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.

[kosta50]

"Normal" people hallucinate as well. That's the important thing to keep in mind. people also try to explain the mysterious, to find some "sense" in it. Sometimes we can deal with the situation better that way. Life is puzzling.

I can relate to your experience. Most of us at some time in our lives have faced it and wondered if the person who passed "knows." It is mind-boggling. My take is basically "what will be will be." If I were a believer, I would simply say "It's in God's hands."

[caww]

In my moms case she definately knew...If there was any doubt before her departure I had none as she left....

I can say that when you are with them there does seem to be a sense you are between two worlds with them.....perhaps that is what is ment by the valley of the shadow of death....you are in that shadow with them but not part of as they are.

You know there are many people who help you to prepare for the reality of the persons dying...but no-one can prepare you for the moment they are actually passing on. It does appear as with life so to with death, each goes through that last door differently.

I think your use of ‘mysteries’ and how we try to make sense of .... well, perhaps it is something that isn’t ment to be understood on this side. And as you also said be left in God’s hands. And it is their one does find Peace and acceptance....even though puzzling as you mentioned.

Thank you for saying you can relate...I appreciated that.

[MarkBsnr]

Yes it's irresistible grace, where is the contradiction?

It never says irresistible. Anywhere. It says that nobody can snatch the Children of God out of His hand. It says that He will never lose them. It expressly does not say that they are trapped and cannot leave of their own accord. The Prodigal Son left of his own accord and came back. The seeds were variously accepted or not or eventually rejected.

How much more authority does God have over us to give us irresistible gifts since He IS the law?

The stone that the builders rejected became the cornerstone. God has been rejected millions, billions, trillions of times by man. God is faithful; man is not.

It could not be God's failure, all was His plan all along since, presumably, Gentiles would have been forever excluded.

Or is it because God wishes all to come to love Him, in the same fashion that He loves them? Love cannot be coerced.

Through the OT history we learn much of our God and His nature.

Through the OT history, we learn of the God of wrath; and through the NT, we learn of the God of love. Same God; why does He appear different?

We have no problem with this statement, but distinguish between what is sometimes called God's perfect will vs. His permissive will. It is analogous to God's inward vs. outward calling. God's perfect will is according to His nature and so we have verses like:

In the past? You mean under the Old Law? Jesus brings the New Law. Inward versus outward calling? God calls all men; not all will answer. Or of those who answer, there are many that hang up the phone during the conversation. There is no distinction in Scripture. The verses cited don't say that there is; the previous verses you cited really don't show anything to that effect. The important thing is that all Grace is the Gift of God to unworthy man.

However, God's permissive will is in accordance with His plan so we have verses like: Acts 4:27-28 : 27 Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28 They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.

They were firing up the troops. Do you have other verses or was this battle rhetoric?

So, when we talk about what God "wants" we have to be careful of the context in which we are speaking. There are many many Biblical questions such as "Did God want Jesus to die on the cross" that can be legitimately answered "Yes and no".

Kinda sorta. We should concentrate on God's message to the world of universal grace, and Judgement on the last day.

[MarkBsnr]

My take is basically "what will be will be." If I were a believer, I would simply say "It's in God's hands."

I don't believe that you look anything like Doris Day. I also don't believe that God has butterfingers.

Life is puzzling.

I live in Iowa and work in Illinois and follow politics in both. I agree wholeheartedly.

[kosta50]

I don't believe that you look anything like Doris Day. I also don't believe that God has butterfingers

LOL, that was good! :)

I live in Iowa and work in Illinois and follow politics in both. I agree wholeheartedly.

Especially there... :)

[MarkBsnr]

LOL, that was good! :)

I exist only to serve.

I live in Iowa and work in Illinois and follow politics in both. I agree wholeheartedly.

Especially there... :)

The Democratic Governor of Iowa is trailing one Republican candidate by 20 and the other by 30 and still won't sign a 'shall carry' law passed by the Democratic House and the Democratic Senate.

The Democratic Governor of Illinois refused to step down from running in place of the handpicked daughter of the Democratic House Speaker, and is running either 5th or 6th to the various other Democratic candidates. Of course, he just picked a Lt. Governor in spite of his attempts to rid the state of the position, who, like Obama is the least qualified man in every room that he enters. The Republicans in Illinois are like dogs that speak - very rare. And Republicans that win elections in Illinois are like dogs that speak Norwegian - even rarer.

The Chicago City Council runs Illinois and has a motto for its faithful - vote early and vote often.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

When your children are young, within the bounds of the law you have full sovereign authority over them. You can give the irresistible gift of an immunization shot to them for their own good, even if they do not want it. (They are not free to decline the gift and their objection does not alter the fact that it is indeed a gift.) How much more authority does God have over us to give us irresistible gifts since He IS the law?

Amen, FK! Your analogies are always Scriptural, logical and thought-provoking.

[kosta50]

I'd have to disagree...I cannot find where Jesus modified the OT principle in: Lev. 4:27 : ‘If a member of the community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the Lord’s commands, he is guilty.

FK, if you look for Jesus, you won't find him in Leviticus but in the Gospels where he is quoted as saying "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." [Mat 19:14; cf Mark 10:14). This would hardly be proper for creatures who are bound to hell from birth.

I would also disagree with the ROC if her position is that when conceived we have the presumption of going to Heaven until the first accountable sin is physically committed

I would imagine that the Church would have no reason to believe otherwise, given the scriptures.

That would contradict many passages of scripture describing our condition as a result of Adam: Rom. 5:14-21

Many passages? The issue with Romans 5 is one of translation, the crucial verse being Roma 5:12 is where we find the critical phrase ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον (ef’ ho pantes hemarton).

There are at least two ways this can be translated. The early Church, using the same language and being the closest to the culture and mindset of the apostles, interpreted it that death passed on to all men because all men have sinned, not because in whom [that is in Adam] all men have sinned, although the latter is a legitimate translation as well.

But, again, you seek Jesus in odd places, such as Romans, the Psalms and Jeremiah but not where Jesus' words are quoted directly.

Even if the Psalms and Paul believed were are born in sin, Jesus thought children were fit for the kingdom of heaven.

The Bible tells us all about it: Deuteronomy 32...Rom. 9:14-15...Is. 45:21

More Paul and Old Testament. The Church is the Church of the Gospels, FK. God's justice is revealed in them as mercy for the undeserving sinners. And James (2:13) says that "Mercy triumphs over judgment!"

[kosta50]

You can give the irresistible gift of an immunization shot to them for their own good, even if they do not want it. (They are not free to decline the gift and their objection does not alter the fact that it is indeed a gift.)

If you are comparing flu shots to irresistible grace then God is a respecter of men, contrary to the scriptures.

It could not be God's failure, all was His plan

Nonsense, FK. Genesis 6:6 does not sound like it was his plan. God even regrets drowning people and animals and even makes a covenant with humans and animals (LOL), promising them he will never do it again. And to remind himself (LOL) of his promise, he creates a rainbow! (cf Gen 9:10-13). (ROTFLOL!) Now that's a plan! :)

We're not told directly, but we do know God wanted His children on earth to be His people, giving glory to Him here, and He wanted to be their God

And this was not possible without all the blood and guts, and rainbows?

God's perfect will is according to His nature and so we have verses like: Acts 17:30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

Oh, come one, FK. God demanded that his people stop worshiping idols and repent from the get go.

[kosta50]

Don't feel left out. We have a quasi-Repulican governor here in Florida, Charlie Crist, who decided to insure every motorist including those who can't or won't pay, so now all of us who pay for our insurance had our insurance premium raised by almost $200 to cover for the uninsured. Socialism at work in Florida. Hopefully not after November.

[mo]

“we men shall judge them”

Can you reference this for the curious?

tnx

Mo

[Dr. Eckleburg]

If you are comparing flu shots to irresistible grace then God is a respecter of men, contrary to the scriptures.

The verse that says God is not a respecter of persons does not mean God bestows gifts equally. Look around you. To some He gives good health and family and security and common sense, and to others He withholds those gifts. Some are born into freedom and others are enslaved from birth.

Here's Boettner's excellent chapter from his book, "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination."

That It Represents God As A Respecter Of Persons, Or As Unjustly Partial

...In the Scriptures God is said to be no respecter of persons, for He does not choose one and reject another because of outward circumstances such as race, nationality, wealth, power, nobility, etc. Peter says that God is no respecter of persons because He makes no distinction between Jews and Gentiles. His conclusion after being divinely sent to preach to the Roman centurion, Cornelius, was, "Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth Him and worketh righteousness is acceptable to Him," Acts 10:35. Throughout their entire past history the Jews had believed that they as a people were the exclusive objects of God's favor. A careful reading of Acts 10:1 to 11:18 will show what a revolutionary idea it was that the Gospel should be preached to the Gentiles also...

[kosta50]

The verse that says God is not a respecter of persons does not mean God bestows gifts equally. Look around you. To some He gives good health and family and security and common sense, and to others He withholds those gifts. Some are born into freedom and others are enslaved from birth

There is more than one verse on that subject, Dr. E, such as those referring to God as being impartial. But your suggestion that God has something to do with our health and wealth is interesting since the NT makes it clear that being born blind is not indicative of God's punishment.

Moreover, our earthly life has little or no connection to God's grace, which is simply God's pardon, clemency or mercy on our undeserving souls, and not something that gives us health or wealth in this life. Grace, rather, has to do with the salvation of our souls, the uncreated energies that allow us to partake in God's nature as St. Peter supposedly wrote.

The way the Church sees it, God offers his grace to all, regardless of their race, gender, social status, etc lest he be respecter of persons, and a biased judge. So, irresistible grace compared to flu shots is very much contrary to an impartial God. Also, God does not force himself, but grace by "vaccination" seems to suggest exactly that.

[MarkBsnr]

1 Corinthians 6: 1 1 How can any one of you with a case against another dare to bring it to the unjust for judgment instead of to the holy ones? 2 Do you not know that the holy ones will judge the world? If the world is to be judged by you, are you unqualified for the lowest law courts? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? Then why not everyday matters? 4 If, therefore, you have courts for everyday matters, do you seat as judges people of no standing in the church? 5 I say this to shame you. Can it be that there is not one among you wise enough to be able to settle a case between brothers? 6 But rather brother goes to court against brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 Now indeed (then) it is, in any case, a failure on your part that you have lawsuits against one another. Why not rather put up with injustice? Why not rather let yourselves be cheated? 8 Instead, you inflict injustice and cheat, and this to brothers. 9 2 3 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Men will judge the angels, and the holy ones will judge the world.

[mo]

Thank you.

Mo

[MarkBsnr]

We have a quasi-Repulican governor here in Florida, Charlie Crist,

Who's about to be crushed in the primary.

[Forest Keeper]

Here are some helpful lists: The Angelic Hierarchy The Orders of the Celestial Hierarchy According to Various Sources and Authorities

Thanks very much for these, Cvengr. Very interesting. I didn't realize there were that many kinds and I found it very interesting that in most of the lists the Seraphim are the most powerful, with the Cherubim as number two. Seems weird that the most beautiful angel was in the second highest tier.

[MarkBsnr]

You are most welcome. Hope I answer the question to your satisfaction.

[kosta50]

Gov. Crist just vetoed a bill that would hold Florida teachers accountable for their work and make it easier to fire those who don't do a good job. In vetoing the bill this quasi Republican sided with the Fl Democrats. Need we say more? I sure hope he will be fired come November, but the problem is, just as with Obama, that they are in long enough to do enough damage that is difficult to repair.

We need a parliamentary system in the US, where a government no confidence vote can force a new election anytime. Our system gives politicians free reign for four years to do as much good as possible but many abuse it to do as much damage as possible. We need a mechanism to censure such politicans while they are in office.

I think it's time to remind all government agencies that they are servants and not tyrants and that they can be fired at any time during their mandate.

[MarkBsnr]

We need a parliamentary system in the US, where a government no confidence vote can force a new election anytime. Our system gives politicians free reign for four years to do as much good as possible but many abuse it to do as much damage as possible. We need a mechanism to censure such politicans while they are in office.

I fully agree with you. The US system has evolved into either a 2- , 4- , or 6- year stasis in which the incumbents have licence to rape, loot, plunder and pillage.