Book Review: Are We Bodies or Souls? by Richard Swinburne

Introduction:

In Are We Bodies or Souls? Richard Swinburne addresses the question of whether or not human persons are merely physical beings. This has apologetic relevance because skeptics often take aim at the concept of the soul, instead arguing that humans are nothing more than their physical bodies. Swinburne argues that this is not the case, and he does so through a thought experiment of split-brain transplants, a situation he concludes demonstrates the dualistic nature of human persons.

It should be noted upfront, however, that this book is rigorous and thorough. As a result, much of Swinburne’s argument relies upon a series of carefully-constructed definitions of terms. At times this may seem burdensome as definitions occasionally take up the bulk of the text on a given page. But the reader will be rewarded for carefully following through the thought process.

The Argument

Swinburne opens the book with a brief overview of the distinction between physicalist and dualist understandings of human persons. Physicalism maintains that human persons are essentially physical, not unlike machines. Dualism, by contrast, maintains that human persons are not merely physical but instead are, at least in part, non-physical. Swinburne takes the position that human persons are, in essence, non-physical but interact using physical bodies.

The main problem Swinburne seeks to address is the problem of personal identity. Physicalism struggles to make sense of the phenomenon of maintaining personal identity through tie. The leading approach is to define identity in terms of apparent memories. Swinburne, in response, outlines an argument based on hypothetical partial brain transplants that undermines such physicalist proposals. Substance dualism, he says, is the only solution. 

In outlining the argument, Swinburne begins with a crash course on philosophical terminology. He covers substances, properties, possibility, necessity, contingency, and a whole host of additional terms. He further explains the differences between various types of physicalism and dualism (for example, “property dualism” is different from “substance dualism”). Of importance to Swinburne’s argument is the distinction between a mental event – that which is not publicly accessible – and a physical event – that which is publicly accessible. It follows from this deep dive that human beings cannot be purely physical because each person has first-person access to their experiences in a way that is not publicly accessible and therefore must be mental events. Furthermore, Swinburne goes so far as to say that persons are essentially pure mental substances.

Swinburne next discusses various theories of personal identity. Strong Body theories maintain that the parts that make up a person’s body are minimally maintained through a gradual process of part replacement. Strong Brain theories maintain that identity is grounded in the neurons of a person’s brain, which do not normally divide to form new cells. Pure mental theories ground personal identity in the continuity of one’s memories. Ultimately, Swinburne finds these models wanting and argues that personal identity is simple, meaning that “there are no necessary or sufficient conditions for personal identity in terms of the degree of any feature of which there can be degrees.”

The focus of the discussion shifts to the Descartes’s argument for personal identity. After engaging with some criticisms and updating the argument, Swinburne concludes that what follows is that the only essential property of his identity is the capacity of thought. He contrasts this Cartesian version of substance dualism with that of Thomas Aquinas, who held that neither the body nor the soul composed a complete human being but did so together. Swinburne argues in favor of Cartesian substance dualism.

The next discussion springboards off of the Cartesian conclusion that “I” am thinking and dives headfirst into proving that it is “I” who is doing the thinking. Swinburne demonstrates this by distinguishing between informative and uninformative designators – those designating terms for which we know what they refer and those for which we don’t – and argues that first-person mental experiences are always the former. Thus, we have knowledge that it is “I” who is thinking. 

Heading to a close, Swinburne addresses the question of mind/brain interactions. Throughout this section, he demonstrates scenarios in which both brain events cause mental events and mental events cause brain events. He ultimately goes so far as to say that one cannot logically maintain that mental events cause brain events.

In the final chapter Swinburne addresses myriad questions that arise from a substance dualist view. Of special interest s the question of when a human person comes into existence and when a human person exits existence. Swinburne’s position is that one’s brain must be capable of sustaining consciousness in order for one to be a person. 

In Conclusion

Overall this is an interesting and challenging read. For those who are seriously interested in philosophy of mind, this book deserves a spot in their library. But it is not for the faint of heart. Many pages need to be read multiple times in order to fully grasp the train of thought being put forth. With that said, I wouldn’t ultimately call the arguments in this book convincing to the average person. This is not because they are obviously flawed, but because they are incredibly detailed, and if any component is missed the conclusions can be hard to understand. But this is to be expected since Are We Bodies or Souls? is a work of pure philosophy of the highest caliber. So whomever reads this book ought to know what he or she is in for already. 

Type at least 1 character to search
Catch the AP315 Team Online:

The mission of Apologetics 315 is to provide educational resources for the defense of the Christian faith, with the goal of strengthening the faith of believers and engaging the questions and challenges of other worldviews.

Defenders Media provides media solutions to an alliance of evangelistic ministries that defend the Christian worldview. We do this by elevating the quality of our members’ branding to match the excellence of the content being delivered.