless he thinks the decedent is instantly resurrected, with a duplicate body, and currently exists at some extraterrestrial address.

      "I thought that was *our* contention..."

      No, you denied empirical evidence.

      "What I noted was that biblically, death should not be reduced to an event that passes in the blink of an eye. How is that any kind of punishment?"

      Thanks for highlighting another problem with annihilationism.

      "What I said holds for dualists, physicalists and agnostics alike."

      So you're admitting that annihilationism is an incoherent jumble. Thanks for the concession.

      Delete
    9. // "This allows for the cessation of life to yield quasi-conscious dead that are less than whole persons, and it allows for a lack thereof."

      Not according to physicalism. The brain generates consciousness, and the brain depends on the body. You can't have a quasi-conscious corpse. And you can't have "quasi-consciousness" separate from a functioning brain. //

      Did you even read to the end of my sentence? Or do you not understand the concept of openness? Yes, the definition is "according to physicalism" because it allows for consciousness "a lack thereof." Nobody said anything about a "quasi-conscious corpse." The dead are consciousness under dualism, not physicalism. The definition allows for dualism, physicalism, and it allows for agnosticism on anthropology.

      What you're trying to do is force the issue. Fact is, the biblical doctrine of conditional immortality can be formulated and argued without having to also formulate a doctrine of anthropology—we are very intentional about that at Rethinking Hell and it has been articulated in print—and Date has followed exactly this course in the linked post, as always. Twist it however you like, but all that is a matter of public record.

      Delete
    10. Peter, you're spot on. The case I consistently offer is intentionally independent of any particular philosophy of mind. Of course, I am a physicalist, but it does not follow that my case assumes physicalism, or depends on it.

      Delete
    11. "The dead are consciousness under dualism, not physicalism."

      Which means that according to a physicalist like Date, death entails oblivion.

      "What you're trying to do is force the issue."

      Which is a perfectly legitimate move. I've discussing Date's case for conditionalism. He's a physicalist. Nothing even slightly improper about forcing the issue of what his physicalism implies concering the nature of death.

      "Twist it however you like, but all that is a matter of public record."

      Are you morally lobotomized? To discuss the logical implications of Date's stated position isn't "twisting" anything.

      You act as if I was critiquing annihilationism in general. Maybe you're such a blind little partisan that you lack the critical detachment to know the difference. Chris Date presented his case for annihilationism. I'm fully entitled to evaluate his particular version. He's a prominent exponent.

      You're welcome to disown his position. But don't pretend that I'm misrepresenting annihilationism when I assess his position on his own terms.

      Moreover, his position is hardly idiosyncratic. Glenn Peoples is another prominent physicalist annihilationist. Consider annihilationist attacks on the "Platonic" immortality of the soul.

      Delete
    12. Why would I disown Date's "case for conditionalism" when it is my own case too? He has confirmed this above and below. Because you are trying to critique this case that is consistently made in public by Chris and others, yes, you are simultaneously critiquing Date's own position and "evangelical conditionalism"—which many of us formally articulated and defend online and in print. Your obsession with Date here as an individual makes you blind to the categories of biblical theology, and such compatible constructs as normative holism.

      Of course there is nothing wrong with trying to force an issue to be discussed—but there is something irrational about trying to force foreclosure on an inherently open construct. I refer interested readers to Rethinking Hell's published materials, wherein the case is defended that physicalists can adopt a conditionalism which is not bound by physicalist categories. Meanwhile, never was straw manning so palpable as to insist to a person, despite their strong protestations, that they define their basic terms against their will, and further to feign that you represent "his own terms" in opposition to my own, when he has said I've been representing his views precisely. These embarrassing antics and the character attacks on this page are poor substitutes for reason and Christian charity.

      Delete
    13. Let's see: I do a single post on Chris Date's recent case for annihilationism, and you call that an "obsession". It's really funny how your partisan blinkers have blinded you to the patent absurdity of your allegations.

      Evidently, you're embarrassed to have Chris represent annihilationism. Otherwise, you wouldn't be in full damage-control mode.

      You consistently evade the logical implications of his commitment to physicalism by resorting to buzz words like "normative holism," &c. That's a diversionary tactic which does nothing whatsoever to refute the logical connection between physicalism and oblivion at the moment of death.

      "but there is something irrational about trying to force foreclosure on an inherently open construct."

      Physicalist annihilationism is not an "inherently open construct". To the contrary, that logically forecloses certain options. If physicalism is true, then death results in oblivion. At best, there's a gap between oblivion and the general resurrection.

      "Meanwhile, never was straw manning so palpable as to insist to a person, despite their strong protestations, that they define their basic terms against their will…"

      Chris left one drive-by comment, then scampered away with his tail between his legs.

      A denial is not a disproof. At best, his overall position is muddle-headed.

      "These embarrassing antics and the character attacks on this page are poor substitutes for reason and Christian charity."

      You're an apparatchik for annihilationism. You repeatedly dodge the logical implications of physicalism by tossing decoys behind your sled. Your conduct is incorrigibly unethical.

      Delete
    14. // a diversionary tactic which does nothing whatsoever to refute the logical connection between physicalism and oblivion at the moment of death. //

      For the record, then, the logical connection between physicalism and oblivion is just obvious and incontrovertible. It's astonishing that you think this trivial point was disputed. Why does a given even need to be stated, let alone defended? Yikes.

      At issue was not whether physicalism entails non-being at death, but rather whether Date is obliged to *define* death accordingly when giving his biblical case for conditionalism. He may do so, but he is not obliged to do so, and in fact does not do so, by taking the alternative of defining death against a biblical/creational definition of life as normatively embodied life. Under biblical dualism, souls in the intermediate state are in the abode of the dead, still reckoned dead and having died, and will return to life at the resurrection (hence the logical designation "asleep," which is not about unconsciousness as some have assumed). Under biblical physicalism, same thing, sans intermediate consciousness. Both serve as normative holisms, faithful to the full biblical construct, which is commonly embraced in traditionalism too. Whether there is persistence or non-persistence does nothing to alter the construct, which accommodates either physicalist non-being or dualist consciousness in between death and resurrection.

      // Physicalist annihilationism is not an "inherently open construct". //

      I never said it was. There is more than one physicalist conditionalist approach, and nothing about physicalism obliges one to "define" death descriptively and inclusive of states of affairs after a moment of death, most especially when one is doing biblical theology and being faithful to its worldview and use of language. What I said was an "inherently open construct" is the normative holism of the Bible. It is wide open to any view of intermediacy, because its conception of life cannot be reduced to mere disembodied consciousness. Within this paradigm, you have not found a "gotcha" in trying to force death to mean oblivion—that would be a category error. If oblivion follows death, or if it doesn't, death has still served its function of privating ongoing continuance in life. The definition of death here is derived from the Bible's rich definition of what it means to be alive as God intended, and need not be grounded in non-theological, non-soteriological descriptive states of affairs about some aspect of a person after the fact—the consciousness, which is not the whole person on holism.

      If this kind of nuance is intolerable to you, so be it. If you're working with other categories to define your terms, so what? I'm just interested in clarification, not persuasion, and I suspect at least some of your readers will be able to follow what I've said. Pretend otherwise, but I have been speaking of Date's view all along, as he confirmed. I've invested my time because Date has a number of other obligations. You only think it's damage control because you're a few years behind in your reading; hence my references to our publications and the public record. The issue you try to raise here was worked through a long time ago, and is part of why we even bother to distinguish ourselves from other approaches.

      Thanks for the wonderful, edifying chat!

      Delete
  2. There's a ton of problems in his case. One problem is a dishonest portrayal of done passages. For example, Date writes: "Jesus indicates that God will “destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt 10:28)." However, Jesus indicates no such thing. Jesus says he *can* destroy body and soul in hell. That S "can" do X in no way implies that S "will" do X. (Mind you, I disagree with Date's reading of "destroy," but the point here is that even on his reading, he's asking the text to say more than it does.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Should read "some* passages"

      Delete
    2. As explained to you previously this is done self-consciously after much deliberation, and with awareness that both our traditionalist and evangelical universalist conversation partners take the warning exactly as we do, to be non-hypothetical.

      It is only "dishonest" to the truly pedantic.

      Delete
    3. It should come as no surprise to you that I don't think your explanations work. The problem here is that this passage is a real linchpin for Date, it's his strongest passage--as made clear in his various debates and his debates with me. It's his passage he uses to show that Jesus does in fact "annihilate." Strange, then, that he linchpin verse only makes a statement about something Jesus is *able* to do, not something he does do (again, granting that apollymi means what Date suggests, which I've undercut below).

      Delete
    4. Right, I'm not surprised. But then you should not be surprised when your personal sticking point here fails to establish your claim that Date was being dishonest, in light of the fact that you are out of step with what is a given in the wider debate: God will indeed do what Matt 10:28 says He can do. That God will do something negative in Gehenna (as disclosed in this and other passages) is even typically held by evangelical universalists, who otherwise might be predisposed to think that the warnings are hypothetical, and nobody actually ends up in Gehenna. So this is mutual ground for the debate, and part of why there is even a debate.

      In the past you've acted like others are simply unaware of what you've discovered in this text; that's not even plausible. Many traditionalists would hotly contest your suggestion that Matt 10:28 doesn't contain an important disclosure of what will happen. Perhaps you should just concede the point that this is treated as a given in the broader debate. It's you against everyone else here, not you against Date. And Date obviously wrote for a general audience.

      To your new claim that something "strange" is still going on, I'm not aware of any "linchpin" texts in the conditionalist case. Matt 10:28 is helpful and worth camping on for a number of reasons, including time constraints and the fact that most people do find it succinct and helpful, but that doesn't make it crucial. But however important you think it is, again, your objection here is based on something that Date's general audience finds agreeable: Matt 10:28 ought to be handled non-hypothetically. If you continue to think this approach is wrong, you'll have to convince a lot of people on all sides.

      Delete
    5. I'm not handling it hypothetically. I'm stating that the text only speaks of an *ability*. That's not to say that the texting is speaking of hypotheticals. That you're going there shows you're not even grasping the gist of the argument.

      I do not think most commentators take it the way you're suggesting. Most of them, correctly, contrast the various *powers* of men and God. Moreover, most commentators note that the main point is about persecution, not a scientific description of what happen in fact will in hell.

      You seem unfamiliar with how Date uses this passage. That's fine, but that's the context in addressing. Date most certainly sees this as a lynchpin text because it's a passage where one agent "apollymis" another. Date knows that there are usages of apollymi which allows for the person who has suffered apollymi to still be living. But, Date argues, we see no such instances of this when it is one agent who apollymis another. In that case, the one who suffers apollymi "dies." Now, put aside that I've undercut this point, we now see (or, should see) why Date finds this passage *utterly* crucial. It's at this point that I say how strange(!) that an extremely crucial text does not say anything about God *in fact* doing this. The key text Date needs merely speaks to God's *power* to do this. Strange that all the other texts you have are such that apollymi is consistent with ECT and then the one crucial text we see God never committing to one agent in fact apollymi-ing another. Why did the annihilationist God get cold feet at the crucial juncture?

      Delete
    6. The text does more than simply announce an ability of God. Yes, your objection is based on the fact that we can't treat this non-human capability of God as an indication that God will actually do this. It's clear that I have understood you. Whether or not you approve of my chosen term, I'm using "hypothetical" as shorthand for the implication of that: this text does not suggest that God will do X, such that X might never occur. I am crediting you here with not being a total pedant. If all you really wished to say is that technically this text speaks of ability, you're speaking trivially. Whoever grants that "destroy body and soul in Gehenna" will actually occur, which is a basic affirmation of traditionalism (that's why we debate what it means), ought to grant Date's handling of the text in that way.

      Which of us is in a better position to be familiar with how Date regards the necessity of Matt 10:28 for our overall case? It's just "his strongest passage" and "extremely crucial"? Honestly, the passage rarely even comes to mind for me these days. It's a popular-level thing to my mind—helpful in certain contexts, like I said. You won't agree, and that's ok, but I struggle to see you as someone who really appreciates our overall case. Believe me, I am hoping to hear more from you that I can recognize.

      And why are you the strong critic these days? Didn't you only just tell me you don't have a high degree of confidence that traditionalism is correct and annihilation is not?

      Delete
    7. 1. Why doesn't Chris cite another passage that teaches "God will apollymi people in hell"?

      2. I gave an argument for why, interact with it.

      3. Confidence is a degreed property. I have a very high degree of confidence that I exist (1, to be precise). My confidence that traditionalism is true is much lower than that. This is consistent with (1) me believing that traditionalism is true and (2) arguing strongly against annihilationism.

      Delete
    8. Nice try, but the case for conditionalism is in no way reducible to the case for the meaning of apollumi in relevant contexts, nor in this particular text, nor for that matter any particular word argument, most especially those which carry a range of meaning that is open to dispute. In fact, in my own opinion, the case is stronger proceeding from a different vantage altogether, though the biblical language of destruction serves in corroboration.

      Now that we've seen Date has not been "dishonest" in handling the text conventionally as revealing data about what will happen, it's also clear how narrowly you must construe our overall case in order to exaggerate the importance of this single text, which is hardly more than entry-level, frankly. It can become more relevant, or be deemed relatively more important, if the context has dictated that it should be under consideration. But it shouldn't be hard to see the difference there. And this is liable to be for insubstantial reasons: a critic demanded that it be treated because they don't want to weigh the entire line of evidence, for example, or the public hasn't the attention span to go much deeper than proof-texts for each side, or somebody thought that it sounded like a good approach to obsess over the negative side of the eschatological equation, as if Hell can be understood in a soteriological vacuum. Or, in a nutshell, just because it's an elementary/introductory place to start, and people usually do begin at the basic level, and are seldom motivated to progress in understanding of the view or its whole case.

      Delete
    9. I didn't say the case was so reducible. I gave a reason and you've ignored it twice now.

      But no, we haven't seen that Date doesn't handle the text dishonestly. He does. Thsts clear. He frequently states that this verse teaches that God *will* apollymi some people. Why? That's why you failed to address my first question above.

      Delete
    10. Grice is so unethical. To begin with, there's his bait-n-switch. The post is specifically about Date's case for annihilationism, over at Sprinkle's blog. Grice tries to change the subject to "conditionalism" in general, then accuse us of misrepresenting "conditionalism" in general, when that was never the target.

      Is Grice willfully dishonest, or has his dishonesty become so engrained that he's lost the capacity to recognize his dishonesty?

      Notice, too, that he has to defend annihilationism by driving a wedge between his own position and Date's. His response is a backdoor admission that the objections to Date are sound, which is why he labors to change the subject and substitute his own version of annihilationism with his own supporting arguments.

      In that respect, this is no longer a debate between Date and Manata or me, but a debate between Date and Grice.

      Delete
    11. Not conditionalism in general, but evangelical conditionalism, which is precisely what Date is advancing, and what we advance at Rethinking Hell. You are aware that Date happens to be physicalist, and you desperately want him this time to be presenting some personal integrated version of conditionalism and anthropology, but in fact he always publicly represents evangelical conditionalism. It admits any view of anthropology, including no view. This is well known, and articulated online and in print. Carry on with your private fancy...

      Delete
    12. Ah, yes, it's "desperate" of me to hold Date to the logical implications of his physicalism. Couldn't be that you are desperate to artificially compartmentalize his physicalism from what you're pleased to call "evangelical conditionalism".

      And, yes, it is incumbent on him to demonstrate how he integrates annihilationism with physicalism. There's nothing unreasonable about demanding that a proponent have a logically consistent position. You're such a fanatical partisan that you attack elementary standards of intellectual integrity.

      Moreover, you're burning a straw man. I never denied that an annihilationist could be a physicalist. Indeed, as I've noted in the past, that's the most economical version.

      The question at issue is not whether you can combine physicalism with annihilationism, but how Date's case for annihilationism takes physicalism for granted by implicitly defining death in terms of oblivion. In that event, his particular case for annihilationism is only as good as the case for physicalism.

      In fact, you yourself clearly think his argument is a flop because you've been laboring to shift the debate from Date's version of annihilationism to your own version.

      Delete
    13. Peter, you're right. Not only does the case I have consistently offered very intentionally not depend on any particularly philosophy of mind, but it further does not depend on death meaning oblivion. I don't even define death as oblivion, or mean oblivion by it. We're definitely on the same page, you and I.

      Delete
    14. Chris just stop. According to you, you told me that once you die biologically, we may say that you exist so long as your body does. You said at some point of sufficient decomposition, we may then say that you don't exist. This is a I = my body view. You crucially need this to say that Jesus still existed in his human nature while dead. However, you have also endorsed other mind-body views to answer challenges that conflict with the body-identity view. So in a sense you're correct that your case doesn't depend on a philosophy of mind, but that's because your position on the matter is *incoherent*. You morph into different materialist accounts depending on the challenge.

      Delete
    15. Chris,

      Either you're dissembling or you just aren't capable of thinking straight. Perhaps you and Grice believe it's bad PR for physicalist annihilationists to admit that death results in oblivion.

      I'm merely stating the logical consequences of physicalism. On that view, consciousness or personality does not exist apart from a functioning brain. Brain death results in the cessation of consciousness. Not in the sense of a comatose patient. Rather, if the brain generates the mind, then when the brain ceases to function, the mind disappears.

      That's exactly what people mean by "oblivion" in reference to what happens to someone after they die. I'm not saying anything controversial here. I'm not even offering a value judgment on whether that's good or bad.

      It's very revealing that you and Price refuse to be forthcoming on this elementary point of logic and usage. Apparently, the contributors to Rethinking Hell have decided it's damaging to publicly admit the implications of physicalist annihilationism. That will hurt the cause. So you and he resort to dissimulation about what physicalist annihilationism really represents.

      The only alternative explanation is that you're hopelessly muddleheaded. Take your pick.

      Delete
    16. Astonishing misrepresentation. Exactly as you say, this is not a controversial point. It is blindingly obvious, and hardly needs stating, much less defending, because it's a given.

      Both Date and I affirm that oblivion or non-being is "what happens to someone after they die" on physicalism, that it is "the logical consequences of physicalism." Conversely, neither Date nor I have denied something so incontrovertible as that "Brain death results in the cessation of consciousness" or "that death results in oblivion" on physicalism.

      In what world do you live where a physicalist doesn't know what physicalism is?

      In light of this display, how or why you might yet class your interactions as dialogue is left as an exercise for the reader.

      Delete
    17. Date's very first comment was to say "I don't, actually, define biological death as equivalent to oblivion."

      Among other things, you said " I happen to know with precision what Date means and says, so it's easy for me to see how you're misreading what he said. I made the single counter-claim that Date does not *define* death as 'oblivion.'"

      But you have now conceded that according to physicalist annihilationism, biological death is equivalent to oblivion. Yet in the same breath you presume to accuse me of "astonishing misrepresentation".

      You're such a toady for annihilationism that you're lack the capacity to recognize your point blank contradictions.

      Delete
    18. Peter, I like your recent posts on RH trying to handle the terminology problem I pressed and brought to everyone's attention. Glad I could help! There's a lot of other problems too. For instance, annihilationists don't even know what they mean by "life" and "death." Pretty important concepts at the heart of your view. Maybe next post you could show how Date and People's definition, viz., X has a life just in case X has a function, makes computers alive? Anyway, lots of work to do!

      Delete
    19. Sorry to burst your bubble, Maul, but I presented my work on this at our first conference in early 2014. My recent articles in no way respond to your criticism on terminology (I can't even think how, or recall the specifics anyway). As I put to you when we engaged a little before, I would love nothing more than to receive your criticism as a way to sharpen our view, because our critics have proven lackluster. You came up with a decent critique of universalism, so I look forward to whatever you may come up with in future regarding conditionalism. But so you know, you guys here are strangely out of touch with what counts as theological discourse in the world we are operating in. I enjoy your perspectives, but you've got to know you're casting stones from the fringe here, surely. We're your fringe; you're ours. Let's stop acting like we are on the same ground...

      Delete
    20. Steve, I have not conceded any such thing about "physicalist annihilationism," which itself is no such singular thing. I expressly said there is "more than one" approach to relating those two viz. *defining* death, and carefully explained how Date takes an alternative nuanced and biblically faithful course to your ham-fisted anthropological event-based one. Anyone can check my explanations of this on this page for themselves.

      Anyone can look above to see that what I said was no concession, but something universally understood as constitutive of physicalism itself. My point was clearly made, and it is the opposite of making a concession. How childish to still act like Date doesn't know what physicalism is!

      In the unlikely event that you are being sincere, you end up seeming unable to grasp the difference between a *definition* of a biblical term via normative use, and the basic tenet of physicalism that non-being follows biological death. By all means, go around critiquing people who don't define terms with the categories you prefer, but no amount of foot-stomping will force others to adopt your preferred approach to *definitions* across diverse categories and methodologies as if it's just the only way to go! We're very comfortable with our approach as it relates to our primary audience. You're not our primary audience, but you deserve some interaction anyway if you interacted with us. Although it's genuinely hard for me to see that you did.

      Delete
    21. If an annihilationist is a physicalist, then that commits him to the logical consequences of physicalism. That commits him to a particular position regarding the nature of life and death. If you combine annihilationism with a physicalist anthropology, then physicalism delimits how life and death can be defined.

      So what's your problem, Peter? Are you just unable to think rationally? Or do you deliberately prevaricate because you wish to avoid grappling with the implications of a physicalist model of annihilationism?

      Delete
    22. You could just as easily have said "physicalism delimits how life and death can be defined."

      No it doesn't. See how assertions work to cancel out each other? As for the rationale: Your assumption is that "the Scriptures and the power of God" cannot possibly frame physicalism for purposes of doing theology, because, you know, states of affairs. The sole category you will admit to "define" life is reductive of the biblical conception, and hence also death, and the most you can do is just repeat your insistence that others join you in category error. If we wanted to formulate our model so uncritically, we could have easily taken that option years ago—but we found the overly-simplistic approach lacking in intellectual integrity.

      It seems that the likes of you and "Maul P." live in a kind of fantasy land where physicalists have no idea what physicalism is, and where "annihilationists" don't even define their basic terms like "life" and "death"—which must apparently include top Bible scholars like Richard Bauckham and I. Howard Marshall. Oh, and everybody is just dishonest and embarrassed and afraid. This narrative is really transparent and sad.

      I see that you are no longer flagrantly misrepresenting our claims, and I am satisfied that I have clarified them enough if you do continue to do so—I see no further need to interact.

      Delete
    23. "The sole category you will admit to 'define' life is reductive of the biblical conception, and hence also death, and the most you can do is just repeat your insistence that others join you in category error."

      I'm not defining life. I'm responding to Date on his own grounds. He's a physicalist annihilationist. It is physicalism, not me, that supplies the definition.

      You've accused me of defining death as an "event". Although it's true that death is an event, death is also a condition. And that's the real issue.

      Suppose we could preserve a corpse from decay. There'd be no brain function. Would it be dead or alive according to Date?

      Suppose we could digitize a person and store the data, then turn the abstract data back into its pre-digitized form. Would the individual be alive during storage?

      "I see that you are no longer flagrantly misrepresenting our claims."

      I never did misrepresent your claims. The problem is with Date's befuddled position.

      "I am satisfied that I have clarified them enough if you do continue to do so—I see no further need to interact."

      Your strategy from first to last has been to deflect my arguments rather than refute my arguments.

      Delete
    24. // I'm not defining life. I'm responding to Date on his own grounds. He's a physicalist annihilationist. It is physicalism, not me, that supplies the definition. //

      Great, so the matter is still settled. When evangelical conditionalists (like Date) ground their definition of life (and hence death) in a biblical manner consistent with either a physicalist or dualist appreciation of death (and therefore also agnosticism), to "frame [anthropology] for purposes of doing theology," your objection is that you found an actual physicalist™ doing this, and you just repeat your assertion that the only way to define death here is when "physicalism... supplies the definition." So simple, even an annihilationist can grasp it, right?!!

      We obviously don't have common ground in terms of how to define terms in God's universe; I gave enough detail on this here already, and I'm not going to rehash what we say elsewhere. Yet when you now want to insist that it's just our own internal inconsistency, it's clear that you still mean to assert your own ground, which is irrelevant to that charge. Death is a condition, you mention. That's the issue when defining stuff! Because conditions. And Chris Date and physicalism and entailments and stuff (which are just part of what physicalism is). Well I guess that settles it! There's just no other way to think than this!

      // Your strategy from first to last has been to deflect my arguments rather than refute my arguments. //

      Complaints and assertions do not an argument make. I've repeatedly engaged what you've said. Predictably, you don't like the more nuanced, non-reductive approach, but that's of no concern to me. My stated purpose is to clarify any misrepresentations of our view. As noted above, I'm satisfied with having done that enough.

      Delete
    25. "When evangelical conditionalists (like Date) ground their definition of life (and hence death) in a biblical manner consistent with either a physicalist or dualist appreciation of death (and therefore also agnosticism)…"

      There is no definition of life and death that's consistent with physicalism and (substance) dualism alike. That's just propagandistic dissimulation. What happens to a human being after he dies? Physicalism and dualism give different, opposing answers.

      "and you just repeat your assertion that the only way to define death here is when 'physicalism… supplies the definition.'"

      I realize your fanatical partisanship incapacitates you from honestly representing what I said. No, I didn't make the unqualified claim that the only way to define death is when physicalism supplies the definition. Rather, I said that since Date is a physicalist, it logically follows that his commitment to physicalism must supply the definition. Are you incorrigibly mendacious?

      "Death is a condition, you mention. That's the issue when defining stuff!"

      What is the postmortem condition of a decedent? What condition is the decedent in, given physicalist annihilationism? Answer: oblivion.

      "Complaints and assertions do not an argument make."

      Oh, I'm not complaining. I think it's wonderful that you and Chris are so intellectually evasive. That's a backdoor admission that annihilationism is indefensible. Thanks for tipping your losing hand.

      Also, you need to learn the difference between assertions and arguments. I haven't merely asserted anything. Rather, I've given reasons in support of my claims.

      "you don't like the more nuanced, non-reductive approach…"

      Because physicalism is inherently reductionistic. Humans are just collections of particles. At death, the collection disintegrates.

      You can't "nuance" away the implications of that position. As I said before, the best that a physicalist annihilationist could do is to posit that God creates duplicate bodies on some M-class planet in the universe, and when a Christian dies, God instantly uploads their consciousness into the duplicate brain (which presumes the computational theory of mind) Otherwise, there's no bridge to prevent personal oblivion between brain death and the resurrection of the just.

      "…but that's of no concern to me."

      Yes, logic is of no concern to you. You can't use a logical methodology to defend physicalist annihilationism. I appreciate your damning (parading the pun) concession.

      Delete
    26. // There is no definition of life and death that's consistent with physicalism and (substance) dualism alike. That's just propagandistic dissimulation. What happens to a human being after he dies? Physicalism and dualism give different, opposing answers. //

      Of course physicalism and dualism give different answers as to "what happens to a human being after he dies." Why keep stating the obvious?

      Of course there is a definition of life and death consistent with both of these. Christian physicalists and dualists can both agree that when the Bible describes dead or "sleeping" people this is after they have died (stopped living), and when the Bible describes the living this is before they have died or after they have been resurrected. Pretty straightforward stuff. The dualist may account for this by holding that for humans to be considered living in any normative biblical sense they must be embodied, which is to so define life and refrain from reducing it to mere conscious existence of some residual aspect of a person, which is not the whole person on this view. And the physicalist may account for it precisely that way. The fact that one thinks there is conscious existence "after he dies" and the other disagrees is entirely beside the point, because both agree that this point of difference is not part of how the Bible defines life and death, and that to assign its conception of life to the concept of a disembodied consciousness would be ignorant and contradictory.

      Either this definition is kept intact, or it is misrepresented in order to declare that "there is no definition" such as this.

      Incidentally, the definition is agreeable to many dualists. And it is not grounded in any particular view of Hell, either. I held to it as a traditionalist and dualist, and so did/do many in my theological circles.

      Delete
    27. "Of course physicalism and dualism give different answers as to "what happens to a human being after he dies." Why keep stating the obvious?"

      Because you keep ignoring the obvious. Next question.

      "Of course there is a definition of life and death consistent with both of these. Christian physicalists and dualists can both agree that when the Bible describes dead or 'sleeping' people this is after they have died (stopped living), and when the Bible describes the living this is before they have died or after they have been resurrected. Pretty straightforward stuff."

      Either you're intentionally equivocating or you're just plain dense. "Christian physicalists and dualism" don't have a common definition regarding the *condition* of death.

      The question at issue is not their condition before they die or after they are resurrected, but the interval in-between. Do you deliberately obfuscate the issues, or are you really that uncomprehending?

      "The fact that one thinks there is conscious existence 'after he dies' and the other disagrees is entirely beside the point, because both agree that this point of difference is not part of how the Bible defines life and death…"

      Christian dualists think Scripture defines the condition of death in reference to the intermediate state. So, no, they don't agree. Are you just unable to reason?

      Delete
    28. Peter writes:

      //"It seems that the likes of you and "Maul P." live in a kind of fantasy land where physicalists have no idea what physicalism is, and where "annihilationists" don't even define their basic terms like "life" and "death"—which must apparently include top Bible scholars like Richard Bauckham and I. Howard Marshall. Oh, and everybody is just dishonest and embarrassed and afraid. This narrative is really transparent and sad"//

      How does it "seem" like that? In fact, it should "seem" the opposite to you. For example, I noted a few different physicalist theories of mind, and I noted one of Chris's views--the body-identity view--was at odds with other views he's espoused, e.g., functionalism.

      But we can go further. Let's note that on the body-identity view, Chris Date isn't essentially a *person*. In fact, on this view, "person" is a *phase sortal*. Persons are phases in the career of 'Chris Date.' Examples of Phase sortals are like "teenager" and "adult," but on the body-identity view, we can add "person" that. Silly, huh? Yeah, see, the problem isn't that I don't know enough about physicalist theories of minds, brains, and persons--it's that I know too much! This allows me to snicker at Chris's ad hoc attempts to offer physicalist theories in response to my various objections.

      As for the scholars you cite, do they define "life" as "has a function"? If so, that makes computers living lol. If not, how does that help *Date*? For he defined it so. Haha

      Delete
    29. PG wrote:

      //"Of course there is a definition of life and death consistent with both of these. Christian physicalists and dualists can both agree that when the Bible describes dead or "sleeping" people this is after they have died..."//

      This is rich. The "definition" of "death" is a person who has "died". Wow, illuminating!

      Delete
    30. Maul, that wasn't offered as a definition, not did I use your wording. But like I said, it's "straightforward," and as an important yet obvious stricture from the Bible it needs to be honored in any definition used in theological discussion.

      I'm really glad to see that you agree! But I wonder whose definition of life falls afoul of all that I said about the biblical strictures? Life is the condition of being conscious, right?

      Delete
    31. // "Christian physicalists and dualism" don't have a common definition regarding the *condition* of death. //

      True to form, this responds to a comment where I only just repeated this fact of their disagreement. You keep saying obvious stuff as if it were being denied. As I predicted, you have needed to misrepresent what is being said.

      // The question at issue is not their condition before they die or after they are resurrected, but the interval in-between. //

      That's your question, not "the" question, of which there are many in this context, raised by special revelation. But it is entirely addressed within the definition/description I gave. And when you state that the issue is "not their condition before they die or after they are resurrected," this is more failure to represent what I'm saying. On the theological framing life is not reducible to an anthropological condition in an arbitrary moment, because life involves a continuous series of moments, and then so much more associated with its continuance and creational properties. Moreover, death in the Bible is something which has a dominion and is a decree, which is expressed in terms of continuous duration, and on this basis alone is not reducible to the matter of one's conscious condition in a given moment. What I did supply, was a straightfoward logical framework that is biblical and also commonly understood.

      /* Me: "The fact that one thinks there is conscious existence 'after he dies' and the other disagrees is entirely beside the point, because both agree that this point of difference is not part of how the Bible defines life and death…" */

      // You: "Christian dualists think Scripture defines the condition of death in reference to the intermediate state. So, no, they don't agree. Are you just unable to reason?" //

      lol, not the ones who agree with the framing I laid out! In what theological bubble do you operate?! The Bible's language is inspired, and the discipline of consistency with its terms is important for any theologian and lover of truth. Your authority and starting point is a monolithic opinion of "Christian dualists"? Did you really just intimate that all Christian dualists must define death as life? When I say that death privates life, you would dispute this by saying that death is really life? You would, because you insist on a definition of human life as the condition of being conscious. On this blunt definition, every human is always living, and therefore the Bible teaches us that all humans move from life, to life, to life everlasting. The dead are living, right? Gotcha, death is life. Don't be surprised when such an obfuscated model isn't intellectually satisfying to others. Dualists are not bound to such incoherence.

      By the way, you're adamant that life is defined as a condition of being conscious, yet you don't still think that's what it means when the Bible starts to call it eternal, do you? Of course you don't. Because "spiritual" and relational and qualitative definitions, all of a sudden. Again, quit acting like everyone is just automatically bound over to this spurious reductive definition of human life that is in grave tension with a consistent, scripture-wide assessment of what God means by life and its negation. It's your option to take, but insisting upon your option does nothing to show that another approach is illegitimate.

      The nature of the case requires careful study of the range of biblical usages of life and death and their cognates. Date's case is set forth with the biblical frame, and that's the context here. Declarations to the contrary are methodologically skewed and overly-simplistic/reductive.

      Delete
    32. In light of the confidence here in the matter of defining life and death so simply and extra-biblically, it might be worth reflecting on these words from Berkhof's systematics, which are consistent with the approach I've outlined:

      "Life and death are not opposed to each other as existence and non-existence, but are opposites only as different modes of existence. It is quite impossible to say exactly what death is. We speak of it as the cessation of physical life, but then the question immediately arises, Just what is life? And we have no answer. We do not know what life is in its essential being, but know it only in its relations and actions. And experience teaches us that, where these are severed and cease, death enters. Death means a break in the natural relations of life. It may be said that sin is per se death, because it represents a break in the vital relation in which man, as created in the image of God, stands to his Maker. It means the loss of that image, and consequently disturbs all the relations of life."

      To wit, when a physicalist agrees with this, they are affirming that "Death means a break in the natural relations of life," and affirming Berkhof's rejection that life and death just signify existence and non-existence. Contrary to other expressions here, they agree with Berkhof that "We do not know what life is in its essential being," insofar as we cannot just say it means to be conscious, and agree that we "know it only in its relations and actions... all the relations of life." Different reckonings of a condition to follow death (i.e. dualism vs. physicalism) both leave the definition intact, because both private life so defined. Berkhof opines, "It is quite impossible to say exactly what death is"—the agnosticism I mentioned as valid—and yet it as adequate to yield this much in relation to life.

      Delete
    33. So then, to summarize your numerous and verbose rejoinders here your stated position is basically: "We don't know what we're talking about."

      Does that sound about right?

      Delete
    34. That's basically how I stated my position, yeah. My version was admittedly much longer, but I like yours better because it's so short and to the point. Nice work!

      I see that you are a regular commenter on this blog.

      Delete
  3. Another problem: Date argues that "apollymi", when used to refer to something one agent does to another, always means "kill." Presumsbly "kill" means here something like what would happen to you if I shot you in the head, stabbed you, etc. But this doesn't seem right to me. Consider:

    "Let us alone! What business do we have with each other, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are-the Holy One of God!" (Luke 4:34)

    In this passage, apollymi is translated "destroy." But it isn't clear at all that the demon is imaging that Jesus is going to shoot it stab him. It doesn't seem like the demon thinks Jesus is going to zap him out of existence. Likely, the demon is worried that Jesus is either going to cast him out of the man or send it to hell. Indeed, we see in the other exorcism passages, the demons are worried that Jesus is going to send the demons out of those they control and into, say, the wilderness.

    This fits better with a traditionalist reading than an annihilationist one.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'd also like to see more traditionalists answer Date's claim that many passages that refer to life or death in a less than literal way (apparently qualitatively rather than quantitatively) are merely proleptic.

    Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life.- John 5:24 ASV

    We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not abideth in death.- 1 John 3:14 ASV

    He that hath the Son hath the life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not the life.- 1 John 5:12

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps the reason more traditionalists haven't done so is due to the fact that annihilationists can typically hold to either a proleptic or non-proleptic reading, or in fact both in different senses (the outworking of something is future because it has been initiated in the present—hence this special way of talking about it).

      Delete
    2. Peter, in light of Rom. 6:23 how does annihilationism not result in double jeopardy?

      For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.- Rom. 6:23

      Because of sin, a person physically dies in this life, then he's supposed to die a second time for the same sins when he's extinguished in Gehenna?

      Delete
    3. Peter, in Jn 19:28 we read that Jesus "knew" that "all things" (alternatively, "everything") had been "finished" or "accomplished," what do you take to be include in "everything"? For example, would you included in there is paying full penalty his people deserved?

      Delete
    4. Annoyed, I don't myself use language like "physically dies in this life," which for me maintains two false dichotomies from a biblical standpoint (although I am happy to indulge in the language on occasion), and also a misleading frame of death as merely an event. There is only life and death, death serving to negate life's continuance. And then there is an eternal judgment to render such matters eternal.

      To answer the spirit of your question, then, I am more interested in what I think the Bible is more interested in: "God's righteous decree that [sinners] deserve death" (Rom 1:32), and whether in each case this is finally applied as an eternal judgment. As a law, or decree, death in the Bible has a "dominion" (which ought not be reduced to a fleeting event), and this continuing concept is part and parcel of biblical theology about death, and victory over it. Hence, to die under the law of sin and death, without having "passed out of death into life" by been "set free from" said dominion, leads naturally on to an eternal sentencing that one truly deserves to die forever (or in the language of Gen 3:22, "not... live forever"). This is not double jeopardy, because the decree of God, on our view, was always about capital punishment, should there be no escape or way to be born again to a new life (when death no longer has dominion, so is irrelevant/trivial/fleeting/non-final, if it even comes at all). The finally unsaved did not die forever at first, which "not live forever" finally requires, because they were temporarily brought back to life (resurrection) to face judgment; their death temporarily suspended or discontinued in this way. With their punishment then outstanding, and not trivialized as a mere moment in time, the final justice or eternal deservingness of death is handed down. Being deserved forever, it is resumed forever, and, we believe, God acts to annihilate or totally/irreversibly destroy for that reason.

      If you just wanted a short answer, try to appreciate "death" in Rom 6:23 as a universal penal decree transcending any instance of death, both because that's how such decrees work (they continue), and because the whole point of death is to negate that which continues (life). In the end, when some receive death will others receive the inheritance of eternal life, death negates/privates life forever.

      Delete
  5. What a twisting rabbit hole of a discussion. Grice and Date come across sounding creepily like Screwtape and Wormwood in this thread.

    Methinks some remedial logic would help a great deal in their rethinking of hell. Such confusion.

    ReplyDelete