Life after death

MATERIALISTS/ MONISTS

Argue against any concept of afterlife, but may support bodily resurrection. Believe identity of a person is linked inextricably to physical body. There is only one substance- matter. Only postulates existence of matter and non-physical substance. When life of physical body ends, life of person ends.

HINDUISM

Is not a single religion, but a grouping together of a variety of religious ideas, which grew into a family of religions. Hindus can be monotheistic, polytheistic or pantheistic. However some beliefs are held in common. Reincarnation is one of these.

VS BODILY RESURRECTION

- Bodies take up room, suggesting life after death must happen in some kind of space. - If ressurected bodies have same physical needs, it is difficult to concieve of heaven in this way. - Do resurrected bodies age? What are the resurrected bodies of those who died as newborn babies? Christians usually respond by saying we will all be perfected versions of ourselves, given an ability by God to recognise each other, is this plausible?

CHRISTIANITY- atheism and hell

- Catholics believe it is possible to be a good person and go to heaven by following your conscience and natural law. - Other Christians agree must follow your conscience and seek guidance to inform it. Threats cannot be used to make people believe. Most denominations reject the view that there is no salvation outside of church. - Others say Jesus died to save people who believe in him. Those who deny God's existence should be judged and condemned by him. Attitude adopted in passages in the Bible, knowingly rejecting the holy spirit would mean you go to hell. - Many say it's a matter for God. God is judge of all people, not Christians. Cannot expect people to believe in God.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE SOUL

- Problem of interactionsim (how do opposite substances interact) - Problem of individuation (what makes one soul different from the next, Kant's 'problem of counting souls') - Other minds (how do we know others have a mind) - Homunculus fallacy (infinite regression of little men) - Idea of soul makes brain redundant, merely transmitting station between body and soul

Replica like copy?!

A 'replica' is not the same as a copy since a replica can only exist in one place and time. The replica is the real you, there cannot be another replica. The arrangement of matter makes them the same person. There cannot be millions of copies because we are individuals. Illustrates what he means by replica by describing someone disappearing from place A and reappearing in place B (London and New York), with the same physical characteristics, memories, beliefs. Everyone who knew him would be baffled, yet they would all admit it was the same person. If the person had died in London, this is not totally inconceivable since we can imagine it happening, therefore it's not totally illogical to suppose a replica of ourselves survives death. In a final scenario, Hick describes a person dying in London and a replica appearing in another world. If the first two scenarios are coherent, this one is too. Through progressive examples Hick argues we can validly argue that when a person dies, that same person exists in a different space. We do not need spatio-temporal continuity in order to guarantee survival after death. Used word 'replica' in inverted commas because used it in particular sense (not logically possible for original and 'replica' to exhibit simultaneously)

GEACH- vs reincarnation

A link with a person who has died cannot be established. Reincarnation rules out the possibility of memories being the link between dead and new person. How can reincarnated soul be you if it lacks your memories and experiences, only thing shared was body and that has now gone.

PRICE- the afterlife

Afterlife is another world in the sense of a different kind of consciousness, rather than a different location. As in dream , 'other world' is perceived as having space without actually occupying any. In the afterlife it is possible to move from one 'location' to another, without the places actually occupying space. Afterlife would be composed of mental images of the individual, people making their own future life. Places familiar with would reappear and content of afterlife would be drawn from memories and desires. Once the desires have reached end of life span, they will be replaced by others. This implies strong degree of subjectivity in afterlife, with no connection between individuals. However Price argues this isn't necessarily case, as telepathy might work in an afterlife unconstrained by physical laws. Could be shared worlds of life minded people, however there would be many of these worlds. Unlike a single heaven.

PRICE-aims

Aim wasn't to prove existence of an afterlife but to show that the idea of disembodied existence is not a contradiction in terms, instead a coherent concept. Never suggested his model would fit with religious teaching, deeming if his conclusions go against idea that the afterlife is determined by a good God, then that is the way it is.

PRICE- Identity

Argued disembodied existence doesn't have to mean the end of personal identity, since the images that survived death would be made from individual's own memories. As long as mental images resembled physical sensations, and individuals felt they had an identity, that would be enough. The world would be real in that it would seem real to those who experienced it. Price's analogy compared 'real' piece of silver with a piece of brass plated to look like silver. Though plated brass not real silver, it is still a real object. It is only unreal in the sense that it gives the impression it is something it is not.

PLATO'S VIEW OF THE SOUL- argument from knowledge

Argued learning is merely remembering what the soul has previously learnt in the world of the forms. Gave the example of 'equals' No one has ever seen Form of equals but this doesn't stop us applying it to things. This evidences Plato's view that when people understand something, they are simply recognising it to be true. Our intuitions are evidence of knowledge attained before birth. In Meno, gives example of slave boy being given a geometry puzzle to solve.

ARISTOTLE'S CONCEPT OF SOUL- Faculties of the soul

Aristotle describes the soul as the principle of life of living things, but he argued not all living things have souls with the same faculties. Aristotle proposed a kind of hierarchy of faculties of the soul: nutrition, perception, desire, locomotion and intellect. Plants have faculty of nutrition, but animals have other faculties like perception and desire. Some animals are distinguished from others by their faculty of locomotion. Humans are distinguished from all other animals by faculty of intellect (this idea very influential in middle ages) However human souls having faculty of intellect and reason doesn't mean they are rational in what they do, can have knowledge and not use it. (Aristotle used example of learning to speak Greek)

ARISTOTLE'S CONCEPT OF SOUL- influences

Aristotle's interest in soul arises from interest in biology. Central philosophical concerns is to explain what life is. In his writings, the soul is translation of 'psyche' which doesn't correspond to idea of soul being centre of person's identity that survives after death.

STRENGTHS OF REPLICA THEORY

Avoids earlier criticisms of bodily resurrection, instead describing God as re-creating the human psycho-physical individual. Hick's theory avoids the complexities of the relation between the soul and the body.

H.H PRICE- dreams

Began exploration of intelligibility of ideas about life after death by comparing the afterlife with dreaming. In dreams we have the sense that we have bodies, and have experiences which are not bound by physical time and space. Price suggested the afterlife might be like dreaming, made of of mental images so clear, people might not understand that they had died. Even with no bodies to have sensory perceptions, mental images would seem like real perceptions.

CHRISTIANITY- the particular judgement

Belief that every person is judged at the moment of their death, 'particular' since judgement personal to individual. The way you act in life makes you the way you are and God judges you on how you choose to be. (Jesus in new testament and God in jewish scriptures sets out principles for people to live by, to remain in relationship with God) Christians shape their relationship with God through their actions, rejecting principles suggested to live by is a sign of rejecting God. Christian belief in judgement at death comes from teaching of Jesus.

CHRISTIANITY- Resurrection

Believe death isn't the end of existence, but end of physical life and beginning of new stage. St Paul speaks with absolute certainty of life after death. Clearly stated in Apostles' Creed believe in 'resurrection of the body, and life everlasting' Distinctive to Christianity is idea about body being resurrected, rather than just the soul or centre of identity. Many challenge this concept. It is also unclear when this physical resurrection of body takes place. Resurrection significant since it is a sign that God doesn't abandon people, even when they are dying. Jesus' resurrection is at the core of traditional Christian doctorine. Jesus dies for the people but also rises for the dead. In the Bible, Jesus isn't recognised by his followers after his resurrection, his body is transformed and different. Jesus' bodily resurrection evidence of resurrection being physical.

EPICURUS

Believes whether there is life after death doesn't matter. It is of 'no concern to use, for while we exist death is not present, and when death is present we no longer exist'

CALVIN'S PREDESTINATION

Calvin devised doctorine of divine election, some are destined for relationship with God. Being saved or going to hell a matter soley for God. We cannot question his judgement since he is beyond human comprehension. Calvin's doctorine is often associated with predestination, some are destined for eternal life and their actions in life are a sign of whether they are among elect. Evidence in Bible: book of revelation, 144, 000 servants of God who are to be saved. This can also be used as evidence of God's justice, those who are good are saved.

DESCARTES- soul

Descartes using his 'method of doubt', deemed we cannot be certain that the I that thinks has a body. This lead him to the conclusion that the real 'me' is the I that thinks, which is separate from the body. This conclusion leads to dualism and understanding the world as consisting of two kinds of substance: mind and matter. Body is spatial, mind is non-spatial and conscious. Descartes favoured theory of interactionism to explain the relationship between them: States of consciousness can be causally affected by states of body and vice versa. Similar to Plato, he deemed our true nature belongs to the mental world, rather than the material world.

DAVIS- vs karma

Doctorine of karma is claimed to explain problem of suffering (those who suffer have sinned in past life) However Davis questions rationality of this, given the link between lives is an immaterial soul. Reincarnated soul has no direct link with body it was in, so what can it mean when karma is carried forward?

STEVENSON

Explored 20 different cases where there was apparent evidence that an individual is the reincarnation of someone else. He took examples from variety of places (India, Brazil) , choosing to study children rather than adults, as these were less likely to be motivated by attention seeking, or fabricate evidence. In cases, Stevenson considered possibility of fraud, deemed unlikely given ages of children and little motivation for this. Thought the children thinking they remember something when actually hearing it from somewhere else was more probable. But there was little evidence to suggest that this was possible. After looking at alternative explanations: possibility of extra-sensory perception, genetic memory, Stevenson concluded reincarnation was most likely explanation.

GEACH- Vs non-physical resurrection

Geach claims bodily resurrection is the only meaningful way one can speak of life after death. A person cannot be meaningfully identified with spiritual existence after death. People are a unity of body and soul, hence can only meaningfully talk about life after death by describing a soul which is reunited to a body. Only this 'reconstitutes a man identifiable with the man who died' Supported by ideas of Christian Leaders at the Fourth Lateran Council, who believed it would destroy the idea of resurrection if the dead were to rise in bodies not thier own. Only different in respect they will be immortal bodies.

CHRISTIANITY- God's judgement Swinburne.

God must judge people, otherwise his goodness and justice can be challenged. Justification of innocent people suffering in life is belief that ultimately God will judge everyone. If we aren't punished, the value of free will is undermined, as it becomes the license to do what you like. Swinburne supports this view. Free will demands the possibility of being totally corrupt, otherwise God didn't actually give us free will. Divine justice only meaningful if it's carried out. Swinburne argues against modern theologian's 'universal salvation'. Theodicies rely on judgement.

CHRISTIANITY- heaven and hell

Hell- fate of those who do wrong in life. Commit mortal sin. A state of separation from God,.. God's justice demands wrong doers are punished, sinners also losing chance to have beatific vision. Images of hell, however, don't motivate us to do good for the right reasons. Heaven- Existence with God after death, seeing God face to face (beatific vision) State of fulfillment where humans are in a right relationship with God. 'Fulfilment of deepest human longings' Ultimate end of human existence.

HINDUISM- rebirth

Hinduism has a dualistic theory of life after death, contrasting Christian ideas of resurrection. Hindus believe in continuous creation, leading to a belief in transmigration of souls according to the law of eternal consequences (karma-samsara) This idea of transmigration leads to concept of reincarnation. Humans are composed of soul (atman) and material body (sharira). The atman is eternal, immutable, indestructable and is reborn into new bodies. The soul doesn't need to have a body, the joining a kind of imprisonment brought about by ignorance (avidya) and karma. Avidya causes humans to move further from the Self, the imprisonment is in principle endless, only ended when spiritual enlightement is gained. Status of the body which the soul finds itself in depends on actions of united body and soul in previous life. Morally good actions- better body. Process of reincarnation controlled by the law of karma. Those who cope with their suffering bravely become closer to achieving moksha. Hindus believe everyone has an atman and are therefore connected as part of divine essence, concern for well-being of others is important. Evidence: Children who appear to remember events they weren't at. Sense of deja vu. However alternative explanations of memory might be used to explain this.

RUSSELL

His arguments focused on view of life after death as wishful thinking. Fear of death is instinctive, belief in life after death results from this fear. Describes a person as 'a series of experiences connected by memory', memories are linked to brain in same way river is to a bed. If river bed is destroyed, there is no meaningful sense to use word river. When brain ceases to function, the memories which make them who they are are lost. No evidence of an afterlife and Russell suggests the world is better understood without a God and an afterlife. In his book, Russell lists awful things humans have done, asking whether we would want advocates of these to live forever.

DUALIST

Humans consist of a body and a soul/ centre of identity. Body is of secondary importance, only carrier of soul. Plato and Descartes held this vie, believing the body and the mid were somehow joined together but we experience them as separate. A strength of this view is that we do experience ourselves as thinking beings, distinct from our bodies. Adds credibility to near death experiences.

HUME- vs Descartes

Hume argues that Descartes does not apply his sceptical method of doubt far enough. If a malicious demon is tricking my mind, how do I know that I am the same person that I was yesterday, or an hour ago. Logically concluding Descartes' method of doubt, all I can say is the word 'I' represents a 'bundle of sensations' at the present moment. All 'I' can be certian of is an immediate awareness of thinking at this very moment in time. But I cannot conclude this same 'I' exists continuously through time as a 'thinking thing' There is no proof that there is an enduring 'I' independent of my body. Descartes has not proved that the 'I' exists as a continuous self through time.

D.Z PHILLIPS- Vs Plato's argument from opposites

If death means 'has ceased to exist', all Plato has shown is that things that exist have come into being from non-existence and then move back into non-existence when they die. Far from demonstrating cycle of reincarnation.

PLATO'S VIEW OF THE SOUL- Argument from opposites

In Phaedo, Plato put forward two arguments to show that the soul is immortal and exists before incarnation in a body. Argument from opposites: Whatever has an opposite comes into being only from its opposite, and gives the example of falling asleep from being awake, and waking up from being asleep. In the same way, argues Plato, whatever dies must have done so from being alive, and so whatever comes to be alive, must have done so from being dead. Therefore life and death come from each other in an endless chain of birth, death and rebirth. For death to be A THING, rather than NOTHING, the soul must exist so we can talk of living and death as opposites.

DESCARTES- influences

Mathematician who became obsessed with question of certainty. The certain knowledge of mathematics seems impossible to find elsewhere. Descartes attempted to apply mathematical method, beginning with simple indubitable premises and moving by logical steps to form conclusions, to outside of mathematics in order to find certainty. Used his 'method of doubt', working on assumption that nothing coudl be known with certainty, to find an indutitable truth. Imagining malicious demon determined to decieve us, Descartes concluded the only thing he cannot decieve us about is the fact that I am thinking- 'cognito ergo sum'. This is the starting point for all his philosophy.

SWINBURNE- vs reincarnation

No continuity between brain of new baby and old person. Therefore cannot meaningfully say that a soul of one person is distinctly the soul of a particular person. Shared memory is not the same as identity, cannot justify these two separate individuals being same person.

HICK- vs reincarnation

Noted the vast majority of cases supporting reincarnation come from cultures where reincarnation is already a widely held and accepted belief, raises questions about plausibility. Hick suggests Stevenson's cases might be explained by extra-sensory perception, where dead person leaves psychic traces and child has telepathic extra-sensitivity to these. However Hick doesn't say this is the right explanation, only another possibility.

DAVIES- vs Descartes

Notes the flaw in Descartes logic that: I can doubt that I have a body, but I cannot doubt that I think, therefore I exist as a 'thinking thing' but I am not a body. Logic in this argument is flawed. Take the example: Fred can doubt he is a professor of philosophy but cannot doubt that he thinks. Therefore Fred exists as a 'thinking thing' but he is not a professor of philosophy. This is invalid argument, since Fred may be a professor of philosophy, even if he is not certain of it. Doubting something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Descartes hasn't proved that this thinking thing exists as a mind independent of his body.

DAWKINS- Materialism

Only sense we survive death is through memories of us in others' minds; there is no part of a person that is non-physical. Discounts the idea that humans have any kind of soul to distinguish them from other species, we are simply a mixture of chemicals. Human consiciousness only evolved due to survival advantage it gives us. Role of body is as a 'survival machine' for genes, with consicousness there is a greater chance the body's genes will be passed on to next generation. However he doesn't say genes control and direct our thoughts. Moreover he deems there must be some 'added value'.

MONIST

Our minds or centres of identity cannot be separated from our bodies, mind's existence is dependent on the body (a functioning product of the brain). Humans are a unity of body and soul. Only possible for humans to survive death a body-soul unity.

PLATO'S VIEW OF THE SOUL-aspects

Plato identified 3 aspects of the soul when incarnate, evidence for these aspects coming from conflict between these aspects: Reason, emotion and appetite (highest being reason, appetite inferior) Reason allows us to gain knowledge, emotion allows us to love and appetites are necessary to encourage us to look after physical needs of body. All 3 elements play part in balance of an individual. Reason the charioteer, guiding 'horses' (emotion and appetite). Person should always let reason guide, rather than letting demands of emotion or appetite obscure wisdom. Kenny used example of child having tantrum to demonstrate this: emotion and appetite are not directed by reason. Harmony of soul is a virtue, lack of harmony in soul is when not all aspects of soul work together, stopping person from obtaining knowledge of forms. Injustice comes from disharmony. Vices (eg. habit of stealing) are wrong because they destroy harmony in soul, preventing one from seeing truth. We must do the right thing as will lead to seeing world of Forms (truth)

PLATO'S VIEW OF THE SOUL- complexity

Plato saw the soul as distinct from the body, the body being moral whilst the soul is immortal. Plato suggested soul would be reincarnated again, giving example of tyrants being reincarnated as wolves. In Republic, Plato describes the soul as 'simple' and 'without parts'. However he also talks about the soul in the body being 'complex' due to it's different aspects. When talking about it's complexity, the soul is still simple and without parts but has many different aspects. Soul is eternal since it has no beginning. It's simple structure makes it incapable of destruction, since it has no parts into which to disintegrate.

BLOXHAM

Produced well-authenticated examples of subjects recalling details of past lives whilst under hypnosis. Subjects took on different personalities, voices and sometimes even different language. Historical details of these recounts were found to be accurate. Many philosophers, on the other hand, would regard this as merely persistence of an isolated cluster of memories,

CHRISTIANITY- judgement day

Protestants traditionally believe in a judgement day at the end of history. On this day all the dead will be resurrected and possess some physical body that will resemble, yet be different to from their body posessed during earthly existence. At the final resurrection, the elect enter heaven while the damned are sent to hell.

WILLIAMS- Vs heaven & hell

Questioned whether an eternity in heaven is really desirable, arguing, however pleasurable, we would get bored. We would have eternity and, with perfected bodies, be able to achieve everything we wanted. Pleasure of living is making choices about what we'll do in our limited life spans. A response might be that God would make sure we didn't get bored, but this sort of thought programming would mean we lose our free will. Further raises question why God didn't make us like this to begin with.

DAVIS- vs identity theory

Questions the explanability of intentions. When you form an intention, it challenges identity theory, since as neural activity in the brain has no intentionality. Moreover, mental events are private and don't have a physical location.

PLATO'S VIEW OF SOUL- The Forms

Real knowledge of the Forms comes from the soul. When we learn we are only recalling knowledge about Forms the soul had before it was incarnated in the body. The body distracts the soul from seeking knowledge of world of Forms ('takes away all power of thinking'). The body is in a constrant process of change and therefore cannot be the source of knowledge. Hence the goal of soul is world of Forms, which can only be seen indirectly in physical world. A true philosopher avoids bodily distractions and concentrates all energy on gaining knowledge of Forms. Uses chariot analogy to demonstrate divide between soul's desires and desires of the body. Soul is chariot driver, directing both horses (mind desires and bodily desires) to work in harmony instead of pulling in different directions.

PROBLEM'S WITH PLATO'S VIEW OF THE SOUL

Relies heavily on his theory of Forms. if the idea of Forms is rejected, then knowledge is not a matter of recollection and the argument falls apart. Geach questions what it can mean for a disembodied soul to 'see' the Forms. Seeing is process likened to body and experiences through senses. Often learning concerns acquiring new knowedge. Questionability over whether the argument from opposites can be used to demonstrate the existence of anything. The assumption that there are pairs of opposites can be challenged. In Plato's argument for the immortality of the soul he assumes the existence of the thing he seek to prove, meaning the argument provides little weight for dualism.

DAWKINS- Vs religious theories of life after death

Religious beliefs (eg. immortality of the soul) are based on wish-fulfilment for those who lack courage and cannot cope with idea of own mortality. Consciousness isn't something that demonstrates humans as 'image of God', rather a survival advantage.

RYLE- vs Descartes

Ryle argued Descartes represented the dogma of 'the ghost in the machine', a vision of the human which made the mind a separate substance somehow attached to the body. Descartes was guilty of a 'category error', incorrectly assuming that two terms (mind and matter) are of the same logical type, when actual they are not. Illustrates his point with 3 famous examples: tourist going to Oxford looking round libraries etc, then asking where is university. Descartes is guilty of category error as he assumes sentences about causes, sensations and events must be mental or physical, incorrectly suggesting they cannot be both. Ryle says this is like saying I either bought a left-hand glove and a right -hand glove, or I bought a pair of gloves, but not both. For Ryle, a soul is something extra on top of the actions of a person, to talk about the way a person acts and responds to other people. Not a ghost.

HICK'S IRANEAN THEODICY- brief recap

Saw the entirety of earthly life as 'vale of soul-making', a place for people to develop moral characters. Hick argued people have to develop spiritually and morally into the likeness of God, and therefore need to inhabit a world where they can genuinely choose between good and evil.

HICK- the soul

Similar to Aquinas, believed my soul is not me. The soul needs a body to continue with its journey into the afterlife. The soul isn't unchanging, it must grow and develop, the same as the body does. Body and soul are inseparable, hence in order for there to be life after death for the soul, the body has to be resurrrected.

HELL- state of separation

Some focus on hell being state of separation from God, caused by person becoming aware of others' judgement of them. Hell is a state of utter loneliness, Aquinas argues this separation from God mirrors separation from community on earth when someone commits wrong doing. Satre similarly suggests poor relationships with others are the experience of hell. 'Hell is other people' To end in hell, you must continue wrongdoing and never repent. God is forgiving, but rejecting God and never building a relationship with him means you will not be saved.

AQUINAS- soul

Soul is a spiritual substance, but is also the form of the whole body. Both the body and soul together are needed to make a full human person, although the soul can survive death by itself. Doesn't hold simple dualist view but instead believed both the soul and the body are needed to make a full human individual . Soul is 'part of his body, in the same way God is in the world'. Bodies not irrelevant distraction from the soul, as traditional dualist viewed. When we die, our souls survive and go to hell, purgatory of beatific vision (fully satisfying final end for human kind)

HINDUISM- soul

Soul is essence of the person. Everyone has an atman (soul or essential self) which animates the body. Soul's place in life (status of body), reflects the law of karma. Karma is the cycle of life, death and rebirth where action's determine soul's next place. The ultimate goal of the soul is to be united with Brahman. Soul is eternal and seeks unity with God. The physical world is only a dreamlike state, temporary, it is not true reality which is Brahman. When reunited with Braham, the soul escapes the cycle of death and reincarnation. Soul is released, moksha. Spiritual wisdom comes when peopel recognise the ultimate identity of the atman with the divine. God manifests himself in the atman of each individual and, through succession of rebirths, personcomes to an understanding and a union of atman with God.

IDENTITY THEORY

Supports idea of materialists that identity is linked inextricably to physical body. Theory that all mental activities are centred in the brain- emotions derive from brain and any of our characteristics are explanable by reference to mental activity. Support of theory comes in form of scientific research which can alter character by drugs. NASA has also developed sensors which can recognise words you say silently to self, without voicing aloud. Suggests thoughts are readable as are caused by physical events in brain.

ARISTOTLE'S CONCEPT OF THE SOUL

The soul and the body are an inseparable unity, gave example of imprint in wax to demonstrate this. Soul is a substance, which remains the same, even when the physical body is in a continual state of change. The soul is the principle of activity or life of the body. Aristotle gave the example of an eye. If the eye were a body, it's soul would be it's capacity to see. The soul is the capacity that the body has to do whatever it is meant to do. Gives the body Form, the soul gives shape to matter which is the body. For example a marble statue is physically a block of marble, but has the shape and Form of a statue. Shape and form of statue cannot be separated from what the statue is made out of in same way soul cannot be separated from the body. Aristotle gave example of axe. If axe was living the body would be the axe head and handle, whilst the Form would be what makes it an axe. Lawson-Tacred gave example of car to demonstrate Aristotle's way of thinking. Form of car is both it's shape and it's activity- driving.

ARISTOTLE'S CONCEPT OF SOUL- linking with his four causes

The soul gives movement and life in the body, whilst also giving form to matter of the body. This makes the soul all of the bodies causes, bar material cause. Soul is the 'cause and principle of the living body'

HICK'S REPLICA THEORY

The theory rejects dualism (materialist) whilst at the same time preserving belief in bodily resurrection. Hick sees humans as a 'psycho-somatic unity' (unity of physical body and mind) the two cannot be separated. 'Soft materialism'- we are our bodies, but our bodies have a spiritual dimension. 'Replica theory' explains his idea of resurrection as a divine action whereby an exact replica of ourselves is created in a different place (with the same thoughts memories, personality) but in an ideal state. The replica is the same in all aspects but location of replica is not on earth. This resurrection takes place instantaneously at death, or at a God-determined time lapse. Replica exists in a different space observable by God but not us. The world of the resurrected is not spatially related to our world, but objects within itare spatially related to each other.

DAWKINS- The soul

Two versions of the soul: - Soul One, idea that body is made conscious by 'some mysterious thing or substance'. Dawkins believes science has killed off this idea. - Soul Two- intellectual power, high development of mental faculties. Dawkins argues this is real and part of who we are. He criticises the 'cheap debating trick' which implies if science cannot explain something, it can legimitimately open possibility of spirit. This doesn't constitute explanation. Believes science has capacity to answer such fundamental questions about the nature of human life.

ARISTOTLE'S CONCEPT OF SOUL- immortality of the soul?

Unity of Form and matter idea suggests the soul doesn't survive after death, however 'De anima' doesn't focus on question of immortality. It's concern instead to explain life. Aristotle suggested intellectual thought could be separated from the soul and be eternal. However thought this isn't the same as personal identity. Kenny describes Aristotle's writing about intellectual faculty to be inconstant.

FLEW

Was against life after death. Believed people are mortal, minds of humans are united to a physical body and that body is mortal. Mental processes do not survive physical death. Life after death is 'self-contradictory' since people 'are what you meet' (you don't meet a disembodied soul)

ISSUES WITH REPLICA THEORY

With suggestion of multiple replicas, the concept of individuality would be lost. However Hume argues agaist this, suggesting it's not fitting with understanding of a person. Some philosophers say what matters is physical continuity (everything happens to same body) If body ends, person no longer exists (can be no such thing as a replica) Hick acknowledged problem with continuity butargued it's meaningful to call it the same person if a person dies and appears in new world with same memories. Any discussion of life after death is limited by our inability to talk beyond sense experience. Hick recognised his theory was not something that can be proved in this life, but nevertheless argued it's not an unreasonable belief for a rational person to hold.