Comparing Christian Philosopher 'Richard Swinburne And Tim O' Connor

515 Words3 Pages
In this two Christian philosophers, Richard Swinburne and Tim O'Connor, discussed the concept of neuroscience and the soul. The first philosopher, Swinburne, believed in the idea of substance dualism while O’Conner supported the argument for emergent individualism. Swinburne starts off by saying one’s physical body is simply the vehicle we interact with the world while the real essence of a person lies within their soul. When it comes to Swinburne’s belief on the soul after death I am reminded of Phaedo and how death will only bring about separation of body and soul. Plato’s view of the soul being naturally immortal can been seen as coherent with Swinburne because according to him the soul continues to exist after death. As the body decays the soul goes on. He says God preserves the soul, while on the other hand, O’Conner has a completely different theory. O’Conner says that he does not necessarily know how God may preserve one’s soul and then goes on to say that he believes that the matter that composes a person is fissioned upon the moment of death and the copy that is created is…show more content…
His theory just seems more plausible. Also Plato’s writing appear to coincide with his ideas too. Another disagreement with these two Christian Philosophers was the importance of the soul on a person’s actions and thoughts. Both seem to want to agree with the idea that a person has free will in their choice making, but O’Conner says the emergent view shows a limited measure of autonomy. In other words our brains decide for us due to natural responses. Swinburne’s dualism supports the idea of free will more and says we determine our actions not just chemicals in our brain. Again I have to say I am in favor of Swinburne’s ideas. While there is still a lot we do not know about the brain, I still live to be under the impression that we have some control over what happens in our own
Open Document