Assessing the Role of Physicalist Theology as a Bridge between Western Physicalism and Islamic Corporealism in the Study of the Soul

Abstract

The question of the nature of the human soul and its relationship with the body is among the most fundamental issues in the history of philosophy, theology, and cognitive science. In contemporary Western philosophy, physicalism has emerged as a dominant view that explains mind and consciousness within the framework of physical processes. In the Islamic world, certain currents of Islamic theology have adopted a corporealist approach to the soul, standing in contrast to the substance dualism prevalent in the Islamic Peripatetic tradition. Physicalist theology, which emerged in the past century within the context of Christian science–religion dialogue, seeks to reconcile religious belief with physicalist explanations of the mind. Using a library-based analytical-comparative method through note-taking from primary and secondary sources in three fields—Western philosophy of mind, physicalist theology, and Islamic study of the soul—this article examines the possibilities, limitations, and implications of such mediation. The findings indicate that physicalist theology can function as a “partial bridge” in this intertraditional dialogue; shared issues such as bodily resurrection, personal identity, embodied moral responsibility, and human unity provide genuine grounds for dialogue, and some of its conceptual tools, such as downward causation and emergence, may prove useful in rethinking Islamic theories of the soul. Nevertheless, fundamental incompatibilities also exist that make complete bridge-building impossible; the Qur’anic concept of the spirit as “amr rabbī” (“an affair of my Lord”), belief in consciousness in the intermediate realm of barzakh, the essential difference between Islamic “subtle corporeality” and modern physicalism, and the fundamental divergence in the epistemic sources and methodologies of each tradition are among these obstacles. The present study concludes that the true value of physicalist theology in this dialogue lies not in resolving the issues, but in opening a space in which the two traditions can engage in more constructive dialogue through a more shared language, epistemic humility, and respect for their fundamental distinctions.