2014
(a) Examine the key features of one belief about life after death.
The concept of life after death is one that is much discussed by human beings, for many reasons. Perhaps we are afraid of death, or we wish to have the comfort that we will see loved ones again, or we simply feel that our earthly lives are too short to be ended at death. It is universally accepted that one day, our current lives will end because our bodies, as physical entities, will perish:
‘by their nature, physical things perish.’ (Tyler and Reid)
However, it is the theories for post mortal existence that differ between religions. In his books Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas suggested that each being has an ‘anima’; a soul which animates the body, thus giving it life. Aquinas believed in the monistic view: that
‘the natural condition of the soul is to be united with the body.’ (Aquinas)
Plato, however, believed in dualism. This is the idea that the body and soul are two separate things; the body a contingent entity that will decay over time, while the spirit is non-contingent and will go on forever.
Many theories exist for what happens after death. One example is the Hindu belief in reincarnation; a dualistic concept, involving the transmigration of the atman (soul) into a new physical body after the current one dies:
‘Just as a person casts off his worn out clothes, so does the disembodied soul cast off worn out bodies in exchange for a new one.’ (Bhagavad Gita)
Throughout an extensive cycle of births, deaths and reincarnations, the atman gradually becomes purer. As it does so, it begins seek to go back to Brahman; the universal supreme spirit of Hinduism that is present in all living beings. According to the Upanishads (Hindu sacred texts), once a person realises that they are drawn to Brahman, they have achieved spiritual wisdom. After this point, the atman no longer needs to continue the cycle of reincarnation and returns to Brahman, in a release called moksha:
‘It is Brahman and union with Brahman that all souls seek.’ (Ahluwalia)
Reincarnation is controlled by the natural law of karma, meaning every action an individual takes has consequences, or ‘fruits’. Positive actions like meditation on the brahmaviharas or being moral results in good karmic fruits, while something like being selfish would result in bad karma. The role of karma in reincarnation is significant because it means that Brahman is not involved in the salvation of beings, although one may pray to the various Hindu deities in order to improve one’s karma. However, the main factor affecting the quality of the person’s future lives is the choices they make in their current existence:
‘the good and bad karmic fruits attached to each atman will determine the quality of life of the individual in future reincarnation.’ (Ahluwalia)
This is significant because it means that reincarnation satisfies the desire for justice; if a person does something bad in this life, their karma, and consequently their next life, will be negatively affected.
Hindus believe that there is empirical evidence for reincarnation, such as the existence of child geniuses. It is understood that during life, the atman gains knowledge which becomes attached to it. The theory of reincarnation offers an explanation for this phenomenon, in that child geniuses may have acquired their knowledge in past lives and have just carried it over into this existence. This is a significant strength for the theory.
Dr Ian Stevenson’s research also supports reincarnation as a possibility for life after death. He investigated instances where people claimed to have memories of past lives, with corroborating evidence such as knowledge of other places or possessions that they used to own. Cases such as these are supportive evidence for reincarnation as they suggest that something with knowledge has lived before, and now lives again in this life i.e. the atman. However, it is arguable that Dr Stevenson’s research is flawed in that it is possible that the people concerned have lied. In addition, all the cases he recorded were from societies where reincarnation is accepted as truth, so the memories professed could equally be the result of cultural conditioning. Concerning the phenomenon of child geniuses, John Hick argues that this
‘may be due to instinct and exceptionally fortunate genetic combinations.’ (Hick)
However, it is unlikely that those who remember past lives and believe in reincarnation would lie, as this would only give them bad karma. This gives credibility to Stevenson’s research.
To conclude, it is clear that the theory of reincarnation has many strengths as an argument for what happens after death; it deals with the issue of justice for misconduct, and gives an explanation for phenomena such as child geniuses. John Hick identifies in his book ‘Death and Eternal Life’ that, although the only way to prove the doctrine of reincarnation is through eschatological verification,
‘[it] makes sufficient connection with actual or possible human experience to constitute it is a factual claim.’ (Hick) (b) Discuss the claim that a different belief from that selected above presents a stronger basis for belief in life after death.
Despite the strengths of the theory of reincarnation, several criticisms have been raised which weaken the argument. For instance, reincarnation has an issue with the continuity of the body and soul. If a soul inhabits a new body, can it really be said that it is the same person? Since our physical appearance is one of the main things that identify us, are we really the same person if we look different? Hick argues:
‘There can be general similarities of character found… but such general similarities would never by themselves lead or entitle us to identify the two as the same person.’
Furthermore, reincarnation does not answer one of the main worries that humans have about death; being reunited with loved ones. With this theory, once somebody dies, their soul is reincarnated into a completely different body, possibly in a different country or even in another realm of existence. This means that there is no hope of being reunited with someone in a post mortal existence, as their soul has moved on. Criticisms such as this challenge the validity of reincarnation as a theory, and suggests that there could be an alternative theory that is stronger.
One such alternative is the theory of resurrection; a monist idea that suggests that the soul and one’s physical body will at some point be reunited after death:
‘… the will cannot be perfectly at rest until the soul is again joined to a body. When this takes place, man rises from the dead.’ (Aquinas, Summa Theologica)
This doctrine is common among Abrahamic religions, demonstrated by examples such as Jesus Christ who was resurrected the third day after his crucifixion, and subsequently appeared to his disciples:
‘Look at my hands and my feet… touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.’
Christians believe that our actions in this earthly life will determine whether we go to Heaven or Hell after we die, a judgement made by God on what is commonly known as ‘judgement day’:
‘He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.’ (2nd Timothy)
At this point, it is believed that we will receive an eternal body, free from flaws which will
‘live on forever’ (St. Paul) while we will still retain our former thoughts and memories.
It is arguable that this theory of resurrection is stronger than that of reincarnation for what happens after death. St. Paul believed in the strength of the resurrection theory on the grounds that Jesus Christ had been resurrected, therefore all humans may hope that they would be also. Additionally, resurrection theory offers a solution to the issue of continuity raised in both theories. In the case of resurrection, the fact that we return in different bodies to the ones that died brings up the issue; if our bodies are different to what they were, are we really the same person? As Bertrand Russell says:
‘The continuity of a human body is a matter of appearance and behaviour, not of substance.’
However, John Hick seeks to explain the issue of continuity in his replica theory. This is the idea that if someone died and appeared elsewhere with the same memories and the same physical features, then it would be meaningful to regard this replica as the same person. He argues that an omnipotent God would be able to create a replica of a dead person and place them in a world inhabited only by resurrected beings. Hick claims that life after death could be
‘As a resurrected replica in a different world altogether, a resurrection world inhabited only by resurrected persons.’ (Hick)
The theory of resurrection is also strong because it deals with the idea of justice, as does reincarnation. The deeds of a person while they are on earth will determine whether they go to Heaven or Hell; a good place or a bad place. The person is placed in accordance with what they have done in this life, meaning a person who did bad things will receive their punishment by being sent to Hell. Similarly, a moral person would go to Heaven, according to their deeds. As Judaism explains:
‘Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.’ (Daniel 12:2)
Resurrection has further advantages as an argument over reincarnation, for example it allows for us to be reunited with our loved ones again because we will regain a physical body. If we were just spirits with no physical substance, we would not be able to interact with other spirits, but with resurrection, we will have an eternal, physical, body. In addition, resurrection addresses the issues of life after death in a philosophical context; it gives the reassurance that there is something more to life; an afterlife in which Summun Bonum (perfection) can be achieved.
To conclude, while it is clear that the theory of reincarnation has merit in explaining some of the issues surrounding life after death, the theory of resurrection provides a more coherent and more comforting conclusion and is therefore a stronger argument that reincarnation.