Abstract
Many Christians assume that there are only two possibilities for what a human person is: either Animalism (the view that we are fundamentally animals) or Immaterialism (the view that we are fundamentally immaterial souls). I set out a third possibility: the Constitution View (the view that we are material beings, constituted by bodies but not identical to the bodies that now constitute us.) After setting out and briefly defending the Constitution View, I apply it to the doctrine of resurrection. I conclude by giving reasons for Christians to prefer the Constitution View of human persons to both Animalism and Immaterialism.
Cite
CITATION STYLE
Baker, L. R. (2001). Material persons and the doctrine of resurrection. Faith and Philosophy, 18(2), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.5840/faithphil20011821
Register to see more suggestions
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.