Review of Life After Death: The Evidence

First Things ^ | April 2010 | Stephen M. Barr

[betty boop]

Review of Life After Death: The Evidence

by Stephen M. Barr

Life After Death: The Evidence
by Dinesh D’Souza
Regnery, 256 pages, $27.95

While much apologetic effort has been spent arguing for the existence of God, relatively little has been spent defending the reasonableness of belief in an afterlife and the resurrection of the body, despite the fact that these are among the hardest doctrines of biblical religion for many modern people to accept. D’Souza brings to the task his renowned forensic skills. (By all accounts, he has bested several of the top New Atheists in public debate.) He understands that persuasion is less a matter of proof and rigorous argument than of rendering ideas plausible and overcoming obstacles to belief.

One obstacle to belief in bodily resurrection is the difficulty of grasping that there could be places that are not located in the three-dimensional space we presently inhabit, or that there could be realms where our intuitions about time, space, and matter simply do not apply. D’Souza rightly points out that modern physics has broken the bounds of human imagination with ideas of other dimensions—and even other universes—and has required us to accept features of our own universe (at the subatomic level, for example.) that are entirely counterintuitive. He shows how blinkered, by contrast, is the thought of many who think themselves boldly modern, such as Bertrand Russell, who asserted that “all experience is likely to resemble the experience we know.” Another impediment to belief in life after death is our experience of the disorganization of thought as sleep approaches and the mental decline that often precedes death. While near-death experiences do not prove as much as D’Souza suggests in his interesting chapter on the subject, the discovery that many have a surge of intense and coherent experience near the very point of death does counteract to some extent the impression of death as mere dissolution.

D’Souza approaches his subject from many directions. In two chapters, he gives a very accessible account of recent thought on the mind-body problem and the reasons to reject materialism. In the chapter “Eternity and Cosmic Justice,” he bases an argument for an afterlife on our moral sense. Our recognition that this world is not what it objectively ought to be suggests not only that there is a cosmic purpose, but that this purpose is unfulfilled and unfulfillable within the confines of this world. Some of his philosophical arguments, however, are less happy. In particular, his use of Hume and Kant to undermine what he regards as the pretensions of science will provoke not only scientists, but all those who have a strongly “realist” epistemology. D’Souza can also be faulted for sometimes claiming to demonstrate what cannot be demonstrated. Nevertheless, even those who find loose ends in his arguments will be rewarded with many fresh perspectives on the only question that really is of ultimate importance.

[betty boop]

Yes. Othewise, the Scriptures would indicate that only some of the angels had free will and the rest did not

But I don't believe that! They all do. Just like all men do.

My interest goes to the problem of the faithfulness of the angels who stood with God. That is, after the 1/3 of them "selected themselves out" of God's moral order under the example/leadership of Satan.

What I wonder about is this: Once an angel's (or a human person's) heart has turned itself to God's Light, and has decided to abide in that Light, what possible "incentive" could turn one — angel or human — away from that decision, from that Light?

I apologize for the egregious miscommunication we seem to be having, MarkBsnr.

[betty boop]

No, this life matters. We can make it a lot nicer than we have been.

Oh really? In what way? Care to share the details of what we have to look forward to, dear kosta — in your imagination of a better life? [Your statement seems to me somehow in contradistinction to the idea of "life more abundantly," FWIW.]

You wrote:

Why [would] there be anything in this world that God dislikes if everything is according to his will?

Because in His wisdom He created, not only the universe — which He declared "very good," not "perfect" BTW; but He also created man — part and participant in the universe — as a bearer of "sovereign" free will in himself individually. Man takes the responsibility for what happens after this. Christ comes to redeem him from the wreckage he creates. Man accepts or rejects the divine sacrifice. That's what Judgment Day is all about. In between, there is human history, personal and social....

So, I'm really looking forward to seeing your plans for "a better human future."

[betty boop]

Thank you, dear brother in Christ!

[little jeremiah]

Those who accept eternal life look for happiness and perfection in God; in the Kingdom of God. Those who think there is no eternal existence can only look to this mortal world for happiness, so they want to try to make this world as “perfect” as possible (noteworthy that various ideas of what constitutes “happiness” often are contradictory).

The attempt to make this life “heaven on earth” has caused and will cause more misery than any single other idea or philosophy. A subset of this is the fact that there is alwasy one or more segments of people who will not want to go along with the “let’s make earth better and maybe even perfect” so of course those who don’t want to go along with the plan have to be subjegated, re-educated or killed. Just to make everyone happy, of course.

[Quix]

Interesting conjectures!

[Quix]

SOMETIMES,

I think you outdo yourself.

LOL.

[MarkBsnr]

Then I humbly beg you to accept my apology. I did not intend to offend you. Forgive me if I did.

Certainly.

[MarkBsnr]

What I wonder about is this: Once an angel's (or a human person's) heart has turned itself to God's Light, and has decided to abide in that Light, what possible "incentive" could turn one — angel or human — away from that decision, from that Light?

Milton has satan saying that it is better to rule in hell than serve in Heaven. I believe that the attraction is to the whims of the moment. The immediate gratification. The infantile-centeredness that demands that all else become subordinate to the ego.

[metmom]

The attempt to make this life “heaven on earth” has caused and will cause more misery than any single other idea or philosophy. A subset of this is the fact that there is alwasy one or more segments of people who will not want to go along with the “let’s make earth better and maybe even perfect” so of course those who don’t want to go along with the plan have to be subjegated, re-educated or killed. Just to make everyone happy, of course.

You really nailed it.

And we can see the reaction of those who want to make the world a better place and get frustrated in that attempt. They end up not making the earth the place they claim they want to.

[little jeremiah]

There is a very simple method for making the earth a better place to live.

Following the rules God has already given us. Even most people just trying to follow those rules would make this earth almost unrecognizable.

Imagine if people even tried to follow, and recognized the value in, following those rules. In fact, this reminds me of an article I’ve wanted to write for a long time. Topic? The universality of moral absolutes, of course! Going into detail.

So, the directions for improving the world are already there. No need to involve human ingenuity to invent a new system. Human ingenuity can be used for good or ill. New “isms” are never a good way...

[Lazamataz]

Scripture is pretty clear that humans are not angels;

You haven't seen me in my undies.

I'm DIVINE.

[metmom]

You’ve got it.

[little jeremiah]

Sigh.

I would love to see such a world. But since I doubt I will, I’ll keep trying for the eternal transcendent Kingdom of God.

And do my little dust kicking in this world.

[MarkBsnr]

I'm DIVINE.

If you say so.

[Cvengr]

The topic and testimonies indeed have immense value.

To the soulish person, let’s say an unbeliever, or even somebody who had studied religion, but not yet reborn again of the spirit, is very right to take the rational view that such reports are mere hallucinations. This is because they are speaking from an anthropological make-up of being a human with a body and a soul. They do not yet have a reborn human spirit, by which they might even perceive such things, until that is provided to the regenerated human spirit of a believer in the Church Age.

For those who have a reborn human spirit, these testimonies offer information which confirms what God has provided us in His Word.

Whereas some believer might have spiritual gifts of dreams or visions, likewise some believers have the spiritual gift of interpretation and discernment. It is valuable for those with the dream or vision gift to remain in fellowship with God, and commune with those with the spiritual gift of interpretation and discernment to assist in identifying if such perceptions are the work of spiritual deception or if they are the gifts from God.

For those believers who have not fully studied or been exposed to such things, a good word study in Greek and Hebrew is very helpful in studying what is already provided us by God by His Word. Many such studies are frequently interpreted in a soulish fashion, paying more value to the reasoning in our minds, rather than through faith in Christ and relying on what He has provided us.

I’m reminded of the passage in Mark 2:6-8 corresponding to Luke 5:21-22.

In Mark, the same event is described where:

Mar 2:6-8
(6) ButG1161 there wereG2258 certainG5100 of theG3588 scribesG1122 sittingG2521 there,G1563 andG2532 reasoningG1260 inG1722 theirG848 hearts,G2588
(7) WhyG5101 doth thisG3778 man thusG3779 speakG2980 blasphemies?G988 whoG5101 canG1410 forgiveG863 sinsG266 butG1508 GodG2316 only?G1520
(8) AndG2532 immediatelyG2112 when JesusG2424 perceivedG1921(EPIGINOSKO) in hisG848 spiritG4151(PNEUMA) thatG3754 they soG3779 reasonedG1260(DIALOGIZOMAI) withinG1722 themselves,G1438(HEAUTOU) he saidG2036 unto them,G846 WhyG5101 reasonG1260(DIALOGIZOMAI) ye these thingsG5023(TAUTA) inG1722 yourG5216 hearts?G2588(KARDIA)

In Luke we are told:
Luk 5:21-22
(21) AndG2532 theG3588 scribesG1122 andG2532 theG3588 PhariseesG5330 beganG756 to reason,G1260 (DIALOGIZOMAI) saying,G3004 WhoG5101 isG2076 thisG3778 whichG3739 speakethG2980 blasphemies?G988 WhoG5101 canG1410 forgiveG863 sins,G266 butG1508 GodG2316 alone?G3441
(22) ButG1161 when JesusG2424 perceivedG1921(EPIGINOSKO) theirG846 thoughts,G1261(DIALOGISMOS) he answeringG611 saidG2036 untoG4314 them,G846 WhatG5101 reasonG1260(DIALOGIZOMAI) ye inG1722 yourG5216 hearts?G2588(KARDIA)

Note that Christ was perceiving spiritually and then asked why they reasoned in their hearts, when the events should have been perceptible spiritually.

Scripture and esecially the New Testament is full of such examples of how we are to to pray without ceasing, keeping short accounts for when we fall out of fellowship, and continue to grow and walk the Christian walk. The Christian life is a spiritual life.

It isn’t just fire insurance, it’s also life insurance.

;^)

[Quix]

Next you’re going to tell me that’s what she said.

Just so you don’t tell me that’s what he said.

LOL.

[Quix]

Good points, imho.

Thx.

[kosta50]

Just letting you know that everyone else is replying to you perfectly well, and since you cannot “hear” them, you certainly won’t be able to “hear” me.

Maybe you need to speak a little louder...LOL!

[kosta50]

My point about angels being "seemingly ... programmed to unfailingly execute God's will" neglected to include the important advectival modifer, "faithful"; as in the 2/3 of angels who did not rebel but chose to be faithful to God instead.

I will ask you again, where are you getting this, since it is not what the Church teaches? Where does it say that God 'seemingly' programmed angels to unfailing carry out his will?

[little jeremiah]

I like to discuss these topics but not with people who just want to argue; it’s actually against one of the tenets of the Vedas. I prefer to avoid contention; and the other people on the thread are doing a great job without me!