Life After Death

As promised, the life after death essay as well.....

“Theories of Life after Death do not solve the difficulties raised by the Problem of Evil” Discuss.              

For believers the Problem of Evil has always been of great importance, and trouble, for their faith. The traditional Christian teaching entails the notion of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God who loves humanity now and forever more; yet evil exists in this world (note when speaking of evil in this essay, unless otherwise specified I will be referring to both natural and moral evil). This inconsistency with the nature of God, commonly known as the Inconsistent Triad, has caused a great deal of debate throughout Christianity and Theologians, and the extent of their success in solving this triad shall be critically assessed below.

Richard Dawkins seems an obscure choice to discuss when assessing a Christian theological problem, yet I feel his views should be expressed as he appears to be the only scholar who can conclusively ‘solve’ the inconsistent triad. Dawkins would argue strongly against the notion of life after death as he rejects any concept of a soul. The word ‘consciousness’ would fit far better with his ideas, as he states the traditional idea of a soul, as put forward by Descartes, Aquinas, Aristotle and so on entails nothing more than myth, made because science could not explain how we are conscious beings. This ‘soul 1’ as he calls it is nothing more than myth, a way of answering a question science cannot currently explain; “it’s not an explanation, it’s an evasion” Dawkins, the Guardian Debate. Rather we should believe, accept, that there is a ‘soul 2’ that is our genes. Although science has not yet provided an answer as to how we are conscious, genetics will soon do so, and thus there is no soul. This, along with Dawkins hard atheist views have ‘solved’ the problem of evil as if there is no soul, there can be no afterlife; death is the ultimate end of our consciousness. Furthermore if there is no God, there is no greater being to have logically incoherent qualities. Ergo the problem of evil has been solved as there is no problem; when we die that is the end of our lives, and there is no God, so we cannot debate whether or not he is truly omnipotent/omnibenevolent. However despite these hard views that seem on appearance to eradicate the problem of evil one must note that Dawkins has no proof whatsoever for his views – he appears to simply have replaced the myth of a soul with the myth of DNA.

A less extreme view that seems to solve the problem of evil is put forward by John Hick. Hick argued for the concept of life after death in the form of replicas, a logical thought experiment designed to show that a materialist afterlife is possible (he did not believe this however). His theodicy, in addition to replica theory, appears to solve the inconsistent triad as thus. Hick argues for belief in a God who, as in the book of Job, accepts responsibility for the evil in this world, and states that it was intentionally put there. He holds this belief as without evil there is no way that humans can have moral growth, or any moral behaviour. If there is no evil, there is no chance for humans to show compassion, empathy and help to those in need; he sees suffering as a necessary ‘soul-making’ step in life. Thus evil is a gift from God, put on earth to help humans. Keats would support this view, stating “do you not see how necessary the world of pains and troubles is to school the intelligence and make it a soul”. This, plus the idea of replica theory, which states upon the instant of our death our bodies are replicated with complete physical, memory and psychological continuity into a replica world, explains how evil can be in this world and God remain omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Humans need suffering to grow morally, and in the afterlife provided by replica theory our questions may be eschatologically verified, providing answers and explanation for the suffering we endured on earth. Ergo Hick seems very successful when dealing with the problem of evil.

Conversely however one must note that Hick has not accounted for the amount of evil present on this planet. If evil has to exist to allow soul-making, surely God could have allowed only moral evil (so that we may keep our freewill) and not allowed natural evil? This way suffering, and hence soul-making, can occur but the level of suffering is reduced. To argue something as horrific as genocide is necessary simply for soul-making seems extreme. Moreover replica theory alone has its own issues. Is the value of a copy, however good, really as high as the original human? Equally what happens if we die as an infant? If our body is replicated upon death, you will spend your life as a replica with an infant’s mind, so arguably cannot eschatologically verify why you suffered, and so cannot reach the state of understanding Hick describes (as explained in the book of Job). Therefore while Hick provides a better option than Dawkins to answer this question, as he does believe in a God and attempts to answer  the problem, there are issues with his approach that offer some significant boundaries to his conclusion.

Conversely Christian theories do not seem to solve the issues with the problem of evil. This clearly is not the conclusion believers would wish to draw but there are large inconsistencies within belief that must be noted. The first problem is encountered when looking at the nature of life after death. There is disagreement within Christiantiy as to whether when we are resurrected it is a physical or spiritual resurrection, as St Paul speaks of “glorified bodies” but this is an ambiguous term. Fundamentalist Christians would argue for a physical resurrection as in Matthew passages indicate physical suffering in hell; “and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth” Matthew 13:42. However liberal ideas now argue for a spiritual resurrection, much like Aquinas’ ideas in which he stated hell is not a physical place, but eternal separation from God. However whichever of these views you follow Christianity does conclude that you go to either heaven or hell, and this justifies suffering on earth. If you have lead a good life your suffering will be forgotten as you will live eternally in the glory of heaven and never suffer again. Conversely if you have lead an immoral life you will be judged and thrown into hell, and the suffering you receive both in hell and on earth will have been justified by your immoral life. However despite solving one problem associated with the problem of evil, Christianity has simply raised even more problems. If we do not have freewill, as many would argue, due to the notion of predestination as put forward by John Calvin, then being judged on our actions is immoral. If we are predestined to go to heaven/hell, and therefore to do just/unjust actions in our life, God is not omnibenevolent, as he has no way to fairly judge us for actions we did not chose to commit. Furthermore can God be seen as omnibenevolent if he sends all people who are not Christians, but who have led good, moral lives, to hell? Hick would argue from a universalist point of view which may solve this issue, but universalism is not widely accepted in Christianity as of today. Hence while Christianity appears to solve the problem of evil through the existence of heaven and hell, it actually raises more issues than it solves, and cannot agree simply upon the nature of life after death, and therefore does not solve the issues raised by the problem of evil.

In light of the above theories of life after death do not solve the problem of evil. Christianity itself cannot solve the problem, despite it being of the upmost importance for their faith, and whilst Hick does come closer to answering the question, he equally cannot concretely solve the issues due to the high prevalence of evil on earth. Richard Dawkins provides the only argument that can concretely solve this theological issue, but this is only through eradicating the notion of a God, which is not something that believers are able to do. Ergo theories of life after death can solve some issues surrounding the problem of evil, but are all far away from solving it completely whilst maintaining belief in a God.