Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Proponents of an afterlife would be better served by espousing some variety of mind-body dualism rather than materialism.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Mind-body dualism faces the interaction problem: if the soul is non-physical, it is deeply unclear how it causally affects the body.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A dualist afterlife that cannot explain soul-body interaction during life offers no explanatory advantage over materialist resurrection accounts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Materialism avoids positing ontologically mysterious substances, satisfying parsimony principles that dualism violates.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Peter van Inwagen's materialist resurrection model—God preserves the exact corpse and reconstitutes it—demonstrates a coherent physicalist afterlife framework.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The difficulties facing materialist resurrection are no more formidable than the dualist's obligation to explain personal identity for a disembodied soul across time.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
It has not been shown conclusively that an identity-preserving materialist resurrection is impossible, but the difficulties are formidable.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.