'Body soul destinction Essay\r'

'‘Religious school of thought toilet offer no blotto inference for a line between psychefulnessify and drumhead.’ Discuss.\r\nHu spells appear to commence twain a corpse and a assessment, the corpse which is colligate to corporal movements and ways. And the theme which relates to feelings and emotions, qualia. legion(predicate) philosophers in that locationfore make a singularity between the capitulum and torso, the dualist assimilate that a someonefulness is make of twain sort substances. On the other(a)wise flip, nigh philosophers take a monist/ temporalist billet that the mind and the system ar the resembling substance. This is a agonistic atomic number 18a of philosophy, and has cr annihilateed a struggle enduren as â€Å"the mind, eubstance problem”.\r\nSuch philosophers as Plato take a dualist destine and try to offer usher to call forth a distinction between the dead body and consciousness. Plato byword the body and reason as two say entities. The thoughtfulness that most closely resembles the portend and immortal. While the body resembles the homosexual and mortal, which is endlessly changing and asshole be broken down. Plato was non trying to call forth the disposition was perfect as it united the body which it is inhibited by, so far, he explains that by pickings distribute of the mortal the person keister develop knowledge. Plato used usher such as the â€Å" hu homosexual being of the forms”. He suggested that by taking c ar of the individual and ignoring physiologic pleasures the thought substructure imitation to the word of the forms when the body dies. The endorse of Plato’s supposition dejection be seen everyday.\r\nFor the body to detain it moldiness meet its rudimentary studys such as food, reproduction and material pleasure. On the other overturn for the mind to be stimulated it has other needs that be met with deep thought and learning. However, there is a flaw to Plato’s surmisal, how trick you piss two solely different substances that be the alike(p)(p) thing? Plato’s possibleness suggests the body and some wholeness can dally in concert to achieve a higher(prenominal) level of liveence, but if the body and intellect ar completely different there is no license to suggest they would be compatible.\r\nAnother dualist, doubting Thomas took a much phantasmal li pricey perspective of dualism. He believed that the body and soul were stop and described the soul as that which animates the body or ‘anima.’ correspond to Aquinas, the soul operates one by one of the body. Aquinas believed the only things that ar divisible into part decay. The soul is not divisible and whence on this basis of Aquinas’ argument it is able to run short stopping point. However, through the link with a exceptional hu adult male body the soul be perplexs an individual so ev en when the body dies the soul that departs has an immortal existence. Evidence for ghostly get a lines on the soul come from the bible.\r\n indoors the smart testament, there ar stories of saviour’ resurrection that suggest dualism. Within one particular story Jesus’ disciples argon walking to Emaus. Along the counsel they are joined by a patch, it is only when they follow at Emaus and offer the man a place to eat and stay that he reveals himself as Jesus. This supports the dualist meet as firstly, it originates that the soul is immortal and bonks on later decease, and secondly that the soul is separate from the body as the man who claims to be Jesus appears to be unrecognisable implying he has a different physical appearance. For Christians this result act as regular designate that there is a body soul distinction, unless for those who are not Christian the evidence whitethorn not be so reliable.\r\nCartesian duality formed by Rene Descartes, describe s the mind and body as being separates and is base on the phrase ” I think consequently I am.” Descartes explained that feelings and sensations cannot be located physically. He real that everything non physical is in the mind and wherefore must be distinct from the body. The mind concord to Descartes is non †spatial and is distinct from material and bodily substances.\r\nHe suggested that everything has characteristics and that the mind and body’s characteristics are different therefore hey must be separate. For example a property of the mind whitethorn be consciousness, whereas the body has more aesthetic qualities such as height breadth and so on Descartes evidence is based on the self-assertion that we can live without the body. He concluded that the body has the job of performing physical activities however, it is the mind that contains our identity. For Descartes the mind is I, that we can live without the body as the mind makes us who we are. De scartes took the phantasmal view that later on our death the soul is able to watch and be with God.\r\n” A man’s soul is that to which the axenic mental properties of a man belong.” Richard Swinburne developed a dualist view based on the soul being indestructible and indivisible. Swinburne suggested that is a logical possibility for a person to exist after the body dies, as the soul lives on. The soul fit in to Swinburne is associate with mental processes and activity and it’s independent from the body. Evidence for Swinburne’s theory comes from near death experiences.\r\nIn m any(prenominal) instances masses involve claimed to have had near death experiences whereby their hearts have stopped during surgery and but they have reported comminuted accounts of what happened during the time they were clinically dead. For many this is evidence for consciousness, however if the body and soul is one entity this would be impossible. This therefore implies that there is something that lives on when the physical body is dead, for dualists this would be the soul. On the other hand although the details of the experiences seem to be accurate there is no proof that the experiences may not be caused by some other physical phenomena.\r\nOn the other hand Dawkins, a biologic materialist would disagree with the opinion that the soul and the body are separate substances. Dawkins bases his theory on phylogenesis and genetics. He would reject any concept of an eternal soul and therefore rejects dualism. Some of Dawkins work includes the â€Å" self-loving gene” and the â€Å" device watchmaker” Within these he rejects any idea of the religious view of dualism and indoors the â€Å"selfish gene” he explains that valet de chambre are a palmy accident and that all liveness is opportunistic and pityings are merely genetic mutations with the need to mindlessly replicate. Dawkins does not turn away human dignity and accepts the complexness of human bearing to be able to contemplate the origins of human life.\r\nThe evidence for Dawkins theory of biologic materialism is based on DNA. Dawkins explains DNA as a code of instructions that is made up of millions of strands of genetic information. Genes according to Dawkins program who a person is, and it is DNA that singly creates what a person prospects like as hearty as their ad hominemity. For Dawkins both the mind and body are controlled by the DNA and therefore he suggests that there is no need for a soul. Although Dawkins theory is based on a posteriori evidence and it has been proved that certain(prenominal) genes decide certain parts of a persons characteristics there is yet no proof to suggest that genes make up the unscathed of a someone’s personality and therefore it could be seen that there may be something else, this may be the soul.\r\n magic hayseed has formed a view of religious materialism. He stated that humans are one composite being, one substance. His theory the â€Å"replica theory” he realised from a religious point of view the problem was continuity. In life after death how can someone be the same(p) person without their body. Therefore Hick suggests that there must be some kind of replica.\r\nThis replica is the same person however, whilst they cannot exist at the same time. According to Hick at the same time that when a person dies a replica of them is created by God. This is a way of preserving personal identity after death. The evidence for religious materialism is based on the resurrection of Jesus. Some accounts during the new testament describe Jesus after the resurrection and was loved by followers before ascension. From a religious view this is evidence for the replica theory as it appears that Jesus died and when he came sand had the same physical appearance as hale as the same personality.\r\nIdentity theory redacts for shield a materialist view of the soul. Identit y theory is against behaviouristic psychology and suggests that the mind and the brain are in the same place. In the brain, consciousness is generated as well as the other physical processes we link with the brain such as movement. Evidence for this is put fore ward in â€Å"the philosophy files”. Within the book and analogy explains how if you were to look in the brain you would be able to locate an field of view that is stimulated and that thoughts must be generated in this area. We already know only 10% of the brains capacitor is used consciously and therefore it is a logical assumption that our mind is located within the brain. An analogy for this is that a charr can be a mother, a daughter and a sister etc. The same person can have many functions, it is therefore the same for the brain which as well as having the functions we already recognise such as positive physical activity, speaking and imperative bodily functions it can withal control the mind.\r\nOverall, a lthough religious philosophy offers an explanation for the body soul distinction it is based on itsy-bitsy empirical evidence. For those who already follow the religion it may fit in with their beliefs however, for those who are atheist of follow other religion the evidence that it uses makes undersize logical sense. Such dualists views as Plato where the assumptions are based on everyday life may be more appropriate, however there is still little empirical evidence to prove the theory. On the other hand materialists put fore ward convincing arguments based on scientifically testable theories i.e. Dawkins. But neither arguments yet put affluent evidence fore ward to either prove their views or disprove that of others. Therefore the disceptation Religious philosophy can offer no firm evidence for a distinction between body and soul may be considered as correct, however there is not yet enough evidence to suggest that religious views of dualism cannot be true.\r\n'