Caroline Bristow
“Theories of resurrection of the body are logically incoherent.” Discuss.
According to Christian doctrine at the end of time the dead will be resurrected
from their graves as affirmed in the Creed: “And I look for the resurrection of the
dead, and the life of the world to come.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church
outlines the importance of resurrection stating that if you believe in God as the creator
and Jesus then you must believe in the resurrection of the body where all the dead will
rise and until then your soul will wait in heaven. However, “on no point does the
Christian faith encounter more opposition than on the resurrection of the body” (St.
Augustine). Many see resurrection as a ‘logically incoherent’ idea which when
approached using reason and logical thought ceases to be convincing as a theory of
post-mortem survival.
Although it can be shown that resurrection is not a logically incoherent idea no
given theory can fully answer the criticisms of its opponents, in order to demonstrate
this I will discuss the theories of Hick and Davies and their respective weaknesses.
However, it can be argued that by their very nature post-mortem survival theories are
impossible to prove or even rationalise and so resurrection of the body remains a
credible idea.
Christian faith in the resurrection of the body is deeply rooted in the example
of the resurrection of Christ, as described in the Gospels however these accounts can
be taken as prime examples of resurrection being logically incoherent. The Gospel
accounts seem to have very different ideas about what happened at the resurrection, so
different in fact that they seem to contradict each other (and sometimes themselves).1
Since most Christians base their belief on these accounts the accusation of
logical incoherence seems well-founded. Pailin describes arguing about our fate based
on the reports of the Gospels as “speculating about the unknown on the basis of the
unclear.”2 Pailin also expresses disbelief that the fact that Jesus was resurrected
means that we will all be resurrected. He was supposed to be human but also divine
and so we cannot use his fate as an example of our own. Also we do not find or expect
the events which occurred after his death to happen to us or those we know, “when we
have buried granny we do not expect her calling in for a chat and a snack three or four
days later.”
Ward feels that the accounts are not so contradictory and Paul’s account
actually complements the others.3 He has come to the conclusion that Jesus’ physical
body had changed to such a degree that it no longer existed in the physical realm and
was not subject to its laws. This explains why Jesus was able to perform acts such as
appearing in a locked room and also why he was often not recognised. Ward believes
that the accounts of Jesus as having a corporeal and yet spiritual body are not
1
Matthew, Mark and Luke (24:40) seem to all be saying that Christ returned to the same body and
same life, Mark (16:12), Luke (24:16), John (20:14) and Acts (1:1-11) suggest that Christ returned in a
spiritual body and Acts (1:1-9), it could be argued, proposes that Christ only returned in visions and
lived on only in his disciples memories. In I Corinthians (15:1-11) Paul’s account can be read as
supporting all of these views and also the view that Christ’s soul was immortal and survived him. In I
Corinthians 15:35-50 Paul discusses our resurrection using the analogy of a seed growing into a plant
to describe his view that the resurrected body is a spiritual one given to the person by God as different
as a plant is from the seed it grows from.
2
Pailin, page 188
3
Ward, pages 296-299
mutually exclusive, he thinks there is no reason why a vision cannot be tactual and
capable of interaction and also there is no reason to suppose that a physical body
cannot materialise or dematerialise if under the influence of God. Ward thinks that the
Gospel accounts suggest that Jesus’ body existed in Paradise but was able to manifest
itself on earth so the resurrection appearances are a number of “substantial and
veridical visions.”
As well as these Christian theories of resurrection which are based on Biblical
accounts there is also philosophical speculation about resurrection. One such
philosophical approach is John Hick’s ‘Replica Theory.’ This is based on a threestage thought experiment4 and an acceptance of each successive stage leads to an
acceptance of the logic of resurrection.5
There are flaws in Hick’s argument however. The impracticalities of an exact
replica as the vehicle for life after death are numerous, would the replica age? How
can the replica be immortal when it is the exact copy of something mortal? If the
original person had physical or mental disabilities surely it would not be fair for these
to continue into life after death, and if the person died being over a hundred and
infirm or at six months and dependent on others would they remain in this state for all
eternity? Since identity is related to bodily continuity (I am recognised by people
today because I have the same body as yesterday) and Hick’s argument involves a
break in bodily continuity can the replica really be considered as ‘me’? Davies thinks
not6 and Penelhum7 and Williams8 agree. Davies gives an example of being told that
you have been given a lethal dose of poison but told not to worry as a replica of you
will appear convinced that he is you. Davies feels that he would be “not in the
slightest bit relieved,” he thinks that a replica “wining and dining somewhere” is not
at all the same as knowing that you will be wining and dining. He also compares this
to the reaction of an art collector: if you gave them a copy of a Turner, they would not
be pleased – they would want the real thing. This can be disputed however as a copy
would not be painted by Turner. If Turner painted two such pictures possibly we
would be happy to exchange them. The replica would be created by God as was the
original so this model fits better. One can expand this analogy to fit even better; if the
original painting was damaged beyond repair (like the body at death) surely we would
happily exchange the damaged painting for the other Turner which was in pristine
condition. Ward argues that the replica would be the real person as he defines identity
as the ability to use and build on personal experiences and which the replica would be
capable of.9 Davies disputes that such memories constitute a person’s identity: 10 if I
were to get amnesia I would not cease to be recognisable as me. The chance of
4
In the first stage a man, John Smith, suddenly and inexplicably disappears in America and at that
same moment an exact replica of him appears in India, in the second stage instead of simply
disappearing and reappearing in India John Smith dies and at the moment of death he again reappears
replicated in India. In the third and final stage John Smith dies and is replicated, not in India, but in a
different world inhabited by only resurrected persons. In all three cases the replica has exactly the same
physical and mental characteristics as the original John Smith, there is continuity of memory and the
replica thinks of himself as John Smith. Hick suggests that after all possible tests have been carried out
and returned positive results his friends would come to accept that the replica John Smith was in fact
the real John Smith in all cases
5
Hick, Chapter 15
6
Davies, Brian, pages 220-225
7
Cole, page 89
8
Ward, pages 300-302
9
Ward, pages 302-307
10
Davies, page 224
multiple replicas, J.J. Clarke argues11, threatens the identity of all. Hick dismisses this
by pointing out that in order for there to be three replica Smiths God would have to
make a mistake which is impossible and that there is no reason to suppose that just
because two replicas cannot be John Smith that one cannot also. In reply to his critics
Hick says that his theory only intended to show that there is a logical way resurrection
could happen, he accepts that there are problems and even discusses them at length.
As previously discussed Davies is a critic of Hick’s replica theory but he is not
a critic of resurrection itself, in fact he believes that resurrection of the body is the
only logical way to consider life after death. He comes to this conclusion by stating
that so much of human identity is involved in the body that the only way a human
could survive death would be in a body. As discussed he dismisses Hick’s hypothesis
and also the idea that life in another body with all your old memories constitutes
survival so for Davies the only logically coherent possibility is to live after death in a
body that is physically continuous with the body one had before death, which is
possible if you believe in God.12
As Davies fails to explain how the body is resurrected his argument is open to
criticisms such as those of Linda Badham13 who states that “a minimal knowledge of
modern science seems sufficient to undermine [theories of resurrection]
completely.”14 She disputes that it is possible for all people to be resurrected to
exactly the same body as they had previously because unlike machines or artefacts we
do not keep the same molecules and atoms throughout our existence when we die the
atoms constituting our bodies will return to the environment and doubtless become
part of something else. She quotes J.D Bernal as saying that it is probable that we
have no more than a few atoms with which we started life and we change most of the
material which makes up our bodies once every few months. She also points out that
if somehow the body was reconstituted exactly as it was before death it would
promptly die again, it would need to be the same but without malfunctions, like a
television set being returned from the repair shop having been mended with a few
different parts. She then proceeds to argue that we are not machines and therefore
what would count as a malfunction? And how much change could the body take
before it ceased to be the same person? Her final point is to do with the location of
resurrection. Obviously every human who has ever lived would not fit on the earth.
Either only a few would be resurrected, which raises questions about the morality of a
God who would do this, or resurrection would have to be somewhere biologically
similar to the world leading to implications involving other planets and the further this
picture is explored “the more bizarre and religiously unsatisfying it becomes.”15
As demonstrated by the above arguments resurrection as a theory of postmortem survival can be a logical idea but its problems can never be totally resolved as
Hick freely admits. This may suggest that the theory should be dismissed, however
this is the nature of most post-mortem survival theories and so resurrection does retain
some credibility.
11
Hick, pages 290-291
Davies, pages 220-225
13
Badham pages 133-136
14
Ibid
15
Ibid
12
The very idea of life after death is considered by some philosophers to be
illogical. Flew likened the phrase ‘surviving death’ to ‘dead survivors,’ which is a
self-contradictory idea. He also argued that ‘person words’ such as ‘you’ or ‘I’ relate
to physical organisms and so cannot be applied to immaterial or spiritual bodies,
therefore this notion also is worthless.16 This argument is, however, very much based
on the words used to describe concepts rather than the concepts themselves and so
alone is not hugely convincing.
Williams viewed death as necessary, “an eternal life would be unliveable”17 as
it would be extremely dull and eventually you would have had too much of yourself
and life. Heidegger also views death as necessary but for a different reason. He
describes death as “inevitable, individuating and totalizing.”18 Everyone knows that
they will die and this cannot be avoided, you face death alone and only you can die
your death and death ceases the constant changing and developing which
characterises life, a dead person is unchangeable. According to this definition
Heidegger argues that life is orientated towards death and it is the sense of impending
death which drives people to act now whilst they still can. How we are remembered
matters to us and we are aware that this will be based on our actions in life so “death
gives life its urgency.”19 Death also gives meaning to human life as it completes it,
life cannot have meaning if it remains unfinished. These two arguments, although
different in approach, show that death is needed for life and so the idea of an eternal
life after death would, according to Williams, be hugely dull and undesirable or, in
Heidegger’s opinion, remove all meaning from life and eradicate the impetus to
achieve.
It can be argued that phenomena such as near-death experiences, regression to
past lives under hypnosis, ghost sightings and spiritualism constitute enough evidence
on which to base theories of post-mortem survival. However near-death experiences
are not experiences of death itself just something close to it and could have a medical
cause, such as oxygen deprivation Regression to past lives could simply be the
recalling of suppressed memories. Whether or not ghost sightings and mediums are
genuine has also been greatly debated and the argument has yet to be conclusively
resolved. Therefore it can be argued that none of these experiences are reliable
enough to base a theory on. As Ludwig Wittgenstein said “death is not an event in
life: we do not live to experience death.”20 Even if we do survive death in one form or
another, it is perhaps impossible to formulate theories about it as no living person has
any experience upon which to base them.
As demonstrated by the discussion of Hick’s Replica theory what composes
personal identity is an important part of the debate on life after death. In order for life
after death to be possible there must exist before death a person who is identical to a
person who exists after death. If personal identity is not determined by something
which can survive death then, Runzo reasons, “it is a serious question whether there
can be any life after death at all.”21
Cole, page 87 details of Flew’s essay “Can a man witness his own funeral?”
Webber, page 8
18
Ibid
19
Webber, page 9
20
Webber, page 7
21
Runzo, page 126
16
17
As philosophers cannot agree as to which is the correct way of describing the
self the problem of life after death cannot be properly addressed. The five basic
conceptions of the self are; dualism, materialism, the double-aspect theory that a
person consists of both physical and mental aspects but cannot be reduced to either,
idealism and the idea of a soul which evolves to become a separate entity. For
dualists, idealists and believers in the evolution of the soul life after death is perfectly
plausible as they hold a belief in the immortality of the soul or mental states.
Materialists do not generally accept the concept of life after death as death involves
the destruction of the brain, nervous system and physical body. Although Dennett
explores a way in which materialists could conceivably believe in life after death
which is very similar to resurrection22. Supporters of the dual-aspect theory could
possibly think of life after death in terms of resurrection.
The problem of whether or not resurrection is logically coherent is important
for Christians as it is a central aspect of Christianity. In a research project only 8% of
people agreed that “Our bodies await a resurrection.” Only 4% of Anglicans opted
for Resurrection and 18% of Roman Catholics despite the fact that they would have
affirmed their belief in the creed.23 It can be suggested that this lack of belief in
resurrection is because its logical incoherence means it is not found to be plausible by
today’s more scientifically aware Christians. However, as has been shown theories of
post-mortem survival are by nature impossible to prove or rationalise totally and so
most if not all can be seen as illogical. Which theory is the most credible and logical
relies on individual interpretation of personal identity, and so until the issue of what
constitutes identity is solved the questions surrounding life after death will remain
unanswerable. For some philosophers resurrection is the most credible, or in fact the
only credible, theory of post-mortem survival. Peter Geach for instance writes “Apart
from the possibility of resurrection, it seems to me a mere illusion to have any hope
for life after death.”24 Also resurrection for a Christian is a religious idea and so does
not have to be completely logical, they can base their belief on a faith in God.
Religion relies as much on faith as it does on fact and because of their faith in God’s
power and love many Christians may be able to reconcile their belief in resurrection
with their scientific or rational knowledge which seems to deny its possibility.
22
Ward, page 139 Dennett compares the sets of dispositions which make up a person being transferred
to a new body in a new space to a computer programmer adapting a program to a new hardware
23
Davies, Douglas, Contemporary belief in life after death, published in Jupp, P & Rogers, T,
Interpreting Death:Christian Theology and Pastoral Practice, pages 130-142, the research project was
carried out by Davies and Shaw in 1995 and surveyed 1603 individuals about their beliefs in life after
death
24
Davies, page 213