Life after Death (2015): Example

2015 Life after Death 

(a)

1. Compare and contrast immortality of the soul with resurrection of the body
2. (ii) Discuss the view that there are no grounds for believing in life after death. 

(i)

Life after death is a vital factor of many world religions and some may even suggest that it encourages a belief in religion. However, life after death also serves a purpose in philosophical debates, for instance, if there is such a thing as an after life then how does it contribute to religions, such as Christianity, where the notion of resurrection is accepted as the main proponent of the topic. Similarly, if there is life after death and resurrection is a viable concept then how does our soul survive when our earthly or physical bodies decay? This essay explores how immortality of the soul is able to support the idea of resurrection. 

The idea about immortality of the soul first came out during the time of the Ancient Greeks and it is believed that Plato was one of the first people to discuss it. Immortality of the soul dictates that even though our physical bodies are contingent and decay and die, our souls are immortal and cannot die. Plato declared that the body belonged to the physical world, whilst the spiritual aspect of us, the soul remained in a higher realm. Plato’s arguments for life after death or immortality of the soul were a product of an internal battle, if the soul belongs to a spiritual realm, then the earth is something which contaminates it, therefore it is when we die that we truly achieve immortality and true spirituality. Some may suggests that this is an argument for the religious opinion, that the afterlife is when we are resurrected as pure and whole. When referenced to christianity and the idea of resurrection, some theists may suggest that this higher realm is a union with God. Similarly, the soul was able to reach this spiritual realm, because the soul wanted to free itself form the physical world. However, due to human progression, Plato’s ideas have since been developed further, thus, immortality of the soul can also be considered as a form of dualism. 

Immortality of the soul not only contributes to dualism but it also helps to support resurrection as in resurrection, the earthly body also may decay, but the soul is able to travel to a higher spiritual realm. According to protestants this may be to heaven or hell, or in the Catholic opinion, it may also include purgatory before the beatific vision. Furthermore, resurrection basically dictates that after death, God will be able to bring us back to life in a different body. This is supported by the concept of immortality of the soul, as if our soul are still the same as they were before our earthly bodies passed away, then perhaps we still remain the same person. Once again, this is supported by what Aquinas stated: ‘the soul animated the body’, rather than the opposite. However, the resurrected body will not be of flesh and blood, but rather a spiritual body. And it is on these accounts that immortality of the soul and resurrection have different ideas. For according to immortality of the soul, only the soul needs to be immortal, there is no need for a body of any kind, whereas in resurrection, the immortal soul and eventual immortal body coincide presently. 

The immortal soul was a concept that was explored by other rational thinkers such as Kant. Kant proposed that it was our purpose to be able to achieve summum bonum, which is the pursuit of the highest or most complete good. As of consequence, Kant maintains that if we want to achieve this highest good, then individuals must be allowed to pursue this goal beyond death. Kant is implying that there must be an afterlife because otherwise our full potential cannot be reached. If this is the case then the soul must survive after death, and in relation to that, there must also be a transcendent God. 

With reference to resurrection, if the existence of God is validated by Kant’s theory of summum bonum then it indicates that resurrection is not only a likelihood but a probable statement. Similarly, if we remember the attributes of the God of classical theism, and in this context, the God of christianity, then St Paul is correct in suggesting that if God is truly omnipotent then the possibility of God being able to create a new and better spiritual body for our souls after life is indeed rational. Similarly, we should also look towards the sacred texts for validation. The bible reflects on the fact that Jesus was also resurrected and if Jesus was the son of God, surely God would feel the same way about his own creations. St Paul states that it is only natural for humans to also be resurrected. 

As of consequence, I conclude that immortality of the soul is a argument that supports the concept of the Christian version of life after death, or resurrection. Especially as immortality of the soul could be argued to support dualism and in turn resurrection as a result of this. 

(ii) 

On the other hand, one could also state that the grounds for believing in life after death are absurd for many reasons, such as the idea that the afterlife may be part of a human concept that has been envisioned out of the fear of death. 

Such critics who discuss the idea that there are no grounds for belief such as Ayer state that since there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God, it seems nonsensical to argue for it. Ayer discusses the idea that anything of the metaphysical such as a deity, cannot be proven through empiricism and if God does not exist because of this, then in turn without a God, there is no afterlife. With regards to this, Ayer may have made a valid point as without evidence, the notion of the afterlife appears to be a hopeless dream; however, the opposition has argued that there are grounds for belief. In rebuttal to Ayer, Hick proposed a new form of verification. Which was eschatological verification, this form of verification goes out to state that we can verify an afterlife because after we ascend into the spiritual realm we will be able to verify, therefore it would be naive to reject an idea so soon. 

If Hick is indeed correct in regards to the fact that we can verify life after death, or prove that there is an afterlife, perhaps there are other areas where we are able to gain evidence to do the same. For instance, in human history we can take evidence from the bible scriptures which state that there will be life after death, or even in fact the resurrection of Jesus. These statements suggest that there may be some evidence that points towards belief. Also, resurrection requires a dualistic approach to life after death, so since the bible is a form of verification in favour of the afterlife, perhaps dualism is also supported alongside these arguments. 

Descartes supported dualism as an argument for life after death, claiming that the soul is able to be transferred to a higher realm after the decay of the physical body. And he came about this thought as he mulled over the phrase: cogito ergo sum. His reasoning was that if he could doubt himself, but his body could not, then it insinuated that his individual was separated into two entities, a mind or soul and a physical body. In which case, we could say that this dualistic proof is reminiscent of a belief in afterlife, were it not for the fact that a critic called Gilbert Ryle proposed an alternative explanation. Ryle stated that there was no proof for dualism, and Descartes had instead made a category error. Using the phrase ‘ghost in a machine’, Ryle attempted to discuss the notion that our mind was a part of our body, and not separate. Just as a building within a university is not separate from the university, but a part of it. Similarly, in answer to the idea of dualism and resurrection, even if our souls were able to extend into heaven, would we still be the same people? For if we are not, then are souls are not immortal or part of our true identity. In which case, do we really become resurrected? 

However, although the argument for an afterlife can be discussed solely about the existence of a soul and transcendent beings, there are more tentative or extreme perspectives. Pascal’s wager suggests that we should believe in the afterlife because when it came round to our deaths and there was a heaven, it would be better to have believed and be able to enter Heaven than to not. On the other hand, because this view is so tentative and has less weighting behind it, it actually weakens the argument for an afterlife, because it proves what others have said about being afraid of death. In order to escape eternal suffering, we have been goaded into believing in a God. Freud called this a universal neurosis, whereby individuals would rather worship out of fear and be psychologically manipulated to believe in a deity our of fear. 

To conclude, I have made the decision to reject that there are grounds for a belief in God, although I acknowledge that in some parts, there are stronger arguments for a belief than not.