TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > Philosophy > OCR Philosophy of Religion
Life after Death
- Distinctions between body and soul in the thinking of Plato, John Hick and Richard Dawkins; other concepts of body/ soul distinction.
Death
- “The complete and permanent cessation of all vital functions”
Dualism
‘Two’ separate body and soul
- Mind determines our personality, the body an outer shell
- Body contingent, mind associated with higher realities
- If soul spends life in contemplation of higher realities at death can enter eternity- the immortality of the soul.
Plato
- Believed the body and soul interact.
- Real identity lies in the soul.
The soul is that which renders the body living"
Descartes
- “I think therefore I am”
- Mind distinct although the 2 interact
- Mind is not the same as the brain- it is not in the body
Materialism
Does not accept separate part of the body called the soul
- Individual is a physical body and nothing more
- Death is when the whole person dies- nothing ceases to exist
- Actions as a result of a chain of events.
- Science will eventually be able to explain everything
- What we assume to be an emotional response is just chemical reactions in the brain.
Gilbert Ryle
- Mistake in Language making the soul a separate word
- Eg Foreigner ‘Where is the team spirit?”
Richard Dawkins
Rejects any concept of an immortal soul
- Human animal is nothing more than DNA
- Each individual is a product of evolution- not God
- Our sense of individuality is as a result of our genes
- Through evolution our consciousness has developed so that we are able to choose to behaviour most likely to aid survival (survival of the fittest)
Hard Materialism- Nothing more than physical characteristics
Soft Materialism- Consciousness is more than JUST a brain process. Body displays inner emotions.
John Hick- Given certain circumstances it is possible the dead could exist after death. If an EXACT REPLICA was to appear. God is all powerful and thus would find it easy to create an exact copy. Replica has memories and characteristics of original so thus is the same one.
CRITICISM
- God? Replica is not the original?
Idealism
Bishop Berkeley
- No concept of matter, only mental ideas and minds to perceive them.
- There is no physical body to decay at death
- At death we travel to the next world in this spiritual form
- We still keep our identity however in death
George Hegel
- Agreed with Kant, we never experience the world directly through our sense
- Human mind imposes order on all experiences
- Minds are not ultimately real
CRITICISM
- No evidence
- Wouldn’t everyone have different perceptions?
- Seems more order in the world
Different views on life after death, resurrection and rebirth, the relative coherence of these concepts and the implications for the problem of evil on these views, questions surrounding the nature of a disembodied experience and the concepts of heaven and hell.
Reincarnation / or Rebirth
The soul at death migrates from the dying body into a new body (also referred to as transmigration of souls)
Each lifetime a soul is trying to reach perfection when it reaches this= soul reborn and enter a state of bliss.
Similar to the Buddist theory of Karma (doesn’t involve souls)
Understanding of why suffering occurs in life- to aid in this growth.
Resurrection
The belief that after death it is not just an individuals soul that survives but the body also. The individual is raised from the dead in bodily form.
Similar to Christian understanding- St Paul in Corinthians, Jesus rose from Dead- seen outside tomb.
Does it occur in physical or spiritual form?
Problem of Evil to Theories of Life after Death
Not a problem in relation to Resurrection and Reincarnation- need evil to help us grow and reach perfection.
Many reject this view in Resurrection and except theodicies. Surely God could have a better way of making us grow.
Questions of a disembodied experience
Problems of personal identity
Do not accept replica body is the same ‘I’ that died.
Which one of these is true:
- First I existed, then I died, then I existed in the next world
- First I existed, then I died, then God created an exact replica of me.
Is our identity only as a result of memories and actions in the mind?
Evidence for existence after death
- .Near death experiences
- Regression into past life through hypnosis
- Sightings of Dead People – Deepak Chopra
- Spiritualism- belief we can communicate with dead through a medium. Medium receives messages from those in the spiritual world and passes onto the next.
Concepts of Heaven and Hell
Most Christians believe in the resurrection of the body after death. Immortal soul continues after death.
Soul
- God breathed life into humans
- “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” (Genesis 3)
Physical or spiritual resurrection? How are we identified in next life?
Believe in heaven and hell because they believe in salvation, some reward or punishment after death for the life lived.
Beliefs of what occurs after death: soul remains close to earth (lovely bones), descends/ ascends to heaven or hell, participation in general resurrection.
Only way to accept human suffering on earth is the belief in life after death- heaven or hell.
A physical body is required if we are to take the Bible Passages on Hell literally “and shall cast the body into a furnace of fire”
Hell is the absence of God, darkness, suffering
Liberal Christians place little emphasis on salvation.
Reject hell- if do accept believe it metaphorically- it is an absence of God, or a state of mind
Heaven is a place of love and benevolence with God.
- In the light
- ‘Maker of heaven and earth’
Revelation: the concept of a religious experience and a considerations of the following different forms of religious experience: visions, voices, numinous experience, conversion experience, corporate religious experiences such as ‘Toronto Blessing’.
Religious Experience: An experience of something (presence of power) beyond themselves.
Swinburne: 5 mutually exclusive types of experience
- private experience describable in normal sensory language e.g dream
- private experience not describable in every day language
- perceiving God through a public experience e.g night sky
- through unusual public object e.g miracle
- experience of God not mediated through any sensory object
William James- common core to religious experience:
- Transiency
- Noetic
- Ineffable
- Passivity
Numinosity- Rudolph Otto- religion must derive from an impersonal God.
Mystical- Religious experience involving a personal God.
Corporate Revelations- Entire groups experience at the same time a religious experience. Not focused on the individual. E.g Toronto Blessing 1994
Visions and Voices e.g St Paul on road to Damascus
William Auston: “Religious Experience is similar to an ordinary experience”
“ we have the image of an object which we know doesn’t quite represent the real object but we know the object is there.
Evidence for Argument
- People with limited senses are still certain of their experiences despite knowing little of the world.
- Whilst we do not all have perceptions of God does not mean he does not exist. It may simply mean he has not presented himself or are senses are not sharp enough.
Criticism
- Sense perceptions are common, religious experiences are not.
- Ordinary experience tells us a lot, religious experience tells us little about God.
- We all have the capacity for normal experience but few have the capacity for religious experience.
- If I have a sensory experience of a table I can give you a solid account of it. Religious experience is often mediated by another object and is ineffable.
Richard Swinburne - Principle of Credulity.
When something is the case we hold that belief until proven otherwise.
Conversion- The process that leads to the adoption of a religious attitude or way of life.
Types of conversion:
- A conscious and voluntary experience (the volitional type)
- An unconscious and involuntary experience (self surrender type)
Self Surrender
William James - ‘Man’s extremity is God’s opportunity’ In all experiences we surrender to God’s power
Edwin Starbuck – Disagrees we can never change through force.
2 rules in the mind of the candidate for conversion:
- Present wrongness in life
- Positive changes they want to make
Examples of conversions:
- Intellectual – Changes because of a rejection of a way of thought
- Moral- Professor Leuba – wanting a better lifestyle
- Social – William James Sudden social feeling of being converted
- e.g Paul on the road to Damascus.
The concept of miracles and criticisms made by Hume and Wiles. The implications of the concept of miracles on the problem of evil.
Miracle: An event that goes against the laws of nature; caused by God.
David Hume: A transgression of the laws of nature by some kind of volution of the deity or by some invisible agent.
Richard Swinburne: Examples from the bible- water into wine, man dead for 24 hours risen from dead. These aren’t amazing until hear the time scale and circumstances.
R.F.Holland - Great coincidences caused by prayer.
Swinburne: Miracles must have a greater purpose.
(Hume: Criticisms
- Ignorant and barbarous nations
- People want to believe
- Compare religions
- Not enough quality testimonies)
Do natural laws exist?
Maurice Wiles - God is in everything. Miracles don’t occur.
Problem of Evil vs. Miracles – Epicurus’ inconsistent triad
- Why not cure everybody? All created in image of God
- ‘God is love’ John 4:8 – goes against benevolent God
- Not all powerful because he cannot prevent diseases
Can religious experience justify religious belief?
No, If religious experience justifies relief in God and this proves God.
How do we know God exists- through religious experience.
The existence of God is assumed in order to identify experience as religious. If a circular argument is to be avoided then it cannot be used as proof for God’s existence.
Concept of revelation through Holy Scripture, the view that scripture is divinely inspired; different approaches to an understanding of the nature of sacred writing.
Propositional e.g God speaks directly to individuals
Non Propositional e.g Bible written from inspiration not direct spoken word.
Francis Shaeffer - Believes God is personal
He enabled us to communicate
We are created in the image of God= we are unlimited and he is too
Big Bang Theory- Rejects God, thus supports idea of Bible is Non prepositional
Scripture as Revelation
Literalist – Disregards no part of the Bible, Direct word of God
Conservative - Messages, not individual word
Liberal - Personal interpretation, reject old fashioned views.
Religious Language
Via Negativa
Religious language is the way in which human language conveys things beyond their understanding, the infinite.
John of the Cross first introduced this theory
The Via Negativa (Lat. for "Negative Way") and Apophatic theology, is a theology that attempts to describe God by negation, to speak of God in terms of what may not be said about God. In brief, the attempt is to gain and express knowledge of God by describing what God is not, rather than by describing what God is.
e.g One should not say that God is One, but rather one can say that there is no multiplicity in God's being.
Apophatic theology sees God as wholly apart and remote from mankind and indescribable in human terms, for human language is only capable of describing what God is not.
Via Positiva- Every attribute that is attributed to God such as God is all loving must be balanced out by recognition that human language is inadequate when trying to describe the ineffable and indescribable nature of God.
Pseudo- Dionysius (6th century monk) via negativa and positiva helps us learn of God. In book ‘Divine Names’ he refers to how believers refer to God using names that are not mean as literal descriptions but point towards God as the cause of all things ‘the creator’.
Soul of Affirmation- Dionysius belived that source of knowledge of God is in Bible this knowledge however is written within our understanding thus is symbolic.
Dionysius belived God cannot be understood as he is ineffable, these ways lead us to understanding more but he is so far removed from our everyday living that we can never understand.
The verification and falsification principles, discussions of the meaningfulness of religious language.
Logicial Positivists- Vienna Circle
- How we use language to convey knowledge
Verification Principle - ‘The meaning of the proposition is the method verification’
Analytic Propositions (a priori) knowledge gained through logical reasoning
Synthetic Proposition (a posteriori) sense experiement
“we know the meaning of a statement if we know how to prove it true or false”
A.J.Ayer- Weak Verification Principle (main verification didn’t allow historical)
- “we know how to verify the statement in principle”
Falsification Principle – Anthony Flew
“A Statement is verifiable if it is known what empirical evidence could count against it or prove it false”
Religious statements can neither be proved true or false because religious believers d not accept any evidence to count against their belief.
Religious statements are meaningless because they die “death by 1000 qualifications”.
John Wisdom’s – Parable of the Gardener (Flew used this to prove rel statements are meaningless.
CRITICISMS of Falsification
Richard Swinburne- Toys in the cupboard. We know they don’t move but we know what the statement means.
Basil Mitchell – Not all religious ppl allow nothing to contradict faith. Flew overlooks that Christians have a prior commitment to trust in God.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FALSIFICATION AND VERIFICATION
- Depends on Falsification rather than verification to check if a statement is meaningful.
- Challenge of Falsification is based not on language used but on basic insight that to assert something is to deny something else.
Flew is asking what the proof of the existence of God is based on, not what the believer is in a position to know and not just to believe.
Religious Language is Meaningful
Religious Language has a purpose because it has the function of ideas which makes it meaningful.
R.B. Braithwaite- Religious Language is non cognitive.
Religious language functions as a moral discourse because it is about the way people should treat each other.
Braithwaite’s 3 reasons why religious claims are meaningful:
- A religious claim is primarily a moral claim expressing an attitude
- It is different from a moral claim as a religious claim will refer to a story and not just an intention
- Not necessary for the religious person to believe in the truth of the story, just accept the moral message and use it to better ones life.
Language Games - Ludwig Wittgenstein
Language Games exist within all forms of human activity and life. Religious belief has its own language game. A non believer will find religious games meaningless as they are not part of the game.
Descartes- “I think therefore I am”. Can’t make up your own game. You don’t know if the rules are right. Language is a social product.
CRITICISMS
If people in different gaiths are playing their own language games. How can they discuss God?
Non believers are better at discussing God as they have an objective point of view.
The uses of symbol, analogy and myth to express human understanding of God.
Religious Language is Analogical
“An analogy is a comparison between two things when a similarity between two things is suggested by the use of the same word”
Thomas Aquinas
We can only use day to day language to talk about God.
When a word is applied to God is has a different meaning from its everyday use because God is perfect- thus it is used analogously.
Analogy of Proportion – When a word is employed to refer to a quality that a thing possesses in proportion to the kind of reality it possesses.
e.g God is all powerful- insight into human understanding of power, insight from human experience.
Analogy of Attribution – When a term originally used to describe one thing is applied to a 2nd thing because one causes the other.
e.g Aquinas saw human wisdom as a result of God’s wisdom.
Ian Ramsey - 20th century analogies
Model – Analogy aiding us to express something about God. We need to qualify a model so that we realise this is not what God is like.
e.g “God is good”, Qualified it becomes “God is infinitely good”.
SYMBOLS
Paul Tillich - Through symbols religious language communicates religious experiences.
Symbols go beyond their external world to what Tillich describes as their “internal reality”
Symbols open up levels of reality which are otherwise closed to humans.
e.g Kingdom of God
Kingdom= Power and Rule
Religious symbols take us to “being itself”. The power of symbols change over time, power and meaning of words change.
J. R. Randall – Symbols serve several functions:
- Identifying the concept they are conveying. E.g use of water idenfitifes idea of cleansing in a baptism.
- Sharing the meaning of the concept e.g cross conveys xtian belief of the resurrection of Jesus.
Jung – Our archetypes reveal themselves in symbols of art and religion unconsciously.
MYTHS
The story itself is not true but through the story a religious truth is conveyed. Many xtians believe much of the Old Testament is myths.
AETOLOGICAL MYTHS- provide foundations for religious approaches/
Creation myths are among mankinds earliest approaches to explain the nature and origin of the universe- cosmogony.
Themes always found in myths
- Existence of a chaotic formless state prior to the creation of the universe
- A god who exists in a void performing an action to crate the universe
- Human beings and the world comes into being.
- A connection between everyday being and the supernatural world of the Gods.
Different cultures and religions express what they regard as the truth in symbolic form through myths.
CRITICISM
Rudolph Bultmann- Rejects mythological language.
Comment
These notes are aimed at people studying for OCR A2 Philosophy - Philosophy of Religion 2, but will be suitable for other people too.
Originally written by xsparklyvix on TSR Forums.
