https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkkw8RhH9ck

Resurrection and Immortality of the Soul From the Latin resurrectus (‘raised up again’). The promise of post-death existence in a re-created (i.e. perfect) human body (not disembodied soul). It is a monist theory, in that a physical body is required for redemption. The physical body is not discarded. This is a traditional teaching of Judaism and Christianity. It can be illustrated with numerous examples from the Bible. Traditional ‘eschatological’ teaching of Christianity, Judaism and Islam: concerned with the end of time. The idea of resurrection can be derived from the Bible: Ezekiel 37: God shows Ezekiel a valley of dry bones and states that he is able to “make these live again”. Gospels: the resurrection of Jesus is attested in all four Gospels. 1 Corinthians 15: St Paul argues in favour of the body being “raised imperishable”.

Resurrection: arguments in favour 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. Thomas Aquinas adopted Aristotle’s idea that the person has no truly independent soul, arguing that: “The natural condition of the human soul is to be united with a body.” We cannot make sense of ourselves without reference to our bodies. This avoids the weaknesses of mind/body dualism.

AQUINAS: “The natural condition of a human soul is to be united with a body” No body = No self Thus: resurrection of the body. SAINT PAUL: “If Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?” If Jesus was raised, Christians will be raised. God made everything, so he can make us renewed.

Considering Resurrection Jews and Christians today have mixed feelings about resurrection. It is a traditional teaching, supported by the Bible. However, many find the idea of a disembodied soul immediately ascending to heaven to be more comforting. Some also wonder whether such a distinctive teaching can be supported in the modern world. Considering Resurrection ROWAN WILLIAMS: resurrection lies “on the frontier of any possible language”. It is a difficult, mystical idea, but a part of Christian faith. Williams may be right, but is it acceptable to maintain a belief in something which cannot adequately be described? What criticisms of Resurrection can you come up with?

Resurrection: arguments against Christian arguments about creation or the resurrection of Jesus will not be persuasive to non-believers; they are based on Scripture alone. The idea of the physical body being re-made may seem strange or mythological. Is this really plausible in the 21st century? The body could be seen as the source of flaws and limitations: desire, disease, suffering, etc. We might be better off as non-material souls or spirits. There is no empirical evidence for resurrection. On that basis, supporters of the verification principle, such as A.J. Ayer, would reject it.

Immortality of the soul: what it is The belief that the soul is a distinct and immortal entity within the body (= dualism) which can survive the death of the body and ascend to the afterlife. Although it is not the traditional view of Christianity (which maintains the necessity of the body for ultimate redemption), it has been popular with philosophers in the west. The first major argument in favour of an immortal soul was given by the philosopher Plato. In his dialogue Phaedo Plato sets the scene just before the death of his philosophical mentor Socrates, who decides to talk with his friends about death and the immortality of the soul…

Immortality of the soul: arguments in favour SOCRATES: Life cannot emerge from a dead thing. Something living must have given life to the body: “the soul is that which renders the body living”. The immortal soul enters the body at birth and leaves it at death. DESCARTES: A French mathematician and philosopher, I added my own arguments in favour of an immortal soul. I can prove that my thinking self exists (“I think therefore I am”), so what I am primarily is a “thinking thing” (res cogitans). Thus, basic knowledge of the self is independent of the body; the immortal soul is the source of conscious life. Any problems?

Immortality of the soul: arguments against The view that the soul or mind exists independently of the body is a form of dualism. This point has been criticised by the philosopher Gilbert Ryle for being a “ghost in the machine” – a speculative spiritual hypothesis. Ryle gives a materialist argument – our conscious life is simply the product of processes in our brains. He argues in favour of ‘philosophical behaviourism’ – the view that supposed mental events (i.e. the thinking self) just refer to complex patterns of behaviour. Modern neuroscience assumes that the mind / self is a product of brain function; otherwise, it wouldn’t be possible to study consciousness scientifically. It is not part of traditional religious teaching – perhaps Jews, Muslims and Christians should reject it? Descartes may have proved that we think, but that is different from proving that our thinking self exists independently.