discuss the claim that any belief in life after death is a theodicy in itself

Hicks replica theory is an explanation of a spiritual resurrection, Hick claims that life after death is a possibility if at the moment of death God were to make an exact replica of that person with all their memories and personal characteristics intact. The person who survives death would be identical to the one who died, but would exist in a ‘different space’ from us that is only observable by God. Hick therefore claims that the dead person can experience resurrection in a ‘spiritual body’ inhabiting a spiritual world. However, there are some problems with this theory, some critics claim that the replica of a dead person is not the same as the actual person, this means that the spiritual body in the spiritual world would not be the actual person as they are different, so life after death would be pointless as it is not the same person continuing to live after death but a copy that isn’t the same as the original. If the replica is not the same as the original this would also raise the issue of the appropriateness of divine judgement of such a being, is it fair to judge a replica on the actions of the original person if this then means the replica is to spend forever in hell for things which they have not done or is it right for a replica to gain the reward of heaven if they did not do such actions worthy of heaven. If a replica cannot be held responsible for the actions of the original person then any idea of life after death as a theodicy collapses.

Christians have traditionally believed that when people die they go either to heaven or hell. Heaven is seen as a place of eternal happiness where people are continually in the presence of God. It is seen as the ultimate goal of human existence, life after death in heaven is something people have to achieve through their actions in life. Hell is seen as a place of separation from God involving eternal punishment for all sins we made throughout our life. However belief in heaven and hell raises a number of questions with regard to the problem of evil. Can the existence of hell, with eternal punishment be compatible with a perfectly loving and perfectly just God? It is hard to imagine any sin where eternal punishment with no chance of parole would be a fair punishment. Furthermore, the very existence of evil and suffering would have no meaning or purpose if some people end up being punished for eternity. Unending torment could never lead to good and is incompatible with an all loving God. David Hume claimed that the whole idea of hell calls God’s justice into question because a finite sin can never deserve an infinite punishment. On the other hand, if God ensures that everyone enjoys heaven then there is no longer a reason to behave morally in this life. However we interpret heaven and hell belief in the next life is a key issue with regard to the problem of evil. On one level the reality of heaven and hell does mean that the just are rewarded and the wicked are punished but at the cost of an all loving God. On the other hand, if you abandon the idea of hell as a place of eternal punishment then there seems little point in behaving morally and by implication all the injustices, inequalities and tragedies of this life are not compensated for. On this basis, it is difficult to view a belief in life after death as a theodicy.

Reincarnation has been described as a theodicy in its own right in that in order to achieve a good birth in the next life a person must live a good life now. We are all involved in an endless cycle of rebirth which is governed by karma. This is based on the belief that my behaviour in one life will determine the nature of the next. If I am virtuous and perform many morally good deeds in this life I can expect to store up a high level of good karma and this should ensure that I will come back as a higher form of life, such as a rich or high caste human being. Everything depends upon life after death and achieving a successful rebirth, the whole point of suffering in this world is so that we can fight and overcome it, resulting in a better after life or rebirth. The righteousness of God is therefore defended because he gives us the opportunity to enjoy a better life through reincarnation in the next life if we behave morally and justly in this one.

Reincarnation is open to serious criticisms which if true would weaken its success as a theodicy. One issue is what criteria can establish that someone living today can be said to be the same as someone living thousands of years ago. Usually there is no memory or knowledge of the previous person. Indeed, even the experience of continued memories between different bodies might not be sufficient to claim the same identity. Bodily continuity is also lacking, there is no physical connection between someone living today in the USA and someone living thousands of years ago in ancient Greece. All that is now left to establish the identity of the two persons is the psychological or mental disposition of the two people. But it would not be unusual for there to be general similarities of character between people who lived centuries apart, this would not by itself enable us to identify them as the same person. Many critics claim that the doctrine of karma and rebirth does not offer a satisfactory solution to the problem of evil and suffering. They argue that it is unjust for someone to suffer bad consequences as a result of crimes or faults they cannot remember committing. Also if someone is to learn from their past lives to make a better present life how is that to happen if they cannot recall events from their previous lives which caused them to have the life they have now. Even in the space of one lifetime, many argue that it is unjust to punish people for wrongs that were committed long in their past, when they are different people now and have learned a lot since then.

Belief in life after death is central to the problem of evil on the grounds that if beyond this life there was no hope of ‘reward’ or no judgement there would appear to be little point to all the suffering in the world. However, the whole idea of life after death as a theodicy or solution to the problem of evil only works if you are prepared to accept that innocent suffering is a worthwhile price to pay for our reward later. Dostoyevsky was one person not willing to accept this, he claimed that there is no relationship between any theodicy and a possible next life, no future happiness in a next life can justify the suffering of even one innocent person in this life. If like Dostoyevsky we do not accept that we have to suffer in order to reap the benefits then life after death fails as an answer to the problem of evil.