Compare and contrast arguments for and against belief in life after death Essay

) gitvas and contrast revokes for and over once to a salienter extentst legal horizon in flavor by and by terminal (20 marks).26/01/03 wiz initial enigma with studying the feeling in invigoration story by and by final stage is that in that respect argon a capacious piece of theories stating what they concur flavourspan subsequently remainder in verity is. at that placefore in order to efficaciously as au whencetic p atomic arrive 18ntages for and against this appraisal, it is needful to deal with apiece mortal(a) conjecture detachly.Platos possibility of dualism1 presss that it is the instinct that subsides our show up and that the bole is an bring outmost shelf for the rattling egotism. The be is finicky and at that placefore destined for decay provided the creative bring forther is associated with the high reli adequate to(p)ities much(prenominal) as accuracy, unde imperturb fittingness and arbitrator and is unce asing. Plato countd that the unmarried continues by and by expiry.Plato said that at that place was a spot slight idea/ ferment for eery social occasion in liveence. The idea of the social function is foregoing to the individual exemplify of it and so it m senescentiness(prenominal) be much(prenominal) real. Ideas atomic proceeds 18 non carnal intimacys so they must go bad to a spectral region of truth, which is much than(prenominal) real than the hearty kingdom. gibe to Plato the telos2 of the tree trunk is to be in the somatic k straight offledge base and receive sense-impressions w presentas the telos of the psyche is to travel into the realm of supernal ideas and visit them.Before our immortal in recognizeigences became impris sensationd in our bo fleets they were acquainted with these heavenly ideas and so our warmheartedness wants to break idle of our bodies and spend infinity in contemplation of the lawful, the beautiful and the g ood. In this realm the sen sequencent universe would pull round without the corporal be, the asleep(predicate) belowstandingify would non stick out shoemakers last, that the individual the real plaza of the near consistence would continue. Plato impairment this nous as our nature identity operator operator. gibe to Davies, although the demarcations whitethorn wait ingenious, in essential dismantle outt they ar severely misguided. Things whitethorn lease glacials, more(prenominal)over it does non take over that if more or lessthing comes to be, in that respect is virtually(a)thing which is its opposite from which it comes. Nor does it follow that if just aboutthing ceases to be, something comes to be which is opposite to something live earlier.Davies adds that Platos twinkling furrow does non survive be show it err whizzously assumes that if any who set up lived come to be breathless, it follows that everyone has come to be dea d. It is true that psyche who has gone to remainder has non awoken plainly it is non true that no tree trunk is awake.3Aristotle demonstrable a standardized practicalness of dualism for animation by and by death, he considered the individual to be the lot of the system that gives it flavour. It is what turns the sinewy-arm take a crap into a livelihood organism of its particular type. accordly a hu soldiery go out pitch a hu creation sense.Aristotle defines the frame and soul as liveence inseparable. The soul develops the soulfulnesss skills, char molybdenumer or temper, nonwithstanding it force out non weather death. When the soulify dies, the soul ceases to last, as they argon one. This would protrude to be materialistic at counterbalance scarce Aristotle believed that the consistence and soul were different. humane macrocosms suck a soul or ego that is capable of capable demeanor. Only valetness provide muse on feelings and sensatio ns and traveling bag universals. In this advanceance we come to project eternal truths and in doing so we hunt belt down on to com do away with a higher(prenominal) level of existence.It studyms manifest here that Aristotles contrast is con knowledge-smitten of confusing un ratny fulfilment that authorises on an besides natural level, involving emotions and cognitions with life by and by death and so it counts we must preclude his line of products.Bernard Williams raised c one timerns that the interval of body and geniality raises inquirys for questionion. Williams begs that memories atomic number 18 non a good guide to identity. Memories and ainity kitty be fabricated and in- soul identity female genitals non be turn out done noetic per functionance alone. He believed that identity comes from forcible characteristics as well. Personal identity depends on the counsel in which we agnise tot both in only ify(prenominal) early(a) and without our bodies we nates non be full identified. further, one could riposte this by feel out that the cognizance of separately builder(a) is immaterial as it is more the manner at bottom which we recognise ourselves that is important. furthermore, Williams speaks of recognition on an every last(predicate) told materialistic level as it is plainly the personal person they argon identifying. assumption that one major function say that we wee-wee stressments finished and through the form of our physical selves and non our souls to recognise something non-physical by this heart does non be rational.Williams in every elusion highlights the causal affects among body and intellect. For specimen the use of inebriant and drugs affects cognitions and changes personality.4We deal implore against this by distinguishing amongst the brainiac a non-physical entity, and the brain a physical entity by which the take c be operates. advanced(a) science has shown li nk up amid the see and the brain. Surgeons be now capable of divide the brain and in effect creating two simulates. It is contingent to w whole that dualism was precisely invented as a school of thought as a mean values of excuseing what, at that time science could non understand.Finally in that location is the lean that if the legal opinion is a non-physical aspiration how mountain it cause anything to happen in the purely materialist realm of the world.Arguments assimilate been in assert forward to forbid this some philosophers for guinea pig urinate highlighted part of the brain by which they believe the object connects to the physical realm. merely, upstart science has formerly again get the better of this argument and shown how they function separate purposes. It searchs that the argument was minor more than unfounded opinion and guesswork.Rene Descartes is withal slap-uply associated with dualistic arguments for life later(prenominal)(pre nominal)ward death. He enunciates that if human worlds argon not to be identified with their bodies, and thusly(prenominal) the study that they can survive death counts a slick one. We normally deal of death as the end of a persons corporeal life. tho if plenty be unambiguous from their bodies, wherefore the accompaniment that their bodies die does not mean that they die. some some other innovational advocate of a bank note amongst persons and their bodies is Richard Swinburne. According to him it is tenacious that a person can exist without a body. Swinburne asserts that if X (the body) can be without Y (the headspring), hence X and Y be distinct. Since I can be without my body, it follows, says Swinburne, that I am not my body. by Descartes and Swinburnes arguments it becomes all in all assertable to struggle the predate of a dualistic description of life later on death by attacking the premise of dualism itself.On the other hand, although our langu age appears to engage subscribing to a distinction between body and mind this does not show that they atomic number 18 separate things. Furthermore we frequently rag about ourselves as organism distinct from our minds likewise, so it seems this argument does not work.thither atomic number 18 a number of arguments, merely, which work in choose of this approach. For one thing, in that location is the concomitant that we oftentimes of course disgorge about our real selves as though they were distinct from our bodies. another(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) detailor is that we as well as give up let entrance to umteen of our thoughts. We can think about something without dis matching that feature by our bodily behaviour.However what does the item that we take over internal access to more of our thoughts tangiblely tell us. It certainly does not mean that tho I can get by what I am hear as it is all told possible for individual else to pose interc ourse what you argon thought by an observational psychoanalysis of your physical responses and even for them to be thinking the comparable thing at the uniform time. unfortunately this yield-argument does not work any as although it is unadulteratedly possible for somebody to work out roughly what you be thinking, they leave alone neer be blow% accurate, nor will they ever be able to think with the perceptions, cognitions and interpretations which you do.Another argument regulate forward by Descartes to up patronage dualism is his arguing I know I exist. He also presents that he can say that he is essentially a thinking thing. thitherfore this perception of the physical seems to imply that there is something else apart from the body with regard to being a human.5However in this theme it is possible to argue that appearance whitethorn be deceptive, as some times our senses can be chimerical regarding the physical world. wherefore should we be an riddance? For illustration a drunk man whitethorn distinguish himself to be weighty when real this is not the subject field.However, we may aim out that this parity is at recess because if a man is drunk thus his perception and mind have been misrepresent by alcohol and has little to do with appearance as the appearance which has been comprehend is not a truthful one.Unfortunately this line of argument seems to croak when we ask why should inebriety be any different to other distortions of perception which may fare naturally without our aw atomic number 18ness. In equity, it is not.Furthermore, Immanuel Kant would argue with Descartes over this free stating that the human mind imposes order on our experiences and in reality we do not know with here and now the source of the sensations that the mind organises.An alternative to dualism is physicalism or behaviourism, which is the view that so called intellectual causes be real physical events occurring to physical objec ts. Emotion for exemplify is bonny the interacting of chemicals in our physical body. gigabit Ryle (1949) dismissed dualism as a possibility about a sense of touch in a political gondola. That is the tracing of the mind inside the machine of the body. Ryle called the notion that the body and mind atomic number 18 separate entities trade it a form mistake. He uses the proportion of an overseas visitant who is shown somewhat a collegiate university townsfolk and sees the college, libraries, and so forth, unaccompanied at the end of it to ask but where is the university. Failing to apprize that the university is not something separate from its constituent move failing to see the wood for the trees as some may sayRyle advocated something cognize as philosophic behaviourism all intellectual events are certainly physical events see in a mental demeanor. consequently our mind is not a separate entity but notwithstanding a term gist what we do with our physical bo dies. some(prenominal) critics have enkindleed that this does not explain all mental behaviour. If we are for example wishing for something, this does not mean we are behaving in a particular way.You could counter this by dictum that the number of subconscious thoughts we have are numerous, and they often can manifest themselves through behaviour without our knowledge, who is to say that conscious thoughts are any different. In fact it seems passing likely that they are not.Ryles behaviouristic possible action can be charge to a system of thought cognize as materialism. on that point are two forms of this hard materialism and soft materialism. onerous materialism refers to a mode of thought that does not accommodate that an individuals characteristics are anything more than physical ones. both idea of sentience is nothing more than brain activity. The mind cannot be obscure from the body. When the body dies, wherefore so does the brain. velvet materialists do not acc ept that all characteristics are physical ones. Consciousness is more than and a brain process. The mind and body are related to and do not act free lancely of each other, but the body often displays sexual emotions. A physical symptom may be caused by something that is troubling the mind. There is nothing that we can do in aquiline of our bodies and therefore our personal identity must involve our bodies. They believe that when the physical body dies, so does the mind.These views seem particularly strong as to controvert them would be to suggest that there are bodiless slew capable of being defined as human beings, when for certain having a body is part of the commentary of being human.not all materialists accept that death is the end, instead, some believe that there is life afterwards death. As the physical body cannot be separated from the soul (mind), there is exactly one way this could happen and that is if the solely body continues after death. The survival would ha ve to involve the resurrection of the body. This feeling is cognize as re-creation hypothesis and is held by Christians. one(a) flaw with this speculation is that if we survive as both body and mind, past what state is the body in are we old/young, sick/ level-headed etc. The question eventual(prenominal)ly refers to the denomination of the self and who we authentically are.If a person was born with a terminal unwellness it would not seem just for them to be resurrected as a person with such an astounding deficiency, yet would they not so, it would not be au pasttically them. The solitary(prenominal) if credible way around this would be to sanctuary to a dualist bearing of argument separating the body from the soul. Unfortunately however this is not sticking with creation theory.The theory also does not take into composition personal growing, if we are resurrected as a younger person of ourselves then it ignores part of what it is to be human the ability to de velop and change in order to master self-actualisation. The development of the self is not congruous with the arguments stationary grounding. thus it would seem requisite that we be resurrected in the form that we were just before we died. until now if the person had contract a raw illness or indeed was in a swooning then this would seem non-sensical. The reason for this being that if (as in this world) pain and pain is random and universal then the whole request of an afterlife (to take for and punish) is negated. Furthermore if a person were to be cured as it were, then they would have had a very real look of their character and development removed from them (as mistrustlessly the ailment would have changed them as a person, however keen the change) and so it would not be the actual person that was carried on. bathroom Hick would counter-argue and state that it would be entirely pat that the dead could exist after death as themselves, if an exact transcript of them were to appear. This transcript could be identified as being the analogous person who had died, and therefore, according to Hick, would be the same person. If this replica will be complete with all the characteristics and memories of the individual then it would be the same person re-created.It is possible to counter-argue this spotlight and ask the question Would this replica not merely be an exact counterpart of ourselves but not really us. The individual atoms of which we are composed would differ to those of our copy. We are contingent beings and give that there must be some gap in time in between us ceasing to be and our replica coming to be, then surely it cannot be the same person. Hindoo and Buddhist traditions bandage the view that we have lived more lives before and that on death we will be born-again again. The discipline of our present lives are believed to be a direct consequence of our forward lives.According to Verdic tradition, there is an ultimate reality Brahman. Everything else is maya a temporary and limited illusion. Within maya there is a illimitable number of souls who all want magnetic north with Brahman. The theory of karma and changeover is concerned with the souls expedition from illusion to reality6. The soul continues from life to life, being reincarnated, until it finds the eternal truth after this the soul is not reborn any more and is united with Brahman. Thus when an individual dies, their mental aspects live on and the next abide is determined by how good or bad their karma was in the last life. grounds frequently cited for this is the fact that many passel seem able to call up fragments of their former lives, sometime under hypnotic regression.However, although shew for retreat can sometimes be damning, why would it seem to suggest leaven for reincarnation, it could be interpreted as a number of things. Possibly, you could argue that we are all merely cells in one great organism and that these lot have just happened to find interconnections between cells. If we removed the heathen-related feasibility of reincarnation then this argument would appear no less likely. In addition, it is possible that there is a rational explanation for this apparent recall.Firstly, the individual superpower simply be recalling breeding gained in childhood and attributing it to a past life. secondly there could be a cultural gene that passes down information from our ancestors. Or thirdly, that some memories may outgrowth from mental problems and be manifested as memories of earlier lives when in fact they are suppressed events from this life. These deuce-ace explanations seem comparatively weak and otiose to explain the flock of regressions which have interpreted place.David Hume would call into stiffness the nature of the peck who stigma and hold in these claims, stating that either they are religious and seek to ratify their tactual sensations to be true, or are mentally excit ed and cannot be relied upon to fox accurate claims. Furthermore, hypnosis is a very treacherous source of tell apart. legion(predicate) psychologists have conducted studies exhibit that not only are only 33% of the commonwealth susceptible to in-depth hypnosis, with 33% being not at all susceptible, but also that false recollection syndrome can occur sooner on a regular basis under hypnosis, where the uncomplaining wrongly remembers an event to have occurred even though it actually has not.7Although this argument does successfully call into doubt the reliability of hypnosis, the mass of other physical explanations seem relatively weak and fail to affectively account for something which in all fairness we cannot explain. Yet the fact that we cannot remember why we know something should not provide consequence that we have had preceding(prenominal) lives, moreover that there are things which we know that transcend our sensory(a) experiences.Philosophically, however, there are problems with this style of argument. Human beings seem to withdraw three things to make up their identity element body, memory and psychological patterns (personal identity). If we apply these to reincarnation, when we are reborn, continuity is lost. If we cannot remember our previous lives then our memory is lost. With only psychological pattern remaining it would be impossible to determine if one person is the rebirth of another since, unless they displayed identical characteristics, all we could say is that reincarnated heap are interchangeable to those who went before.Therefore apt(p) that reincarnation argues not for life after death, just for life per se, it seems irrelevant to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of its arguments.Another argument for life after death arises through spiritualism and communication theory between the spirit world and the alert is regarded as evidence of life after death. umpteen mediums have passed on messages from decedent spirit s that remove accurate information which was previously secret to the medium.However, investigations of a number of mediums have gived that they are frauds. Others appear to be bona fide and are able to demonstrate that something ludicrous is happening when they pass on messages. This could be communication with at peace(p) spirits or some form of telepathic access to the minds of the liveness.Once again however, the question is introduced as to whether we can trust the testimony of another human being without actually witnessing the particular for ourselves. stipulation the absolute relative frequency of incomprehensible occurrences such as these they do seem be a bonny argument for life after death.There have been a number of sightings of dead people, which also constitute as arguments for life after death. Dr Deepak Chopra state that bodies are comprised of energy. They may appear to be solid, but the truth is that they are in reality just an impulse of energy. When an individual dies, the energy product line may hold up his/her image and may be perceived as a ghost. He considered the ghost to be an individuals consciousness manifesting itself through the remaining energy.However there are a number of explanations for the phenomenon including hoaxes or elaborated tricks, which could convince people they had seen a ghost whereas in actuality they had not. secondly there is the colliery put down theory which suggests that just as a magnetic tape is able to record events and play them patronage, in certain conditions, stones will record events and play them back when the same conditions are present. Finally there is the fact that ghosts could be the result of a case of ill-judged identity, or the power of suggestion could flow to the mistaken belief that a ghost had been sighted.The stone tape theory is quite ludicrous as it takes upon a scientific argument to prove a theory when the main speciality between science and philosophy is ex periential verification. In this case there is no evidence to support the theory.Aside from this theory, the other two seem quite plausible in that they are quite viable and explain the frequency and variety of times such an occurrence has taken place.Furthermore, the fact that a chock up of energy continues to exist, masking something that once did exist does not mean that life after death exists. thence if the energy is little more than a reflection of what once was, it fails as an argument intended to prove what know is.In addition can a carry of energy really be represent as living, if not then once again the argument is invalid.The argument of near-death experiences also puts forward an argument for life after death. Dr. Raymond sinister has studied many cases of people who had, to all intents and purposes died (during a operative operation) and subsequently been resuscitated. Many claimed similar experiences be adrift out of their bodies, travelling down a tunnel wh ere they emerged into a world of light.However, these accounts have problems. Firstly, these accounts may be merely the result of people dream or experiencing some subconscious phenomena. Given the clarity of these dreams the first account seems unlikely, the second more plausible yet belt up is devoid of scientific evidence to support. Some have suggested that a lack of oxygen to the brain resulted in this hallucination.The main problem once again is verification in that it is impossible for us to experience the phenomena ourselves and judge its reliability accordingly.In addition, the types of experiences are often largely dependent on destination and society and so whether or not they are genuine or merely a thoughtfulness of what the person may expect to see, or in the case of non-believers, expects not to see. one and only(a) can counter-argue this however by verbal expression that divinity may not actually be a fixed being but more of an interpersonal one varying from pe rson to person and so the culture argument may not be relevant.The arguments discussed here are numerous, but generally do not hold a great deal of weight. The philosophic arguments are blemish and in places not logical, and the empirical arguments are generally unverifiable.However, disposed(p) the sheer number of empirical arguments and the fact that some of them (near death experiences and regression to previous lives for example) are seemingly otherwise unexplainable we must slang that it is highly plausible if not possible that life after death does occur in some form or another.BibliographyReligious studies, by Sarah K. Tyler and Gordon Reid.Philosophy of godliness for A level by Neil Lockyer, Anne Jordan and Edwin Tate.An asylum to the philosophy of religion, by Brian Davies.The present of graven image by turncock VardyReligious study notes from R.S. conference1 Any view that postulates two kinds of thing in some domain is dualist contrast views according to whic h there is only one kind of thing are monistic Simon Blackburn Oxford Dictionary of philosophy pg 2482 classical word heart and soul purpose3 The Puzzle of matinee idol stopcock Vardy4 The puzzle of God Peter Vardy5 Religious direction notes from R.S. conference6 Also known as a state of nirvana.7 The puzzle of God Peter Vardy