I am a Reformed Christian, confident in my faith and in the rationality of God’s creation. Nevertheless, I have lots of unanswered philosophical questions, especially about anthropology. None of these questions trouble me in any deep way, nor do they particularly cause me to doubt Reformed doctrine and ethics (let alone basic Christian doctrine). But they are persistent itches in my mind which I haven’t figured out how to scratch. In the past I was more fond of neo-Thomist/Aristotelian philosophy, and I tried unsuccessfully to answer these questions using that framework (you can see that bias below). These days I no longer call myself a Thomist/Aristotelian, even though I sometimes borrow their terminology out of habit or convenience (or lack of alternatives). Today I am quicker to simply say “I don’t know” philosophically. In one sense I am content not knowing, because I am not existentially disturbed by my finitude. But in another sense, I am healthily discontent, still looking for answers to these questions, ever curious and eager. I pray that God will give me answers to these questions and allow me to scratch these intellectual itches. Maybe somebody reading this will be able to help me out.
1. When does a human person begin?
If it begins at conception, then how do we explain identical twins? Wouldn’t that be an example of one person literally dividing into two people? If it’s after conception, then when and why? This is closely related to the question of traducian natural propagation of souls vs. special creation of souls. Which leads to my next big question…
2. Do souls actually exist? Is man a dual creature, or tripartite, or mono, or what?
Is the body different from the soul? What about mind and spirit? I’m decently confident that “personality” or psyche does not exist strictly speaking (what we call “personality types” are instead purely products of our generational environment, health, hormones, culture, upbringing, etc… in other words 100% nurture of various kinds and 0% nature). Perhaps what we call a “soul” is merely a useful verbal distinction and not actually separate from what we call our “body” in any way. Thomism/Aristotelianism attempts to defend a sort of dualism that’s hylomorphic and therefore more unified, but I increasingly wonder whether that’s just a word game trying to irrationally defend both anthropological dualism and monism at the same time. And speaking of “parts” of humanity…
3. Are maleness and femaleness part of human ontology, and if so what does that mean?
Is my maleness a permanent part of my essence? Will I actually be a male in the new creation? Will I have a penis? Will I engage in sexual intercourse? If I won’t, then why should I still have a penis? If there won’t be reproduction or families in the new creation, then what’s the point in me being male at all anymore? Will it be purely a vestige from the old creation with no other purpose for eternity? When Jesus said we won’t be given in marriage in the new creation, does that also imply we will effectively no longer be male and female in the new creation? If maleness is “part” of my essence, then is it something else alongside my soul and body etc., or is my maleness purely part of my body? How deep does my maleness go? If my maleness is essential to me, then does that mean that all men and women literally have different essence and are therefore literally different ‘species’ philosophically (can it really be so deep and essential as all that)? If my maleness is not part of my essence, then is it part of my accidens (can it really be so trivial as that)? Does the essence / accidens distinction even make sense philosophically?
4. What actually is the difference between human and animal?
What makes humans unique and sets us apart from animals, ontologically? I know Jesus died for us and became one of us, and humans will be resurrected and live forever (whereas we don’t know if animals will be) …but what ARE we exactly? I am speaking here of ontological differences. What makes a man more than a mere animal? We have language, yes, but some intelligent animals seem to have rudimentary language too. We make tools and use them, but some animals do the same in basic ways. We create art, but crows seem to do that as well. We think abstractly and solve problems, but animals seem to be capable of that to some extent as well—even a single ant seems to be capable of surprisingly complex problem solving! We are aware of God and worship Him, but how do we know animals don’t also have some (weak) awareness of God and engage in their own (simple) worship? Every human characteristic I can think of seems to be present in some form or other in animals. I want there to be an absolute difference between man and animal that I can describe straightforwardly, but all the characteristics I can think of seem to be merely distinctions of degree, not quality. Is it really just a difference of degree, shades of gray all the way down, with humans being so much blacker than the next shade of gray that there isn’t a significant contest? Are humans just super amazing animals that God chose to save? Maybe dolphins and parrots and chimps sin too, and God condemns all of them to hell, and God just hasn’t told us about that yet because it doesn’t concern us? Or maybe animals are simply incapable of sin because they’re so different and lowly?
5. Are individual cells in my body actually alive?
If I extract a cell from my body and put it in a petri dish and feed it, that cell will seem to take on a life of its own, responding to the world, eating, sensing, often multiplying, etc. What does that mean philosophically? Does the cell cease to be part of my spirit/body/whatever and miraculously become its own independent organism? If I put the cell back in my body and successfully re-absorb it, then does it revert to being part of me? Am I the only one who finds this weird?
6. Is the iron in my body actually iron, or is it me, or is it both?
Modern Aristotelians argue that when iron is absorbed into the cells or structure of your body, it literally ceases to be iron and instead becomes an iron-like part of your organism, i.e. its essence changes and from iron-essence to Brad-essence. Something like that. The details aren’t important, because my goal is not to attack or defend Aristotelians here. The point is, what actually is that iron in my body? Is it actually just iron? If so, wouldn’t the same apply to the calcium, and the hydrogen, and the oxygen, etc.? Similar to my question about cells, do each of my atoms remain independent atoms in their own right, or are they merely part of the unified-whole that is my organism? It seems like the Aristotelians are just playing word games to save their philosophy when they say my iron no longer remains iron, but if each atom remains exactly what it is and nothing more, then how can I be more than a collection of atoms? I clearly seem to be a lot more than just a collection of atoms; the whole is more than the sum of its parts. But where does that “whole” come from, and what is it?
Note: I recognize that some of these questions are more generically philosophical rather than strictly anthropological, but all of them can at least be viewed through the lens of anthropology, so I’ve grouped them that way.