This idea of the Soul and being inseparable from the body is also voiced by Gilbert Ryle who described it as the ‘ghost inside the machine,’ but he also denies that a persons characteristics are determined by the soul. This thought is contrasted by Dualism.
Dualism is a belief where the mind/soul determines the personality and the body is the shell for that personality. The body is contingent and will therefore decay, but the mind is immortal and will exist forever. It is also believed that the soul is associated with higher realities such as truth, goodness, justice and contemplation, and if a man spends his life contemplating these realities then the soul can enter eternity after death.
This view is supported by Aquinas. According to Aquinas the soul operates independently of the body, and only things that are divisible are open to decay. The Soul is not divisible, unlike the body and will therefore decay and die whilst the soul lives on. This view of the Soul been separate to the body was accepted by Descartes too. Descartes said that it was conceivable for us to survive without our bodies because our identity comes from our soul and it’s ability to think and reason. He rejected the idea that we need our bodies to live an intellectually aware and active life. In my personal view both of these theories have major flaws. John Hick is merely hypothesizing with notion that an exact replica of John Smith will simply re-appear in India. He uses it as a means to reach his end, through illogical reasoning.
The Dualist view of life after death also has its flaws. The idea of the body having no characteristics unless it has a soul is absurd. The appearance of the body is a characteristic which isn’t determined but the Soul. I do feel that the Materialist view is the stronger. Even though it does relay on slightly flawed logic. Even though this view is very much like the Christian view there are some major contradictions between the replica theory and part of Luke’s gospel.
According to Luke’s gospel when Jesus was resurrected he was unrecognisable to some of his disciples. But John Hicks re-creation theory anyone who is reincarnated should be totally recognisable and Jesus wasn’t, even to the people who knew him best, but it does back up Hicks theory that both the body and soul can be resurrected. There is also a slight problem with how people will appear when they have been recreated in Hick’s theory.
If they have died in an accident will they bear the wounds of that accident when they have been re-created, like Jesus still had the holes in his hands. This is not made clear in his theory. The strengths of Hick’s theory are that it is supported by the Christian belief that the body and the soul can be resurrected, although Christians usually think of the soul rising to Heaven not the whole physical body. St Paul wrote,
‘There are heavenly bodies and Earthly Bodies,’
This gives more substance to Hicks belief that there is some kind of body present, not just the soul in the life after death. Despite the downfalls is Hicks theory I do feel that this materialist approach is stronger that the dualist approach because of the Biblical references that can be used to back it up, even though there are some to dismiss Hicks idea I feel that it is still the stronger.
