in which rachel posts an old essay
By popular demand, my essay. Please remember this was my first semester of college. I don't know how much I can defend this. It was moderately well footnoted, but the paragraph allocation is poor.
What Happens to Humans After They Die
One of the major concerns that has always been predominant in the minds of religious followers is that of what happens to them after their death. It could be argued that the whole of religion is based on the promise of a happy afterlife if correct behavior is enacted, and eternal punishment if errors are made. Because the fate of humans after death is so important to believers, it is vital to establish the exact nature of both the essence of a human which goes on to experience an afterlife, and the nature of the afterlife experienced. Using the Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible and David Hume’s writing “On the Immortality of the Soul,” I will attempt to discredit the Bible as the most reliable source on this issue and ascertain the nature of a soul and discuss the possibility of life after death.
Religious tradition holds that each human being is in possession of a soul which will survive bodily death. This supposition, while found in the Old Testament of the Bible, is not shown as much in the New Testament. The version of a soul reflected in the Old Testament is that of a human spirit which would go on to inhabit the family sepulcher (burial vault) after death or would go on to Sheol, “the region where praise of God is impossible (Isa 38:18)” This habitation was by no means the eternal existence portrayed in tradition. The soul was thought to inhabit the family sepulcher or exist in Sheol for a short period of time, followed by its inevitable dissolution. The New Testament, while often speaking of a human spirit, never claimed that a human soul would go on into eternity. The New Testament preached, rather, the doctrine of a resurrection of the body. This supposed resurrection would occur at the end of the present world, when the bodies of the dead would be reconstituted in some manner.
The fact that the new testament teaches the concept of a resurrected body rather than that of an immortal soul is not surprising. Religious life is viewed as a beneficial way of life if the believer holds two particular ideas to be true. These are the assumptions that God has control over what happens to men in the long run, and that they will be eternally rewarded or punished for their behavior in the present life. If we were to say that a human soul is indestructible and immortal, this would imply the soul is eternal. If the soul exists forever, the soul must also have existed forever. An eternal thing can not have a starting point. As Hume states in his work “what is incorruptible must also be ingenerable. The soul, therefore, if immortal, existed before our birth”# Not only would the soul have to have existed before our birth, but the soul would have to had always been in existence. If there was no point when the soul was not in existence, then it could not have been created by any entity, including God. If God did not create the human soul, then he can not be imagined to have any specific jurisdiction over the same. Without belief in God’s ultimate controlling nature of the Human soul, the fear of God crumbles, and this fear is requisite to the religion. To preach the idea of an immortal and indestructible soul would be counterproductive to religion, as it would weaken one of the very pillars of the belief system.
Because the Bible is so highly divided on the issue of life after death, and because the concept of an eternal soul would so greatly undermine the religion itself, it is difficult to rationally accept the Bible as a sound source of information on this issue. The beliefs established in the Old Testament seem to point towards a finite soul which exists for a short while after the body dies, and then dissolves. The New Testament preaches the concept of the resurrection, that after death, the body ‘sleeps’ until the end of the world, when it is then reconstituted in some form. Not only is the concept of a soul disputed in the Bible, but the promise of an afterlife is absolutely vital to the belief system. Religious texts are predisposed to confirm the existence of an afterlife, and can not reasonably be assessed as scientific or empirical works.
If the Bible can not be taken as the authority on the nature of the soul, how can we define the soul? David Hume, writing through his knowledge of the Biblical Gospel, comes to the conclusion that there could be no lasting immortal soul. Drawing an analogy, he claims “The souls of animals are allowed to be mortal; and these bear so near a resemblance to the souls of men, that the analogy from one to the other forms a very strong argument.” This is not as strong an analogy as Hume supposes. There is a marked difference between the human species and other species of animal found on earth. This difference is found in the mental capacity. Humans, unlike any other animal, have the capacity for rational and logical thought. A similar yet contradictory analogy to Hume’s can be drawn from this inference. Since man has a mind unlike that which is found in the other animals in the world, could it not also be assumed that man possesses an eternal essence beyond that of animals, i.e. a soul? Hume also argues that the presence of an immortal thing (a soul) in the context of the entirely mortal world is illogical. This viewpoint, however is somewhat shortsighted. When viewing a rule, (for it is as such that Hume is treating the finite nature of the world) in science and philosophy, the thinker must constantly be open to the possibility of an exception to this rule coming to light. Hume’s method of using the amount of evidence to proportion his belief does not, by definition, allow for an exception to the rule to ever occur.
The Bible having been shown to contradict itself too harshly from one testament to the next, can not be taken as a fully reliable source regarding the nature of a soul and the afterlife. Even the theories of Hume’s Philosophy fail in this instance, due to his generalization of a law and weak analogy. How then should man live, when both the holy texts and intellectual circles fail to give him adequate precepts? Logically the answer is clear. There are many religions in the world, but regardless of their specialized customs and beliefs, some common strains run through all of them. The concepts are also parallel to the natural sense of human morality found throughout history. It is safe to assume that regardless of personalized belief, the commonly thought of moral way of life is the best choice. What deity, seeing a man who has lived a fruitful and morally upright life, would condemn him to some horrible eternity? If there is no deity to condemn or commend the man, what has he lost for living a good life? Since it is ultimately so impossible to find an absolute answer which undeniably describes the soul and afterlife, perhaps the best plan for existence is a lifestyle similar to Pascal’s famous wager. It has been asserted that Humans possess a unique quality of existence which we refer to as a soul. The eternal resting place of this soul may or may not depend upon the individual human’s actions in life. If man lives a moral life, respecting himself and those around him and there is an afterlife, he would receive good in return for his actions. If a man acts morally but there is no afterlife, he is neither rewarded nor punished, and loses nothing for having lead an upright life.
Clearly, mankind is a distinct species in the world. Man is capable of rational, cognitive thought. Each man has a remarkably unique personality and set of traits. Because of these things, it is a commonly accepted belief that human beings have spiritual entities, mental substrata or life forces, more commonly called souls. What happens to these souls after the human bodies die can not be ascertained. Regardless of the manner in which they are sorted, it can safely be said that a morally upright life leads to the most advantageous afterlife, or if no afterlife is to be had, does not hurt the man has lived it.
What Happens to Humans After They Die
One of the major concerns that has always been predominant in the minds of religious followers is that of what happens to them after their death. It could be argued that the whole of religion is based on the promise of a happy afterlife if correct behavior is enacted, and eternal punishment if errors are made. Because the fate of humans after death is so important to believers, it is vital to establish the exact nature of both the essence of a human which goes on to experience an afterlife, and the nature of the afterlife experienced. Using the Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible and David Hume’s writing “On the Immortality of the Soul,” I will attempt to discredit the Bible as the most reliable source on this issue and ascertain the nature of a soul and discuss the possibility of life after death.
Religious tradition holds that each human being is in possession of a soul which will survive bodily death. This supposition, while found in the Old Testament of the Bible, is not shown as much in the New Testament. The version of a soul reflected in the Old Testament is that of a human spirit which would go on to inhabit the family sepulcher (burial vault) after death or would go on to Sheol, “the region where praise of God is impossible (Isa 38:18)” This habitation was by no means the eternal existence portrayed in tradition. The soul was thought to inhabit the family sepulcher or exist in Sheol for a short period of time, followed by its inevitable dissolution. The New Testament, while often speaking of a human spirit, never claimed that a human soul would go on into eternity. The New Testament preached, rather, the doctrine of a resurrection of the body. This supposed resurrection would occur at the end of the present world, when the bodies of the dead would be reconstituted in some manner.
The fact that the new testament teaches the concept of a resurrected body rather than that of an immortal soul is not surprising. Religious life is viewed as a beneficial way of life if the believer holds two particular ideas to be true. These are the assumptions that God has control over what happens to men in the long run, and that they will be eternally rewarded or punished for their behavior in the present life. If we were to say that a human soul is indestructible and immortal, this would imply the soul is eternal. If the soul exists forever, the soul must also have existed forever. An eternal thing can not have a starting point. As Hume states in his work “what is incorruptible must also be ingenerable. The soul, therefore, if immortal, existed before our birth”# Not only would the soul have to have existed before our birth, but the soul would have to had always been in existence. If there was no point when the soul was not in existence, then it could not have been created by any entity, including God. If God did not create the human soul, then he can not be imagined to have any specific jurisdiction over the same. Without belief in God’s ultimate controlling nature of the Human soul, the fear of God crumbles, and this fear is requisite to the religion. To preach the idea of an immortal and indestructible soul would be counterproductive to religion, as it would weaken one of the very pillars of the belief system.
Because the Bible is so highly divided on the issue of life after death, and because the concept of an eternal soul would so greatly undermine the religion itself, it is difficult to rationally accept the Bible as a sound source of information on this issue. The beliefs established in the Old Testament seem to point towards a finite soul which exists for a short while after the body dies, and then dissolves. The New Testament preaches the concept of the resurrection, that after death, the body ‘sleeps’ until the end of the world, when it is then reconstituted in some form. Not only is the concept of a soul disputed in the Bible, but the promise of an afterlife is absolutely vital to the belief system. Religious texts are predisposed to confirm the existence of an afterlife, and can not reasonably be assessed as scientific or empirical works.
If the Bible can not be taken as the authority on the nature of the soul, how can we define the soul? David Hume, writing through his knowledge of the Biblical Gospel, comes to the conclusion that there could be no lasting immortal soul. Drawing an analogy, he claims “The souls of animals are allowed to be mortal; and these bear so near a resemblance to the souls of men, that the analogy from one to the other forms a very strong argument.” This is not as strong an analogy as Hume supposes. There is a marked difference between the human species and other species of animal found on earth. This difference is found in the mental capacity. Humans, unlike any other animal, have the capacity for rational and logical thought. A similar yet contradictory analogy to Hume’s can be drawn from this inference. Since man has a mind unlike that which is found in the other animals in the world, could it not also be assumed that man possesses an eternal essence beyond that of animals, i.e. a soul? Hume also argues that the presence of an immortal thing (a soul) in the context of the entirely mortal world is illogical. This viewpoint, however is somewhat shortsighted. When viewing a rule, (for it is as such that Hume is treating the finite nature of the world) in science and philosophy, the thinker must constantly be open to the possibility of an exception to this rule coming to light. Hume’s method of using the amount of evidence to proportion his belief does not, by definition, allow for an exception to the rule to ever occur.
The Bible having been shown to contradict itself too harshly from one testament to the next, can not be taken as a fully reliable source regarding the nature of a soul and the afterlife. Even the theories of Hume’s Philosophy fail in this instance, due to his generalization of a law and weak analogy. How then should man live, when both the holy texts and intellectual circles fail to give him adequate precepts? Logically the answer is clear. There are many religions in the world, but regardless of their specialized customs and beliefs, some common strains run through all of them. The concepts are also parallel to the natural sense of human morality found throughout history. It is safe to assume that regardless of personalized belief, the commonly thought of moral way of life is the best choice. What deity, seeing a man who has lived a fruitful and morally upright life, would condemn him to some horrible eternity? If there is no deity to condemn or commend the man, what has he lost for living a good life? Since it is ultimately so impossible to find an absolute answer which undeniably describes the soul and afterlife, perhaps the best plan for existence is a lifestyle similar to Pascal’s famous wager. It has been asserted that Humans possess a unique quality of existence which we refer to as a soul. The eternal resting place of this soul may or may not depend upon the individual human’s actions in life. If man lives a moral life, respecting himself and those around him and there is an afterlife, he would receive good in return for his actions. If a man acts morally but there is no afterlife, he is neither rewarded nor punished, and loses nothing for having lead an upright life.
Clearly, mankind is a distinct species in the world. Man is capable of rational, cognitive thought. Each man has a remarkably unique personality and set of traits. Because of these things, it is a commonly accepted belief that human beings have spiritual entities, mental substrata or life forces, more commonly called souls. What happens to these souls after the human bodies die can not be ascertained. Regardless of the manner in which they are sorted, it can safely be said that a morally upright life leads to the most advantageous afterlife, or if no afterlife is to be had, does not hurt the man has lived it.