Death and life after death

(Edexcel RS IGCSE section A)

The Edexcel IGCSE section on death and life after death relates to the section A topic of human
nature and the human condition and to the section B topic the meaning and purpose of life.  You
will find that various elements of the IGCSE relate to each other and something that you learn
for one topic may well be relevant in another.  Try to think synoptically!

The Edexcel IGCSE RS specification says:

Religious and non-religious beliefs/teachings, and (differing) views about death and human
destiny; whether or not there is an afterlife; and why some people believe in life after death,
while others do not. Religious beliefs/teachings about the nature of life after death; linear and
cyclical views of human existence; resurrection; rebirth; judgement; and the law of cause
and effect in relation to life after death.

Christian beliefs/teachings about heaven and hell; judgement, resurrection; and the Last
Judgement.

Key vocabulary:

Afterlife: Continuation of existence after death

Cyclical (view of human existence): (The belief that) time has no beginning or end and that the
soul of human beings is reborn again and again

Human destiny: The future of human beings/what happens to them when they die

Judgement (by God): The decision of God about the destiny of human beings

Law of cause and effect (in relation to human actions): (The belief that) every human action has
an automatic consequence

Linear (view of human existence): (The belief that) time has a beginning and an end, and that
human beings live only once on earth

Rebirth: (The belief that) the soul is reborn into another body

Resurrection: (The belief that) after death, the body stays in the grave until the end of the world
when it is raised

Why do some people believe in life after death?

There are various reasons why people believe in life after death.  The philosopher Feuerbach
said that religion is based on wishful thinking and many atheists believe that religious people
only have faith that there is life after death because they are scared of the alternative.

1
If you already believe in a loving God then the idea of life after death makes a lot of sense.  Why
would God create life only to have it end at death?  Many people think that the world is very
unfair; often good people suffer while bad people seem to get away with acting immorally.  It
seems impossible for a loving God to allow things to be this way unless there was some way that
things are made right after death.  Belief in life after death seems to follow on naturally from
belief in God.

Many religious people argue that there is evidence to support the idea of life after death and they
use this to justify their beliefs.

Jesus' resurrection:

Doubting Thomas

24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So
the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my
hand into his side, I will not believe.”

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked,
Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!”27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here;
see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and
yet have believed.”

(John 20:24-29)

For Christians, one of the greatest pieces of evidence for life after death is the account of Jesus'
resurrection.  The gospels describe how Jesus was crucified, died on the cross and was placed in
the tomb on the Friday evening.  On the Sunday morning a group of Jesus' female followers went
to the tomb to anoint the body and found it gone.  An angel (or two angels depending on the
account) told them that he had been resurrected.  Various people then saw the risen Jesus.
Exactly who saw him and when varies from account to account but all the gospels make it clear
that the resurrection had multiple witnesses.  St Paul also makes reference to resurrection
appearances including one to five hundred people at once (1 Corinthians 15:6).

The story of doubting Thomas is particularly interesting.  Jesus appeared to his disciples who
then accepted that he had been resurrected.  However, Thomas was not with them.  When they
told him the story he said he would not believe it unless he sawvthe risen Jesus for himself and
touches him.  Jesus then appeared to Thomas and invited him to put his finger in the holes in his
hands.  Thomas then believed.  

If Thomas could touch Jesus then he must have existed in a physical resurrected way.  He could
not just be an illusion or a ghost.  In Luke's account Jesus ate fish in front of his disciples and
told them to touch him which also emphases that he is alive in a bodily sense.

Is it good evidence?

Christians obviously believe it is good evidence.  They might argue that:

2
  There were multiple witnesses to the resurrection.
 Many of the early disciples were willing to die for their faith so they must have had good
reason to be convinced by what they had seen or heard.
 The first witnesses were women.  During biblical times women would not have been
considered reliable witnesses.  If the early Christians had made up the story then they
would not have chosen to have women deliver the news.  Thus if women are the first
recorded witnesses it must be because it was true.

However, skeptics argue that:

 The account comes from 2,000 or so years ago.  There is no way we can be sure of the
reliability of the accounts.  Most scholars do not believe that the gospel writers were
themselves eye-witnesses.  They were editors compiling earlier accounts.
 It is more likely that there is a rational explanation than that a miracle occurred.  Perhaps
Jesus survived crucifixion?  It has been claimed that the herbs that the women took to the
tomb were not used for anointing a dead body but were used for reviving people who had
fainted.  Alternatively, perhaps Jesus was not ever on the cross.  The Qur'an says that
Jesus was not crucified, rather someone else died in his place.

The Bible says so:

The Bible says a lot about life after death.  Jesus resurrected Lazarus, Jairus' daughter and the
widow of Nain's son.  He warned people about judgement day and promised eternal life to those
who believed in him and trusted his message. The apostle Paul entered into discussion about the
nature of resurrected life.  If the Bible is the inerrant word of God (as fundamentalists claim)
then whatever the Bible says must be true and if the Bible promises life after death then it exists.

Is it good evidence?

That entirely depends on what you think about whether or not the Bible is reliable!  Those who
believe it is not the literal word of God might say that the Bible appears wrong on other issues
(the account of creation for example) and thus there is no reason to trust it on this.  

Near death experiences:

The first recorded Near Death Experience (NDE) was written down by Plato.  Since then the
term 'near death experience' has been used to cover a variety of different experiences. Typically,
an NDE involves a person who is very ill or involved in an accident will have an experience
which occurs during the time they were unconscious in which they believe that they have visited
the after life.  

There are various features that seem common to NDEs

 Out of body experience in which the consciousness leaves the body often rising above it
and moving around the room.  The experience often ends with a sensation of being jolted
back into the body.
 Strong emotions.  This might be a sense of love/joy/happiness but it could equally well be
a sensation of panic, of not wanting to leave or an overwhelming awareness of sinfulness.
 Bright light or a tunnel and a sensation of being pulled towards it.
3
  Visions of dead relatives or religious figures.
 Life changing.  Often people who have had NDEs re-evalutate their whole take on life
and might make some radical adjustments to their lifestyle.

Is this good evidence?

Generally skeptics argue that NDEs are just the result of the brain's way of dealing with trauma.
A sense of euphoria could be accounted for by a release of endorphin or a side effect of medical
treatments.  The tunnel of light might be the result of an over-stimulated visual cortex.  We
experience out of body experiences and 'visions' all the time in dreams.  Dr Susan Blackmore
has studied NDEs in depth and concluded that there is nothing in an Near Death Experience
which does not have a rational explanation.

However, occasionally there are anecdotal reports of near death experiences (NDEs) that are
more difficult to explain away.  For example, if a patient effectively 'dies' on the operating table
and have no heart beat then it is more difficult to say that the experience is obviously caused by
the brain.  If the heart is not beating then the brain is not getting oxygen and if the brain is not
receiving oxygen then it is not functioning.  Occasionally such patients seem to be able to
describe what happened to them whilst they were dead.  If what they describe matches up with
what the medical staff remember then some people find this very compelling evidence for life
after death.

Those who find Near Death Experiences convincing often argue that:

 The experiences are sufficiently similar to suggest that people are experiencing the same
thing.
 Those who have NDEs are usually convinced by them.  There are reports of hardened
atheists converting following a Near Death Experience.

Remembered past lives:

Buddhists and Hindus believe that when we die we are reincarnated on earth. Occasionally there
are people who claim to be able to remember the past lives that they have led.  Sometimes there
are annecdotal stories which claim that people remembering past lives have access to knowledge
that they would not otherwise know, such as an ability to recognise and navigate around an area
that they had not visited.  Or the ability to know things about people they had not met.

One particularly interesting case involved James Leninger who as a small boy claimed to
remember being a WWII pilot shot down by the Japanese.  It was reported that he 

 Had dreams about crashing on fire

 Recognise technical features of an aeroplane
 Named the type of aeroplane (Corsair) and specific aircraft carrier (Natoma) as well as
naming a fellow pilot (Jack Larson)

Research by his parents seemed to imply that all the details revealed by James matched up with
the historical evidence and the sister of the downed pilot believed that he was indeed the
reincarnate soul of her brother.

4
Is it good evidence?

That depends on how much faith you have it the person repeating the story.  Those convinced by
accounts like James' might say that

 A small boy (2 when he first started to 'remember') would not be able to make up and
remain consistent to such a complex story.
 There is no rational explanation for his knowledge.

Skeptics would reply that

 Children are imaginative and respond to attention.  Once his parents showed interest in
his stories he would add more detail. As his parents began to research his claims they
subconsciously began to feed him details.
 The fact that details matched up might be a lucky coincidence.

Other evidence:

Mediums who claim to contact the dead, stories of ghosts and personal spiritual experiences
might all also be used to support the idea of life after death in some (not necessarily Christian)
form.

However, many people would say that all the evidence for life after death is weak evidence.  A
lot of it is anecdotal.  The very nature of things like NDE means that they cannot easily be tested
as they cannot be replicated under controlled conditions. There is always the possibility that your
witness is lying or at the very least has misunderstood what they experienced.  Non-religious
people find the idea of an afterlife very problematic.  For a start there is the problem of where is
heaven (or whatever place people exist in the afterlife)?  If there is an afterlife then what is the
point of this life?  

What do Christians believe happens when we die?

Resurrection:
1 Corinthians 15

35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 

...42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable...44
it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

... 50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the
perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be
changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be
raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and
the mortal with immortality. 

Traditionally Christianity has taught that the resurrection will be bodily and physical (just as
Jesus' was).  Medieval paintings of judgement day showed the dead literally climbing out of their
graves (which was why historically Christians were not cremated).  
5
That said, Christians have long been confused about exactly what the form the resurrection will
take. St Paul wrote what seems to be a reply to a question about the type of resurrected body in
which he says that the perishable will become imperishable (i.e. the resurrected body will not get
ill, old or die).  He says that earthly bodies will become heavenly bodies.  Whilst Paul probably
fails to answer the question with great clarity it is evident that he believes that the resurrection
will be physical, but different to earthly physical.

Many Christians today tend to see resurrection as more of a spiritual affair and the Anglican
funeral service the soul is commended to God and the body to the earth. However, there is also a
certain amount of ambiguity as to whether or not the soul is naturally immortal or whether it too
needs to be actively resurrected by God.

The key thing to remember about resurrection is that whatever exact form it takes (and whatever
logistical nightmares it presents God with) the resurrected you is still you; i.e. resurrection is
not the same as reincarnation.  You do not come back as someone different but as yourself.

JUDGEMENT:

Parable of the Sheep and the Goats

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All
the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the
sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance,
the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to
eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes
and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you
something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe
you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine,
you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the
devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to
drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in
prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or
in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

(Matthew 25+31-46)

6
Christians believe that when people die they will fact judgement.  The Apostles' Creed says that
Jesus 'will come to judge the living and the dead' and the Bible says 'we must all appear before
the judgment seat of Christ' (2 Corinthians 5:10)

  An important question for Christians to ask is what criteria does Jesus use when judging?  The
Bible suggests that two different things are taken into consideration:

1. Faith
2. Action

Faith:

Mark's gospel states that 'Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not
believe will be condemned.' (Mark 16:15-16).  Some Christians believe that regardless of
whether or not you lead a good life you will only get to heaven if you actively believe in Jesus.
This is because only by believing in Jesus do you accept the gift of salvation that he offers.
Christians who believe that you must be Christian to be saved are called exclusivists and they
usually believe that Christians have a duty to proselytise and to try to convert others.  There are
other Biblical teachings besides the verses from Mark which could also be used to support this
view point.

Action:

However, in other places the Bible implies that people are judged on the basis of their actions. In
the letter to Romans St Paul wrote that 'He [God] will give to each one according to his works:
to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give
eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey
unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury' (Romans 2:6-8).  The parable of the Sheep and
the Goat (also known as the Parable of the Judgement of Nations) Jesus said the same thing and
used the analogy of a shepherd dividing up his flock to explain what will happen.  The 'goats'
will be sent away because they have not fed the hungry, taken care of the sick and visited those
in prison.  The sheep will be rewarded with eternal life because they have done these things.
Jesus says that whenever one person helps another in need they are helping him.  Christians who
believe that you do not necessarily need to have explicit faith in God to get to heaven are called
inclusivists.  Karl Rahner is a Catholic inclusivist who developed the idea of an anonymous
Christian.  An anonymous Christian is someone who acts as a Christian should act and seems to
do what God would want even if they do not have explicit Christian faith.  Rahner said that
anonymous Christians would be saved because their lives showed evidence of the Holy Spirit
acting in them.

Most Christians regard both faith and action as important and the Bible specifically says that
faith should lead to actions.  Jesus used the illustration of a tree.  A good tree bares good fruit, a
bad tree bares bad fruit (or no fruit!).  Faith should lead to good works.

Day of Judgement:

Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no
place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened.
Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the
books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the
dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done.
7
(Revelation 20:11-12)

A final question related to the issue of judgement is when does it happen? Immediately a person
dies or at the end of time.  When Jesus was crucified the Bible says that he turned to the penitent
thief and said 'today you will be with me in paradise' which implies that judgement happens
fairly immediatedly.  However, in the book of Revelations (the last book of the New Testament)
Jesus is described as coming at the end of time when the dead are raised.

Most Christians now adays believe that people are judged when they die, but that there will also
be a general day of judgement when Jesus will return to those still living on earth and judge
them.

Of course, from the point of view of any individual whether you are resurrected and judged
immediately after you die or as part of a general revelation at the end of time makes little
difference.  Until you are resurrected you are dead and therefore not experiencing anything so
resurrection at the end of the world would seem exactly the same as immediate resurrection.

HELL:

The traditional medieval Christian view of Hell is that it is a place of fire, darkness and
punishment where sinners will be cast for eternity.  This view is based on various biblical verses
which speak of 'the unquenchable fires of hell' (Mark 9:43) where there will be 'weeping and
gnashing of teeth' (Matthew 13:50).  

However, not all Christians still believe in a traditional view of hell.  

 Some see Hell as an absence of God where people who have rejected God throughout life
are rejected by him after death.  This version of hell lacks the traditional tortures and
torments so popular in medieval judgement day paintings but may be 'hell' by comparison
with the perfection of heaven.  2 Thessolonians 1:9 says that sinners will be 'forever
separated from the Lord'.  
 Other liberal Christians interpret Hell in terms of the psychological pain caused by the
conscious when people finally face up to their own sins.  
 Still others believe that God does not resurrect sinners to eternal punishment.  The often
quoted lines from John's gospel 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son,
that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life' could be used to
support this.  Jesus saves people from death.  Resurrection is for those who believe in
Jesus.

Some liberal Christians totally reject teachings about hell and believe instead that a loving God
would save all human beings.  

Important

The Christian view of the afterlife is LINEAR. Too often pupils think that a linear view is not
believing in an afterlife.

PURGATORY:

Pupils often seem to mistakenly believe that purgatory is the place people go before they are
judged.  This is wrong!  Christians who believe in purgatory (and not all of them do) believe that
it is a place that the saved go on route to heaven.  It is a place of punishment (like hell) but the
8
punishment is temporary.  In purgatory the saved are punished for sins that they did not confess
(and therefore were not forgiven for) on earth.

The idea behind the concept of purgatory is that the perfection of heaven means that a person
cannot enter into heaven until they are entirely sinless.  Purgatory is therefore a bit like a place of
quarantine.

Purgatory is not mentioned in the Bible.  It is most likely to be believed in by Roman Catholics.

HEAVEN:

The heavenly city of Jerusalem:

10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy
City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. 11 It shone with the glory of God, and its
brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. 12 It had a great,
high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the
names of the twelve tribes of Israel. 13 There were three gates on the east, three on the north,
three on the south and three on the west. 14 The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on
them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

... 18 The wall was made of jasper, and the city of pure gold, as pure as glass. 19 The foundations
of the city walls were decorated with every kind of precious stone. The first foundation was
jasper, the second sapphire, the third agate, the fourth emerald, 20 the fifth onyx, the sixth
ruby, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth turquoise, the eleventh
jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst. 21 The twelve gates were twelve pearls, each gate made of a
single pearl. The great street of the city was of gold, as pure as transparent glass.

22 Idid not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its
temple. 23 The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it
light, and the Lamb is its lamp. 

The Bible does not give detailed descriptions of Heaven.  For Christians, Heaven is paradise and
a lot of people seem to implicitly draw on descriptions of Eden before the Fall when they
imagine Heaven.  The book of Revelation contains a description of the heavenly version of
Jerusalem recreated at the end of the world which gives an impression of what heaven might be
like.  In the Old Testament Ezekiel has a vision of heaven in which he supposedly saw Seraphim
(a type of angel) constantly praising God by singing 'Holy, holy, holy'.

Christians believe that Heaven is:

 A place of union with God.

 A place of harmony and peace where 'the lion shall lie down with the lamb and a little
child shall lead them' (Isaiah 11:6)
 A place without suffering, illness or death.  (Remember what Paul said about the
resurrected body - see above).
 Plenty of room!  Jesus said 'In my father's house there are many mansions' John 14:2)
 A place of hope and justice in which 'the first shall be last and the last shall be first'
(Matthew 20:16)
 A place where they will meet those who died before.  However, relationships seem a little
different in heaven.  Jesus was asked if a widow remarried then who would she be
9
 married to in heaven.  He replied that 'At the resurrection people will neither marry nor
be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven' (Matthew 22:30)

Predestination:

The doctrine of predestination is relevant to the issue of death and life after death. You will find
notes on predestination in the free will, determinism and predestination section.

What do other religions say about life after death?

Buddhist and Hindus have a cyclical view of life after death.

Hindu:

 Throughout your life you get karma for voluntary actions.

 When you die  your atman will be reincarnated and the type of reincarnation you gain
depends on the type of life you have lived and the karma you gained.
 Good karma = positive rebirth, bad karma = negative rebirth.
 For Hindus, the best type of reincarnation is to be born into a Brahmin (priestly) family.
 From there you can escape Samsara (the cycle of rebirth) and reach Moksha
 Moksha is union with Brahman.  Your atman returns to Brahman like a drop returning to
the ocean.

The principle of karma is also referred to as the law of cause and effect (Edexcel IGCSE key
term!).  Karma is different to judgement.  There is no need for any god or goddess to enforce
karma, it just exists.  Bad karma is the inevitable and natural consequence of bad actions, just as
good karma automatically comes from good voluntary actions.

Which is more appealing, linear or cyclical?

The case for linear:

The advantage of the linear view is that you get to remain you in the afterlife!  You don't have to
keep being reborn and making the similar mistakes in each new existence.

The case for cyclical:

You get multiple chances to get life right whereas certain versions of the linear view mean that if
you make the wrong choices in life you will be condemned to hell for eternity.  The idea of being
reborn on earth might be appealing because it is familiar whereas heaven is not.

Free will and Determinism

(Edexcel RS IGCSE section A)
10
The Edexcel IGCSE specification says:

Religious and non-religious beliefs/teachings about free will, determinism and predestination.

(Differing) views about whether human beings have free will and its limitations; whether
determinism means that human beings’ choices and actions cannot be free; the extent to which
human beings should be held responsible (and punished) for their actions; and whether God
decides their fate.  

Christian beliefs/teachings about human freedom and its limitations, and predestination.

Key vocabulary:

Free will: (The belief that) the human will is free, so human beings can choose and act freely

Determinism: (The view that) every event has a cause, which may also involve believing that
human beings cannot have free will, as their choices and actions are caused

Free will
Generally we work on the assumption that we do have free will.  We seem to be able to make
choices about how we behave and how we act and we think that we could have behaved in a
different way in the same circumstances.  When we praise or blame others for how they behave
this implies that we believe that they are free to chose how to act and therefore they are morally
responsible for the consequences.

Non-religious Determinism:
However, there are various reasons why we might argue that people are not free to choose how
to act.  

Genetic Determinism:

Twin studies:

Identical twins provide a good opportunity to study determinism.  Their DNA is essentially
identical so they have the same genetic material and their upbringing is usually very similar so
they are relevant to both genetic and psychological determinism studies.

Abby and Brittany Hensel are conjoined twins who share two halves of the same body.  They
have the same DNA and as near as identical upbringing as possible.  Often they seem to be of the
same mind.  They say the same thing at the same time with the same inflection and finish each
other's sentences.  However, they also have distinctly different preferences.  There are a lot of
clips of the Hensel twins on youtube along with several documentaries.

Twins do not have to be cojoined to be interesting from a determinists point of view.  During the
1970s and 1980s Thomas Bouchard conducted a study on twins which seemed to show that
identical twins - even those separated at birth and raised apart - tended to be similar in things like
IQ, favourite school subjects, political leanings and many other things,

11
However, Prof. Dr Gerd Kempermann has demonstrated that although identical twins are
usually very similar differences can occur and genes can be switched on or off due to life
experiences.  This implies that both nature and nurture have a part to play in our choices.

Your genes determine (cause) things like eye colour, hair colour and so forth.  This is why
children often physically resemble their parents.  They have inherited certain characteristic via
genes passed on through the sperm and the egg.  Children obviously have no control over these
physical characteristics.

It is also possible (and some people would argue very plausible) that we also inherit certain
character traits from our parents.  You might be an adrenelin junkie because your genes make
you that way.  You might be hot tempered.  You might be sarcastic.  In the last decade there have
been various studies which claim to have linked a certain gene to a type of behaviour.  In 2009 it
was reported that a mutation in the gene DARPP-32 could be responsible for a quick temper by
effecting dopamine levels.  Genes have also been linked to obesity with those with certain types
of the FTO gene up to 70% more likely to become obese as the gene affects the production of the
hormone ghrelin which regulates feelings of hunger.  Even things like propensity for addiction or
for criminal behaviour have been tentatively linked with genes and.

Genetic determinists would argue that how you behave in any given situation is determined by
your character and if this is itself determined by your genes then we no longer really have free
will.  

Imagine person A is having an argument.  Person A happens to have an impatient and stubborn
character.  In the heat of the moment they punch the person that they are arguing with.  We
might say that they punched the person because they are naturally (genetically) inclined to be
quick tempered.

Now imagine person B is in a parallel universe and having exactly the same argument.  In this
parallel universe person B is exactly like person A except that instead of having a hot temper
they are genetically predisposed to be patient and laid back.  They do not resort to violence but
agree to disagree.

Were A and B free when they decided whether or not to throw a punch?  Genetic determinists
would say no.  Their actions are directly caused (determined) by their genes.

Psychological Determinism:

Genetic determinism the 'nature' argument.  You are who you are because you were born that
way.  By contrast, psychological determinism is the 'nurture' argument.  You are who you are
because of how you are brought up.

Psychological determinists (like genetic determinists) believe that how we act is caused by our
character.  However, rather than saying our character is caused by our genes they would argue
that it is cause (at least in part) by our upbringing.

Children learn by imitation and are very receptive to new influences.  As we get older we are still
shaped by our environment but we seem to be a bit less impressionable. This means that the
influences that we are exposed to when we are young seem to be very important in shaping our
character.  A child brought up by hard-working parents might develop a studious character
because that is what they have been brought up to believe to be normal.  Therefore, if they work

12
hard at school this is determined by their upbringing not their own free choice.  Likewise, a lazy
slacker would be equally able to blame their behaviour on their upbringing.  

Evaluation (genetic and psychological):

There is certainly good reason to suppose that our genes and our upbringing have some influence
on our character and this in term affects the choices we make day to day.  However, we could
say that there is a difference between influencing a choice and causing it and a propensity
towards a certain type of behaviour does not mean that the behaviour is unavoidable.  In
particular, a person who disagreed with genetic determinism might argue that:

 Children often differ dramatically from their parents and from their siblings which
implies that they are not fully determined by either nature or nurture.
 Genes for physical characteristics can be affected by other things.  A person genetically
predisposed to grow tall will not reach their full potential height if they are malnourished.
Therefore, genes for character traits can also be affected by other things.  Perhaps
something like meditation can be used to control a genetic inclination towards anger.
 Whilst certain genes have been linked to certain types of behaviour it is highly unlikely
that there is one gene for violence (for example).  Genetics is a lot more complicated than
that.

Physical Determinism:
Benjamin Libet's experiment

Benjamin Libet conducted a neurological experiment in the 1980s which has been used to suggest that free
will is just an illusion.  In the experiment he asked a volunteer to move their finger whenever they liked but to
notice at what time they experienced the feeling of intention (made the choice).  What he discovered was that
the feeling of intention comes significantly after the action has been initiated.  When Oxford mathematician
Marcus du Sautoy repeated the experiment in the BBC Horizon programme The Secret You  he was shocked
to discover that a person scanning his brain knew what decision he was going to make up to six seconds before
he knew it!

Computers often seem to behave as though they are thinking and making choices.  When you
open a document the computer 'decides' what program to open it in.  Sometimes you ask a
computer to do something and it refuses!  More sophisticated computers can carry out human-
like conversations.

However, most people would say that a computer is not free.  It behaves the way it does because
of its programming.  It appears to make a 'choice' but actually that choice is just the end result of
a chain initiated by the input of specific information. The computer is not free because it could
not have acted differently.

Generally we assume that people are not like computers when they make decisions but we could
argue that the brain is just like a biological computer.  The synapses in the brain fire in a certain
way because they have received specific input (information from the senses).  Our 'thoughts' and
'choices' are directly caused by these processes and the sense of free will is just and illusion.

Evaluation:

The Libet experiment does provide some evidence for the idea that the feeling of free will is an
illusion and our choices result from unconscious processes in the brain.  However, we could
argue that the experiment is a simplistic test and does not really replicate what happens when we
13
make choices day to day.  In the experiment the volunteer knows that they must make a choice
between one of two options so it is perhaps not surprising that their is a subconscious process
going on which contributes to this choice.

Religious Predestination:
The ideas looked at so far are non-religious theories which might be used to argue that people
have no free will.  A religious person may of course agree with them (although this raises
problems about moral responsibility, heaven and hell) but they are not specifically
religious theories.

The theory of predestination is a specifically religious reason which might undermine free will.

Reminder!

Not all Christians agree with the idea of predestination.  Many think it contradicts other Christian
doctrines and makes the idea of moral laws pointless and the idea of judgement unfair.

The theory of predestination is usually associated with the French Protestant reformer John
Calvin (1509-1564).  He argued that since the Fall people are inherently sinful and nobody can
be good enough to earn their way into heaven.

This means that salvation must be an unmerited (unearned) gift given by God.  If it is a gift then
God is entirely free to give it to whoever he wants.  It is not based on how we act.  An 'earned'
gift is no longer a gift.

Calvin argued that God chose who to give the gift of salvation to before they are born.  Those
who are given the gift of salvation are called the ELECT.  Those who are not given the gift of
salvation are in their naturally sinful state and are therefore destined for hell.  They are called the
REPROBATE.

The way that this links to free will is that Calvin thought that the Holy Spirit would be active in
the lives of the elect which would enable them to do good deeds.  The reprobate would not have
the Holy Spirit helping them so they would naturally give in to their sinful nature.  Thus good
people are the elect doing good because God helps them and bad people have no choice but to do
bad because it is natural human nature.  Either way, their actions are predestined and not free.

Evaluation:

The theory of predestination seems rather unfair and does not really reflect the idea of a God
who wants everyone to be saved.

Calvin's theory perhaps makes more sense if you put it in context. Calvin was writing during the
Protestant Reformation and one of the criticisms that the Reformers had of the Roman Catholic
Church was that it was claiming to have control who could get into heaven.  Priests told the
people that they could not get into heaven without the sacraments and this meant that
excommunication was seen as sentencing a person to hell.  The Church also offered 'indulgences'
which were prayers which promised a person time off purgatory so they could go more quickly

14
to heaven.  Calvin wanted to emphasise that who went to heaven and hell was entirely up to God
and not down to what the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy said.

Calvin is also often accused of teaching a theory which meant that people could do what they
like as if they are elect they are assured heaven and if they are reprobate then nothing they do can
make any difference.  However, this criticism misrepresents Calvin. Calvin's point is that a good
person will go to heaven and a bad person will go to hell because how they behave reveals
whether or not the Holy Spirit is active in their life (i.e. whether they are elect or reprobate).
Thus an elect person would not choose to do bad and a reprobate person cannot choose to do
good.

That said, many Christians still reject Calvin's theory because:

 It seems to make moral laws pointless.

 It seems to make judgement pointless.
 It does not seem to be fair - why would an omniscient loving God create the reprobate at
all?
 There are many verses in the Bible which imply people do have a genuine choice in how
they behave (although there are also verses which can be used to support predestination
too).

The nature of God:

Another potential problem for the idea of free will is the doctrine of God's omniscience.  If God
is truly omniscient and knows the future as well as the past then he knows what we do before we
do it.  If he knows what we do then we cannot not do it (i.e. we cannot make the opposite
choice).  Some people argue that it is incoherent to maintain both that God is omniscient and
human beings are free.

Going Further:

David Hume argued that we can distinguish between 

         the liberty of indifference - which is the ability to have genuinely made a different
choice under the same circumstances

          the liberty of  spontaneity - not being forced by external things

Hume said that provided we are not forced by things external to ourselves then the action is free.
Thus an action can be both determined (caused by internal causes) but also meaningfully free.

There are several possible responses to this problem:

 God knows all possible outcomes but not which one we choose.
 God knows the end result but not the means we choose to get there.

15
  God could know, but chooses to limit his foreknowledge in order to allow us genuine
freedom.  This is analogous to sight.  You can see, but you can choose to shut your eyes.
God can choose to 'turn off' his foresight!
 God is transcendent and therefore he does not see things 'before' they happen.  All time is
the present for God.

Evaluation:

The possible responses demonstrate that it is possible to 'square the circle' and make human free
will compatible with God's omniscience.  However, you might not find any of these responses
particularly satisfactory.  For example, how is knowing all possible outcomes real knowledge at
all?  You know 'all possible outcomes' for your exam (A*-fail) but you probably would not
regard that as meaningful knowledge.

Simpler solutions might be either

 Humans are not free

 God is not omniscient

Implications of Determinism:
Darrow case:

Two law students (Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb) were charged with murder and were
defended by Clarence Darrow.  Darrow argued that they were the product of their upbringing and
their sense of entitlement caused them to kill.

Determinism has profound implications for our understanding of ourselves.  It also has obvious
implications for thinks like crime and punishment. Understanding determinism might give
people ways to reduce the likelihood of criminals reoffending.  If 'nurture' created a law breaking
personality then could rehabilitation remould them into a law abiding citizen?  More radically, if
certain genes are associated with criminal behaviour then could those genes be switched off or
replaced?

Determinism has already been used by lawyers defending their clients.  The Darrow case is a
good example of this.

16