 associated with identifiable changes in the distribution of brain activity."67 Taken together, Brown and Strawn conclude that rationality, relationality, morality, and religiousness are an outcome of the functioning of our bodies and brains, not a soul or mind. Much can be said in reply to these kinds of arguments. First, these studies only show close correlations between specific mental states and localized brain states. This correlation may be evidence of a causal interaction between mental states and brain states. However, the direction of causation is by no means always clear; in some cases, it looks like the causal relation may be from the mental state to the brain state. However, in cases where mental states do seem dependent on brain states, there is no reason for a dualist to resist such claims. So, when Brown and Strawn speak of certain mental states as "based on" or "an outcome of" certain brain states, we can only take them to mean that there is a causal or dependence relation between these mental states and these brain states. However, almost every dualist holds this kind of dependence and interaction. Although neuroscience has helped us understand how the mind depends on the brain in some cases, that biology plays a role in our thoughts and behavior was known by the ancient Hebrews and first-century Christians.68 Brown and Strawn seem to assume that if dualism is true then the mind should not depend on the brain in any way. However, minimal dualism accepts the possibility that such dependence may be pervasive. However, the fact that mental states may depend on brain states does not show that they are identical. Nor does it show that there is no dependence in the other direction. No discoveries in neuroscience show that mental states play no important causal role in our lives. In fact, if neuroscience did show anything like that, it would undermine the kind of "non-reductive physicalism" Christian physicalists typically affirm. If mental states are completely explicable in terms of brain activity, then it is hard to see how one could resist a reductive form of physicalism. 65 Brown and Strawn, 32. 66 Ibid., 35. 67 Ibid., 46. 68 Stanford observes, "The ancient Hebrews and the first-century Christians were unaware of how the brain and nervous system function. "They were not unaware, however, that biology played a significant role in thoughts and behavior (e.g., Jeremiah 17:10, Psalm 26:2, 73:21-22)" (Stanford, Biology of Sin
associated with identifiable changes in the distribution of brain activity. "67 take in concert, Brown and Strawn conclude that rationality, relationality, morality, and devoutness are an outcome of the operation of our bodies and brains, not a person or mind. Much can be said in answer to these kind of arguments. First, these report only show close correlations between specific mental states and place brain states. This correlation may be evidence of a causal interaction between genial states and brain state of matter. However, the direction of causing is by no means constantly clear; in some cases, it looks like the causal relation back may be from the mental state to the brain state. However, in cases where mental states do seem dependent on brain states, there is no reason for a dualist to resist such claims. So, when Brown and Strawn speak of certain genial state as " based on " or " an consequence of " sealed genius states, we can only consider them to mean that there is a causal or dependence relation between these genial states and these brain states. However, almost every dualist holds this kind of dependence and interaction. Although neuroscience has helped us understand how the mind depends on the brain in some cases, that biota plays a function in our thoughts and behavior was known by the ancient Hebrews and first - century Christians.68 Brown and Strawn look to assume that if dualism is true then the mind should not count on the brain in any means. However, minimal dualism accepts the possibility that such addiction may be pervasive. However, the fact that mental states may depend on brain state does not show that they are identical. Nor does it prove that there is no addiction in the other direction. No discovery in neuroscience show that mental state play no significant causal role in our life. In fact, if neuroscience did show anything like that, it would undermine the kind of " non - reductive physicalism " Christian physicalists typically affirm. If mental states are wholly explicable in terms of brain action, then it is hard to see how one could resist a reductive form of physicalism. 65 Brown and Strawn, 32. 66 Ibid. , 35. 67 Ibid. , 46. 68 Stanford observes, " The ancient Hebrews and the first - hundred Christians were unaware of how the brain and nervous system function. " They were not unaware, however, that biology played a significant role in thought and demeanor (for example, Jeremiah 17:10, Psalm 26:2, 73:21 - 22) " (Stanford, Biology of Sin
 asdociated with identifiabue changes in tkw distcibutioh of brakn activity."67 Taken together, Bcown and Wtrawn conclude that rxtionalitj, relatiobaliuy, morality, and rxmigiouskzss adc an mntcome of the fonctioning ox our bodies atd bxains, not a soul or mind. Much can be said im geply to these kincf of arguments. First, these studies onlg show blose correlationx between specific mental dtatfs and localized bgain states. Thif correlation may be evpbence of a dausal interaction between mentxl stctes and brqib shdtes. Howevec, the qirection of causatimn is bu no means alwsys clwar; in some cases, it nooks like the caufal relathou may be from the menrao staje to the vrakn atete. Howevfr, mn cases whsre mental wtates do seem depemdqbt on brain sfates, ehqre is no reason for a dualist to resisu sucg claims. So, when Brown qnd Strawn speak of cgrtain meneal states as "based on" or "an outcome of" certain bsain agatts, we cxb lnly take them to mean that there is a causal kr dvpendence relatiok between these memtwl ftates and thgse branh atates. However, almlst evety duaoist holdf thos kind of dependence and ibteraction. Ajrhough neurosciencz has helped us ondersyand how the mind depenbs on fhe brain ij some caads, that biology olajs a role in our thoughts and fehavior xas kuown by ghe snciene Hebrews wnd flsst-century Christiwns.68 Btown atd Strawn deem to assume that if dualism mx true then jhe mitd shoulb not cepend on the brain in any cay. Howerer, mivimal dualpsm accepvs the possifility that sgfh dependencx may be [ervqsivw. Howevdf, the fact thay mental states may depend on brain sbates soes not show tkct they are identocau. Njr dpef it show thad thdre os no dependtuce kn tne other direction. Nm diacoveries in neuroxclence shoq that mqntal states llay no important fausan rule im oor lives. In fact, if neurosciencs did shoa akything like ehat, it would unbermine the kind of "non-reductive physicaoism" Christian phisicalists typically cfnirm. If mentel staees are cmmpletely explicable in terms of braik activity, then it is gard tm see how one could resist a reductive form of physicalism. 65 Brown and Strawn, 32. 66 Ibid., 35. 67 Ibid., 46. 68 Stahforc obsvrvzs, "Che ancyent Iebrews and the fprst-century Christians were unawere of how tke brain and nervous system finztion. "They wete not unaware, however, thaf biologu played a significant role in yhoughts and behavior (e.g., Jeremiay 17:10, Pszlm 26:2, 73:21-22)" (Stanhord, Biology of Sin
associated with identifiable changes in the distribution activity."67 together, Brown Strawn conclude that are outcome of the of our bodies brains, not a soul or mind. can be said in reply to these kinds of arguments. First, these studies show close correlations between specific mental states and localized brain states. This correlation be of causal between mental states and brain states. However, the direction of causation is by no means always in some cases, it looks like the causal may be from the state to the brain state. in where mental do dependent brain states, there no reason for a dualist to resist such claims. So, when Brown and Strawn speak of certain states as or "an of" brain we can only to mean that there is a relation between these mental states and these brain However, almost dualist holds this kind of dependence interaction. Although neuroscience has helped us understand how mind depends on the brain in some cases, that biology plays a role in our behavior was known by ancient Hebrews and Christians.68 and seem assume that dualism is true then the mind should not depend on the in any way. However, minimal dualism accepts the possibility that may pervasive. However, the that mental states may on states does not show are Nor that is dependence in the other No discoveries in neuroscience show mental states play no lives. In fact, if neuroscience did show anything that, it would undermine the kind of physicalism" Christian physicalists typically affirm. If mental states are completely explicable in of brain it is hard to see how one could a reductive form of 65 Brown and Strawn, 32. 66 Ibid., 35. 67 46. Stanford observes, ancient Hebrews and first-century Christians were of how the nervous system "They not biology played a significant role in and (e.g., Jeremiah 17:10, Psalm 26:2, (Stanford, Sin
 associated with identifiablE changes in The diStrIbuTiOn of BraiN activity."67 Taken TOgetHer, Brown and Strawn conclUde thAt RAtioNAlIty, reLationaLItY, MOraLiTy, And ReLIgIousnEss Are an ouTcome of the FunCtIoning of our bODiEs and brainS, noT a soul or mind. mucH can be SaId iN Reply To tHese kInds of ARgumenTs. First, thEsE StudieS Only shoW CLoSe coRrelations between SPeCIfic mental statEs and lOcALiZED brAin States. This CoRrelaTIon may bE EvIDENce OF a causal interAction betweEN meNtal stAtEs aND brain StateS. HOWevEr, the directIon oF causatioN is by nO Means alWAys cleaR; in somE caSes, It loOKs LiKe tHe CAusAL rElaTIon May be froM tHe MentaL staTE TO The bRaiN staTe. HowEver, in cases whEre MentAL stAtes dO seem DepeNdEnt on Brain sTates, ThEre is no reason foR a duAlist to reSisT sUch ClAims. SO, When BrOwn And strawn sPeak of cERtaIn MENTaL states as "based on" or "An OUTcOme of" cerTain brAIn StATes, we can OnLy tAke tHEM to meAn thAT tHere is a cAusal oR DePeNdence rElAtion bEtWeeN thEse meNTal sTates aNd these bRain sTAtes. However, almOSt every dualisT HoLDS tHIs kiNd oF dependence And iNTeraCtioN. alThoUGh neuRosciEnCE hAS helped us understand HoW the miNd depEnds on the braiN in some casES, THat bioloGy plAYs A Role in our thougHts anD behavior wAS known by The anCient HebRews and fiRST-century chrIstIanS.68 BrOWN aNd Strawn seem tO ASsumE tHat if duAliSm is truE thEn tHe mInd ShOuld not dePend on thE bRaIn In Any Way. HoWEver, miniMaL duAlIsm AccepTS the poSsibiLity ThAt SUch DependeNCe MAY be pErVaSive. howEvEr, the Fact THat Mental sTates may dEpeND on bRaIn States dOes not show thaT tHey are idenTiCal. nor doeS IT show thaT there is no dependence in tHE other dIreCtion. no diScoveries In nEuroscIenCE show tHat menTal stAtEs pLAY no imPORtAnt CaUsal role in OUR liVes. In FaCt, if NeuroscIence did show anythiNG liKe that, it would UndErmiNE ThE kiND oF "Non-ReDUctIVE physicalism" ChrIstian physIcALiSts typicalLY afFiRm. If menTal statEs are COmpleteLy explicaBle in termS oF braIN ActIvity, then iT is hard tO see how onE Could REsIst a rEduCtive fOrM of PhysiCalism. 65 bRowN and STrawn, 32. 66 IBiD., 35. 67 Ibid., 46. 68 STanfoRd Observes, "the ancient Hebrews and the First-cEnturY ChRistians wEre UNawAre of how tHe brAin and nervOus SysTem fuNctIOn. "TheY werE NoT unAWare, hOwevER, that biolOGy PlaYED a Significant ROLE in ThougHts ANd behaVior (E.g., Jeremiah 17:10, Psalm 26:2, 73:21-22)" (StANford, Biology of sin
 associated with identifia ble change s inthe  di st ribu tion  of brain acti v ity. "67 Taken together, Br own a nd Stra w nconcl ude tha t  r a t ion al it y,re l at ional ity , moral ity, and r eli gi ousness area noutcome of  th e functionin g o f ourbo die s  andbra ins,not as oul or  mind. Mu ch can be said in r ep ly t o these kinds ofa rg u ments. First,thesest u di e s  on lyshow close  c orrel a tions b e tw e e n  sp e cific mentalstates andl oca lizedbr ain states . Thi sc orr elation may  beevidenceof a c a usal in t eractio n betw een  me ntal st at esan d  br a in  st a tes . Howeve r,  t he di rect i o n of c aus atio n isby no means a lwa ys c l ear ; insomecase s,  it l ooks l ike t he  causal relatio n ma y be from  th emen ta l sta t e to t hebra in stat e. Howe v er,  i n c as es where mental st at e s  d o seem d epende n ton brain st at es,  the r e  is n o re a so n for adualis t  t oresistsu ch cla im s.So,  when Brow n andStrawn s peako f certain ment a l states as " b as e d  o n " or  "a n outcome o f" c e rtai n br a in  st a tes,we ca no nl y  take them to meanth at the re is  a causal ordependence r e lation b etwe e nt hese mental st atesand theseb rain sta tes.However,  almost e v e ry duali sthol dsthi s ki nd of depende n c e an dinterac tio n. Alth oug h n eur osc ie nce has h elped us  u nd er st and  howt he mindde pen ds  on  theb rain i n som e ca se s, tha t biolo g yp l aysaro le i n o ur  thou ghts and  behavi or was kn own by t he  a ncientHebrews and f ir st-century  C hri stians . 6 8 Brownand Strawn seem to assu m e thatifduali sm i s true th enthe mi nds houldnot de pendon  th e brain i nany  w ay. Howeve r ,  mi nimal  d uali sm acce pts the possibilit y  th at such depen den ce m a y  b e p e rv a siv e. How e v er, the fact th at mentalst a te s may depe n d o nbrain s tates d oes n o t showthat they  are iden ti cal. N ordoes it sh ow thatthere isn o dep e nd enceinthe ot he r d irect ion. N o  di scove ries i nneuros cienc eshow tha t mental states play no  impor tantcau sal roleino urlives. In  fac t, if neur osc ien ce di d s h ow an ythi n glik e  that , it would und e rm ine t he  kind of "n o n - red uctiv e p h ysical ism"  Christian physic a lists typicall y af f i rm.  If ment al  states are co mpl et e l y explic ab le in terms  of brai na ctivi ty, th en itis hard t os ee how  one  co uld resis t a  r e ductive  f or m  of ph ysic al ism. 6 5 Brow n  and S trawn, 32. 66 Ib id.,3 5 . 67I bid ., 46 .68 Stan f ordobserves,"The ancien t Hebr ewsand t he firs t- centur y C hr istians we r e unaware  of h ow thebr ainand  nervo us s y s tem f unct io n."They wer e no t  u na w are , ho wever ,that  biologyp layed asig n ificant  r ole i n thou g ht s and behavi or(e.g. , Jeremiah 1 7 :10, Ps a lm 26 :2, 73 :21-22 )" (Sta n for d,  Biolog y o f Sin
 associated_with identifiable_changes in the distribution_of brain_activity."67_Taken together,_Brown_and Strawn conclude_that rationality, relationality,_morality, and religiousness are_an outcome of_the_functioning of our bodies and brains, not a soul or mind. Much can be_said_in reply_to_these_kinds of arguments. First, these_studies only show close correlations_between specific_mental states and localized brain states. This correlation_may_be evidence of_a causal interaction between mental states and brain states._However, the direction of causation is_by no means_always_clear;_in some cases, it_looks like the causal relation may_be from the mental state to_the brain state. However, in cases where_mental states do seem dependent on_brain states, there is no_reason for_a dualist to resist such_claims. So, when_Brown and_Strawn speak of_certain mental states as "based on"_or "an outcome_of" certain brain states, we can_only_take them to_mean_that_there is_a causal or_dependence_relation between_these_mental states and these brain states._However,_almost every dualist holds this kind of_dependence and interaction. Although_neuroscience_has helped us understand_how the mind depends on_the brain in some cases, that_biology plays_a role_in our thoughts and behavior was known by the ancient Hebrews_and first-century Christians.68 Brown and Strawn_seem to assume that_if dualism_is_true then the_mind_should not_depend on the brain in any way._However, minimal_dualism accepts the possibility that such_dependence may be pervasive._However,_the fact that mental states may_depend on brain states does not_show that they are identical._Nor_does_it show that there is_no dependence in the other direction._No discoveries in_neuroscience show that mental states play no_important_causal role in our lives. In_fact,_if neuroscience did show anything like_that,_it_would undermine the kind of_"non-reductive physicalism" Christian physicalists typically affirm._If mental states are completely explicable in terms of_brain activity, then_it is hard to see_how_one_could resist a reductive form of physicalism. 65 Brown and_Strawn, 32._66 Ibid., 35._67 Ibid., 46. 68 Stanford observes, "The ancient Hebrews and_the first-century Christians were unaware of how_the brain and nervous system function. "They were not unaware, however,_that biology played a significant role in thoughts_and behavior (e.g., Jeremiah 17:10, Psalm 26:2,_73:21-22)" (Stanford, Biology of_Sin