Friday 10 June 2011

More A2 Philosophy: Resurrection and Reincarnation

Here is my A2 essay on resurrection and reincarnation. As an amateur philosopher I use these essays as a springboard to thinking about my own philosophies and ideas, as well as revision for my looming exams. It may sound just like I'm simply regurgitating things that have been delivered to me in class, but without this initial teacher led discovery of the basics, I would find it harder to go on into my own ideas about what's going on.

Life after Death: Resurrection + Reincarnation

For thousands of years human beings have entertained thoughts of afterlife, of something continuing on after their lives. Perhaps the implications of this have been the motivation to develop such beliefs. Perhaps it is the attraction of meeting loved ones again in the future, perhaps just a way to make the notion of karmic law sound more believable. Often, beliefs concerning life after death involve some kind of deity or god helping things along. A similarity between the two approaches I’m looking at (resurrection and reincarnation) is the fact they do not necessarily need to involve a god or deity in order to work. Although many use the example of the resurrection of Christ to say that there must have been a god involved, I will once more state that I don’ believe that resurrection or reincarnation has to be contingent on a supreme being, but instead just necessary, infinite natural laws that control and regulate themselves. Already, this has implications for religious and non-religious people. Essentially, it could mean that those who do not believe in a god or deity may still believe in the possibility of an afterlife (for example, an atheist may still believe in ‘ghosts’, in the classical sense), and although religious believers may use a god in their ideas about afterlife, it doesn’t have to be a part of their beliefs. In fact, looking from Hegel’s viewpoint of the rational kernel and the irrational husk, it could be quite easy to dismiss ‘afterlife’ to the irrational husk of religion. But where would be the fun in that?

The main difference between resurrection and reincarnation lies in the definitions themselves: resurrection being when a being returns to life some time after they have died and reincarnation being some sort of ‘spirit’ within which, upon death, leaves one body to enter into another, usually at the moment of the new body’s birth. For most western people, Christianity is the religion most associated with resurrection, due to the Bible’s dependence on it for the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of repentant souls after judgement day. It can be said that eastern philosophical religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism are more likely to spring to mind when thinking of reincarnation, as this version of life after death fits in with their idea of atman. It is this which leads me to my next point of comparison – whether the idea of a soul or spirit is necessary in order for resurrection and reincarnation to work.

Certainly, when we think of the classic definition of Hindu reincarnation, a ‘soul’, of sorts is necessary in order to pass between bodies, ‘like a man takes off old clothes and puts on new ones’. This ‘soul’, known as atman, is often described very vaguely in scriptures including the Upanishads and the Bhagavad-Gita. In fact, it is mainly described by what it is not, rather than by what it is, for example it cannot age, it cannot be touched, it will not be wet or stretched or bent. An interesting question regarding this is whether this makes reincarnation a monistic or dualistic concept. Taking it as it appears here, it would seem to be a dualistic relationship between the body and the atman, that is there are two separate substances – the atman (or ‘life force’) and the body. In most religions which feature reincarnation, however, there is often a monistic (there is just one sacred substance) approach and this is the same for Hinduism. This is where the idea of Brahman is brought in – that all is one and this one is known as Brahman. This of course includes both the physical body and the non-physical atman, creating a monistic view that all is God and God is all. What about resurrection? Well, we know that the Abrahamic religions are dualist and I intend to look at the Christian approach to resurrection. This too then, is dualist: there are two levels, two substances. Our bodies and our ‘souls’ are separate entities, one contained within the other. So perhaps, thinking now of the implications of these ideas, we can start to ask questions about the actual processes involved in resurrection and reincarnation.

For instance, with the former, if there is a period of time between death and reincarnation (as was allegedly the case with Christ), then how long is this? Scripture dictates that this was 3 days for Jesus, but how do you find out whether that’s going to be the same for everyone? Another very valid question is what sort of age/state will the body be resurrected as? If a person dies with an illness or very old, will they be resurrected with the illness or fragility brought by age, or resurrected as a younger, healthier version of themselves? Similarly for reincarnation, is there a period of time where the atman lies in wait, without a body to act as a shell? These sorts of questions would be dismissed by both Hegel and AJ Ayer as meaningless and irrational. Ayer, from the school of logical positivism, states that something must be empirically verified to be true. Of course, at the current times we have not got the ability to empirically verify what happens after we die, but stories from around the world do perhaps provide us with some evidence.

Possible evidence for reincarnation can be found in the form of people claiming to remember former lives. This is especially common in children, who often point to birthmarks on their bodies and say that these are in some way connected to their mode of death. An example can be drawn from the story of a boy from Sri Lanka who, at the age of 3, started to recount details from a ‘former’ life. These details were noted down by 3 independent interviewers, 2 of which were published. The details he gave actually did match up with those of a family in a nearby area, a family which the boy had never met. Although the details did match up, we can still ask questions about why not everyone has these memories, and it is usually children who claim to have them. A believer may state that the portion of our brains which contains such memories is shut down as our lives progress; however it could be a number of reasons. Would simple coincidence be a satisfactory explanation?

But what of evidence for resurrection? Personally, I have problems with using the Bible as historical evidence, as already many holes have been poked in it and these holes seem to have just been filled with statements claiming that Bible stories are metaphorical or allegorical. If this is the case, then surely we have no way of knowing which stories are historically accurate (if any) and which are simply metaphors or allegories. Another problem with using the Bible’s account of the resurrection for proof is the fact that even the Gospels within the Bible do not fully agree with each other on the details of the resurrection. So, if even the books within the book do not agree with the details of this event, then perhaps it is not wise to put all of our trust into it.

Finally, I will bring in the John Hick replica theory to investigate the validity of a life after death idea. This theory can be related to resurrection and helps us think logically about whether or not resurrection is a possibility, not to prove that it actually occurs. The theory begins with a man, who we can know as Mr. X. Now, say that Mr. X is in Lancaster and all of a sudden completely disappears. In that instant, someone absolutely identical to him in every possible way appears in New York. This new man shall be called the Replica Mr. X. After every possible test had been carried out to prove the Replica Mr. X’s identity, it would have to be said that this being was in fact Mr. X. If this is the case then it can be the same for Mr. X dying and a replica appearing in a ‘resurrection world’. Hick is saying that resurrection is logically possible in that a replica created after death with exactly the same memories, consciousness, birthmarks, scars, fingerprints etc. would have to be known as the original person in that they are utterly identical. But of course, this is all completely theoretical. Hick is even saying that it is only to test the logical possibility rather than prove the occurrence of resurrection. We are left in the dark as to whether resurrection really occurs after we die.

In my conclusion I will have to side with the logical positivists and say that in this instance regarding life after death, all but that which can be empirically verified should be ruled out. This is not necessarily true for all strands of philosophical thought, but certainly when we are discussing the possibility of an event within the scientific universe, it ought to be looked at scientifically. There is little actual scientific data to date that gives solid evidential proof that either resurrection, reincarnation or any other strand of thought regarding what happens to us after we die can be proven. I suppose, in that case, I can agree with Hegel and Ayer in that this is ‘evidently nonsense’.

No comments:

Post a Comment