Chapter 33

Physicalism and the Conditional Immortality Movement

A Comprehensive Assessment

Introduction: A Word to My Fellow Conditionalists

I want to start this chapter with something that might surprise you. I am a conditionalist. I believe that immortality is a gift from God, not something baked into the human soul by default. I reject the traditional doctrine of eternal conscious torment — the idea that the unsaved suffer forever and ever in conscious agony without end. That view, I believe, fails to do justice to the biblical witness about God's character and the nature of final punishment. I hold to conditional immortality — the view that God alone possesses inherent immortality (1 Timothy 6:16) and that human beings receive everlasting life only as a gift of grace through Jesus Christ. Those who ultimately reject that gift will, after final judgment, cease to exist. I also remain open to the possibility of postmortem opportunity for salvation and to a conservative form of biblical universalism. But whatever position one takes on the final fate of the unsaved, I am firmly in the conditionalist camp when it comes to the nature of immortality itself.¹

So this chapter is not written as an outsider looking in. It is written by someone who shares the conditional immortality movement's most important convictions about the nature of immortality and the rejection of eternal conscious torment. I write as a friend, a fellow traveler, and a conversation partner — not as an opponent. And it is precisely because I care about the health and theological integrity of the CI movement that I want to raise a concern that I believe is urgent.

Here is the concern, stated as directly as I can: Many in the CI movement have adopted physicalism as their preferred view of human nature — the belief that human beings are entirely physical organisms with no immaterial soul. I believe this is a serious theological mistake. Not because conditional immortality requires dualism in order to work (though I will argue it is better served by dualism), but because physicalism creates devastating problems for orthodox Christology — problems that undermine the very Christian faith that conditionalists are seeking to defend.²

This chapter is designed to be self-contained. You can read it without having read any other chapter in this book. It summarizes the book's most important arguments against physicalism, specifically addressed to readers within the conditional immortality movement. My goal is not to attack conditionalism — I share it. My goal is to show that physicalism is an unnecessary and harmful addition to conditionalism, and that substance dualism provides a far better anthropological foundation for CI theology.

The Rise of Physicalism in the Conditional Immortality Movement

The conditional immortality movement has experienced remarkable growth over the past several decades. Scholars like Edward Fudge, whose landmark work The Fire That Consumes brought annihilationism into mainstream evangelical conversation, demonstrated through careful biblical exegesis that the traditional doctrine of eternal conscious torment is not as well-supported by Scripture as many had assumed.³ John Stott's cautious endorsement of conditional immortality in his 1988 dialogue with David Edwards brought further respectability to the position within evangelicalism.⁴ Organizations like Rethinking Hell have provided platforms for scholarly discussion, and a growing number of evangelical theologians, pastors, and laypeople have embraced some form of conditionalism.

Alongside this growth in CI theology, there has been a parallel trend: many conditionalists have adopted physicalism — sometimes called "Christian materialism" or "monism" — as their preferred anthropology. The reasoning seems natural at first glance. If the soul is inherently immortal, then it must exist forever, and if unsaved souls exist forever, they must be somewhere — which seems to lead back to eternal conscious torment. Physicalism appears to solve this problem neatly. If there is no soul, there is no entity that survives death apart from God's miraculous intervention. Immortality is entirely a divine gift. The unsaved simply cease to exist at death (or at judgment), because there is no immaterial soul to persist.⁵

This line of reasoning has been reinforced by the work of scholars like Nancey Murphy, who advocates a "nonreductive physicalism" in which the person is entirely constituted by the physical body, with mental and spiritual capacities understood as emergent functions of complex physical organization rather than properties of a separate soul-substance.⁶ Joel Green has offered similar arguments from a biblical-studies perspective, contending that the biblical writers did not hold a body-soul dualism but rather a holistic monism in which the person is an integrated whole without separable parts.⁷ These voices have been influential in the CI movement, giving conditionalists an apparently sophisticated philosophical and biblical framework that supports their rejection of the soul's inherent immortality.

I want to say clearly: I understand the appeal. The logic seems clean. No soul means no inherent immortality means conditional immortality. But I believe this reasoning rests on a false premise — the assumption that substance dualism requires the soul to be inherently immortal. It does not. And the cost of adopting physicalism to support conditional immortality is far higher than most conditionalists realize, because physicalism creates catastrophic problems for the doctrine of the Incarnation — problems so severe that they threaten the very foundations of Christian theology.

The Key Insight: Conditional Immortality Does Not Require Physicalism

This is the single most important point in this chapter, so let me develop it carefully. Many conditionalists have assumed that if the soul exists, it must be inherently immortal — and that inherent immortality leads inevitably back to eternal conscious torment. But this assumption confuses two different claims:

Claim 1: Human beings have immaterial souls that can survive bodily death. (This is substance dualism.)

Claim 2: Human souls are inherently, necessarily, and indestructibly immortal — they cannot cease to exist under any circumstances. (This is Platonic strong immortality.)

These are not the same claim. A substance dualist can affirm Claim 1 while rejecting Claim 2. The soul can be real, immaterial, and separable from the body — and still be contingent, dependent on God for its continued existence, and destructible by God's sovereign decision. As Joshua Farris observes, some Christians have held that the soul will naturally exist forever unless God acts to terminate its existence, while others have understood the soul's existence as contingent on a divine act of sustaining — without that sustaining, the soul would simply cease to exist.⁸

Even Descartes, the arch-dualist, emphasized the contingent and dependent nature of created human souls. The soul exists because God created it and sustains it. It is not self-existent. It is not divine. It does not share in God's necessary existence. God alone has inherent, necessary, underived immortality — as Paul declares in 1 Timothy 6:16: "who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light." The soul's continued existence after death is a gift of divine sustenance, not an intrinsic property of the soul's nature.⁹

John Cooper makes this point effectively in Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting. Cooper argues that the biblical doctrine of the intermediate state — the survival of the person between death and resurrection — is well-attested in Scripture and essential to Christian theology. But Cooper does not claim that the soul is inherently indestructible. The soul survives death because God sustains it, not because it possesses some intrinsic quality that makes it impossible for God to destroy it.¹⁰ Richard Swinburne similarly argues that while the soul is a distinct substance that can exist apart from the body, its continued existence is contingent on God's will. Souls exist because God creates and sustains them. They are not necessary beings.¹¹

What does this mean for conditional immortality? It means that a conditionalist can — and I believe should — hold the following position: The human soul is a real, immaterial substance created by God. It survives bodily death and is conscious in the intermediate state. But it is not inherently immortal. Its continued existence depends entirely on God's sustaining activity. God grants everlasting life to the redeemed — their souls (and eventually their reunited body-soul persons) will exist forever because God sustains them forever. The unredeemed, after final judgment, are not sustained. God withdraws His sustaining activity, and they cease to exist — body and soul. This is precisely what Jesus describes in Matthew 10:28: "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Notice: God can destroy the soul. The soul is not indestructible. But human beings cannot destroy it — only God can. This passage simultaneously affirms (a) the soul's distinction from and survival beyond the body and (b) the soul's destructibility by God. It is a dualist and conditionalist text at the same time.¹²

The point is clear: conditional immortality and substance dualism are fully compatible. Adopting physicalism to defend CI is not only unnecessary — it introduces devastating theological problems that far outweigh any perceived advantage. Let me now present those problems.

Problem 1: The Hypostatic Union and the Triduum Mortis

The first and most devastating problem that physicalism creates for orthodox Christianity has to do with what happened to Jesus Christ between His death on Good Friday and His resurrection on Easter Sunday — the period known as the triduum mortis (Latin for "three days of death"). This is where physicalism collapses as a Christological framework, and every Christian — including every conditionalist — needs to understand why.

Orthodox Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ is one divine Person — the eternal Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity — who possesses two complete natures: a divine nature and a human nature. This union of two natures in one Person is called the hypostatic union, and it was formally defined at the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. The Chalcedonian Definition states that the two natures are united in one Person "without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation." That last phrase — "without separation" — is crucial. The two natures cannot be pulled apart. The Incarnation is permanent.¹³

Now, on substance dualism, Christ's human nature consists of two components: a human body and an immaterial human soul. When Jesus died on the cross, His body and soul separated — as happens with every human being at death. But crucially, the Son of God remained united to both components. His human soul went to paradise (Luke 23:43) or descended to the dead (1 Peter 3:18-20; Ephesians 4:8-10; the Apostles' Creed). His human body lay in the tomb. Both remained the Son's. The hypostatic union was strained but not dissolved. The Incarnation continued without interruption throughout Holy Saturday.¹⁴

On physicalism, however, Christ's human nature is His physical body — nothing more. There is no immaterial soul. When the body died, it ceased to function. Brain activity stopped. Consciousness ceased. The living human organism that was Jesus of Nazareth became a corpse in a tomb. And here is the devastating question: What was the Son of God united to during Holy Saturday?

Some physicalists might respond: "The Son remained united to the body in the tomb." But think about what this means. A corpse is not a human nature. Dead biological matter is not a person. It has no consciousness, no will, no personality, no capacity for experience. If the Son was "united" to a corpse, what kind of union is that? The hypostatic union is a union of the divine with a complete human nature — not with dead tissue. As the contributors to Christian Physicalism? argue, the body in the tomb had no more claim to being a human nature than any other collection of organic molecules. The human nature, on physicalism, simply ceased to exist at death.¹⁵

Others might respond: "The triduum was so brief that it doesn't matter." But duration is irrelevant to the theological principle. If the Incarnation was interrupted for even one second, then the Chalcedonian "without separation" was violated. And 36 to 40 hours is not brief — it is a day and a half. The Incarnation either continued through Holy Saturday or it did not. On dualism, it continued, because the Son's human soul was alive and active. On physicalism, it did not, because there was nothing human left for the Son to be united to.¹⁶

This argument is developed in full detail in Chapters 21 and 22 of this book. But I want CI readers to feel the weight of it here. The triduum mortis is not an obscure theological puzzle. It is the most critical test of any Christological framework. What happened during those hours in the tomb determines whether the Incarnation is permanent or temporary — and on physicalism, the Incarnation turns out to be temporary. That is a Christological catastrophe.

Problem 2: The Descent to the Dead

Closely connected to the triduum problem is the question of Christ's descent to the dead. The Apostles' Creed affirms that Christ "descended into hell" (or "descended to the dead," as more recent translations render it). Scripture provides the basis for this affirmation in several passages.

In 1 Peter 3:18-20, we read: "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison." Notice the contrast: Christ was "put to death in the flesh" (His body died) but "made alive in the spirit" (His soul/spirit was alive and active). In this spiritual state, He "went and proclaimed" — He traveled somewhere and communicated with someone. He was active, purposeful, and fully conscious.¹⁷

In 1 Peter 4:6, we read: "For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead." The dead received the gospel — which requires a conscious subject to preach and conscious subjects to hear.

In Ephesians 4:8-10, Paul writes: "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men." Paul adds: "In saying, 'He ascended,' what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth?" Christ descended before He ascended. Something happened in the realm of the dead.

In Acts 2:27, 31, Peter quotes Psalm 16:10 with reference to Christ: "For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption." Peter's argument depends on Christ's soul (psychē, ψυχή) being in Hades — the realm of the dead — during the triduum, and being brought out of Hades at the resurrection.

On substance dualism, these passages make perfect sense. Christ's human soul, separated from His body at death, descended to the realm of the dead. There He was active — proclaiming, liberating captives, preaching the gospel to the dead. His soul was alive, conscious, and purposeful even while His body lay in the tomb. This is a coherent and powerful picture of Christ's saving work extending even into the realm of death itself.¹⁸

On physicalism, none of this is possible. If there is no soul, there is no Christ to descend anywhere between death and resurrection. The person Jesus simply ceased to exist when His body died. There is no subject to travel to Hades, no agent to proclaim anything to anyone, no savior to liberate captives. The descent to the dead becomes an empty doctrine — an article of the creed with no content. The entire biblical witness to Christ's activity during the triduum is rendered unintelligible.¹⁹

This argument is treated in full detail in Chapter 23. But its relevance for CI readers is direct: if you hold to physicalism, you must either deny the descent to the dead entirely or reinterpret these biblical passages so radically that they no longer describe what they plainly describe — a conscious Christ actively working in the realm of the dead. For those of us who take the biblical text seriously, this should be deeply troubling.

Problem 3: Personal Identity and the Resurrection

The third major problem for physicalism concerns the resurrection of Christ — and, by extension, our own future resurrection. The question is deceptively simple: Is the risen Jesus the same Jesus who died on the cross? On substance dualism, the answer is a clear yes. The same soul that animated Jesus' earthly body, that survived His death, that descended to the dead — that same soul was reunited with His transformed, glorified body at the resurrection. The soul provides the bridge of personal identity between the crucified Christ and the risen Christ. It is the same person because it is the same soul.²⁰

On physicalism, the answer is far less clear. If the person Jesus ceased to exist at death (because the body ceased to function and there is no soul to survive), and then a glorified body appeared on Easter Sunday, what is the relationship between the dead Jesus and the risen Jesus? Philosophers call this "the replica problem." If a person is completely destroyed and then an exact physical duplicate is created, the duplicate may look identical, think the same thoughts, and have the same memories — but is it the same person or merely a copy? An exact replica of you is not you. It is someone else who happens to be physically identical to you.

The problem is even more acute in Christ's case, because the resurrection body is not physically identical to the pre-death body. The glorified body has different properties. The pre-resurrection body could not pass through locked doors (John 20:19, 26). The pre-resurrection body was mortal; the post-resurrection body is immortal. Paul describes the transformation in 1 Corinthians 15:42-44: "It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body." If personal identity is constituted by the physical body, and the body has been fundamentally transformed, the continuity of personal identity is threatened.²¹

Physicalist philosopher Peter van Inwagen recognized this difficulty and proposed that God might need to preserve at least some physical matter from the original body to ensure personal identity — what critics have called the "body-snatching" hypothesis, in which God secretly removes biological material from the corpse and replaces it with a simulacrum. Dean Zimmerman has explored alternative materialist strategies. But all of these proposals are elaborate attempts to solve a problem that simply does not arise on dualism. The soul provides continuity. No body-snatching required.²²

For CI readers, this problem should be especially pressing. Conditionalists place great emphasis on the resurrection as the ultimate hope of the believer — not merely the survival of a disembodied soul, but the resurrection of the whole person, body and soul, to everlasting life. But if physicalism cannot guarantee that the risen person is the same person who died, then the resurrection hope is undermined. God's promise is not that He will create someone who looks like you. His promise is that you will rise. On dualism, that promise is secured by the continuous existence of the soul. On physicalism, it hangs by a metaphysical thread.

Problem 4: Christ's Sinlessness and the Pelagian Dilemma

The fourth problem concerns one of the most foundational claims of Christian theology: Jesus Christ was without sin. As Hebrews 4:15 declares, He was "one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." Second Corinthians 5:21 affirms that He "knew no sin." First Peter 2:22 states that "He committed no sin." First John 3:5 says, "In him there is no sin." Christ's sinlessness is not a peripheral doctrine — it is essential to the atonement. If Christ were a sinner, He could not be the spotless sacrifice for our sins.²³

Now, here is the problem for physicalism. On physicalism, all mental states — including moral dispositions, desires, intentions, and choices — are entirely constituted by physical brain states. There is no immaterial soul that could serve as the seat of moral agency, no spiritual faculty that could resist temptation apart from the physical operations of the brain. If Christ had a normal human brain (and He must have, if He truly shared our human nature), then His moral dispositions were entirely determined by the physical structure and chemistry of that brain.

This creates a dilemma that has been called the "Pelagian problem" for physicalism, developed powerfully in Christian Physicalism?:²⁴

Horn 1: If Christ's brain was physically identical to a normal human brain, then His sinlessness is inexplicable. Normal human brains produce sinful desires, selfish impulses, and moral failures. If Christ's brain was just like ours in every physical respect, why did He never sin? On physicalism, there is no immaterial soul empowered by the Holy Spirit to explain His moral perfection. His sinlessness becomes a brute, unexplained fact — or even a near-miracle of neurochemistry.

Horn 2: If Christ's brain was physically different from a normal human brain — configured in some special way that made sin physically impossible — then He did not truly share our human nature. He had a different kind of brain than we do. He was not "made like his brothers in every respect" (Hebrews 2:17). And the ancient principle rings true: "what is not assumed is not healed" (Gregory of Nazianzus). If Christ did not assume a genuinely human brain with its genuine vulnerabilities, then He did not redeem our genuinely human moral struggle. His sinlessness was not a victory but a biological inevitability — which makes it meaningless as a moral achievement and useless as a basis for our salvation.

This argument is developed in full detail in Chapter 27. But CI readers need to see that the problem is serious. If physicalism cannot coherently explain Christ's sinlessness without either denying His genuine humanity or collapsing into Pelagianism, then physicalism has failed as a Christological framework — and conditionalists who adopt it are undermining the very doctrine of Christ that their faith depends on.

Problem 5: The Apollinarian Parallel

The fifth problem reaches back to the fourth century and one of the most important controversies in the history of Christian theology. Apollinarius of Laodicea (c. 310-390) taught that in the Incarnation, the divine Logos (the eternal Word of God) took the place of Christ's human rational soul (nous, νοῦς). Christ had a human body, yes — but His mind was not a human mind. It was the divine Logos itself. Apollinarius was motivated by a good concern: he wanted to preserve the unity of Christ's person. He worried that if Christ had both a divine mind and a human mind, there would be two competing agents inside one person — a kind of inner warfare between the divine and the human.²⁵

But the church rejected Apollinarianism decisively — at the Synod of Alexandria in 362, at the Council of Constantinople I in 381, and repeatedly at subsequent councils. Why? Because if Christ did not have a human rational soul, He did not have a complete human nature. And if He did not have a complete human nature, He cannot save us. As Gregory of Nazianzus stated in his famous Epistle 101: "What has not been assumed has not been healed" (to gar aproslepton atherapeuton, τὸ γὰρ ἀπρόσληπτον ἀθεράπευτον). The human mind and soul are the primary locus of sin, moral failure, alienation from God, and spiritual darkness. If Christ did not assume a human mind and soul, He did not enter into the deepest dimension of our brokenness. He did not redeem our inner life — only our outer shell.²⁶

The Council of Chalcedon (451) made this explicit, defining Christ as "truly man of a rational soul and a body" (ek psychēs logikēs kai sōmatos, ἐκ ψυχῆς λογικῆς καὶ σώματος). The Council of Constantinople II (553) reinforced this with explicit anathemas against those who deny Christ's human rational soul. The conciliar tradition is unanimous: Christ has a human soul, and denying this is heresy.²⁷

Now, here is the parallel. Physicalism denies that anyone has an immaterial soul — including Christ. On physicalism, Christ's human nature consists entirely of His physical body and brain. There is no immaterial human soul. But this produces exactly the same Christological result that Apollinarianism produced: a Christ without a human rational soul. The path is different — Apollinarius replaced the human soul with the divine Logos; physicalism eliminates the soul altogether — but the destination is the same. Christ lacks what the councils insisted He must have: a complete human nature consisting of a body and a rational soul.²⁸

Physicalists will protest: "We do not deny that Christ had mental capacities, consciousness, or rationality. We simply locate these in the brain rather than in a separate soul-substance." But the councils did not merely affirm that Christ had mental capacities. They affirmed that Christ has a rational soul — psychē logikē (ψυχὴ λογική) — an immaterial component of His human nature that is distinct from His body. The Chalcedonian Definition did not say Christ is "truly man of a brain and a body." It said He is "truly man of a rational soul and a body." To affirm the brain while denying the soul is not to affirm what Chalcedon affirmed. It is to reject it under a different label.

This parallel is explored in detail in Chapters 12 and 31. But CI readers need to recognize its seriousness. The Apollinarian condemnation is one of the most fundamental boundaries of Christian orthodoxy. If physicalism produces the same Christological result as Apollinarianism — a Christ without a human soul — then physicalism falls under the same condemnation, regardless of the physicalist's intentions. Good intentions do not prevent bad theology.

Problem 6: The Biblical Evidence for the Soul

The sixth problem for physicalism in the CI movement concerns the Bible itself. Physicalists in the CI movement have argued that the Bible does not teach body-soul dualism — that the biblical writers held a "holistic" view of human nature in which the person is an integrated whole without separable parts. This claim has been advanced by Joel Green, Nancey Murphy, and others, and it has become influential in CI circles.²⁹

I believe this claim is wrong. The Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, consistently teaches that human beings have immaterial souls that survive bodily death and are conscious in the intermediate state. Let me summarize the evidence briefly (it is treated at length in Chapters 3 and 7-9 of this book).

In the Old Testament, Genesis 35:18 describes Rachel's nephesh (נֶפֶשׁ, soul) departing from her at death — the soul leaving the body, not merely the cessation of biological functions. In 1 Kings 17:21-22, Elijah prays for the widow's son and the child's nephesh returns to him — the soul left and came back. In Ecclesiastes 12:7, the spirit (ruach, רוּחַ) returns to God who gave it, while the dust returns to the earth — an explicit separation of immaterial and material components. In 1 Samuel 28, Samuel's spirit appears after his death, conscious and communicative. Psalm 16:10, quoted by Peter in Acts 2:27, declares that God will not "abandon my soul to Sheol" — presupposing that the soul goes somewhere at death.³⁰

In the New Testament, the evidence is even more explicit. Jesus Himself makes the clearest statement of body-soul dualism in all of Scripture: "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28). The body and the soul are distinct. The body can be killed while the soul survives. This is unintelligible on physicalism. On the cross, Jesus cried out: "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" (Luke 23:46). He committed something — His spirit — to the Father. On physicalism, there was nothing to commit.³¹

Paul expected to be "with Christ" immediately upon death (Philippians 1:21-23), and he described the possibility of being "away from the body and at home with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:8). These statements are unintelligible if Paul is his body. How can he be "away from" himself? In Revelation 6:9-11, John sees "the souls of those who had been slain" — conscious, speaking, emotionally engaged, asking God questions — under the altar in heaven. At the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-8), Moses appeared alive and conversing with Jesus centuries after his death. Hebrews 12:23 refers to "the spirits of the righteous made perfect" — the departed saints described as spirits, immaterial conscious entities in God's presence.³²

The physicalist counter-exegesis — that nephesh simply means "life" or "person," that the New Testament reflects a holistic monism, that body-soul language is merely functional rather than ontological — has been thoroughly rebutted by scholars like John Cooper, who demonstrates in Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting that the biblical writers affirm both a functional holism (body and soul are deeply integrated in life) and an ontological dualism (the soul is a distinct reality that can survive separation from the body). As Cooper puts it, biblical holism and biblical dualism are not opposites. They are complementary truths.³³

For CI readers who care about biblical faithfulness — and I know you do, because the entire CI movement is built on careful attention to what the Bible actually says — the biblical evidence for the soul and the intermediate state should carry significant weight. The same Scripture that teaches conditional immortality also teaches the existence of the soul and its conscious survival after death. We cannot accept one half of the biblical witness while rejecting the other.

Problem 7: The Philosophical Case Against Physicalism

The seventh problem for physicalism is philosophical. There are powerful arguments from philosophy of mind that physicalism — the view that all mental states are identical to or entirely constituted by physical brain states — is false. While a full treatment of these arguments is beyond the scope of this chapter (see Chapter 4 for the complete case), I want to summarize the most important ones for CI readers who may not be familiar with them.

The Hard Problem of Consciousness. Philosopher David Chalmers has famously argued that even if we could give a complete physical description of every neuron, synapse, and chemical reaction in the brain, we would still not have explained why there is something it is like to be conscious. Physical descriptions tell us about the structure and function of brain processes, but they do not tell us why those processes are accompanied by subjective experience — the redness of red, the painfulness of pain, the taste of chocolate. This gap between physical description and conscious experience is called "the hard problem of consciousness," and it suggests that consciousness is not reducible to physical processes.³⁴

The Knowledge Argument (Frank Jackson's "Mary's Room"). Imagine Mary, a brilliant neuroscientist who has lived her entire life in a black-and-white room. She knows every physical fact about color vision — every wavelength, every neural pathway, every brain state associated with seeing red. But when she steps outside her room and sees a red rose for the first time, she learns something new — what it is like to see red. If physicalism were true, she would have already known everything there is to know about seeing red, because she knew all the physical facts. The fact that she learns something new shows that there are facts about consciousness that are not physical facts.³⁵

The Argument from Reason. C.S. Lewis argued in Miracles, and Alvin Plantinga has developed the argument further, that if our mental processes are entirely the product of blind physical causes — neurochemistry, electrical impulses, evolutionary pressures — then we have no reason to trust that those processes reliably produce true beliefs. Rationality requires something more than physics. Our ability to reason, to follow logical arguments, to recognize truth — these capacities point to something beyond the physical. If physicalism is true, then even our belief in physicalism is merely the product of blind physical processes, and we have no reason to think it is true.³⁶

The Unity of Consciousness. At any given moment, you experience a unified field of consciousness — you simultaneously see the page, hear the background noise, feel the chair beneath you, and understand the meaning of these words. All of these experiences are bound together in a single, unified experience that belongs to you. But the brain is composed of billions of separate neurons firing in different regions. How does a collection of individual physical events produce a single unified experience? J.P. Moreland and others have argued that the unity of consciousness is best explained by the existence of a single, non-composite subject of experience — the soul — that binds together the diverse inputs from the brain into a single conscious experience.³⁷

These philosophical arguments do not depend on one's eschatological position. They are relevant to every Christian, regardless of whether you hold to eternal conscious torment, conditional immortality, or universalism. The point is that physicalism faces serious philosophical difficulties in addition to its Christological problems. CI readers who have adopted physicalism should be aware that the philosophical foundations of their anthropology are significantly less secure than is often assumed.

Problem 8: The Evidence from Near-Death Experiences

The eighth and final problem for physicalism comes from an unexpected quarter: empirical evidence. Over the past several decades, medical researchers have documented cases of near-death experiences (NDEs) that appear to provide evidence for the existence of consciousness independent of the brain. These are not mere anecdotes or subjective reports. They are cases in which patients who were clinically dead — with no measurable brain activity — report vivid, structured experiences, including accurate observations of events occurring at a distance from their bodies, conversations taking place in other rooms, or details about objects and people that they could not have perceived through normal sensory channels.³⁸

These are called "veridical" NDEs — cases in which the information reported by the patient can be independently verified and is found to be accurate. The research of cardiologist Pim van Lommel, published in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet, documented a prospective study of cardiac arrest patients in which a statistically significant number of patients reported NDEs with verifiable details. Bruce Greyson, Sam Parnia, and other researchers have documented similar cases. The AWARE study (AWAreness during REsuscitation), led by Parnia, was specifically designed to test whether patients could accurately observe events during cardiac arrest — and found confirmed cases of such observation.³⁹

The relevance for our discussion is this: if consciousness can function independently of the brain — if people can perceive, think, remember, and accurately observe events while their brains are not functioning — then physicalism's central claim (that consciousness is entirely produced by and dependent on the brain) is empirically falsified. The mind is not identical to the brain. Consciousness is not simply what the brain does. Something immaterial — the soul — is the subject of conscious experience, and it can operate independently of the physical organ through which it normally functions.⁴⁰

I want to be clear: NDE evidence is not the primary argument of this book. The Christological arguments are far more theologically decisive. But for CI readers who are scientifically minded and who may have been influenced by the neuroscientific arguments for physicalism ("the brain produces consciousness, therefore there is no soul"), the NDE evidence provides an important empirical counterweight. The relationship between the brain and consciousness is better described as dependence-in-normal-circumstances than as identity. The brain is like a radio that receives and processes a signal — when the radio is damaged, the signal is distorted or lost, but the signal itself exists independently of the radio. NDE evidence suggests that when the brain is severely damaged or non-functional, consciousness can continue — just as the radio signal continues even when the radio is broken.⁴¹

This evidence is treated at length in Chapter 5 of this book, where my own doctoral research on veridical NDEs is presented. But the summary point for CI readers is this: the empirical evidence, like the biblical evidence, the philosophical evidence, and the Christological evidence, all point in the same direction — away from physicalism and toward the reality of the immaterial soul.

The Positive Case: Substance Dualism and Conditional Immortality Together

Having presented eight major problems that physicalism creates for orthodox Christian theology, I now want to turn to the positive case. What does conditional immortality look like when it is grounded in substance dualism rather than physicalism? I believe the result is a stronger, more coherent, and more biblically faithful version of conditionalism — one that preserves all the strengths of the CI position while avoiding the Christological catastrophe of physicalism.

This framework preserves everything that CI theology cares about:

First, it preserves the conditionality of immortality. On this view, immortality is genuinely conditional — it depends on God's gracious decision to sustain the person forever. The soul does not have some built-in property that makes it impossible for God to destroy it. God "can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28). Immortality is a gift of grace, received through faith in Christ, not a natural endowment of the soul.

Second, it preserves the finality of judgment. The unredeemed do not suffer forever. They cease to exist. God does not eternally torment His creatures. The conditionalist's moral objection to eternal conscious torment is fully preserved. The end of the wicked is destruction — real, total, final destruction of both body and soul. This is what Jesus warned about. This is what Paul meant by "destruction" (olethros, ὄλεθρος) in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 and what Hebrews means by "a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries" (Hebrews 10:27).

Third, it preserves a robust intermediate state. Unlike physicalism, which either eliminates the intermediate state entirely or reduces it to nonexistence, this framework affirms that the dead are conscious. The saved are with Christ in paradise (Luke 23:43; Philippians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 5:8). The unsaved are in Hades, awaiting judgment (Luke 16:19-31; Revelation 20:13). This is what the Bible teaches, and it is what the overwhelming majority of Christians throughout history have believed. The intermediate state is not a problem to be solved — it is a precious doctrine to be affirmed.⁴²

Fourth — and most importantly — it preserves orthodox Christology. Christ's human nature includes a body and a soul. When He died on the cross, His soul survived and was active during the triduum mortis — descending to the dead, proclaiming to spirits, liberating captives. The hypostatic union was maintained throughout Holy Saturday because the Son remained united to both His human soul and His body. The Incarnation was never interrupted. The Chalcedonian "without separation" was never violated. Christ rose from the dead as the same person who died — the same soul reunited with a transformed, glorified body. He ascended bodily and remains incarnate forever — body and soul united to the divine nature in one glorious Person. Everything that the councils defined, everything that the creeds confess, everything that the Church has believed from the beginning — all of this is preserved on a dualist-conditionalist framework.

Engaging the CI Physicalists: Fudge and Others

I want to engage specifically with some of the most influential voices in the CI movement who have advocated or been associated with physicalism, and to show that their insights about conditional immortality do not actually require a physicalist anthropology.

Edward Fudge's The Fire That Consumes is rightly regarded as the most important modern defense of conditional immortality. Fudge's exegetical work is careful and extensive, and his conclusions about the final fate of the unsaved have proven persuasive to a growing number of evangelicals. But Fudge's arguments for annihilationism are primarily exegetical — they concern what the Bible teaches about the nature of final punishment. They do not, strictly speaking, depend on a physicalist anthropology. One can accept Fudge's conclusions about the destruction of the wicked while holding that the wicked have immaterial souls. The destruction is not less real or less final because it includes the destruction of the soul along with the body. Indeed, Matthew 10:28 suggests exactly this — God destroys "both soul and body" in hell. The destruction is total precisely because it encompasses both dimensions of human nature.⁴³

John Stott, whose cautious endorsement of conditional immortality was enormously influential, did not adopt physicalism. Stott remained within a broadly dualist framework, affirming the reality of the soul and the intermediate state while questioning whether the traditional doctrine of eternal conscious torment was biblically defensible. Stott's position demonstrates that one can be a conditionalist without being a physicalist — and indeed, that some of the most respected voices in the CI movement have maintained dualist convictions.⁴⁴

The scholars who have most explicitly linked conditional immortality to physicalism — Murphy, Green, and those influenced by them — have done so based on their prior philosophical and exegetical commitments to monism, not because conditionalism requires monism. Their physicalism is an independent philosophical position that they bring to the CI conversation, not a conclusion that arises from it. A CI reader who finds their eschatological arguments persuasive is under no obligation to accept their anthropological arguments. The two can be separated.⁴⁵

I also want to acknowledge the contributions of scholars associated with the Rethinking Hell organization and other CI platforms. Many of these scholars are doing excellent work on the exegetical and theological questions surrounding final punishment. I share their convictions about the conditionality of immortality and the rejection of eternal conscious torment. But I would urge those within this community who have adopted physicalism to reconsider — not because their eschatology is wrong, but because their anthropology carries hidden costs that they may not have fully reckoned with. The Christological price of physicalism is simply too high.

The Diversity Within the CI Movement: Dualists and Physicalists

It is important to recognize that the CI movement is not monolithically physicalist. There is genuine diversity within the movement on questions of anthropology. Some conditionalists are physicalists. Others are dualists. Some hold intermediate positions such as emergent dualism or various forms of holistic dualism. The movement is united by a shared conviction about the conditionality of immortality and the rejection of eternal conscious torment, not by a shared view of human nature.

This diversity is healthy and should be maintained. But I want to make the case that the dualist stream within the CI movement is not merely an acceptable alternative to physicalism — it is the superior alternative, because it avoids the devastating Christological problems that physicalism creates while preserving everything that conditionalists care about.

There is a further reason why this diversity matters. The CI movement's credibility depends, in part, on its ability to show that it can maintain a fully orthodox Christian theology while departing from the traditional view of hell. Critics of conditionalism have long charged that CI is a slippery slope away from orthodoxy — that once you question eternal conscious torment, you will inevitably question other core doctrines. The best way to answer that charge is to demonstrate that CI is fully compatible with Chalcedonian Christology, Nicene Trinitarianism, and the entire structure of historic Christian orthodoxy. But physicalism makes that demonstration much harder, because physicalism itself introduces heterodox Christological consequences. A conditionalism built on substance dualism, by contrast, can point to its full compatibility with the ecumenical creeds and councils as evidence of its orthodox credentials. This matters for the movement's long-term health and theological credibility.

Consider the breadth of the case against physicalism that we have surveyed in this chapter:

1. Physicalism destroys the hypostatic union during the triduum mortis.

2. Physicalism makes Christ's descent to the dead impossible.

3. Physicalism creates a fatal personal identity problem for the resurrection.

4. Physicalism leads to a Pelagian account of Christ's sinlessness.

5. Physicalism produces the same Christological result as the heresy of Apollinarianism.

6. Physicalism contradicts the explicit biblical teaching about the soul and the intermediate state.

7. Physicalism faces serious philosophical objections from the hard problem of consciousness, the knowledge argument, the argument from reason, and the unity of consciousness.

8. Physicalism is empirically challenged by veridical near-death experiences.

Any one of these problems would be a significant concern. Taken together, they constitute an overwhelming cumulative case against physicalism. And the Christological problems (1-5) are not merely philosophical puzzles — they strike at the heart of who Jesus Christ is and what He accomplished for our salvation. A Christian anthropology that undermines Christology is not merely inadequate. It is dangerous.

Addressing Common CI Objections to Dualism

I want to address several objections that CI readers commonly raise against substance dualism, to show that these objections, while understandable, do not succeed.

"If the soul is immortal, doesn't that lead to eternal conscious torment?"

No. As I have argued at length above, the existence of the soul does not entail the soul's inherent, necessary, or indestructible immortality. God can destroy both soul and body (Matthew 10:28). The soul's continued existence depends on God's sustaining will. Conditional immortality is fully compatible with substance dualism. The soul survives death — but it does not survive God's judgment if God chooses not to sustain it. The soul is conditionally immortal, not inherently immortal.

"Doesn't dualism come from Greek philosophy, not the Bible?"

This is one of the most common objections raised by CI physicalists, and it commits the genetic fallacy — the error of rejecting a belief because of its (supposed) origin rather than evaluating it on its merits. Even if body-soul dualism were a Greek philosophical concept (which is debatable — there are significant differences between biblical dualism and Platonic dualism), that would not make it false. Christianity has always used philosophical categories to articulate biblical truths. The doctrines of the Trinity, the hypostatic union, and the two natures of Christ all use philosophical terminology (ousia, hypostasis, physis) that originated in Greek philosophy. Does that make them "Greek imports" rather than biblical truths? Of course not.⁴⁶

Furthermore, it is worth noting that physicalism also has philosophical roots — in Enlightenment materialism, in the mechanistic philosophy of Hobbes and La Mettrie, and in twentieth-century analytic philosophy. If the source of a belief disqualifies it, then physicalism is disqualified by its materialist philosophical origins just as much as dualism is supposedly disqualified by its Greek origins. The question is not where the idea came from but whether it is true — and whether it is consistent with Scripture. I have argued that the biblical evidence strongly supports substance dualism (see the summary above and the full treatment in Chapter 3).

Moreover, as Cooper has demonstrated, the attempt to read the Bible as monistic depends on a tendentious reading of the Hebrew and Greek terms for soul and spirit. When nephesh (נֶפֶשׁ) "departs" at death (Genesis 35:18), when the spirit (ruach, רוּחַ) "returns to God" (Ecclesiastes 12:7), when Jesus commits His "spirit" (pneuma, πνεῦμα) to the Father (Luke 23:46), and when the "souls" of the martyrs are seen in heaven (Revelation 6:9) — the natural reading is dualist. The monistic counter-reading requires imposing a philosophical framework on the text that the text itself resists.⁴⁷

"Doesn't neuroscience show that the mind is the brain?"

Neuroscience shows that mental states are closely correlated with brain states and that damage to the brain affects mental functioning. This is entirely consistent with substance dualism. On dualism, the soul normally operates through the brain in this life — the brain is the instrument through which the soul interacts with the physical world. When the instrument is damaged, the soul's expression is impaired — just as a pianist's performance is impaired if the piano is damaged, even though the pianist herself is unharmed. Correlation is not identity. Dependence-in-normal-circumstances is not ontological identity.⁴⁸

The radio analogy is helpful here. A radio receives and processes a signal. If you damage the radio, the signal is distorted or lost. If you destroy the radio, no signal comes through at all. Someone observing only the radio might conclude that the radio produces the signal. But it does not — it receives and transmits a signal that exists independently of the radio. When the radio is destroyed, the signal continues to exist. The brain is like the radio. It receives, processes, and expresses the conscious activity of the soul. When the brain is damaged, consciousness is impaired. When the brain dies, the soul continues — as the NDE evidence suggests and as Scripture teaches.

"Isn't substance dualism too speculative? Shouldn't we stick to what can be scientifically demonstrated?"

This objection carries an implicit assumption — that only scientifically demonstrable claims should be believed. But this assumption is self-defeating, because the claim itself (that only scientifically demonstrable claims should be believed) is not itself scientifically demonstrable. It is a philosophical claim. And it would rule out most of the central doctrines of Christianity — the Trinity, the Incarnation, the atonement, the resurrection — none of which can be scientifically demonstrated in a laboratory.

Christian theology has always made claims that go beyond what science alone can establish. We believe in the existence of God, the reality of sin, the truth of the gospel, the hope of resurrection — all on the basis of divine revelation, philosophical reasoning, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit. The existence of the soul is one such claim, supported by Scripture, by philosophical argument, by the testimony of the church, and — increasingly — by the empirical evidence from NDE research. It is no more "speculative" than any other essential Christian doctrine.

The Christological Foundation: Why This Matters for Everyone

I want to step back now and explain why all of this matters — not just for the CI movement, but for every Christian. The argument of this book is not primarily about human nature in general. It is about the human nature of Jesus Christ in particular. And the reason the CI-physicalism combination is so dangerous is that it undermines the very Person who makes our salvation possible.

As Michael Wilkinson argues powerfully in Crowned with Glory and Honor, our understanding of human nature should be shaped by Christology, not the other way around. If we want to know what a human being is, we should look at the human being — Jesus Christ, the man par excellence. The Council of Chalcedon defined Christ's human nature as consisting of "a rational soul and a body." If that is what Christ's human nature consists of, then that is what human nature is. Christology norms anthropology. We do not start with an independent theory of human nature and then apply it to Christ. We start with Christ — as revealed in Scripture and defined by the councils — and let His human nature inform our understanding of ours.⁴⁹

This means that the question of physicalism versus dualism is not merely an academic philosophical debate. It is a Christological question. What is Christ's human nature made of? The councils answered: body and soul. Physicalism answers: body alone. These cannot both be right. And if the councils are right — as I believe they are — then physicalism is wrong. Not wrong in the sense of a minor error, but wrong in the sense of a Christological failure that strikes at the heart of the faith.

The argument from Christ's human nature is what makes this book's case distinctive. There are many good arguments for substance dualism — biblical, philosophical, empirical. But the Christological argument is, in my judgment, the most theologically decisive of all. It shows that physicalism is not merely philosophically inadequate but theologically destructive. It does not merely fail to explain human consciousness. It fails to preserve the Incarnation. And if the Incarnation fails, everything fails — atonement, resurrection, ascension, intercession, the permanent union of God and humanity in the Person of Christ.⁵⁰

A Pastoral Appeal to the CI Movement

I want to close this chapter with a direct, personal appeal to my fellow conditionalists. I am writing this as someone who shares your deepest theological convictions. I agree that immortality is conditional. I agree that eternal conscious torment is not the best reading of Scripture. I agree that the final fate of the unredeemed is destruction, not endless suffering. I share your commitment to biblical faithfulness, your concern for the character of God, and your desire to present the gospel in a way that is both truthful and compassionate.

But I am asking you to reconsider your anthropology. I am asking you to consider the possibility that physicalism is not a necessary component of conditionalism — that it is, in fact, a liability. Conditional immortality does not need physicalism. The soul can be real, immaterial, conscious after death, and still be conditionally immortal. The soul's existence depends on God. Its continuation depends on God. Its ultimate fate depends on God. Everything that conditionalists want to say about the conditionality of immortality can be said — and said better — within a substance dualist framework.

And the cost of physicalism is enormous. It destroys the hypostatic union during Holy Saturday. It eliminates the descent to the dead. It threatens personal identity at the resurrection. It creates a Pelagian problem for Christ's sinlessness. It reproduces the heresy of Apollinarianism under a different label. It contradicts the explicit teaching of Scripture about the soul and the intermediate state. It faces devastating philosophical objections. And it is empirically challenged by NDE research.

Is any eschatological convenience worth these costs? I do not think so. And I do not think you will think so either, once you have carefully considered the evidence.

The CI movement has done important work in recovering a biblical understanding of final punishment. I believe that work should continue. But it should continue on a foundation that can bear the weight of the whole Christian faith — not on a physicalist foundation that cracks under the pressure of Christology. Substance dualism provides that foundation. It is biblically grounded, philosophically defensible, empirically supported, historically attested by the overwhelming consensus of the Christian tradition, and — most importantly — it is the only anthropology that can preserve the full, uninterrupted, permanent Incarnation of God the Son.

The Word became flesh — and the flesh He became was not merely physical matter. It was a complete human nature, body and soul, united to His divine nature in one glorious Person forever. To preserve that truth, we must affirm the soul. And we can affirm the soul while affirming everything that conditional immortality teaches about the gracious, conditional nature of everlasting life.

As I have argued in my companion volume, Beyond the Grave, the dualism-conditionalism combination is not only possible — it is the most coherent and biblically faithful framework available for understanding both human nature and human destiny.⁵¹ I invite my fellow conditionalists to consider it carefully, to weigh the evidence, and to follow the argument wherever it leads. The stakes could not be higher. We are talking about who Jesus is — and who we are in relation to Him.

Conclusion

This chapter has presented a comprehensive case, addressed specifically to readers in the conditional immortality movement, for why physicalism should be rejected as an anthropological framework. The argument has proceeded on eight fronts: the triduum problem, the descent problem, the personal identity problem, the sinlessness problem, the Apollinarian parallel, the biblical evidence, the philosophical evidence, and the NDE evidence. Each of these arguments is treated at greater length in earlier chapters of this book, but the summaries presented here are designed to give CI readers a clear, self-contained overview of the cumulative case.

The central thesis is simple: conditional immortality does not require physicalism, and physicalism creates devastating problems for orthodox Christology. The soul can be real and conditionally immortal. Substance dualism and conditional immortality are not only compatible — they are complementary. And the resulting framework — what we might call "dualist conditionalism" — preserves everything that the CI movement values (the conditionality of immortality, the rejection of eternal conscious torment, the centrality of the resurrection) while also preserving what all Christians must value: the full, permanent, uninterrupted Incarnation of God the Son in a complete human nature consisting of body and soul.

I write as a friend of the CI movement, not as a critic. I share your eschatological convictions. But I believe that the theological integrity of those convictions depends on getting the anthropology right. And getting the anthropology right means affirming what Scripture teaches, what the councils defined, what the philosophical evidence supports, and what the empirical evidence increasingly confirms: that human beings — including the man Jesus Christ — are body-soul composites, and that the soul is an irreducible reality that no orthodox Christian theology can afford to deny.

The Word made flesh demands the soul.

Bibliography

Chalmers, David. The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Cooper, John W. Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000.

Date, Christopher M., Gregory G. Stump, and Joshua W. Anderson, eds. Rethinking Hell: Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2014.

Edwards, David L., and John R. W. Stott. Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988.

Farris, Joshua R. An Introduction to Theological Anthropology: Humans, Both Creaturely and Divine. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2020.

Fudge, Edward William. The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment. 3rd ed. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011.

Green, Joel B. Body, Soul, and Human Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008.

Gregory of Nazianzus. Epistle 101 (To Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius).

Greyson, Bruce. After: A Doctor Explores What Near-Death Experiences Reveal about Life and Beyond. New York: St. Martin's, 2021.

Jackson, Frank. "Epiphenomenal Qualia." Philosophical Quarterly 32, no. 127 (1982): 127-36.

James, William. Human Immortality: Two Supposed Objections to the Doctrine. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1898.

Lewis, C.S. Miracles: A Preliminary Study. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1947.

Loftin, R. Keith, and Joshua R. Farris, eds. Christian Physicalism? Philosophical Theological Criticisms. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2018.

Loke, Andrew Ter Ern. A Kryptic Model of the Incarnation. Routledge New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology, and Biblical Studies. London: Routledge, 2014.

Moreland, J.P. The Soul: How We Know It's Real and Why It Matters. Chicago: Moody, 2014.

Moreland, J.P., and Scott B. Rae. Body and Soul: Human Nature and the Crisis in Ethics. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

Murphy, Nancey. Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Parnia, Sam, et al. "AWARE—AWAreness during REsuscitation—A Prospective Study." Resuscitation 85, no. 12 (2014): 1799-1805.

Pawl, Timothy. In Defense of Conciliar Christology. Oxford Studies in Analytic Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.

Plantinga, Alvin. Warrant and Proper Function. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Swinburne, Richard. The Evolution of the Soul. Rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

van Inwagen, Peter. "The Possibility of Resurrection." International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 9, no. 2 (1978): 114-21.

van Lommel, Pim, et al. "Near-Death Experience in Survivors of Cardiac Arrest: A Prospective Study in the Netherlands." The Lancet 358, no. 9298 (2001): 2039-45.

Wilkinson, Michael A. Crowned with Glory and Honor: A Chalcedonian Anthropology. Studies in Historical and Systematic Theology. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2024.

Zimmerman, Dean. "The Compatibility of Materialism and Survival: The 'Falling Elevator' Model." Faith and Philosophy 16, no. 2 (1999): 194-212.