Taken that any continuation of personal identity after death seems to be dependent on some form body/soul dualism, and given the logical objections to such notions, one may be drawn into thinking that immortality is always going to be seen as rationally implausible. However, Phillips argues that a rejection of dualism does not necessitate a rejection of immortality. Phillips draws attention of to the fact that a perfectly meaningful conception of the soul can, and does, exist in the absence of any reference to some mysterious incorporeal substance. In everyday language we use expressions such as "he was a good soul" or "he would sell his soul for money", Phillips uses these examples to demonstrate that, in this context, what we are referring to is not some philosophical dualistic account of a person, rather it is an assessment of what we believe to be that person’s moral state of being - his moral beliefs, his beliefs about how to behave, and his integrity in relation to these beliefs. Of course in this context, the soul can be a meaningful concept without any reference to religion or belief in God, however, if I am a believer then this relationship is not just between myself and the world but between myself, the world, and God. And it is in this context that we should view the concept of immortality. Phillips is making an important distinction here: the distinction between a belief as empirical proposition and a belief in terms of faith, that is seeing one's life in context of certain eternal, and non-temporal considerations. I.e. "I believe that God exists" is an empirical proposition, whereas "I believe in God" is a statement about one's faith and moral commitments. This is a critical distinction because it is in "believing" in the second sense, that we come to understand the meaning and value of self-renunciation , and thus , journey from the temporal to the eternal. This is the religious conception of "dying to the self" and Phillips wants to say that this is the true Christian message that is so often lost when the scriptures are read too literally.
Very much linked to the concept of immortality is the big moral question that has occupied philosophers for centuries, namely: why should I live a good life? A superficial reading of the scriptures provides a simple answer i.e. our conduct in this world is rewarded or punished in the next world. Philips does more than merely disagree with this reading, here he draws on Simone Veil, arguing that such a conception of immortality is positively harmful because all notions of compensation in the next life for as a counterbalance for the suffering in this run counter to the true religious message, which is that the only counterweight for our suffering is God's grace. Phillips quotes Simone Weil "so this belief is in fact the prolongation of life, and it robs death of its purpose" (p53): Its purpose being to remove us from self-concern and towards concern for self-renunciation.
A number of objections can be made to Phillips arguments. One objection would be that in removing the notion of personal identity from the soul, one is left wondering if the term "immortality" has any real meaning left at all. Surely if it is not me that lives on, but something of me, then we are talking of something which essentially is other than me. One may read Phillips as implying that there is, in a sense, a part of God within us and by harmonising ourselves with the good and the grace that is God, we become as one with all that is truly eternal. However, this appears to be an argument for the immortality of God and is hard to see how the immortality of God can be equated with the immortality of the human soul unless the human soul is conceived as a collective or universal concept. Again this would not my soul but the soul and, as such, any talk of my soul being immortal would seem rather meaningless.
Both believers and non-believers may make a further objection. Believers may argue that Phillips's alternative picture of immortality may be all well and good but that is not their picture of immortality. Without doubt, for many believers their faith is anchored in a literal interpretation of religious teachings, and who is Phillips to interpret them differently? One can even imagine Phillips being accused of heresy! Similarly, non-believers may view religion and the concept of immortality in terms of its psychosocial meaning i.e. to give meaning to people's lives, to give to act morally, and to mitigate against death anxiety. Again, if the meaning of the picture is seen in these terms then who is Phillips to take that picture a way? The question is: is Phillips's picture truer, more meaningful, or more valuable than any other is pictures? Phillips certainly believes that he is touching on the original meaning. He argues that this meaning is not only found in the scriptures but goes back as far as Plato. (The Christian concept of immortality is thought to be based on the platonic theme) He criticises those who fail to read the whole meaning. For example, of Geach and Flew he says: "my quarrel... is not of what they say they find in the Phaedo, but because that is all they find their" (P46). Phillips picks up on Plato's idea of "purification", arguing that this refers to the differentiation between doing an apparent morally commendable deed, but impurely (essentially for the good of the doer) and acting morally for the right reason (for the sake of the good). As for the question of whether Phillips's conception of immortality is more valuable than any other concept of immortality? Well, Phillips, being a philosopher, would certainly argued for the value of the truth over falsity. But whether those of a non- philosophical disposition could find meaning, and those of a spiritually insecure disposition could if find solace in Phillips's conception of immortality is perhaps doubtful.
Bibliography:
Phillips.D.Z. (1970) Death and Immortality. Macmillan and Co Ltd, London.
