Introduction
Life is known as the experience or state of being alive. Death signifies the end of a person's life therefore life after death is referred to using the term 'Afterlife', 'which has the definition: an existing life, which begins after death. There is no solid scientific proof of life after death, hence people believe in an afterlife due to their religion, holy book, or traditions. This theory of life after death dates to prehistoric times. There is a widespread of controversial answers, however, I am going to argue that there is life after death. It is necessary for a person to have knowledge of life after death since it will likely influence the value given to this current existence.
Argument For:
Christian beliefs are established upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ. They believe that after their physical death, God will raise them from the dead in bodily form (resurrection) and judge whether they should go to heaven or hell.
Buddhists believe that after they die, they are reborn into a new form; the form that they are born in is dependent on karma. Karma means your actions in your previous life have a reaction in your next life. E.g., If you murder in your previous life, you will turn into something like a cockroach, in your next life. This shows that Buddhists believe in rebirth, which is a form of life after death.
Sikh beliefs are based on the Guru Granth Sahib Ji which states that there is a cycle of reincarnation. The aim is to gain Mukti (freedom) from this cycle and become one with Waheguru (God).
In the book by Chris Eyre et al, 'OCR Philosophy and Ethics', he talks about Plato`s theory of dualism and analyses his views. In his dualist views, Plato suggests humans are made of two parts: the body and the soul. He claims that the soul pre-existed in the Realm of Forms and merged with the body in the Realm of Appearances. He claims that death is where the soul leaves the body to go to the Realm of Forms. This shows us that Plato believes there is a place for the soul to go after death, meaning he does believe in life after death.
Author Eben Alexander discusses his near-death experiences in the book 'Proof of Heaven'. Scientists who study near-death experiences have found evidence that suggests consciousness is capable of continuing even after the brain ceases to function. Some people also claim to have spoken to long-dead family members, during near-death or out-of-body experiences, which may suggest we are more than just physical beings.
An American philosopher, G.P Moreland says in an interview 'Closer to Truths', that your opinions on an afterlife are based on if you believe in God or not. He says that God values human lives, hence will put them in a good place after death.
John Hicks created the 'Replica Theory', which contrasted against every other idea. He believes that the body cannot live without the soul- they are one as Aristotle did. He believes that when one dies, they will live in heaven as a 'replica'. He gave an example of a man called John Smith. If John Smith disappeared and at the same time a replica appears in New York, that is the same John Smith.
Arguments against:
Humanists do not believe in an afterlife and are focused on seeking happiness in this life. They argue that it is the absence of an afterlife that makes life all the more important. This idea is backed up by Richard Dawkins, a famous humanist, who summed up his views in his famous quote, 'We are all going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia.'
In addition to this, the Greek philosopher, Epicurus (341-372 b.c.e) has similar views, which are also popular amongst humanists. One of his arguments includes, 'Death involves neither pleasure nor pain. The only thing that is bad for us is pain. Therefore, death is not bad for us.' Many of his arguments are based on similar principles (who is death bad for?) and seem to comfort people from the truth of death.
Jean-Paul Satre does not believe in an afterlife, after seeing hatred and evil in WW1. His theory is that if God is real, he would not let innocent people suffer and no evil would occur.
Additionally, Aristotle uses a statue to demonstrate that if the shape is taken from the marble or the marble is taken from the shape, there will be no statue. In the same way, if the soul were to be separated from the body, or the body from the soul, there would be no life. As a result, there is no afterlife because we are unable to live beyond death.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Discussion
According to Plato, the body is a part of the physical world, but the soul belongs to a higher realm. He is a dualist, meaning that he believed there are two elements to humans- the body and the soul. He believes that the soul pre-existed in the Realm of the Forms and then joins the body in the Realms of the Appearances. The soul is captured in the body until the physical death, where the soul flies back to 'The Realms of the Forms'.
In correlation to Plato`s views, Christianity also believes that heaven is the 'perfect world' just like Plato believes the Realms of the Forms is the ideal place. Plato proves this by giving an example that there are men in The Realms of the Appearances, however, in The Realms of the Forms, there is the ideal man. Christian views on heaven and hell can relate to this since heaven is also known to be the perfect place. This can be proven through the bible verse, Luke 23:43- Jesus answered him, 'Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.' This shows us that Jesus has promised us a good afterlife since he is calling it a paradise.
On the other hand, the Greek philosopher Aristotle, a materialist, argued that the soul and body are a unity, so they cease to exist by themselves. Aristotle uses an example of a marble statue to prove his point. He states that just like the shape and form of the statue cannot separate from the marble, the soul cannot separate from the body. This is a strong argument because all these years we have lived with our physical state (body) and mental state (soul), so how can we just live without one?
However, this argument has not altered my view on there is life after death because Aristotle did recognize a possibility for bodily resurrection. Furthermore, locked-in syndrome shows that even when the physical state doesn`t work or is damaged, the mental state still works.
Rene Descartes had a concept, which contrasted against Aristotle`s. He believed that the mind and body are two separate things. The mind is where our personality, feelings, and thoughts are whereas our body performs physical activities. The point he is trying to make is, we could survive without our bodies because our soul is immortal. 'Our soul is of a nature entirely independent of the body, and consequently' it is not bound to die with it. And since we cannot see any other causes which destroy the soul, we are naturally led to conclude that it is immortal.
It is evident that the bodies of the dead do not last forever. There is proof that the physical form of people does not survive death. But we have no way to prove that we have a new spiritual body or a soul that is immortal.
However, Gilbert Ryle believed the idea of a soul to be a category mistake, in his 1949 work, 'The Concept of the Mind.' He argued that it was a mistake in the language we use- just because the language we use is geared towards dualist views, does not mean the soul and body are two separate things. One example of this is, 'Where is the team?' The team is not one discrete thing, it is a set of people. Likewise, Ryle suggests the soul is merely the name for our body, mind, and memories, it is not a single entity.
This view does not alter my opinion on an afterlife since the language we have used dates back to prehistoric times. So, how comes that one day it is suddenly wrong, just because someone said it? Gilbert Ryle`s argument is entirely his own opinion.
Near-death experiences are the experience of feeling out-of-body when one is about to die, which is recounted by the person after recovery. People all over the world have experienced these. Typical observations include visions of tunnels of light, meeting long-dead family members, feeling utter calm and peace, and separation from the physical body (sometimes looking down at it)- this was also mentioned in Dr. Raymond Moody`s research. In his research, he looked into several cases of NDE and he realized that most patients going through traumatic operations had similar viewings. In the book 'Proof of Heaven' by Dr. Eben Alexander- a neurosurgeon (mentioned before) talks about his own experience of being in a coma, where he experiences angelic viewings and bright lights.
Alternatively, you could also see life after death as bodily resurrection, as shown in the views of John Hick and Buddhism. Buddhist views are that when they die, they are reborn into a new form, which is decided by karma. Parallel to this, John Hick used his replica theory, in which he says that when we die, God would create a replica body for the dead person. Both Buddhism and John Hick believe in an afterlife since John Hick believes in resurrection whilst Buddhists believe in continuous rebirth.
The late philosopher, Ernest Becker, denies the existence of an afterlife and claims that people, who believe in it, are just trying to avoid the truth of dying. He did not believe in an afterlife, as he thought people made up different ways of life after death to escape the fear of death. This is in correlation with Epicurus. The famous Greek philosopher based his views on his quotes (mentioned before) in which he asks, if death is bad, who is it bad for? Not for the dead, since they are already dead, and not for us because we are still alive. In simple words, both these philosophers agree on the idea that an afterlife is just there to comfort people from the ugly truth of dying.
This argument does not change my opinion because I believe in life after death and it is not because I fear death. Also, just because people fear death, that does not mean that the overall idea of an afterlife is not true- there is no solid evidence or explanation to back up his point.
Conclusion
Having examined the evidence, I have concluded that there is life after death. Everybody is entitled to their own personal opinions on whether there is life after death or not. However, I stand by my point that there is life after death because of the numerous religions that follow life after death and the data derived from centuries ago. Even though there are many philosophers and religions who do believe in it, there are also some strong arguments against it. Regardless, my points for life after death proves that we survive after we die.
Stuck on your essay?
