GodLuck Reviewer PDF

**PART I:** **The soul and immortality** - The belief in life after death, which is maintained by each of the Abrahamic religions, raises the metaphysical question of how the human person is to be defined. \* **Belief in life after death - Abrahamic religions** **\* Metaphysica...

**PART I:** **The soul and immortality** - The belief in life after death, which is maintained by each of the Abrahamic religions, raises the metaphysical question of how the human person is to be defined. \* **Belief in life after death - Abrahamic religions** **\* Metaphysical question: how the human person is to be defined.** - Some form of mind-body dualism, whether Platonic or Cartesian, in which the mind or soul survives the death of the body, has been favoured by many theologians. **\* Some form of mind-body dualism favored by many Theologians.** - Others have claimed that some version of physicalism or materialism is most consistent with scriptural ideas about the resurrection of the body. **\* Physicalism or materialism - consistent with the resurrection of body.** - The former group has a tendency to disparage or downplay the importance of embodiment; the latter group, however, faces the problem of giving an account of the continuity of the person across the temporal gap between bodily death and bodily resurrection. **\* Former group disparaged or downplay embodiment --- latter group, giving an account of the continuity of the person.** **Immortality** - **Immortality is the indefinite continuation of a person's existence, even after death**. - In common parlance, immortality is virtually indistinguishable from afterlife, but philosophically speaking, they are not identical. - **Afterlife is the continuation of existence after death, regardless of whether or not that continuation is indefinite.** - Immortality implies a never-ending existence, regardless of whether or not the body dies (as a matter of fact, some hypothetical medical technologies offer the prospect of a bodily immortality, but not an afterlife). \* **Immortality a never-ending existence, whether or not the body dies.** - Immortality has been one of mankind's major concerns, and even though it has been traditionally mainly confined to religious traditions, it is also important to philosophy. **\* Immorality is not only religious traditions, but a Philosophy.** - Although a wide variety of cultures have believed in some sort of immortality, such beliefs may be reduced to basically three non-exclusive models: (1) the survival of the astral body resembling the physical body; (2) the immortality of the immaterial soul (that is an incorporeal existence); (3) resurrection of the body (or re-embodiment, in case the resurrected person does not keep the same body as at the moment of death). This article examines philosophical arguments for and against the prospect of immortality. **\* 3 Non-exclusive Models** **1. Survival of Astral Body** **2. Immortality of the Immaterial Soul (incorporeal existence)** **3. Resurrection of the body** - A substantial part of the discussion on immortality touches upon the fundamental question in the philosophy of mind: do souls exist? **\* Fundamental question in the Philosophy of Mind: do souls exist?** - Dualists believe souls do exist and survive the death of the body; materialists believe mental activity is nothing but cerebral activity and thus death brings the total end of a person's existence. **\* Dualist believe souls do exist and survive the death of the body** **\* Materialist believe mental activity brings total end of person\'s existence.** - However, some immortalists believe that, even if immortal souls do not exist, immortality may still be achieved through resurrection. **\* Immoralist believe even if immorality souls do not exist it can be achieved thru resurrection.** - Discussions on immortality are also intimately related to discussions of personal identity because any account of immortality must address how the dead person could be identical to the original person that once lived. **\* Immorality are related to personal identity as it addresses how the dead person could be identical to original person that once lived.** - Traditionally, philosophers have considered three main criteria for personal identity: the soul criterion , the body criterion and the psychological criterion. **\* 3 Main Criteria for Personal Identity** **1. Soul Criterion** **2. Body Criterion** **3. Psychological Criterion** - Although empirical science has little to offer here, the field of parapsychology has attempted to offer empirical evidence in favor of an afterlife. **\* Parapsychology attempted to offer empirical evidence in favor of afterlife.** - More recently, secular futurists envision technologies that may suspend death indefinitely (such as Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence, and mind uploading), thus offering a prospect for a sort of bodily immortality. **\* Futurist imagine technologies which can suspend death indefinitely.** 1. - Discourse on immortality bears a semantic difficulty concerning the word 'death'. - We usually define it in physiological terms as the cessation of biological functions that make life possible. **\* Death is cessation of biological functions that make life possible.** - But, if immortality is the continuation of life even after death, a contradiction appears to come up (Rosemberg, 1998). For apparently it makes no sense to say that someone has died and yet survived death. - To be immortal is, precisely, not to suffer death. Thus, whoever dies, stops existing; nobody may exist after death, precisely because death means the end of existence. - For convenience, however, we may agree that 'death' simply means the decomposition of the body, but not necessarily the end of a person's existence, as assumed in most dictionary definitions. - In such a manner, a person may 'die' in as much as their body no longer exists (or, to be more precise, no longer holds vital signs: pulse, brain activity, and so forth), but may continue to exist, either in an incorporeal state, with an ethereal body, or with some other physical body. - Some people may think of 'immortality' in vague and general terms, such as the continuity of a person's deeds and memories among their friends and relatives. Thus, baseball player Babe Ruth is immortal in a very vague sense: he is well remembered among his fans. - But, philosophically speaking, immortality implies the continuation of personal identity. Babe Ruth may be immortal in the sense that he is well remembered, but unless there is someone that may legitimately claim "I am Babe Ruth," we shall presume Babe Ruth no longer exists and hence, is not immortal. 2\. **Three Models of Immortality** - Despite the immense variety of beliefs on immortality, they may be reduced to three basic models: the survival of the astral body, the immaterial soul and resurrection (Flew, 2000). **\* 3 Basic Models** **1. Survival of the Astral body** **2. Immaterial Soul** **3. Resurrection** - These models are not necessarily mutually exclusive; in fact, most religions have adhered to a combination of them. **a. The Survival of the Astral Body** - Much primitive religious thought conceives that human beings are made up of two body substances: a physical body, susceptible of being touched, smelt, heard and seen; and an astral body made of some sort of mysterious ethereal substance. **\* Two body substance according to Primitive Religions** **1. Physical Body** **2. Astral Body** - Unlike the physical body, the astral body has no solidity (it can go through walls, for example.) and hence, it cannot be touched, but it can be seen. \* Astral body in other words is \'soul\' or \'ghost\': they can\'t be touched but can be seen. - Its appearance is similar to the physical body, except perhaps its color tonalities are lighter and its figure is fuzzier. **\* Astral is lighter (Color Tonalities) and fuzzier (Figure)** - Upon death, the astral body detaches itself from the physical body, and mourns in some region within time and space. Thus, even if the physical body decomposes, the astral body survives. **\*Astral body survive without physical body.** - This is the type of immortality most commonly presented in films and literature (for example, Hamlet's ghost). **\* Astral body is popular in films and literature.** - Traditionally, philosophers and theologians have not privileged this model of immortality, as there appears to be two insurmountable difficulties: 1) if the astral body does exist, it should be seen depart from the physical body at the moment of death; yet there is no evidence that accounts for it; 2) ghosts usually appear with clothes; this would imply that, not only are there astral bodies, but also astral clothes -- a claim simply too extravagant to be taken seriously (Edwards, 1997: 21). **\* 2 Insurmountable Difficulties** **1. Astral body should be seen departing from physical body during** death 2\. If there are astral bodies there should be astral clothes. **b. The Immaterial Soul** - The model of the immortality of the soul is similar to the 'astral body' model, in as much as it considers that human beings are made up of two substances. **\* Similar to astral body and contains two substances.** - But, unlike the 'astral body' model, this model conceives that the substance that survives the death of the body is not a body of some other sort, but rather, an immaterial soul. **\* Immaterial Soul is the substance that survives death unlike astral body model** - In as much as the soul is immaterial, it has no extension, and thus, it cannot be perceived through the senses. **\*Immaterial cannot be perceived through the senses.** - A few philosophers, such as Henry More, have come to believe that for something to exist, it must occupy space (although not necessarily physical space), and hence, souls are located somewhere in space (Henry, 2007). **\*Henry More believe that for something to exist, it must occupy space. Thus, souls can be trace in space.** - Up until the twentieth century, the majority of philosophers believed that persons are souls, and that human beings are made up of two substances (soul and body). **\* 20th century philosophers believe that human being is composed of soul and body - two substances.** - A good portion of philosophers believed that the body is mortal and the soul is immortal. **\*Philosophers believe that body is mortal and soul is immortal.** - Ever since Descartes in the seventeenth century, most philosophers have considered that the soul is identical to the mind, and, whenever a person dies, their mental contents survive in an incorporeal state. **\* Desecrates followers considered that soul is identical to the mind. Where mental contents survive in an incorporeal state whenever a person dies.** - Eastern religions (for example, Hinduism and Buddhism) and some ancient philosophers (for example, Pythagoras and Plato) believed that immortal souls abandon the body upon death, may exist temporarily in an incorporeal state, and may eventually adhere to a new body at the time of birth (in some traditions, at the time of fertilization). This is the doctrine of reincarnation. **\* Doctrine of reincarnation which is popular in eastern religions and some ancient philosophers believe that immortal souls may adhere to a new body at the time of birth.** **c. The Resurrection of the Body** - Whereas most Greek philosophers believed that immortality implies solely the survival of the soul, the three great monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) consider that immortality is achieved through the resurrection of the body at the time of the Final Judgment. **\* Greek philosophers believe that immortality is achieved through resurrection at the Final judgement.** - The very same bodies that once constituted persons shall rise again, in order to be judged by God. None of these great faiths has a definite position on the existence of an immortal soul. - Therefore, traditionally, Jews, Christians and Muslims have believed that, at the time of death, the soul detaches from the body and continues on to exist in an intermediate incorporeal state until the moment of resurrection. **\* Monotheistic religions believe that there is intermediate incorporeal state where soul continue to exist until resurrection.** - Some others, however, believe that there is no intermediate state: with death, the person ceases to exist, and in a sense, resumes existence at the time of resurrection. **\* Some believe that there is no intermediate state. They believe that after death, the person do not exist until resurrection.** - As we shall see, some philosophers and theologians have postulated the possibility that, upon resurrection, persons do not rise with the very same bodies with which they once lived (rather, resurrected persons would be constituted by a replica). **\* Philosophers and theologian raises the possibility of resurrection but only by a replica after a persons death.** - This version of the doctrine of the resurrection would be better referred to as 're-embodiment': the person dies, but, as it were, is 're-embodied'. **\* Re-embodiment is another version of resurrection.** **PART II:** **Religion and morality** - Another concern of philosophers of religion is whether morality is dependent upon religion or is independent of it. **\* Other concern of Philosophy of religion - whether morality is dependent upon religion or is independent of it.** - Among those who take the former view, some say that morality depends upon religion in the way in which eating depends upon having an appetite: Religion provides the motivation that makes people behave morally. - To prove this, however, it would be necessary to determine whether the behaviour of religious people is generally morally superior to that of nonreligious people. - Others hold that morality depends on religion because the very idea of morality makes sense only if there is a God who sets objective standards or who will reward and punish people in the life to come. **Reasons to Morality depends on Religions:** **1. Religion provides the motivation that makes people behave morally.** **2. Through God who sets objective standards and who will punish or reward people.** - Otherwise, it is claimed, morality is a matter either of individual preference or of cultural or social convention. - Many of those who believe that morality is independent of religion have claimed that moral truths can be adequately discerned through reason, conscience, or moral intuition. **\* Morality is independent of religion contends that moral truth can be discerned thru reasons, conscience or moral intuition.** - In this connection it is worth noting that those who believe that religion is the basis of morality face the following dilemma: If the commands issued by God are morally obligatory, then that is because either: (1) they express independently justified moral values, or (2) God's commands are necessarily morally good. If alternative 1 is true, then morality is independent of religion. If alternative 2 is true, then what is morally good seems to depend implausibly on God's whim: if God commanded the torture of human infants, then it would be morally good to torture human infants. But this is absurd. This problem was first raised by Plato in his dialogue Euthyphro. - According to another perspective, derived from Kant, not only is it not the case that morality depends on religion, but in fact the reverse is true. - As discussed above, in the Kantian tradition, the existence of God and the immortality of the soul are "postulates" of practical reason, or rational conditions of willing to bring about the highest good. - Alternatively, they are conditions of adhering strictly to the moral law, which demands that one perform morally right acts only because they are right and not for any other reason, such as the goodness or badness of their consequences. - Only in an eternal afterlife ordered by God would such perfection be possible. **The problem of evil** - Perhaps the most difficult issue concerning the relation between morality and belief in God is the problem of evil. **\* Problem of evil - the most difficult issue concerning the relation between morality and belief in God.** - If God exists and is omnipotent and perfectly good, why does God allow horrendous evils such as the Holocaust? Why is any evil at all allowed by the divine? - The problem is of ancient origins and has long been discussed by philosophers and theologians in the Abrahamic religions in relation to the Fall of Man---the expulsion, whether literal or metaphorical, of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. - Few (if any) philosophers and theologians have been prepared to claim, with Leibniz, that the existing world is the best of all possible worlds. If it were not, Leibniz argued, what sufficient reason would God have had to create it? \* Leibniz claimed that the existing world is the best of all possible worlds. - Apart from Leibniz's view, three positive strategies have been developed. One stresses the importance of free will in accounting for moral evil (resulting from free human actions) as opposed to natural evil (resulting from natural events such as earthquakes and plagues); it argues that a world in which people act freely, albeit sometimes in an evil way, is to be preferred to a world of automata who do only what is right. **\* Moral evil - resulting from free human actions** **\* Natural evil - resulting from natural events such as earthquakes and plagues.** - Another strategy stresses the idea that some evils are a logical precondition for the existence of certain goods. - The virtues of compassion, patience, and forgiveness, for example, can be developed only in response to certain needs or weaknesses. - A world that contains these goods is better than one in which their exercise and development is impossible. - The third approach emphasizes the "cognitive distance" between human understanding and God's will, noting that humans cannot know in detail what the justification of God's permission of evil might be. - It is possible, of course, to combine these three positions, or elements of them, in attempting to offer an overall response to the problem of evil. - Some thinkers have approached evil, or certain evils, from the opposite direction. They have argued not that evil presents an overwhelming problem for theism but that it provides an argument for a life after death in which the injustices and inequities of the present life are remedied. **3 Positive Strategies of Problem of Evil** **1. The importance of free will in accounting for moral evil** **2. The idea that some evils are a logical precondition for the existence of certain goods.** **3. The "cognitive distance" between human understanding and God's will** **Philosophy, religion, and religions** - There is some tension within the practice of the philosophy of religion between those who philosophize about religion in general or about abstract religious concepts and those who consider the concrete expressions of religion in one of the great faiths. - In the 19th century, when the term philosophy of religion became current, the first attempts were made to define or characterize the essence of religion in phenomenological or psychological terms such as the recognition of contingency, the feeling of absolute dependence, or the sense of awe before the sacred. - It must be said, however, that approaching religion in this rather abstract way has no great potential for offering philosophical illumination, nor does it raise many serious philosophical issues. - A similar tension afflicts the discussion of religious pluralism. Some philosophers of religion see the world's religions as offering multiple embodiments of one basic religious or ethical stance. - These religions are understood as ways of gaining cognitive access to the divine. - The problem with offering such a metareligious account lies in the danger of misdescribing the beliefs and attitudes of the adherents of these traditions. - For, it seems likely, whatever theorists of religion may say is really true of such people, they themselves will typically see their own religion as offering an exclusive salvific message and goal. - Because Western philosophy of religion tends to concentrate upon the philosophical traditions of the Abrahamic religions, it may appear that it unduly neglects the philosophical traditions of the other great faiths, such as Hinduism and Buddhism. - To this charge there are two replies. The first is that, as a matter of fact, the relation between Western philosophy and the Abrahamic religions has been very rich, particularly so in the case of Christianity. This is attested by the vast literature on issues of philosophy within these religious traditions. However, the idea that the Abrahamic religions have been subjected to one rigid, oppressive, philosophical orthodoxy is wide of the mark. Rather, the interaction between philosophical argument and Abrahamic theologies has been very diverse, with a wide variety of positions being expressed and defended. What has united these various and often conflicting positions is a sense of common indebtedness to the philosophical traditions originating in Greece and Rome. This remains so even when religious thinkers in the fideistic tradition---which regards faith as being based not on evidence but rather on an act of will---have tried to repudiate the claims of reason and argument in the name of faith. **\* Fideistic tradition thinkers - regards faith as being based not on evidence but rather on an act of will.** - The second reply is that these other traditions are unlikely to contain within them distinct types of argument and reflection that are not already present in the Abrahamic religions. This is not a claim of cultural superiority but a reasonable hypothesis based upon the historical richness of Western philosophy. This hypothesis is being given some confirmation by the fact that there is a growing body of secondary literature within Western philosophy on the ideas and arguments of, for example, Buddhist thinkers. In this sense it may be said to be a purely contingent, historical fact that Buddhism, say, has not attracted a tradition of philosophical argumentation in the way that the Abrahamic religions have. **Realism and antirealism** - A renewed concern of philosophers of religion in the late 20th and early 21st centuries was to determine the sense in which religious claims may be said to be true. - The responses to this question took two broad forms. - According to the view known as realism, if God exists, then he exists objectively, or independently of and apart from human efforts to understand his reality. Thus, "God exists" is true if and only if God exists; whether or not a world of cognizers believes that he exists is irrelevant. - According to antirealism, the claim that God exists is true or false only relative to the beliefs or practices of some human group. Some antirealists make use of the work of the Austrian-born British philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889--1951), particularly his concepts of "language game" and "form of life." - According to some uses of these ideas, religion is a system of social activities or practices involving specific forms of language, and such language is meaningful only within the activities in which it plays a role. - The attempt to assess expressions of religious belief by criteria derived from other language games, such as those of science, is therefore mistaken. - The strongest forms of antirealism stress the idea that the human mind "constructs" reality, including religious reality, through categories bestowed on it by culture, by one or more language-games, or by some other aspect of human endeavour. - Weaker forms define truth in one of a variety of epistemic terms---e.g., a proposition is true just in case it is verifiable in principle, or just in case it is in some sense pragmatically useful---and draw on a more general suspicion of or skepticism about religion stemming from Kant, Feuerbach, and Freud. - Antirealism emphasizes the plurality of religious positions and the validity of each position insofar as it is faithful to its own criteria of belief. The idea of objective truth and the possibility of knowing the truth is dismissed. - Various postmodern attitudes to religion appeal to both epistemological relativism and certain connections between knowledge and the possession of power, including political power and patriarchy. - As the preceding discussion indicates, although contemporary philosophy of religion continues to address traditional questions about the relation between faith and reason, it is now increasingly characterized by efforts to determine the epistemic status of religious belief rather than by attempts to secure religious knowledge. - Even the tradition of natural theology is no longer concerned with proving the existence of God but with the more modest project of making belief in God reasonable, or rebutting objections to the charge that such belief is unreasonable, or showing that God's existence is the best explanation of the unity and diversity of the natural order.