Peter van Inwagen: Problems of Materialistic Explanation of Doctrine of Resurrection of the Dead

Abstract

This article is a commentary on the Russian translation of Peter van Inwagen's paper, The Possibility of Resurrection. Usually, the resurrection, van Inwagen thinks, is presented as the process in which God collects atoms that made up human bodies and restores them to places that occupied each other at a time when these people were still alive (“quasi-Aristotelian story”). However, van Inwagen holds that if this explanation is true, then resurrected man is not the same man that has died since some time before the Day of the Lord. In defense of this thesis, the philosopher presents three arguments. Firstly, it is possible to destroy not only the body as a composite whole but its particular elements as well (for example, as in the cases of complete decomposition or cremation). Secondly, even if the body's elements survived during the time before the Second Coming of Christ, they could become elements of the bodies of other living beings. Thirdly, one should not forget about the regular renewal of our bodies at the cellular level. As a preliminary solution, van Inwagen offers the Theory of Simulacra, according to which God “removes” the human corpse and transfers it to another place, replacing the latter with some visual appearance; this ensures the preservation of atoms from which, upon the offset of the Judgment Day, the flesh of deceased will be restored. The ontological and theological problems articulated by van Inwagen cause the discussion around the consistency of the materialistic explanation of the Christian doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead. The different approaches to solving the Problem of Resurrection at different times were proposed by Dean Zimmerman (the “Falling Elevator” model), Lynn Baker (constitutionalism), Trenton Merricks (thesis of the interdependence of belief about the materiality of the human person, and faith in the resurrection in the flesh). In 1997, van Inwagen wrote post scriptum, in which he linked problems with the materialistic explanation of resurrection with the lack of a certain conceptual apparatus, which may appear at our disposal shortly against the backdrop of the further development of natural sciences and philosophy.