A theory contradictory to this is property dualism, which believes that man exists as a psycho-physical unity, and despite body and soul (or mind and brain) being two definable separate entities; one cannot exist without the other. John Hick rejected Cartesian dualism on the grounds of the mind and brain working together out of necessity at all times.
The incoherence of disembodied existence can begun to be examined through the problem of exactly what constitutes as personhood. One must question exactly what attributes are necessary in order for a person to be recognisable, to be able to be classified for all moral or purposes, or simply to be able to continue in a life which is conceivable, justified and even meaningful.
It has been claimed that it may seem plausible for the mind to exist without a body, and that it would seem conceivable for one to be able to witness one’s own funeral by such philosophers as Schlick. However, one could argue that if ‘you’ were watching your own funeral, then the witnessed event would not be of you own body, but an empty shell. In effect, it would not be your own funeral. This notion is supported by Flew, who observed that the mere terminology of ‘life after death’ can be perceived as primarily questionable. It was Flew who coined the term; ‘dead survivors’, which recognises that the term is contradictory as referring to ‘dead survivors.’ It covers all possibilities and one cannot belong to both groups.
There is a suggestion that whilst the mind and body exist together, it is merely a physical manifestation for the soul. Whilst some believed that they were epistemologically created and one cannot survive without the other, and life after death is therefore meaningless, some disagree, noting a clear distinction. This is perceived through the notion of the ‘I’ being conceiveble to exist within the wrong body; but the wrong body not existing within the wrong ‘I’. Badham supported this theory and stressed that we identify ourselves through the mind, and this is all that is necessary.
The problem of the physical body not being proof of identity is also a major issue. It again, raises the question of what constitutes personhood. One may consider that if somehow, one were to ‘switch’ bodies with another, it would be almost impossible to live a life as that person, with character traits and personalities being completely different. The fictional story of the prince and the cobbler is often quoted when referring to this dilemma. This theory is supported by Terrace Penelhum, who also questioned what criteria was required to form a person.
A major flaw within the notion of ‘disembodied existence’ are the attributes required in order to successfully constitute ‘personhood’ without the physical body or manifestation. The obvious answer is physical appearances, as one tends to recognise someone through distinguishing features. However, it is hard to understand what can be meant by the same body as one changes so much throughout ones’ lifetime through both physical growth, change of shape and size, hair colour etc. Even our very cells change.
There are other suggestions of gaining new bodies which reflect ones’ inner nature; but one may question whether a physical body can ever reflect all the mental states, emotions and characteristics which form a person. There is of course the argument that appearances often help to form personality; some individuals’ lives often revolve around body and image. Personality is often formed by obsession with one’s own body, and reactions towards it from other people. One could argue that nature is not in fact a product of our appearance, and therefore the physical body is required for identification purposes. The storage and retaining of memories is of course a key aspect; if they are indeed carried through to the afterlife, is it really the only component required to define ‘personhood’. For people such as Penelhum, memories are they key to continuity and the only necessary attribute to identification.
Indeed memories are constant in the sense that one can never cease to bring in new information. Memories are surely a mere reminder of physical existence. Even if memory could continue after death, then new information will continue to be absorbed, and after centuries of learning new information in the afterlife, can one possibly be the same person? It can also be argued that memory is not always a necessary component to the individual. Extreme cases memory loss, or even confabulation and the recovery of ‘fake’ memories do not change the character or personality of the individual.
The problem which arises within continuity is whether one retain identity and continue to exist in some form. Many would respond with the fact that it is not necessary as the spirit is the only relevant issue. However, how can it be recognised as one’s own spirit with no distinguishing characteristics of either mind or body? The notion of emotions and feelings surviving after death may suggest that a physical manifestation is not required. One may question why humans should need a body if God does not. However, the form of a God of classical theism may be beyond ones’ understanding and capacity and of course this being would be a divine one, as opposed to the mere human existence.
One problem regarding life after death with the kind of life that is to be lead, can be seen in the concepts of Heaven and Hell. The notions of appear inconsistent with the traditional teachings. Another major problem lies in applying the normal concepts of personal life to a post-mortem being. The belief within Christianity tends to hold that man is a psycho-physical unity, although this is questionable given the beliefs regarding resurrection.
The notion of the disembodied soul surviving tends to raise more questions than the doctrine of the resurrected body. When one considers the need for a physical body within existence it seems to be an unlikely suggestion. Humans generally find it an extremely hard task to adapt to life without a limb or use of any part of the body. The disembodied soul would surely be unlikely to be able to physically function in any way.
Within the belief that there is physical existence after death lies a theory that the kind of life will be on earth. After judgement day, earth will become Heaven and those who deserve it, shall remain. However, the mere suggestion of this theory begins to present itself with problems. Despite answering the question of where Heaven should be if in a physical state, it cannot possibly function on earth. If Heaven is to be an existence of perfection, utopia and peace then it cannot be on earth, which is built upon imperfection and chaos. Earth is also a tiny part of the universe; easily compared to the size of a micro-organism to an entire continent or perhaps more. The universe may go on for eternity, and one may question how could Heaven be such a tiny place in comparison. If God is the traditional figure of classical theism, then His kingdom would surely not be an insignificant part of the universe. The question also lies within where the dead will exist before resurrection.
The belief that the kind of life one may experience after death may be fashioned from one’s desires is also questionable. A body revealing one’s inner nature and a surrounding world of personal needs and desires sounds appropriate for a heavenly existence after death. However, one may consider that character traits which need to be suppressed may in fact be exposed. If the after-life does in fact consist of mental worlds created by our desires, one may also argue that that many will live in isolation with no communication. John Hick follows this theory and questions whether this can really be ‘living’.
The notion of the disembodied soul surviving tends to raise many questions. When one considers the need for a physical body within existence it seems to be an unlikely suggestion. Humans generally find it an extremely hard task to adapt to life without a limb or use of any part of the body. The disembodied soul would surely be unlikely to be able to physically function in any way. Despite some of the arguments being perceived as logical, too many factors seem to work against them. Disembodied existence cannot be empirically proven as either true or false, however the mere terminology begins to promote the concept as a contradiction; how can one actually exist as a disembodied being? Does lacking in a physical manifestation not completely defeat the entire logic of existence? Or can it simply be that the language cannot possibly expand as far as our thoughts; almost complying with the understanding of reason and thought being so much further beyond the ability of expression and actual manifestation.
Another flaw appears to lie within disembodied spirits being referred to as ‘persons’. This was a point highlighted by AJ Ayer, who found the notion of the after-life conceivable; but not of entities being recognisable as people, therefore defeating the logic of ‘life after death’ within the terminology. Disembodied existence clearly is in terms a contradiction, if not through meaning but in words.
