Critiquing: #091 — Tom’s Problems with Platonism

November 11, 2021 | Ask NT Wright Anything — Premier

Platonism — Christian Theology — Paul’s Letters — New Testament — Neo-Platonism

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	C+	While the episode presents a generally accurate overview of Platonism and its perceived influence on Christianity, some historical and theological claims are not fully substantiated with primary sources or scholarly consensus.
Degree of Coherence	B	The episode maintains a logical flow in discussing the influence of Platonism on Christian thought, but transitions between topics, such as from Platonism to Pauline theology, can be abrupt and leave certain arguments underdeveloped.
Absence of Fallacies	C	Some logical fallacies are present, particularly in the interpretation of biblical texts through a strictly anti-Platonic lens. The dismissal of Platonic influence without thorough examination of counter-evidence weakens the argument.
Degree of Evidence	C-	The episode relies heavily on interpretative opinions rather than substantial textual evidence or citations from historical texts and contemporary scholarship. This lack of evidence diminishes the strength of the arguments presented.
Degree of Testability	D	Theological and philosophical claims, such as the nature of the soul and the afterlife, are inherently difficult to test empirically. This limits the ability to verify the arguments through objective means.
Rational Confidence	C	The conclusions drawn are presented with moderate confidence, but this confidence is not always aligned with the strength of the supporting evidence. The arguments would benefit from a more critical examination of sources and counterarguments.

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Lack of Substantiated Evidence

“The ultimate new creation leaves behind the corruptible physical world.“

This claim is not backed by concrete evidence and relies heavily on interpretive tradition rather than documented historical or theological sources. The assertion could be strengthened by referencing specific biblical passages and scholarly interpretations that support this view. Empirical evidence showing its possibility would go a long way.

2. Logical Fallacies in Interpretation

“Jesus did not say that one day we will leave earth and go to heaven instead.“

This interpretation might be oversimplified and dismisses other theological perspectives without substantial rebuttal. By not addressing alternative interpretations of biblical eschatology, the argument fails to acknowledge the complexity of early Christian thought and its development over time.

3. Difficulties in Empirical Testability

“The spirit forms the link between earth and heaven against the day when earth and heaven will be one.“

The statement presents a theological viewpoint that is inherently difficult to test or falsify empirically. The lack of empirical evidence makes it challenging to substantiate the claim beyond theological speculation.

---

Formulations of Major Arguments

Argument 1: Paul’s Distinction Between Flesh and Spirit

1. Premise 1: Paul frequently contrasts “flesh” and “spirit” in his letters.
2. Premise 2: The term “flesh” refers to the corruptible, mortal aspect of human existence.
3. Premise 3: The term “spirit” refers to the enlivening and divine aspect that brings life to the body.
4. Conclusion: Therefore, Paul is not denouncing the physical body but rather distinguishing between the mortal and divine aspects of human life.

Counter-Argument:
The interpretation of Paul’s use of “flesh” and “spirit” may be more nuanced than presented. In some contexts, Paul appears to be denouncing not just mortality but also the sinful nature associated with the physical body. Moreover, the dichotomy presented might oversimplify Paul’s theology, which includes a more complex interplay between physical and spiritual realms. Additionally, other scholars argue that Paul’s writings do reflect a degree of Platonic influence, particularly in his discussions of the afterlife and resurrection, which can suggest a more dualistic view than acknowledged here. For example, in 1 Corinthians 15:50, Paul states, “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,” which could be interpreted as a denouncement of the physical in favor of a more spiritual existence.

Argument 2: Platonic Influence on Early Christianity

1. Premise 1: Early Christian theologians, including New Testament authors, were influenced by contemporary philosophical traditions.
2. Premise 2: Platonism was a prevalent philosophical tradition during the early Christian era.
3. Premise 3: Elements of Platonism, such as the distinction between the physical and spiritual realms, appear in early Christian writings.
4. Conclusion: Therefore, early Christian theology shows significant Platonic influence.

Counter-Argument:
While it is clear that early Christian theologians were aware of and interacted with contemporary philosophical traditions, the extent to which Platonism influenced Christian doctrine can be debated. Some scholars argue that early Christianity was more influenced by Jewish apocalyptic thought and Hellenistic Judaism than by Platonism directly. Furthermore, the use of Platonic terms and concepts may have been adapted to fit a fundamentally different theological framework. The evidence for a direct and significant Platonic influence is mixed, and it is crucial to consider the broader cultural and intellectual context in which early Christian theology developed. For instance, the concept of resurrection in Christianity, emphasizing bodily resurrection, contrasts with the Platonic idea of the soul’s liberation from the body, indicating a complex interplay rather than direct influence.

◉ Addressing Argument #1:

The Illusion of the Independent Spirit and Soul

The debate surrounding the existence of a spirit or soul independent of the brain remains a central tenet in many Christian beliefs. However, a critical examination of this notion reveals a profound lack of evidence to support the idea that the “spirit” or “soul” is anything more than the complex experience of what the brain does. Cognitive science has rigorously studied this phenomenon, and the findings are unequivocal: there is no substantiated evidence that the mind can exist independently of the brain.

Proponents of the spirit and soul often cite anecdotal evidence or philosophical arguments to assert that these entities exist beyond the physical brain. Yet, when subjected to scientific scrutiny, these claims falter. Neuroscientific studies consistently demonstrate that consciousness, self-awareness, and the myriad aspects of what we consider the mind are intrinsically linked to brain function. The mind does not operate in a vacuum; it is a product of the brain’s intricate neural network.

One of the most compelling arguments against the independence of the mind from the brain is the complete cessation of mind functionality in the absence of brain functionality. When the brain ceases to function, so does the mind. This correlation is not coincidental but indicative of a causal relationship. Studies involving brain injuries and neurodegenerative diseases further reinforce this point. For instance, patients with significant brain damage often experience profound changes in personality, memory, and cognitive abilities. These changes underscore the dependency of mental functions on the brain’s physical state.

Research in neuropsychology has delved into cases where individuals have undergone severe trauma or surgical removal of brain parts. In these cases, any reduction in brain functionality correlates directly with a corresponding reduction in cognitive abilities. Dr. Paul Broca’s early work in the 19th century identified specific brain regions responsible for language production, demonstrating that damage to these areas results in aphasia, a clear indication of the brain-mind dependency. Modern studies, such as those utilizing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), provide further evidence by showing real-time correlations between brain activity and cognitive processes.

Moreover, the idea that the mind could “wander free” of the brain has been explored in studies of near-death experiences (NDEs) and out-of-body experiences (OBEs). However, these studies often suffer from methodological flaws and lack reproducibility. When critically examined, the data from these studies do not hold up to rigorous scientific standards. They fail to provide convincing evidence that the mind can exist or function independently of the brain. For example, a comprehensive review by Mobbs and Watt (2011) in “Trends in Cognitive Sciences” analyzed the physiological and neurological underpinnings of NDEs, concluding that these experiences can be attributed to brain function rather than any extracorporeal existence.

In conclusion, the notion of an independent spirit or soul is not supported by empirical evidence. Cognitive science and neuroscience provide a robust framework demonstrating that the mind is an emergent property of brain activity. The consistent and replicable findings across numerous studies indicate that without brain functionality, there is no mind functionality. This reality challenges deeply held religious beliefs and underscores the need for evidence-based understanding of human consciousness.

---

We welcome you to discuss this topic further in the comments section. Let’s engage in a rigorous and respectful debate on the nature of the mind, brain, and the unfounded claims of the spirit and soul’s independence.