Plato explains his point further with his theory of forms. Plato's view is that, the more fixed and unchanging something is, the more real it is. Take, for example, a circle. Any circle in the actual, physical world is imperfect, as a true circle has an infinite number of sides. This imperfect circle is therefore a copy of the perfect circle, which can be seen as a blue print. This perfect circle, is the form of a circle. There is also a form of beauty, justice, morality, and so on. Plato's evidence for innate knowledge shows that we have had past lives in the realm of the forms, which shows that we are eternal beings, as our souls exist before the body.
Descartes believed, as another dualist, that both mind and body were separate. To understand Descartes' need for certainty, and his subsequent statement of 'cogito ergo sum', it is important to contextualise him. The 16th century was a time of great upheaval; the many paradigm shifts of the scientific community, and the morality-inducing Thirty Years War had many questioning their morality. Descartes not only questioned his morality, but questioned the entirety of knowledge itself. What could he be certain of, what are the core foundations of his beliefs that he could then base all other knowledge that he is then certain of? Descartes used hyperbolic doubt to regress to the one thing that he could be certain of. These 'waves' of doubt were illusions (I've been fooled by my senses before, what makes me sure that I am not being fooled now?), dreams (dreams appear to be so real that they are often hard to distinguish from reality), and finally the 'evil demon' (how do we know that the world 'truths' such as geometry and logic are not being manipulated by an evil demon?). The evil demon can trick you into thinking anything, so that you know nothing. Everything you 'know' is an illusion, but can he trick you into thinking that you're thinking when you're not thinking? No, because you have to be thinking that you're not thinking. Descartes then asserts that he must exist as a thinker, and that that much is certain, hence 'I think, therefore I exist'.
On the soul's relationship with the body, Descartes suggests that it is not one of 'a pilot on his ship'. In that when a captain crashes his ship, he has to get out and look at the ship to see what damage is done. However when a body is injured the individual knows where they are hurt before they look for damage. Descartes realises therefore that presently our bodies are intermingled and that possibly in the future they are separable. Descartes’ intermingling thesis argues that the mind and body are completely different – the body is divisible therefore is not necessary. Conversely, the mind is non-divisible and is therefore necessary. Descartes is a famous advocate of substance dualism – the idea that the mind and body are separate substances, with potentially the mind being able to survive the bodily ‘death’, and therefore live eternally.
Soft materialism, however, has thinkers such as Aquinas. Thomas Aquinas' beliefs are based upon those of the Christian church, specifically those of the resurrection of Jesus, as the belief of the resurrection of the body is based upon this. As Jesus rose from the dead, it shows that this will happen to us, too. The Bible shows how our bodies are 'sown perishable' and then 'raised imperishable', and that we have a 'natural body' but are raised in a 'spiritual body', which means that, although our bodies decay, our soul lives on. The fact that Jesus rose from the dead with a body, and that Aquinas believes that that will happen to us, makes Aquinas a soft materialist rather than a dualist as his many of his other beliefs seem to be. As we shall all be resurrected just as Jesus was, we could be described as being eternal beings. Aquinas' theory is convincing as it considers physical life to be important and allows is supported by the Bible. His theory of the afterlife is, however, subject to many doubts and questions. Is this afterlife a physical place? Will I be the same age as when I died? There are many more of these questions, and Aquinas' has no answers for them.
John Hick, another soft materialist, believes humankind to be 'psychophysical beings', where we have a physical body, but a moral capacity, which is our soul. He also believes that a person's life is far too short for us to fulfil our potential, and as such there must be an afterlife. Hick, however, rejects the idea that the soul survives the body after death, and that what lives on after death is a replica of us. This replica comes to life in Heaven as an exact copy of the person who lived and died on earth. God creates this replica to live on after death. To show that an afterlife is possible, or a plausible theory, Hick creates his Replica theory, or the analogy of John Smith.
During the first stage we are asked to imagine that John Smith, who lives in America, suddenly disappears and an exact replica appears in India. This replica is exact in every detail, including memory and emotion. The replica thinks of himself as being John Smith, the John Smith who disappeared from America. When he returns there, his friends, first naturally sceptical, are forced to admit after a series of tests that he is indeed the same John Smith that left so mysteriously disappeared. The second stage is much the same, however, John Smith dies in America, and at that exact same time, a replica appears in India. Even with his body in the morgue, we are still forced to believe that this replica is the same John Smith that died, and was miraculously recreated in another place. The third stage, Hick asks us to imagine that when John Smith dies, his replica is created instantaneously on another world altogether. This world occupies its own separate space, and is Heaven. Hick argued that if we accept these strange scenarios are in some way logically possible, then it is also logically possible, then it is also possible for John Smith to die and a replica of him to appear in some place inhabited by resurrected beings, and therefore for life after death to be a meaningful concept. As God is omnipotent, this is possible. As Hick shows that an afterlife is plausible, he also shows that us existing as eternal beings is plausible, too.
Surely a replica, however, would be a completely new being, and therefore not the same person at all? At least biologically, this replica would be a completely new organism that would, in effect, not be the same person that died on earth. Strictly speaking, the same body has not survived death. If the body itself were not necessary to establish personal identity it would not be a problem as personality could survive death intact. Hick's theory, however, avoids all the complexities between the body and soul, and the theory gives the physical body value. It is also supported by Biblical teachings, as belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus gives Christians a strong reason for believing that they too will experience a post-mortem resurrection, or replication of a body.
Gilbert Ryle is a hard materialist, as he believes that the body and soul are purely physical, the conscious is simply brain activity, and there is no afterlife. Ryle is best known for the phrase he coined to explain his conclusions. Through wrong use of language, he said, many have come to believe in a "ghost in the machine". The human mind, or soul, is as unreal as a ghost would be if were thought to be driving and directing a machine. Those who propose a ghost in the human machine have, he said, made a "category mistake". A category mistake occurs when we attempt to put something into a category which differs from its true one. Ryle gives an example: Suppose a stranger is being conducted around a university. He is shown this chapel and that college. "But where," he asks, "is the university?" The question reveals a category mistake. He assumes that "university" is in the same category as "college". Of course, the word refers to the way in which the various components are organised, rather than to an element which is organised. Proposing that we humans consist of a body and a soul is to make the same category mistake, and that that which we call a 'soul' or 'mind' isn't a separate thing at all, as it isn't a thing at all. It results from an organisation of things; the body. As the soul doesn't exist, and our physical bodies die, we are not eternal beings.
Another hard materialist is Richard Dawkins, an evolutionist thinker and atheist. He believes that there is no soul, and the only way that human's can 'achieve' immortality is through the passing on of their genetic code. He believes that souls are only 'myths' that are supported by no evidence whatsoever, and that evolution is the only rational theory, which is supported by evidence. Any sense of individuality is created by the digital and biological information in the brain, not a mind or soul. Upon death, we only leave behind our genes and 'memes', culture created through our catchphrases, teachings and quotes. And as such, we are definitely not eternal beings.
In conclusion, I believe that there is a possibility of an afterlife, as Hick's argument for the plausibility of Heaven, or an afterlife, is conceivable. Soft materialism bridges the gap between dualism and hard materialism, and, I believe, the closest to the answer.
