Imago Dei, Dualism, and Evolution: A Philosophical Defense of the Structural Image of God: with Helen De Cruz and Yves De Maeseneer, “The Imago Dei: Evolutionary and Theological Perspectives”; Aku Visala, “Imago Dei, Dualism, and Evolution: A Philosophical Defense of the Structural Image of God”; Olli-Pekka Vainio, “Imago Dei and Human Rationality”; Johan De Smedt and Helen De Cruz, “The Imago Dei as a Work in Progress: A Perspective from Paleoanthropology”; Tom Uytterhoeven, “Co-creating Co-creators? The ‘Human Factor’ in Education”; Johan De Tavernier, “Morality and Nature: Evolutionary Challenges to Christian Ethics”; and Taede A. Smedes, “Emil Brunner Revisited: On the Cognitive Science of Religion, the Imago Dei, and Revelation.”
Most contemporary theologians have distanced themselves from views that identify the image of God with a capacity or a set of capacities that humans have. This article examines three arguments against the structural view and finds them wanting. The first argument is that the structural view entails...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Wiley-Blackwell
2014
|
| In: |
Zygon
Year: 2014, Volume: 49, Issue: 1, Pages: 101-120 |
| Further subjects: | B
Mind
B Physicalism B Evolution B Evolutionary Psychology B Theological Anthropology B image of God (imago Dei) B Philosophy |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | Most contemporary theologians have distanced themselves from views that identify the image of God with a capacity or a set of capacities that humans have. This article examines three arguments against the structural view and finds them wanting. The first argument is that the structural view entails mind/body dualism and dualism is no longer viable given neuroscience and contemporary philosophy. Against this, I argue that contemporary forms of dualism are able to circumvent such worries and are at least prima facie plausible. The second claim is that structural views end up disvaluing the human body and our relatedness. Here, I argue that neither the structural view nor dualism has such consequences. The third issue consists of various evolutionary worries that have to do with the lack of a clear-cut boundary between human capacities and the capacities of nonhuman animals. As a response, the article argues that although there might not be a clear-cut set of capacities that all humans share, we could still have a notion of human distinctiveness that is sufficient for the structural image of God. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1467-9744 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Zygon
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/zygo.12063 |