AO1: Descartes’ argument for the existence of the soul
- Descartes is a substance dualist, meaning mind and body are different kinds of thing.
- Bodies are physical and take up space, while the mind is defined by thinking.
- He uses a priori reasoning to find certain knowledge.
- His starting point is the cogito: “I think therefore I am”.
- Even if we doubt everything, the act of doubting proves we exist as thinking beings.
- However, the body can be doubted, since we could be dreaming.
- This suggests what we are is not essentially our body, but our mind.
- Descartes then gives two arguments to show the mind and body are not the same.
- First, the indivisibility argument.
- Physical things can be divided into parts because they exist in space.
- But the mind cannot be divided in this way, since thinking is unified.
- This difference suggests the mind is not the same as the body.
- Second, the conceivability argument.
- If two things were identical, we could not think of one without the other.
- But we can imagine existing without a body, like a mind without physical form.
- This shows the mind can be conceived separately from the body.
- If something can be conceived separately, it is possible for it to exist separately.
- So, the mind and body must be distinct.
AO2: Descartes’ Indivisibility argument
- Descartes argues that physical things are divisible because they take up space and can be split into parts.
- By contrast, the mind has no parts and cannot be divided in this way.
- Thinking seems to be a single unified activity.
- He uses the principle that identical things must share the same properties.
- Since the body is divisible and the mind is not, they cannot be the same thing.
Counter
- Some argued the mind can be divided into thoughts, feelings and memories.
- Descartes replies these are not parts but modes of one consciousness.
- They all belong to a single unified subject.
- So, the mind itself remains indivisible.
Evaluation
- However, split-brain cases provide strong evidence against this.
- When the brain is divided, patients can display conflicting behaviours, as if there are two centres of consciousness.
- One hand may act against the other, suggesting divided awareness and control.
- This implies the mind may not be a single unified whole.
- If mental activity can be split in this way, then Descartes’ claim that the mind is indivisible is undermined.
- So, his key premise is weakened, and with it the conclusion that the mind must be non-physical.
AO2: Descartes’ conceivability argument
- Descartes argues we can know the mind through clear and distinct ideas.
- He claims we can clearly conceive of ourselves as thinking but non-extended, and the body as extended but non-thinking.
- Since these properties are different, we can imagine the mind existing without the body.
- He then argues that if something is conceivable as separate, it is possible.
- If it is possible for them to exist separately, they must not be identical.
- So, mind and body are distinct.
Counter
- However, the masked man fallacy shows this reasoning is flawed.
- Someone might imagine the masked robber is not their father, but still be wrong.
- So they have imagined something impossible.
- This shows conceivability does not guarantee possibility.
- Descartes may be making the same mistake when imagining a disembodied mind.
Evaluation
- Descartes might argue such mistakes come from ignorance, whereas we know our own mind with certainty.
- However, this is too strong.
- We may know we exist, but not fully understand what we are.
- Modern psychology shows much of the mind operates unconsciously, beyond introspection.
- So our self-knowledge is limited.
- This means our ability to imagine ourselves without a body may reflect ignorance rather than real possibility.
- The masked man fallacy still applies.
- So, conceivability does not prove possibility, and Descartes’ argument fails.
AO1: Views on the body/soul relationship and the possibility of continuing personal existence after death
- The soul is often seen as the source of consciousness, memory and personality.
- So, if the soul survives death, the person survives.
- Christians believe the soul is immortal, not physical, and survives the body’s death.
- It also keeps personal identity in the afterlife.
- Plato taught that the soul is separate from the body.
- This influenced Augustine and later Descartes.
- On this view, the soul can leave the body and continue to exist after death.
- Aquinas followed Aristotle’s idea that the person is a unity of body and soul.
- The soul gives the body its life and nature.
- He argued the soul can survive death, but only in an incomplete state until resurrection restores full identity.
- Hick argues that identity depends on the body.
- He suggests survival is possible through a replica.
- If God creates an exact copy of a person, it would count as the same person.
- Materialists reject the soul and argue only physical things exist.
- They claim the mind depends on the brain.
- So, when the brain dies, the person no longer exists.
- On this view, survival after death is not possible.
AO2: Reductive materialism
- Reductive materialism says the mind is just the brain.
- Changes to the brain affect thoughts and feelings.
- Drugs, brain damage and ageing all change mental states.
- Brain scans also show links between brain activity and experience.
- So, the simplest explanation is that mental states are brain states.
Counter
- Chalmers argues this misses the “hard problem” of consciousness.
- Science can explain brain functions like memory and perception.
- But it cannot explain why these processes produce subjective experience.
- So, it may be too early to say the mind is just the brain.
Evaluation
- However, this objection is not decisive.
- If the mind really is the brain, we should expect it to be difficult to understand.
- So, the hard problem may just reflect limits in current science.
- Science has often explained things that once seemed mysterious.
- It is more reasonable to continue with physical explanations than introduce non-physical ones.
- Dualism is possible, but it adds extra assumptions without strong evidence.
- So, overall, the simpler and better-supported view is reductive materialism.
AO2: The resurrection/replication of ailments dilemma
- Christian resurrection faces a problem when people die with illnesses like dementia.
- Dementia affects memory, personality and thinking, which seem essential to identity.
- This creates a dilemma.
- If dementia is not restored, identity is lost.
- If it is restored, heaven is not perfect.
Counter
- This assumes identity is based on exact mental state at death.
- We could instead see identity as developing over a whole person’s life.
- Dementia may just block expression of identity rather than define it.
- So resurrection or replication could restore the person without the illness.
Evaluation
- However, this is still unconvincing.
- Dementia changes personality, agency, memory and values, which are exactly the things we normally use to identify a person.
- So it seems false to say the real person is simply hidden underneath, unchanged.
- Dementia is not just blocking identity, but becoming part of the person’s lived story.
- So removing it risks creating a different person.
- But keeping it would make resurrection and heaven imperfect.
- This means the dilemma remains, and no theory of resurrection fully solves it.
AO2: evaluating near death experiences
- Near-death experiences happen during extreme stress.
- These conditions can cause hallucinations and altered consciousness.
- They can also distort memory.
- So, NDEs may be brain-generated experiences caused by neurochemicals.
- This explanation uses known science and does not require an afterlife.
Counter
- However, NDEs are often similar across cultures.
- People report tunnels, light and peaceful feelings.
- This suggests they may have a real source.
- Swinburne’s principle of credulity says we should trust experiences unless we have reason to doubt them.
- So, some argue NDEs could be glimpses of an afterlife.
Evaluation
- However, similar experiences can be explained naturally.
- Human brains are very similar, so similar stress can produce similar hallucinations.
- NDEs happen when the brain is not working normally, which gives strong reason to doubt them.
- This weakens the principle of credulity, since there is good reason to distrust these experiences.
- They are not like normal perception.
- So, NDEs are better explained as brain-based events rather than real glimpses of an afterlife.
- They do not provide strong evidence for life after death.
AO2: Evaluation of past lives evidence
- Some argue children’s past-life memories support reincarnation.
- Researchers like Stevenson collected cases where children recall details of dead people.
- Some of these details seem to match real historical figures.
- For example, James Leininger described being a World War II pilot.
Counter
- However, this evidence is weak.
- Verification often happens after a match is found.
- Researchers may fit stories to history rather than test them properly.
- Children are also imaginative and suggestible, especially in cultures that believe in rebirth.
- So coincidence and bias are more likely explanations.
Evaluation
- Even if the evidence were stronger, it would still not prove reincarnation.
- It would only show children have unusual access to information.
- This could have many explanations, such as telepathy or unknown processes.
- There is no reason to prefer reincarnation over these alternatives.
- Without knowing the mechanism, we cannot explain the cause.
- So, the evidence only shows something unexplained.
- Given how weak and unclear the data is, psychological explanations are more convincing.