Do The Types Of Beliefs Of Life After Death Add Credulity To The Existence Of God?

The issue of what happens to us after our death has plagued humanity for millennia, and unfortunately the only way to be completely certain appears to be a one way street. As such, we can only theorise about possible outcomes, and the key issue within these theories is personal identity which poses a lot of philosophical questions including what has to survive death for that 'death-surviving thing' to be the same 'person' that once lived?

As both resurrection and reincarnation have a dualistic element, it is important to identify the strengths of this as it adds credibility to belief in life after death. For example, the existence of the science of psychology implies the existence of the mind. The psychology of materials is not rational. There is no place in the brain where electric stimulation can cause a person to believe or decide. Although our thoughts can be true or false our brain states cannot be true or false. Nobody can tell what we are thinking by measuring brain waves. We must be asked what we are thinking. This adds credibility because if the soul and mind is independent of the body, then it is logical to suppose that it pre-existed which is what Hinduism is based on. Similarly, for Christians, the idea of the resurrection would also fit in with this as they would argue that body or soul, we exist and we continue to exist only because God graciously sustains us in existence. The agreement between the two beliefs adds credibility to the idea of life after death. However, in general, dualism is a problematic theory as it asserts the existence of a non-material part of the human being, the existence of which is impossible to verify. There are underlying assumptions to this theory and applying the principle of verification to this argument renders it meaningless: there is no way to verify the existence either of God or the existence of a resurrection world. Although, most major religions base their theory of life after death on the underlying assumption that dualism is the correct approach: Christianity and the soul, Hinduism and the atman. The fact that, statistically, the majority of the population believe in either resurrection or reincarnation means that the idea of life after death is a lot more credible.

Also, some people like Don Cupitt have questioned whether the idea of a transformed body can still be said to represent the person who had lived on earth. If the transformation is so big would it still be the same person? If my heavenly body were to resemble my earthly body, which version of my earthly body would it represent?

Even though there is lack of empirical evidence, there is a significant amount of biblical evidence which suggests that there is life after death. Saint Paul argued in favour of resurrection on two grounds. Firstly, since Jesus was resurrected, so too should Christians hope to be resurrected. Secondly, since God has created many types of bodies in nature, we should believe that he is able to make human bodies perfect (1 Corinthians 15). If we accept that God is creator, then resurrection seems a coherent idea. Therefore, theories of life after death are all backed up by scri pture and the experiences of enlightened or spiritual religious leaders. Theories of life after death form a significant motivation to behave ethically in this life and also provide an explanation for the presence of suffering; in that sense they resolve the logical conflict between an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God who allows evil to persist.

However, revelation may be seen as a human invention so dismissing the 'proof' of scri pture. Other motivations can be given to behave ethically, such as those in Aristotle's virtue ethics. The problem of evil is only a problem if you demand the existence of God. If you don't accept this either, no afterlife is needed. Sigmund Freud dismissed belief in God and the afterlife as resulting from a form of mental illness and a need for comfort from the harsh realities of life.

Also, the fact that there are disagreements between those who believe in either resurrection or reincarnation lessens the credibility to the idea of life after death. Most religions would argue that to only have one life is unfair in so many ways. Eastern religions get around this by believing that we have many lives and therefore opportunities to grow and become more spiritual; become better souls. Irenaeus believed that it was this world that was a 'vale of soul making' and that the purpose of suffering in this life was to grow better souls.

Overall, I believe that these types of belief add credibility to the belief in life after death, despite the criticisms as there is a lot of evidence to support my view. One of the main weaknesses that I came across was the verification problem which was put forward by A. J Ayer. However, John Hick offers a response to his criticism as he argues that the claim that we survive our death can be verified once we die. This is called eschatological verification. Also, a lot of weaknesses derive from the dualistic approach because it is difficult to find the answer to 'how does a mind interact with a body and how can a mind exist without a body?' The fact that there are responses to the main weaknesses means that the belief in life after death is very credible. There is significant historical evidence from teachings of both Hinduism and Christianity which are in favour of this along with the many philosophers also putting forward the idea of life after death as being extremely credible.