IndexThe Christian concept of the afterlifeArguments used as justifications for specific beliefs in the Christian afterlifeIntroduction to the Buddhist concept of the afterlifeArguments in favor of the Buddhist afterlifeComparison of the justification of the afterlife afterlife Arguments in favor of both concepts of the afterlife Fundamentalism Coherentism Conclusion “What happens to me in death?” and other questions related to the afterlife are common in the study of religion. There have been many versions of what the afterlife entails, but no single, conclusive concept. This lack of consensus calls into question our knowledge of what the afterlife might be and the validity of the arguments defending that knowledge. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay This article will investigate the epistemological question of the justification or lack of justification of various arguments for the afterlife, particularly in Christianity and Buddhism, as the two religions differ greatly in their beliefs and therefore in their understanding of the afterlife. 'afterlife. Although this article will eventually come to a conclusion, this conclusion is not representative of the epistemic justifiability of the religion itself, and is only the analysis of some arguments relating exclusively to the comparison between the Buddhist and Christian conceptions of the afterlife. In epistemology, knowledge is defined as justified and true belief. This research question will focus on the “justification” aspect of knowledge related to the arguments supporting each religion's concept of afterlife. The Christian and Buddhist concept of the afterlife is shaped by their different beliefs. Christianity advocates the permanence of the self and the existence of an immaterial self in substance dualism, while Buddhism advocates the impermanence of the self and reincarnation. As such, the main beliefs this article will examine are belief in permanence and different conceptions of the afterlife and how they are justified. The Christian Concept of the Afterlife In Christianity, beliefs about the afterlife derive from the resurrection of Jesus Christ, representing victory over the afterlife. death and sin. While the death of the physical body still occurs, eternal life awaits believers in Christ and those who live a sinless life. After death, humans will be judged by God for their actions during their lifetime. This is the traditional dualistic view of man, in which the self is composed of the material body and the immaterial self, and is strongly supported by the Bible, which is considered the main source of authority in Christianity as it is considered the word of God. dualism is also the idea that there is more to a person than their physical self, implying that if the consciousness or individual is indeed beyond the physical self, some mode of dualism is valid. A branch of dualism known as substance dualism or Cartesian dualism, named after René Descartes, holds that the person is a substantial reality, which survives beyond bodily death, and that if the body truly expresses the action of the individual and is a suitable organ of sense-perceptual awareness of self and environment, to see the body is to see the individual, and a separation occurs only when the mind is separated from the body. Dualism is countered by a more recent perspective known as materialism, the view that the self consists only of the material body. However, only dualism will be discussed in this article because it is the most commonly stated belief in history and because of word count limitations. Therefore, this article will examine the concept of the Christian afterlife from a point ofdualistic view. Arguments used as justifications for specific beliefs in the Christian afterlife There are several arguments in favor of the Christian and dualistic afterlife. However, due to the limitations of the number of words, this article will look at 2 topics, namely the Modal Argument and soul criterion of personal identity. The Modal Argument and how it justifies belief in substance dualism The Modal Argument concerns substance dualism, which was first formally formulated by René Descartes and was further supported by philosophers such as Alvin Platinga. The following is one version of this argument. There are 4 premises: “If A is B, everything that is true of A is true of B”. This is the concept of indiscernibility of identicals, derived from Gottfried Leibniz. “If the person is his body, what is true of the person is also true of his body.” This is the first premise for the relationship of the human body with oneself. “It is possible that a person can exist without his body and it is possible that his body can exist without the person.” This premise is found in Descartes' version, which begins with the imaginability, conceivability, and therefore the possibility of a person existing without their physical body. This premise attributes importance to the possibility of the claim. Furthermore, through intuition, man sees himself as an individual being and subject. “There is something true in man, but not in his body.” This premise is valid if the above premises are reasonable and will lead to the conclusion that "A person is not identical to his body." The Modal Argument pushes for the possibility that there is an immaterial self separate from the physical body, and supports substance dualism. It is grounded in foundationalism, which is a theory of justification in epistemology that states that there are basic beliefs that are self-evident. Premises 1 and 2 are critical because they argue that the indiscernibility of identicals is a fundamental belief and is used to support the superstructure of this argument. The soul criterion in personal identity as a justification for permanence The second topic concerns the soul criterion for personality identity. Personal identity is a crucial issue for religions that postulate the idea of ​​judgment as in Christianity, where God must mete out punishment or reward to the perpetrator himself. The immaterial soul or mind in this section is similarly defined as the immaterial self. The soul criterion holds that soul retention is necessary for the persistence of personal identity over time. A thought experiment known as Richard Swinburne's The Hemisphere Argument pushes for the soul criterion for personal identity. It has the following premises: “In the case in which one hemisphere of your brain is transplanted into one body and the other hemisphere into another body, it is possible that the result is that you have two new people, but it is also possible that you are identical, say, to the person associated with the left hemisphere." "If one's mind is an immaterial substance, this is a possibility, since one's immaterial mind could accompany the left hemisphere into the new body." "On the other D' On the other hand, if one does not have an immaterial mind, then no fact relating to one's two hemispheres could cause one to be identical to the person associated with the body containing the left hemisphere. ““Accordingly, one must have an immaterial mind, for otherwise what is clearly a possibility would not be a possibility” This argument expresses that the immaterial mind, or the immaterial self, is necessary for personal identity and supports permanence. It is grounded in coherentism, which is a theory of justification in which a set of justifications are coherent and make sense together.This means that the conclusion is true only if that belief is consistent with the other beliefs in the argument. This will be further discussed in the comparison between religions in section 5. Introduction to the Buddhist concept of afterlife In Buddhism, all life is in an endless cycle of rebirth (samsara). The Four Noble Truths tell us that all life involves suffering (dukkha), suffering originates from desire (samudaya), suffering can be overcome (nirodha), and the way to overcome suffering is through the Eightfold Path (magga) . The idea of ​​impermanence (anicca) and the lack of a permanent self (anitta) is central to Buddhist teaching, and the Buddhist concept of life after death lies in the idea of ​​reincarnation, with six realms of existence into which to be reborn at depending on one's karma. Achieving Nirvana, which we will define here as a plane of existence, is the ultimate goal of Buddhism. Although there is conflict between the concept of rebirth and anitta, given that the logical understanding of rebirth requires the existence of an enduring self, the purpose of this article is to examine the individual concept of rebirth and its epistemic justification, and not she will actively criticize him with anitta. This article will avoid this problem by aligning itself with the Buddhist tradition, defining the transmigration of being as that of the inexpressible self (avacya) in reconciliation with its altruistic and soulless doctrine (anatman). Arguments in favor of the Buddhist afterlife There are several arguments that advance the idea of ​​reincarnation in the Buddhist concept of the afterlife. However, due to the limitations of word limit, this article will look at 2 topics, namely the concept of dependence arising from Pratityasamutpada and the topic of 5 aggregates. Dependent Arising (Pratityasamutpada) as a Justification for ReincarnationPratityasamutpada, translated as dependent arising, is a key Buddhist doctrine that affirms the existence of a complex causal network and goes beyond a set of causes, effects and conditions, which is seen as a oversimplification and that nothing exists as an isolated entity. This is exemplified through an example of the Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh, who believed that for a table to exist it would require wood, a carpenter, his skills, and other causes. Each of these causes would also require its own causes, such as how the tree for wood would require sunlight, rain, etc. In this case, each cause has its own causes and is the effect of its causes, resulting in a causal network. This doctrine is supported by Buddhist philosophers such as Dharmakirti, who proposes that all events must be preceded by a random antecedent condition of the same kind and are part of a larger causal link. He also holds that mental events causally condition physical events and that the mind must arise from a previous cognitive event since it cannot arise from inert matter. Therefore, this need for causality and therefore continuity in dependent origination supports the concept of reincarnation. Five Aggregates Argument (Khandasamyutta) as Justification for Impermanence This argument uses the five aggregates, known as skandhas, and refers to the five aggregates of attachment, namely form, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness. It is used in the Khandasamyutta to support the doctrine of no-self. An example of the common structure of the argument has the following premises: For example, the material form is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. That which is impermanent, which is suffering, and subject to change, is not fit to be regarded as the self. This process can be repeated for other aspects of Buddhism such as the six sensual organs, etc. This topic targetsspecifically the idea of ​​an impermanent self, which relates to personal identity through the five aggregates of attachment. The argument seems to adhere to foundationalism. Comparing Justifications for Both Concepts of AfterlifeChristianity and Buddhism have different beliefs regarding their concept of afterlife. Christianity proposes that there is an immaterial, enduring self that has eternal life after death in Heaven or Hell, as in essence dualism, while Buddhism rejects the idea that there is an enduring self in the same way as Christianity, and that an inexpressible self the self is trapped in a cycle of life and death, as in reincarnation. While they have drastically different conceptions of the afterlife, their arguments share the same epistemic modes of justification. As seen in the previous sections, the arguments presented in this article adhere to foundationalist and coherentist theories of justification for the concept of an eternal afterlife or permanence of the self. This section will examine the differences and similarities between the justifications of both religions. Fundamentalism This similarity in the use of foundationalism represents that both Christianity and Buddhism subscribe to the use of basic beliefs in constructing their argument structure and rely on these basic beliefs to obtain further beliefs through logical connections. This also represents that their arguments are epistemically similar in nature. However, there is a difference between the arguments of the two religions as they adhere to different modes of foundationalism, with the Christian modal argument using modest foundationalism while the Buddhist five aggregates argument uses Classical Foundationalism. Modest Fundamentalism The Modal Argument has been subjected to much criticism regarding its premises, and requires the view of modest foundationalism for greater epistemic soundness. Modest foundationalism does not require that basic beliefs be infallible, it only requires that these basic beliefs do not derive from other beliefs. This relaxes the epistemological requirement for the premises in the modal argument to be usable. It also allows for inductive reasoning as a form of belief derivation and supports the third premise in modal argument because it uses intuition as a source of justification for the premise. However, modest foundationalism has its weaknesses. This is due to the following factors: Tolerance for the fallibility of beliefs: reduces the standards for what can be considered a fundamental belief and does not require the link between perception and reality to be as strong. Tolerance for inductive reasoning to provide transfer of justification from basic to non-basic beliefs – this may be seen as too liberal a method of justification and could affect the indubitability or incorrigibility of beliefs. Classical Fundamentalism The Five Aggregates Argument is built from self-evident basic beliefs of Buddhism that (1) the aggregates lead to suffering, (2) that suffering is impermanent, and that (3) that which is impermanent is not fit to be considered as the self, and adheres to classical foundationalism, in which the conclusion requires the premises to be valid and self-justifying, and the premises must have a degree of infallibility for the conclusion to be justified. It also uses exclusively deductive reasoning. However, this is problematic for justification and may be weaker than modest foundationalism due to the following factors: Classical foundationalism sets unrealistically high standards for justification that may exclude other potential justified beliefs – this includes.