Posted on 04/03/2010 9:50:37 AM PDT by 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.
" Question: How do you prove the statement that "science" is the only truthful criterion of human reality is anything other than a "faith claim," pure and simple?"
The statement as given is incorrect. Science is not a criterion, it is a method that requires evidence that anyone can examine. One can not "prove" methods. Logic and evidence that anyone can examine do not involve faith. Again, faith is based on pure testimony. science is based on physical evidence and logic.
Uhhhhh . . . no . . .
NOT SO . . .
That, too . . . is an illusion, delusion, fantasy.
You could lean on any of those things you
“have” the next hour or day or week or month
and discover it had already disintegrated out from under you—or was actively doing so as you leaned.
Or . . . that your capacity to lean on anything was suddenly grossly if not overwhelmingly compromised.
It is an illusion to think that our senses are all that reliable.
It is an illusion to think that we
definitively or lastingly or dependably
have much of anything—including our next breath.
And if it is so demonstrably true that our senses are not near as reliable as pseudo-super-rationalists might like to pretend . . .
HOW ON EARTH can the cognitions based on them be any MORE reliable??? . . . even all that . . . reliabley ‘OBJECTIVISTly’ reasonable?
Perhaps you ‘have’ some things this second . . . or micro-second . . .
10 seconds from now, there are no guarantees.
bump
1st Tim 5:21
Thanks. I missed it. Not very explicit, is it. Are there any more references, do you know?
And much of that logic is based upon mathematics, which as we know, is simply another language which describes reality and is not the reality itself.
Science is not the be all and and all of all existence.
It is not the measure by which all things are measured and truth is determined.
Maybe it doesn’t have to be for us to still be able to perform per His Plan by faith in Him and what He provides.
It indicates to me that there still remains doctrine I have not fully grown to know and manifest in my heart.
It may also indicate that it does not matter to you or me. This one Paulian verse which alludes to elect angels may not matter a whit. We are not angels and we are not governed, nor are we Judged in the same fashion.
Rom 7:19-20 (19) For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. (20) Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
It isn't contradictory.
If we didn’t need to know, it wouldn’t have been provided in Scripture, but to what extent we need to know isn’t specified, so I generally keep it within the extent and context provided.
That is an interesting perspective. What is your view on the Chronicler and how relevant is he?
My father appeared to me right after he died, and a couple of days later he spoke to me. He said “Your daddy’s going on now” I said WHAT???? He repeated “Your daddy’s going on now” And I never felt his presence again. Since then when a parent dies, I will ask the survivor if they have been visited by the deceased parent, so far since 1992, the answer is always YES
Jesus said to the thieves on the hill, next to him on the cross, YOU WILL BE WITH ME THIS DAY IN PARADISE. He did not say LATER, DUDE.
I believe He said that to one of them.
No.
My brothers and sisters. No.
My wife. No.
My close friends. No.
You obviously hang out in a different universe than I do.
Well jeepers, there was no energy to conserve before it was created. Ex nihilo.
So where do we go from here?
That's the part I never seem to get...
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. - Galatians 2:20
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? - I Corinthians 6:19
But I cannot read another person's mind or his heart.
So when a person testifies to me that he once was Christian but no longer believes, I join in earnest prayer for him - that God will give him eyes to see and ears to hear.
And if he is like the ones wmfights mentioned, there is hope for him. But if he actually knew God and then willfully chose to separate from Him, his fate has been sealed.
But back to your original question, I cannot conceive of a spiritually and mentally sane person wanting to separate from God.
Moreover, those who choose to deny God become insane by God's judgment:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. - Romans 1:28-32
Thank you for sharing your testimony, dear brother in Christ!
Thanks, it looks like a very interesting discussion.
My contention is that God cannot be unhappy or dissatisfied and be God. After all, even though he hates sin, he allows sin because he finds it useful and even necessary that sin exists or else he would not allow it. So, while he may hate sin, he is not dissatisfied because of it.
Yes, I could have used those same words.
You present your well known POV response, whereby, on some "level" God can be unhappy with his Son having to be crucified but on another, higher, "level" he is happy because it is for the greater good and it is, after all, part of his plan.
Yes, that is a fair take on what I said. But, I do not want to leave an impression that I think there is some sort of internal conflict about this within God. The "levels" I am talking about are based on principles of and/or attributes of God. God hates sin so He is not "pleased" to see His Son die on the cross by the sin of others as He IS "pleased" in other parts of scripture, such as:
This is obviously God being "pleased" or not as a result of actions by men. Of course, with regard to actions by God Himself, He is always "pleased" that His will is done:
So, I'm really coming from an analytical perspective as opposed to speaking to God's literal "experience". We humans refer to some events as being "bitter/sweet". I do not think this holds for God. If this sounds too cryptic, just ask and I'll try again. :)
But if God is God then he should never be forced to make a decision that makes him unhappy, nor should he ever regret it. Because he is always in charge and control, his decisions are by necessity always just and perfect (so why would he regret them?!?), and because the world by necessity must be just the way he wants it or else he is not God.
True, and "forced" is a little tricky here since we could ask if God is "forced" to never cease to exist, or to never lie etc. He will certainly always be consistent with His own nature, but I wouldn't say it is because of being "forced". --- And for the regret, I think I remember that we had a little different take on the use of the word in the Bible as it related to God. There are several places that say that God "regretted" something, but I do not think they mean in the way we humans regret things. We regret our mistakes or misfortune in general, etc., but these do not apply to God who is in control of everything.
However the Bible tells us otherwise. So, either the Bible is wrong or God is not in charge on all "levels" but has to "put up" with things not according to his will and satisfaction.
I would attribute the first to interpretation, and for the second it would seem impossible for the Biblical God to "put up" with anything not according to His will. There would be no discernible need for Him to have less than everything He wants. Relating back, then, I would not say that God "put up" with the crucifixion (bitter/sweet). Rather, it was always part of His perfect will and was carried out perfectly according to His design and satisfaction, EVEN THOUGH it appears to violate the principle that God hates sin. (I admit this does not fall into a neat little package.) For His own reasons, God uses what He hates and it is still good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.