SOME ARGUMENTS FOR THE AFTERLIFE FROM THE HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS
Chapter 10 of this book discusses the evidence for life after death.
1 Since God is creative and just and loving we must live on after death
This assumes that God has no purpose that we are unaware of for letting us pass
out of existence. It contradicts the view that God's mind is not ours for he
knows all things.
2 Feeling the presence of the dead proves they are still alive
This is not a good thing to encourage. It can lead to denial being prolonged
when the person needs help to move on. The person needs to feel the person is
gone but somehow still linked to you. Perhaps the link is the memories or little
things that belonged to them and were special.
3 Near-death experiences (NDE) are put down as evidence - though rather
cautiously because nobody can be proved to have had an experience after dying
and because they contradict Christian theology. No NDE without brain activity
has ever been verified. If that happened the person would count as a resurrected
person!
The fact that the authors would use an essentially non-Christian miracle, which
usually involves meeting a being of light who does not care about your sins,
smacks of sheer desperation and is an alarming lapse of logic. That miracle, if
miracle it is, refutes the core doctrine of Christianity which is that
repentance or forgiveness is necessary and is what religion should be all about.
Even the resurrection of Jesus cannot be true if repentance is immaterial for it
is about expressing and incarnating the principle of mercy.
Evidence from history that Jesus rose is superseded by evidence that there is a
being of light who does not judge and who is certainly not Jesus! Testimony from
people you can talk to always supersedes even similar testimony from those who
are no longer with us. Unlike the resurrection accounts, the being is glorious.
Christianity's core doctrine that the resurrection of Jesus does not mean a
return to life but an exaltation to eternal life and glory is granted no
evidence at all even in the Bible. Jesus could have risen for all we know and
died later and his revival from death is not the only one that is claimed in
history.
The Handbook's treatment of near death experiences violates the assertion of the
Handbook and the Christian Church and the Bible that miracles are signs of the
truth and tell us truths about God, religious truths. Here miracles that
contradict the Church are downplayed though recognised as satisfying the
conditions for deserving to be believed.
Near death experiences do not really support spirituality or religion. They
support the idea that the brain has the power to create experiences and credible
visions and to deceive. As believable as they are, the experiences are not real.
If the brain can do all that when somebody is very ill what is it up to the rest
of the time? They could well be the strongest evidence that religion is about
some subliminal need and not really about God or Jesus though that may not be
apparent.
4 The resurrection of Jesus is supposed to prove life after death.
The dubious thing about the resurrection is that Jesus allegedly raised people
from the dead before he raised himself and these testimonies are not focused on
historical authentication like you would expect. When the Jews were saying the
resurrection must have been a hoax, the natural thing for the Christians to have
done would have been to verify the other resurrections as much as Jesus’ own.
But far from having done that, we have the story of the raising of the widow’s
son in Luke alone and Lazarus in John alone and they are treated soberly and
briefly. More importantly no effort is made to authenticate the stories –
another hint of a late origin for the gospels and that they were making a lot of
the stuff up. The gospels of Matthew and Mark and Luke are similar to a great
degree. John is very different. How the three gospels, Matthew and Mark and Luke
can claim a right to encourage us to believe in the resurrection when they show
collaboration is just like the three witnesses of a crime being allowed to
confer together before being brought into court. No - its worse for there was no
court for Matthew and Mark and Luke.
The book says that nature would not go to the trouble of evolving us to let us
go out of existence at death
Nature goes to a lot of trouble to make babies and most babies die before birth
even unknown to the mother. Many scientists would reject the idea that nature
has a purpose. If nature purposely went to a lot of trouble to make us it would
want to give us bodily immortality for it makes bodies. If we survive death as
spirits then that is beyond the scope and grasp of nature and so separate from
it. If nature results in spirits that have no bodies it is not doing a very
great job after going to all the trouble to make the bodies!
The book argues that mystical experience proves life after death for the
mystics despite all the serious disagreements in interpreting their experience
all agree that the consciousness lives on after death. I would add that most
mystics have had no interest in caring for others which adds outstandingly
pathetic weight to their testimony of an afterlife!
The Handbook is not worth talking about never mind purchasing. It avoids
problems it cannot deal with. Evidence for the afterlife is desirable but not as
desirable as proof. After all, to say somebody is going to live on after death
is not a trivial matter. What if they are told they will live on and they do
not? What if you think they are alive still and they are not? The argument that
it is comforting and thus justified insults the fact that it is not about
comfort but truth. If you believe in love, you want people to have a
relationship with you as an existent being. No truly good person wants to go out
of existence with relations and loved ones thinking the relationship is going on
still.
It is not right to be willing to accept that evil has a purpose even if you
don’t know what it is and when no answer seems to work just so that you can
believe in God and maybe enjoy an eternal afterlife. And what if you want to
believe in the afterlife for the sake of others? Why do you believe others
suffer for the greater good even if they are unwilling and will never reap the
benefits when you would turn down life after death if it demanded that you
suffer forever for others because it was the only way to help them?