Christian Anthropology

Christian Anthropology Introduction This essay will explore, from the perspective of Catholic anthropology, the Churchs views on resurrection. The paper begins by looking at Platos dualist theory of the soul and its impact on the development of thinking. The views of Aristotle and his influence on the writings of St Thomas Aquinas on the nature of the human soul. It will also explore the notion of the whole person and then relate this to different anthropological approaches. The essay will conclude with the teaching of the Catholic Church Magisterium. Plato Dualism In the tradition of philosophy there are two main views of human beings; Dualism where immaterial soul and material body meet and Materialism where we are one being. (Selman 2000, pg13). The Father of Dualism may be said to be Plato who lived in Athens from around 428-347 BC and who was, as far we are aware, the first to write on the subject of the soul at any length. Plato presents at least two theories. The best known, because of its enduring influence, was the one he developed in the Phaedo, which describes a dialogue his friend Socrates has with some friends shortly before his death on what happens at death. Selman (2000, pg 12) states that there are two main theories about the human body and its relationship with the soul. One of these is the dualist view, which suggests that there is a total division between the immaterial soul and the material body. The other is the idea that the body and soul of a human being are completely unified. In his theory, through the words of Socrates, Plato holds that the soul is separate from the body, is immortal, immaterial and pre exists the body and therefore does not depend on the body for its existence or survival. This concept -that the body and soul are two different entities, which happen to uncomfortably occupy the same space during life -is termed dualism. Platos theory goes further by elevating the role of the soul. The pre existent, immortal soul spends time in the body -a period of punishment -and death releases the soul from its exile in the body. Not surprisingly, Platos concept of dualism produced difficulties for early Christian philosophers and theologians, although his views were not unpopular and his view of the soul remained the dominant one in Christian thinking for the first thousand years (Selman 2000, pg15). Aristotle Aristotle was another philosopher who tried to explain the idea of the body and mind. Even though Aristotle was a pupil of Plato, his thoughts on dualism were very different from that of Plato. He still believed that the soul was the part of the body that gives it life and that the soul turned all physical form into a living organism of its particular type. However Aristotle believed that the body and soul were inseparable, the soul still develops peoples skills, character and temper, but it cannot survive death. Once the body dies then the soul dies with it. The soul is the form of the body, because it is what makes the body be a living body (Selman 2000, pg17). Aristotle developed the concept that the soul was the principle of life and life is manifest in activity. From these activities, he distinguished three types of soul: vegetative, sensitive and rational. Plants have the basic or vegetative soul allowing them to grow and reproduce. Animals have a sensitive soul enabling them to grow, reproduce, and experience sensation and movement. Humans have a rational soul, which enables them to grow, reproduce, and experience sensation and movement and to think, reason and understand. In all it is the type of soul, which defines the form of the body and thus body and soul are untied as one being. (Selman 2000, pg 19). For Aristotle then a body without a soul is dead matter. Dead matter no longer acts. It is only acted upon. While Aristotle could see that the body and soul were united he could not make the leap to speak about an immortal soul. This would be left to later philosophers such as Aquinas who would consider this point from a Christian perspective. Aquinas agreed with Aristotle in the sense that he thought that the soul animated the body and gave it life and he called the soul the anima. Aquinas believed that that the soul operated independently of the body and that things that are divisible into parts, are destined to decay. As the soul is not divisible, it is able to survive death. However, because of the link with a particular human body, each soul becomes individual so even when the body does die, the soul once departed still retains the individual identity of the body it once occupied. Descartes believed the soul retains its nature in the absence of the body but Aquinas argued that the disembodied soul is in an unnatural state. The human soul is naturally the form of the living body. Now that the soul is what makes our body live; so the soul is the primary source of all these activities that differentiate levels of life: growth, sensation, movement, understanding mind or soul, it is the form of our body (St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theological). St Augustine, like most of the Church fathers, was influenced by the teaching of Plato who considered that the body and soul were two substances. (Selman 2000, pg 18), St Augustine held that the soul, like the body, is derived from the parents in the act of creation. According to Augustine, original sin is transmitted from Adam down through the ages in this way. This is the way in which he explains how original sin could exist in a soul created by God because God could only create that which was good. He later renounced his view that the soul is traduced. This heresy was condemned by the Council of Braga in 561 which stated that the soul is not traduced but is directly created by God (Neuner and Dupuis, pg 167). The title phrase introduces the idea of the whole person as opposed to parts of a person, which requires us to discuss how a person could be understood to be in parts. The most common way to talk about the relationship of the body to soul is Cartesian dualism, of the separateness of the two. Cartesian dualism comes from Descartes, who in fact first argued that the body and mind,soul were separate and distinct so that he would be able to continue making medical advances without the interference of the Church. In saying that the body and soul were separate he made the soul the domain of the Church, leaving secular scientists to look at the body, whereas before secular scientists had been looked at with suspicion or even imprisoned for trying to make discoveries However, dualism has a longer history than this even in the West, with Plato and other classical philosophers discussing ideas about the material world as a shadow world of a pure world of ideas. This could be seen as another wa y of describing the sinfulness of the material world body and the perfection of heaven, which will be the eventual home of the soul, freed from its imperfect trappings (The way of perfection by St Teresa of Avila CH 1 17). The Resurrection of the Flesh The quote in the title comes from the The Reality of Life after Death, written by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1979 and published amongst the Vatican II writings in 1982. It refers to the teaching of the Catholic Church of the resurrection of the flesh, in which it is not just the soul, which survives after death, but the body as well. This can be related to other Catholic teachings, such as its tradition about Mary, who ascended bodily into heaven (LG 58), and teachings about the role of the flesh and denial of the flesh in salvation. Tertullian, talks extensively about the role of the body in salvation, making a claim for the potential purity of the flesh by pointing out that man was made of flesh before the fall: the clay, therefore, was obliterated and absorbed into flesh. When did this happen? At the time that man became a living soul by the inbreathing of God (Tertullian 2004, pg 49). He also shows the link between the actions of the flesh and the state of salvation of the soul: the flesh, indeed is washed, in order that the soul may be cleansed, the flesh is signed with the cross, that the soul too may be fortified the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may fatten on its God. (Tertullian 2004, pg 63) His intention is to show the relationship between body and soul, to assert that resurrection at the end of days will be bodily, and to extol the mortification of the flesh in the name of Christ, but in talking so extensively of the differences between the two. Selman (2000, pg 60) states that the human body can be raised up on the last day because it will be joined once again to its soul which has remained in existence since they were separated at death. Furthermore, if the soul is not immortal then there can be no Resurrection (Selman 2000, pg 60). For Aquinas, when God raises the dead on the last day, souls will be reunited with what is materially continuous with what came from the mothers womb Selman (2000, pg 59) states that the same person can be raised up because the body will be restored to the same form as it originally had in this life. The above views contrast very differently to, for example, the attitude of the Mormon church, as studied by Fanella Cannell (2005, pg 335- 51 ) . In her article The Christianity of Anthropology, she looks at the assumptions in anthropology, which are descended from its Christian background a particular sort of Christian background though. The Mormon Church show how the same teachings can be interpreted in different ways and that dualism is not necessarily, what Christianity has to result in. Not only do Mormons believe in full, literal resurrection, but also they believe that heaven is going to be exactly like earth, but perfected. In particular, they believe that people will continue to have children and families into eternity, and it is legitimate to ask questions like will there be chocolate in heaven? a question that most other denominations of Christianity would view to be frivolous or inappropriate Church Teaching Magisterium The Catechism (365) declares that the unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the form of the body. The Council of Vienne (1312) refuted all other doctrines, which were not consistent with this declaration (CCCC 365). The Lateran Council (1513) also condemned any philosophies, which denied that the soul is essentially the form of the human body (CCC 366). The The Second Vatican Council (GS 14) declared that man made of body and soul is a unity. Furthermore, the human body is not to be despised as it is part of Gods Creation (Gen 2:7) and will be raised up on the last day. St Paul said that the human body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 3:16). As a result it should never be undermined, or seen as something that separates humanity from God. Vatican II teaching of the soul as a very separate entity to the soul: we believe that the souls of all those who die in the grace of Christ, whether they must still make expiation in the fire of Purgatory, or whether from the moment they leave their bodies they are received by Jesus into Paradise like the good thief, go to form that People of God. (Austin Flannery 1982, 394). By using the phrase leave their bodies, Vatican II demonstrates that they see the soul and body as detachable. Even if the body is to be resurrected eventually, it is still the soul that gets to heaven first, after leaving the body behind (Teaching notes Perth). Conclusion In considering the question, I have looked at the nature of the soul from main philosophies of the soul as put forward by Plato and Aristotle. I have shown how Augustine, Tertullian, and Thomas Aquinas to present a Christian anthropology. I have contrasted this view with the Mormon Church and their belief of the resurrection. I have found that the Magisterium, in seeking to hold true to revelation and Biblical tradition, has preferred to use the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas, which holds that the soul is the form of the body. The soul is with the body now and will be again after the resurrection from the dead Bibliography Wansbrough, Henry. 1994.(gen ed) The New Jerusalem Bible. London: Darton, Longman Todd Flannery Austin, O. P. 1982. Vatican Council II Vol 2. New York: Costello Publishing Co. Neuner J. and Dupuis J. 2001. The Christian Faith. New York: St. Pauls/Alba House The Catechism of the Catholic Church. 1994 London: G. Chapman Aquinas, St Thomas. Summa Theologica Part Ia q.75 articles 2 and 6; and q.76 art1. Tertullian, 2004. On the Resurrection of the Flesh. Kessinger Publishers. Cannell, F. 2005. The Christianity of Anthropology Anthropology Today 43: 335-51 Selman, Francis. et al.2002. Christian Anthropology. Birmingham: Maryvale Inst Internet International Theological Commission. (2002) Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God. (online) Available from: Vatican web (April 2008) Saint Teresa of Avila. The way of perfection. (1995) (online) Available from: http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/saints/wayperf.htm. (April 2008)

The Ethics of Belief

Argumentative Essay on â€Å"The Ethics of Belief† PHIL 2641 Online – Section 001 February 13, 2008 William K. Clifford sets out to show in â€Å"The Ethics of Belief† that â€Å"it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence†¦Ã¢â‚¬  In this paper, I will show that his argument lacks key definitions needed in order to found his inference upon and that it begs the question as to what qualifies as â€Å"insufficient† evidence. Furthermore, I will show that the primary issue is not the belief but the results of the belief that is important and that all judgment and interpretation should be based upon said results. Clifford introduces his argument by using the example of a shipbuilder who allows his ship to be used on a transoceanic voyage despite its age and the supposed need for repair. The vessel sinks and Clifford asserts that the ship owner is guilty of the death of the passengers because his belief in the ship’s seaworthiness was unsupported and ill-founded. However, there are several problems with his conclusion. First, Clifford ignores the ship owner’s reliance on the vessel’s past sailing history as being sufficient evidence as to its stable condition. The fact that the vessel had made many a voyage without incident can be viewed as sufficient proof of its ability to set sail safely. This begs the question, â€Å"How can one determine what constitutes sufficient evidence? † The ship owner by relying on the history of the ship alone could have met his obligation. A second problem with Clifford’s argument is that he likely oversimplified the cause of the ship’s sinking. Perhaps the ship sank because there was a collision with another ship. Perhaps it sank because it struck an iceberg in the water. It may have sunk because of human error. In all of these scenarios no amount of fortification of the ship’s structure would have Argumentative Essay on â€Å"The Ethics of Belief† Page 2 of 3 prevented the demise of the voyage. Any one or combination of these causes could have been responsible for the ship’s fate, yet the ship’s age and need for repair is identified as the sole cause of the ship’s sinkage. Finally, Clifford fails to address the source of the ship owner’s doubt and therefore leaves a multitude of unanswered questions. If the question of right or wrong has to do with the origin of belief and whether or not one has the right to believe in the first place, then would the ship owner have been culpable had the doubts about the ship’s condition not been introduced? Is a person required to investigate EVERY doubt or question that is raised by another, which directly or indirectly impacts their belief? What if the source of doubt is unreliable? Without properly addressing these questions it is difficult to determine what the ship owner’s (or anyone else’s) responsibility was in the first place. This, I assert, is the fundamental problem with Clifford’s argument. To implicitly assume that one is guilty for simply believing without â€Å"sufficient† evidence can not be easily determined because the standards and thus the determination for â€Å"right† and â€Å"wrong† are too vague. The solution follows immediately. Since a person can have a different belief at any given point in time and there is no metric by which to determine the sufficiency of evidence upon which they are based, it is not the belief that is to be judged, but rather the action and the positive or negative impact upon society that results from it. Clifford’s primary concern was how beliefs impact humanity, and the impact can only be determined by assessing actions, not beliefs. Argumentative Essay on â€Å"The Ethics of Belief† Page 3 of 3 We can now see that Clifford’s uncogent argument is the result of a lack of clarity as to how one could determine whether or not given evidence was sufficient and the vagueness surrounding the definitions of â€Å"right† and â€Å"wrong†. In its amended form, however, the argument is valid and can serve as a useful tool to determine and measure the overall impact beliefs have on society. My central argument is an inductive argument. Here are the premises and the conclusion: Premise 1: Premise 2: Conclusion: There are no clear metrics to measure the sufficiency of evidence from which a person’s beliefs are derived. Actions and their impacts on society are definite and measurable. Therefore, people should probably be judged based upon their actions and not their beliefs. My argument is cogent because my premises are true and it is improbable that my conclusion is false. Furthermore, no evidence which would have rendered a different conclusion has been ignored.

The Legacy Of Louise De Koven Bowen - 1873 Words

Yasmeen Alzate Period 8 Ms. Thomas AP U.S. History December 2014 The legacy of Louise De Koven Bowen Historical question: How did Louise De Koven Bowen’s contributions to inner city youth make an impact, not only then, but for juveniles and women today? Louise De Koven Bowen made several contributions toward bettering juvenile court for delinquents, giving women’s rights in Chicago, making sure youth had a positive environment to develop in, plus her association to the hull house and all of which contributed to why her legacy lives on not just back then but even today through all she did for the betterment of conditions for inner city youth. The Chicagoan Louise De Koven Bowen dedicated her life to educating women about†¦show more content†¦She held over thirty official leadership positions including founding member and president of the Women’s City Club in Chicago, vice president of the United Charities of Chicago, and auditor of the National American Woman s Suffrage Association. She also remained dedicated to Hull-House. She personally funded the construction of two settlement buildings, the Women’s Club and the Boy’s Club, and donated a seventy-two acre summer campsite in memory of her husb and who died in 1911. Bowen was a suffragette, author, children’s activist, philanthropist, feminist, wife, and mother of four, Bowen committed herself to helping those less fortunate. She wrote Safeguard for Youth at Work or at Play addressed the need for regulating drugs and providing a better environment for all children. Growing Up with a City discussed Louise’s involvement in the struggle for women’s and children’s rights. At the time, children were treated unequally within the legal system; thus, Bowen, along with other women who were reformers and the Chicago Bar Association, fought to separate delinquent children from adult offenders. The JPA disseminated public health and social welfare papers, and Louise served as president of the JPA for 25 years. Bowen, not only worked for the rights of young delinquents, but also encouraged young women to seek employment in government. She wanted to show that woman too had an opportunity to become involve d in any form of government. Her

250 Million Years of Turtle Evolution

In a way, turtle evolution is an easy story to follow: the basic turtle body plan arose very early in the history of life (during the late Triassic period), and has persisted pretty much unchanged down to the present day, with the usual variations in size, habitat, and ornamentation. As with most other types of animals, though, the turtle evolutionary tree includes its share of missing links (some identified, some not), false starts, and short-lived episodes of gigantism. Turtles That Werent: Placodonts of the Triassic Period Before discussing the evolution of genuine turtles, its important to say a few words about convergent evolution: the tendency of creatures that inhabit roughly the same ecosystems to develop roughly the same body plans. As you probably already know, the theme of squat, stubby-legged, slow-moving animal with a big, hard shell to defend itself against predators has been repeated numerous times throughout history: witness dinosaurs like Ankylosaurus and Euoplocephalus and giant Pleistocene mammals like Glyptodon and Doedicurus. This brings us to the placodonts, an obscure family of Triassic reptiles closely related to the plesiosaurs and pliosaurs of the Mesozoic Era. The poster genus for this group, Placodus, was an unremarkable-looking creature that spent most of its time on land, but some of its marine relatives--including Henodus, Placochelys, and Psephoderma--looked uncannily like genuine turtles, with their stubby heads and legs, hard shells, and tough, sometimes toothless beaks. These marine reptiles were as close as you could get to turtles without actually being turtles; sadly, they went extinct as a group about 200 million years ago. The First Turtles Paleontologists still havent identified the exact family of prehistoric reptiles that spawned modern turtles and tortoises, but they do know one thing: it wasnt the placodonts. Lately, the bulk of the evidence points to an ancestral role for Eunotosaurus, a late Permian reptile whose wide, elongated ribs curved over its back (a striking adumbration of the hard shells of later turtles). Eunotosaurus itself seems to have been a pareiasaur, an obscure family of ancient reptiles the most notable member of which was the (completely unshelled) Scutosaurus. Until recently, fossil evidence linking the land-dwelling Eunotosaurus and the giant, marine turtles of the late Cretaceous period was sorely lacking. That all changed in 2008 with two major discoveries: first up was the late Jurassic, western European Eileanchelys, touted by researchers as the earliest marine turtle yet identified. Unfortunately, only a few weeks later, Chinese paleontologists announced the discovery of Odontochelys, which lived a whopping 50 million years earlier. Crucially, this soft-shelled marine turtle possessed a full set of teeth, which subsequent turtles gradually shed over tens of millions of years of evolution. (A new development as of June 2015: researchers have identified a late Triassic proto-turtle, Pappochelys, that was intermediate in form between Eunotosaurus and Odontochelys and thus fills an important gap in the fossil record!) Odontochelys prowled the shallow waters of eastern Asia about 220 million years ago; another important prehistoric turtle, Proganochelys, pops up in the western European fossil record about 10 million years later. This much bigger turtle had fewer teeth than Odontochelys, and the prominent spikes on its neck meant that it couldnt fully retract its head under its shell (it also possessed  an ankylosaur-like clubbed tail). Most important, the carapace of Proganochelys was fully baked: hard, snug and pretty much impervious to hungry predators. The Giant Turtles of the Mesozoic and Cenozoic Eras By the early Jurassic period, about 200 million years ago, prehistoric turtles and tortoises were pretty much locked into their modern body plans, though there was still room for innovation. The most notable turtles of the Cretaceous period were a pair of marine giants, Archelon and Protostega, both measuring about 10 feet long from head to tail and weighing about two tons. As you might expect, these giant turtles were equipped with broad, powerful front flippers, the better to propel their bulk through the water; their closest living relative is the much smaller (less than one ton) Leatherback. You have to fast-forward about 60 million years, to the Pleistocene epoch, to find prehistoric turtles that approached the size of this duo (this doesnt mean that  giant turtles werent around in the intervening years, just that we havent found much evidence). The one-ton, southern Asian Colossochelys (formerly classified as a species of Testudo) can pretty much be described as a plus-sized Galapagos tortoise, while the slightly smaller Meiolania from Australia improved on the basic turtle body plan with a spiked tail and a huge, weirdly armored head. (By the way, Meiolania received its name--Greek for little wanderer--in reference to the contemporary Megalania, a two-ton monitor lizard.) The turtles mentioned above all belong to the cryptodire family, which accounts for the vast majority of marine and terrestrial species. But no discussion about prehistoric turtles would be complete without a mention of the aptly named Stupendemys, a two-ton pleurodire turtle of Pleistocene South America (what distinguishes pleurodire from cryptodire turtles is that they pull their heads into their shells with a sideways, rather than a front-to-back, motion). Stupendemys was far and away the largest freshwater turtle that ever lived; most modern side-necks weigh about 20 pounds, max! And while were on the subject, lets not forget the comparably ginormous Carbonemys, which may have done battle with the giant prehistoric snake Titanoboa 60 million years ago in the swamps of South America.