Afterlife Argument

1000 Words4 Pages
Whether or not you cease to exist after your earthly death, or whether your body continues on in the “perpetual” afterlife, is a question fiercely contested by many opposing viewpoints. Through analysis it is clear that all hold some merit, each emphasizing one side while glossing over another. In the end however, the afterlife cannot be scientifically proven and therefore the created sense of an afterlife is most commonly used as a crutch, a tool to make the present more bearable and less bleak. One common argument for there being an afterlife is that the soul does not contain composite parts, but instead is one uniform entity; it is a true “form”. Plato compares the soul to harmony using this logic when he states, “one must therefore suppose…show more content…
This discusses the idea that people who believe in an afterlife do that out of need or weakness. It comforts and gives “good cheer in the face of death” (64 a). This follows what is called “genetic fallacy” in which if a belief arises from a need or desire, it concludes that the belief must be false. This sense of the “great beyond”, and that the life after this could be infinitely better allows for hope, but also complacency. There is no point in changing this world and making it better for yourself if you know that you can wait it out. Therefore, afterlife is a concept fabricated by the mind in order to cope with inadequacies and to allow people to keep…show more content…
This silence argument debates that if “the souls of the dead must be somewhere whence they come back again”, then we here on earth would have heard about at least some aspect of it over time (72 a). The absolute silence and absence of a guarantee then leads one to believe that the body and soul both die at the time of earthly death. Out of all the arguments that there is life after death, the one structured on the premise that the soul does not contain parts is the most convincing as it does not require as much faith in its validity as the others. Yes, you do have to agree that the soul is not composed of parts such as personality or experiences, but the soul is after all an abstract concept. You cannot physically smash a soul, as it is intangible by definition, therefore it makes more sense for there to be an afterlife based on this argument. Of the discussions against afterlife, the one based on psychological critique produces the soundest argument. Humans look for justification, and when it cannot be found, they use this concept to console them. It is easier to believe that the actions happening to them are all part of a greater plan, so they do not have to actively take the blame. The other ones of materialism and silence provide good analysis, but they do not deal with the human condition thoroughly and therefore neglect to discuss how humans interpret the information

More about Afterlife Argument

Open Document