Joshua, tell us a bit about yourself and your research interests.
I grew up in the broader St. Louis area. I was a military brat as they say. I went to school at Missouri Baptist University. From there I went on to study at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, then to the University of Bristol to study under Oliver D. Crisp (one of the forerunners of the Analytic Theology movement). During my doctoral work I focused on the relationship between human constitution and the origin of souls. This has probably been the area that has motivated the most interest across the disciplines of theology, philosophy, and science and religion. However, I have also done some work that motivates the new renaissance in idealism for philosophers and theologians. Additionally, I have research interests in science-engaged theology, theological anthropology, the beatific vision, Reformed theology, and atonement theology. My first book is a constructive theological exploration of Cartesianism in constitution and the origin of the soul studies. My second book is An Introduction to Theological Anthropology: Humans, Both Creaturely and Divine. My third book is The Creation of Self: A Case for the Soul, which makes an argument for the soul and that God is required as an explanation, even causal explanation.What have you worked on that feeds into The Creation of Self?
Aah, yes, well I’ve been thinking about the philosophy of mind, the mind body relation, and the nature of consciousness since my dissertation. I had an intuition about a particular view of the soul that yields not only theism, but yields creationism of souls where God is the direct and immediate cause of souls. Of course, this text draws more heavily from my philosophical works, but it is also theological in nature. It is a piece of natural theology, which provides an important contribution in the context of Consciousness arguments for God. At its heart, however, this is a deeply theological work. It is theological in the sense that it points the reader to God as the explanation for souls.What is the big picture in The Creation of Self?
The big picture has been suggested, but really it is all about the self as soul, which is ultimately theological in nature. It is not only controversial to talk about the soul and to defend it, but to argue for God. In fact, the argument that I make here raises additional questions about God’s relation to the world as well as how we understand the scientific method. Biological evolution, whatever you think of it or your commitments are, is insufficient to bring about individualized or personalized soul that is you. This is of course a ripe time to think about this as there is a lot going on in terms of consciousness studies, AI, soul studies, and so on. There is something about you that makes you you that is more than the generalities that you have. And, this is precisely why recent proposals of the self as a social construction, personality traits, animal body, the brain make a proposal like this controversial but also important. There is something about persons that is deeply theological.What is a soul?
A soul is a substance of a certain kind. Substances are property bearers, they have some independence from other particulars or objects. They are the bearers of mental events and are characterized as the type of things that make choices, has thoughts, experiences, and is characterized more by qualities than quantities.What are the main reasons you believe in the soul?
There is a question about the marks of the mental. I think these features require not only linguistic dualism (as different descriptions of the material), but property dualism and almost certainly logically presuppose a distinct type of substance of those features. These features include intentionality, privacy of the mental, introspection. These are features that seem, if they are true, to logically require a new substance—a thing that owns them, binds them, and is unlike that of the brain. Of course there are some who take the mental seriously who reject what you might call reductive physicalism, identity physicalism or eliminativism, and presume that the subject/individual remains material but the mind as a set of properties/capacities is totally new in nature. I think this is questionable and doesn’t work for a variety of reasons. One of the reasons is that the very modal intuitions we have about the possibility of survival, the distinctions between the substances, zombie and ghost intuitions require or, at a minimum, are best explained by a soul along the lines that I have described already.What brand of the soul do you affirm in The Creation of Self?
I affirm a brand often called Neo-Cartesian substance dualism in contrast to what some call hylemorphic dualism, Thomistic dualism or Kantian dualism.What is substance dualism?
Substance dualism, generally speaking, is the view that there exist two types of substances that are the bearers of distinct types of properties, the carriers of specific capacities and powers. These two include body and soul, but there are a variety of ways to make sense of them. My brand says that I am my soul or the core of me is my soul that has a body and interacts in deep and intimate ways with the body.What version of the mind-body are you affirming and how might this impact how we see God and how we do theology?
Neo-Cartesianism is a position not only on the soul but on the mind-body relation. I am strongly sympathetic to it, but that is not the main focus of the argument in the book. The argument of the book is more focused on the nature of the soul as an individualized thing, a substance of consciousness.. That being said, it seems to have implications for the mind-body relation (by mind I am largely taking as synonymous with the soul, but you might think of it more as a power of the soul). One of the implications is that the soul is so radically distinct from the body that it lends itself to not the sort of view called hylomorphism, at least not as it is normally construed along form-matter ontology, powers ontology or something of the sort. Rather the two substances are so different that they do not overlap, even if they are functionally integrated and fit for the other. But as John Foster noted: at one level there do seem to be reasons to affirm the functional integrity of the body and soul, yet there is not the scientific precision that can be given to it in say the way that you might give to brain mapping and explaining what is taking place when neurons fire and where they fire spatially. There is, in other words a reality there that we experience, but not one that should be construed along empirical lines. And, at one level the relation will point us back to God as fitting the two for the other. There is, then, a seeming of arbitrariness for some.What do you see as the relation between philosophy and theology and how does this map onto history?
I see them as complimentary and respecting certain domains of knowledge. In a representative way as we see in the older distinctions of natural knowledge and supernatural knowledge, although I prefer the latter to be called ‘particular’ knowledge but still have some place for supernatural with reference to the beatific vision. There is some overlap between the domains and while I am open to the possibility of a demonstrative natural theological argument for the Trinity I think that it is unlikely to be a strong argument and should be reserved for particular revelation. We can be sure that the Trinity is true based on particular revelation. That being said I would include other categories and topics as properly a part of particular revelation (e.g., sin, aspects of human nature, salvation, ecclesiology). While these subjects should be rigorously thought through with the categories of reason, good metaphysics, they are properly located as arising out of particular revelation. We can use outside tools to illuminate our understanding of particular revelation or even interrogate it, but natural revelation does not override or replace particular revelation. We need both. A part of what is so distinctive about particular revelation is the ‘particular’ truths it gives to us about God, namely the truths that we find in the concrete historical person Jesus Christ. It is here that we find a particular revelation that is, arguably, Sui generis and not properly a piece of natural revelation (although some have considered history a part of natural revelation in a way that seems to prioritize the one over the other, someone like Wolfhart Pannenberg).Do you discuss the modern question of subjectivity in your book?
Yes, in a round about way. The notion of subjectivity permeates the book and considers the unique contribution that you and I as individualized substances or subjects of consciousness make to the world. We are not just objects to be studied or harnessed empirically. We are more than that! And, these facts are not beholden to empirical methods. And yet these are the most important and interesting facts in the world. But if we give ourselves over to naturalism, we stand to lose not only clarity but insight that is given through persons, wisdom, traditions, and so on.How does this relate today, to modernity, and to the past?
It relates to modernity insofar as the question of subjectivity, the particular, personhood took up more interest by the philosophers. This is clearly seen in existentialism and the various problems of particularity that it raises. The question of whether or not machines could become like us is alive and well in modernity leading to today. Just think of the classic story of Frankenstein, which has become a more interesting and in the minds of many a live possibility due to artificial intelligence.How does this relate to the history of philosophy?
In part, I think it forces us to consider the nature of personhood, subjectivity more carefully.How does this relate to the history of Christian theology?
Related to my previous answer, theology must wrestle with the particularity of persons and the implications that has in terms of who we are and how we relate to God and the rest of creation. These are not objectified facts or commodities that can be handled or should be handled simply as scientific truths ready to be empirically verified or studied in a lab.Did anyone in Church history affirm the sort of view you are advancing?
Well, yes of course. I consider this view to be largely consistent with the Plato-Augustine-Calvin tradition and later taken up by Descartes in distinctive ways. After Descartes, of course there is a wide and varied reception of Descartes in what is known as the Cartesian tradition. There is of course a minority report of Cartesians in the Reformed tradition (i.e., they didn’t all follow Thomas on the question of human constitution).What are the main views you have as targets for criticism?
The main views that I aim at include all bottom up theories of how it is that humans, particularly, souls come into existence. Specifically, I have might eye to all naturalistic theories of subjects including the variant physicalisms, emergentisms, and more recently panpsychism.Do they map on to the history of philosophy and theology?
Yes, all of them (except maybe for emergentism as it is sometimes construed) finds support or traction in history.Are there similar insights into the history of Christian theology that impact how you think about these fringe views of the mind-body?
Yes, well, nearly everyone in the history of theology affirmed some aspect of Divine creationism because they saw the soul as ontologically unique and needing a distinct explanation. Building on that insight, its important to point out the truth of Divine causal explanations in our contemporary setting when the soul is regarded by many philosophers as passé.What about evolution? You mention it often in your book. Though I can’t speak for all Christians, I ask you this question knowing I speak for many Christians who would think about buying your book. I found the evolutionary hypothesis untenable. Scientifically, ministries such as Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis have gathered enormous empirical evidence against it, whether one likes it or not; exegetically and theologically, I think of Douglas F. Kelly’s impressive Creation And Change: Genesis 1:1–2:4 in the Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms, just to mention one example. What would you say to these readers?
Just to be clear, the aim of the argument isn’t to affirm Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or Evolutionary Creationism. My aim is more refined and could be compatible with any of the views listed. I specifically go after views of the mind that consider evolutionary mechanisms and the material worked with as sufficient for the arising of persons in biological history. To get more into the nitty gritty of biological development across history is a different issue and while there are connections, I don’t think the argument should exclude any of the parties from reading and engaging with the books argument. If anything, I show that evolutionary creationism requires a bit more explanatory resources and Divine action must be brought into the fore a bit more than their paradigm may allow.So, you are saying that, even assuming a picture where evolution happens (which is assumed by the views you are opposing), those views still would not be able to account for the existence of the soul and its workings?
Yes, precisely. That’s the point. Even if it were true, then it would not follow that souls could emerge in that climate. Their mechanisms, laws, and so on, are not sufficient explanations for the origination of souls or persons as immaterial substances of consciousness. They just are insufficient quite apart from what you think about the history of biological evolution.In conclusion: what do non-Christians and Christians gain from reading The Creation of Self?
Non-Christians are forced to take seriously the mind, the sufficiency of science, and the implications this has toward theism. There are important facts that are simply not present or foregrounded by empirical sciences. They are insufficient for arriving at knowledge of the world. We need the Creator God who is a designer of the world and we find a paradigm in the soul-body and it’s creation for thinking more robustly about persons. This latter point is important for Christians especially for those who are consumed with naturalism or have been influenced by its limiting space on our perceptions. This will of course help us to interact with Scripture as it relates to and sheds light on the created order.
