• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Theories of the resurrection of the body are logically coherent.

Extracts from this document...


Theories of resurrection of the body are logically coherent. Discuss. The idea of the resurrection of the body immediately implies life after death. It also implies that a body that has been destroyed can come back in a state of physicality. In this essay, I will argue that such way of approaching the idea of life after death is not wholly logically incoherent. However, I will also consider dilemmas linking to questions such as: does the idea of the resurrection of the body defies our personal continuity? Is the body necessary for personal continuity? And, finally, is death a reality or a type of incarnation of the body into another form? The key issues in arguing for the resurrection of the body comes when we begin to explore such questions as: does life after death necessarily necessitate a body? Can life after death ensure continuity of our personal identity? Firstly, I believe it is important to distinguish between the concept of 'resurrection' of the body and that of 'immortality' of the soul as both concepts argue for life after death. By 'resurrection' of the body I understand that a body that has experienced death and physical disintegration is able to come back to its original form. ...read more.


According to materialism mental events are also physical events. Our abstract, logical and psychological thinking can all be explained through brain processes which have, therefore, a mechanical framework. This does not mean that our brains are exactly the same as a computer as, by contrast to computers, the human brain responds to external inputs and its information is not set (determined) but acquired. Having said that, the perspective of arguing for the resurrection of the body from a materialist angle seems coherent and fairly attractive - given its scientific backbone. Consider this grim scenario; suppose a scientist was able to create an exact replica of your body and brain using your genes and freeze them so that they could be activated at your death. You then would die and would be replaced by this replica, in all respects, another 'you'. Such process could be deemed as bodily resurrection (even though not in the conventional sense) and seems perfectly logically possible. This type of resurrection is strictly materialist and there is no need to account for another, spiritual, dimension. Yet, the person being re-created is not the same person but just a mere copy. ...read more.


I have to underline that it is the same body that undergoes the process of resurrection - not another one put in its place. Yet, in the example of the clone the clone is a construction separate from its original. Therefore, I believe we can talk of this kind of bodily resurrection as being a reconstruction which seeks to preserve the continuity of the same type of entity. To conclude with, in this essay I have analysed and commented on the idea of bodily resurrection from both a dualist and a materialist point of view. I came to an intermediate conclusion about the dualist approach as not being logical enough since it distinguishes between mind and body as if they were two completely differing substances, thus, causing a category mistake. I also argued against Kant's version of the replica theory on the basis that, despite being logically correct, it is far too hypothetical. On the other hand, the materialist approach (despite seeming more coherent) ultimately fails, too, to support the idea of reincarnation. One last final remark, by following a materialist view one could come to the conclusion that death is not a reality but merely a transformation of matter into other types of matters. Therefore, the question of life after death and the question of resurrection simply do not arise. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

4 star(s)


This essay is clearly written and with confidence. It discusses three basic points, (anti-dualism, anti-Hick, and pro-bodily replication) which are developed quite accurately. The student attempts to present his own argument, which is commendable, but here gets very confused. Their account of bodily replication doesn't really address the question of bodily resurrection and they themselves note in the conclusion that this doesn't really work. This undermines the essay's main conclusion. The conclusion and the student's attempted evaluation and commentary are highly confused. Multiple threads are taken up and none of them really work. Credit must be given for clearly communicating a couple of key areas of concern and showing some awareness of the problems with the arguments (an awareness which, unfortunately, undermines the essay's own argument).

Marked by teacher David Moss 31/03/2012

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

  1. Religious language is meaningless, Discuss

    One day, two people see that the garden has been cared for and the weeds have gone and been replaced with plants. One says a gardener must have come into the garden during the night when everybody was sleeping and cared for the weeds as they had now turned into plants.

  2. compare Plato and Aristotle's view of the soul

    to the "form of the good" Aristotle would in fact say that in order to be a morally good person you would have to function in the best way that a human would be intended which would need both the body and the soul.

  1. Explain Plato's Form of the Good

    However there seems to be no argument for things like wasps, which definitely exist, and serve no good purpose. It can also be argued that there must be a form of imperfection. This is a contradiction as how can there be a perfect imperfection?

  2. Explain Plato's Theory of Forms

    they are the source or origin of the being of all things. Systematically interconnected, the forms comprise a system leading down from the form of the good moving from more general to more particular, from more objectives to more subjective.

  1. Plato's Theory of Forms.

    All these 'particulars' are in a process of change, and are therefore imperfect. For Plato, this meant they must be inferior copies of some permanent universal object or quality. The permanent or universal objects and qualities could be found in the Real World - where everything was perfect, or ideal, and can be named the realm of Forms.

  2. Compare and contrast Plato's concept of the Body and Soul with Aristotle's.

    when seeing is removed the eye is no longer an eye, except in name- its no more a real eye than of a statue or of a painted figure."

  1. Ethical language is meaningless. Discuss.

    even ask this question shows that ?good? and ?bad? cannot be the names of natural properties in the way that ?rough? and ?smooth? are. Therefore, if we claim that happiness is a naturally good thing, we could always ask ?is happiness good?,? but if happiness is naturally good this question

  2. Philosophers have proved conclusively that religious language is meaningful. Discuss

    For example, if we speak of ?God is good?, the model of the word is ?good?. There is a human understanding of ?good?, when applied to God it?s a model for understanding God?s goodness. Ramsey states that if we are to understand God?s goodness then we need to adapt the

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work