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]

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

Orthodox divine liturgical hymn "It is Truly Meet...:" (Axios Estin in Greek, or Dostoyno Yest in Slavonic) mentions this hierarchy and places Mary above the highest angelic hosts

It is truly meet to bless you, O Theotokos, ever-blessed and most pure, and the Mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, without defilement you gave birth to God the Word. True Theotokos we magnify you!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

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.

Those infirmities are not "punishments." We're all born with imperfections.

It's more interesting to think you do not believe God gives us all that we possess, including health and wealth.

If God does not give us those things, who does?

Moreover, our earthly life has little or no connection to God's grace,

Everything is according to God's grace. If a man has been redeemed, he will surmount his handicaps. If he hasn't been redeemed, he will succumb to them.

Also, God does not force himself, but grace by "vaccination" seems to suggest exactly that.

I thank God every day He "forced" His way into my life and that He made me realize I am His possession. That knowledge is at the heart of Christian liberty. If you don't experience that, you are missing something precious. Christians can relax -- they have been forgiven; they have been redeemed; they are His.

[kosta50]

It's more interesting to think you do not believe God gives us all that we possess, including health and wealth.

By your thinking, God makes criminals, mentally challenged, God makes us sick, blind, brain damaged, etc.

If a man has been redeemed, he will surmount his handicaps

I see, so those who struggle and fail were not redeemed...

I thank God every day He "forced" His way into my life and that He made me realize I am His possession

Right...nothing like being forced and owned. That's true love/sar. I can see why slavery flourished as a Christian institution; it was the "labor of love."

Christians can relax -- they have been forgiven; they have been redeemed; they are His.

Facing the unknown, I suppose it is comforting to some people to believe fanciful stories. Others may simply give themselves to their God unconditionally and say "your will be done, I am yours," or, dispensing with human fancy, simply surrender to the obvious and admit "whatever will be will be."

[Forest Keeper]

FK: 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.

If your standard is that irresistible grace isn't real because we don't see the term "irresistible grace" then by the same token people are NOT free to forfeit their salvations because we do not see the phrase "I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand, EXCEPT that they may leave of their own accord and do not count as people for the purpose of the word "nobody"! :). It never says "nobody else".

FK: 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.

True, but that doesn't address God's authority to give irresistible grace. We know He doesn't give it to everyone because we see rejection, but nevertheless He does give it to some.

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?

Well, I'm not all that sure that He even appears all that different from OT to NT. I understand about God wiping out lots of people in the OT and not so much in the NT, but we also see countless acts of love and forgiveness in the OT. Look at how much He gave to Israel and forgave them over and over, etc. While we certainly do see God's wrath on display in the OT I think that the whole purpose of the OT was to point toward Christ. Perhaps some of what you're talking about could be due to the fact that Jesus was on a specific mission and did not deviate from it. So, for example, while Jesus had the full authority to zap people dead for committing sin that was not a part of His mission while on earth.

FK: 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?

They were firing up the troops??? :) Do you mean we are to interpret verse 28 as a flat out lie because they were firing up the troops? In any case there is more:

Gen. 50:19-20 : 19 But Joseph said to them, “Don’t be afraid. Am I in the place of God? 20 You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.

In addition, note that it was God's will that He alone be the King of Israel. However, His permissive will allowed human kings in Israel and He even gave rules for such in Deut. 17:14-20. Further, it was God's will that a man should have one wife (a man shall leave his parents and cleave to his WIFE). However, His permissive will allowed for polygamy, and He even set rules for examples such as the kinsman's duty to childless widows.

[MarkBsnr]

If your standard is that irresistible grace isn't real because we don't see the term "irresistible grace" then by the same token people are NOT free to forfeit their salvations because we do not see the phrase "I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand, EXCEPT that they may leave of their own accord and do not count as people for the purpose of the word "nobody"! :). It never says "nobody else".

But many of the teachings of Jesus are about trying not to fall away and lose their salvation. The Beatitudes, again. Matthew 25 (all three) again. The foolish virgins lost their salvation. The bad servant lost his talent. This says very directly that you can lose your salvation and you will unless you follow Him.

True, but that doesn't address God's authority to give irresistible grace. We know He doesn't give it to everyone because we see rejection, but nevertheless He does give it to some.

That has not been established in our debate.

They were firing up the troops??? :) Do you mean we are to interpret verse 28 as a flat out lie because they were firing up the troops?

Not a lie, just battle rhetoric.

Gen. 50:19-20 : 19 But Joseph said to them, “Don’t be afraid. Am I in the place of God? 20 You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.

We are speaking of Christ and His teachings. This passage does not address the idea of irresistible grace.

In addition, note that it was God's will that He alone be the King of Israel. However, His permissive will allowed human kings in Israel and He even gave rules for such in Deut. 17:14-20. Further, it was God's will that a man should have one wife (a man shall leave his parents and cleave to his WIFE). However, His permissive will allowed for polygamy, and He even set rules for examples such as the kinsman's duty to childless widows.

So are you saying that if I have plural wives that it is God's will? The Old Covenant is different in many ways from the New, correct? The dietary laws being relaxed is one. The repudiation of eye for an eye is another.

[MarkBsnr]

By your thinking, God makes criminals, mentally challenged, God makes us sick, blind, brain damaged, etc.

Matthew 9: 27 17 And as Jesus passed on from there, two blind men followed (him), crying out, "Son of David, 18 have pity on us!" 28 When he entered the house, the blind men approached him and Jesus said to them, "Do you believe that I can do this?" "Yes, Lord," they said to him. 29 Then he touched their eyes and said, "Let it be done for you according to your faith." 30 And their eyes were opened. Jesus warned them sternly, "See that no one knows about this." 31 But they went out and spread word of him through all that land. 32 As they were going out, 19 a demoniac who could not speak was brought to him, 33 and when the demon was driven out the mute person spoke. The crowds were amazed and said, "Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel." 34 20 But the Pharisees said, "He drives out demons by the prince of demons." 35 21 Jesus went around to all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and curing every disease and illness. 36 At the sight of the crowds, his heart was moved with pity for them because they were troubled and abandoned, 22 like sheep without a shepherd.

God is the antithesis of illness. But what does Scripture say that its cause is?

Job 2:7 So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and afflicted Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the top of his head.

James 1: 12 Blessed is the man who perseveres in temptation, 6 for when he has been proved he will receive the crown of life that he promised to those who love him. 13 7 No one experiencing temptation should say, "I am being tempted by God"; for God is not subject to temptation to evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 Rather, each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire conceives and brings forth sin, and when sin reaches maturity it gives birth to death. 16 8 Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers: 17 all good giving and every perfect gift 9 is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no alteration or shadow caused by change.

So, Biblically anyway, all good and perfection comes from God; all else is as a result of the Fall and the influence of satan.

I can see why slavery flourished as a Christian institution; it was the "labor of love."

It was the Christian duty to bring the savages to civilization - not that they participated in it, but so that they could witness it and perform the hard manual labour to sustain it.

simply surrender to the obvious and admit "whatever will be will be."

Very well, on your head be it:

[kosta50]

It was the Christian duty to bring the savages to civilization - not that they participated in it, but so that they could witness it and perform the hard manual labour to sustain it

You are being sarcastic I hope.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: 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.

We find Christ throughout the OT. He is the same God, now and forever. ----- You are right that the verses you cite do not apply to the reprobate. They refer to true faith being pure and innocent, like a little child. To extend a bit:

Mark 10:14-16 : 14 When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” 16 And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.

The elect will receive the kingdom of God like a little child. The reprobate will reject the kingdom of God.

FK: 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!"

Well, I certainly have learned that the Apostolic Church does treat some of God's word very differently from other of God's word, and even has it competing against itself. I still don't understand how anyone can acknowledge that the Bible is God's word and yet treat it as if some of God's word is more true such that some parts should be kept and interpreted a certain way and other parts should be ignored or discarded. It is one thing to say we are no longer under law but under grace so we should treat some of the OT a certain way. The Bible confirms that is correct. It is quite a different thing to throw out Paul when he disagrees with a certain interpretation of the Gospels. Nowhere does the Bible tell us to do that. Perhaps it is the interpretation that is wrong and not Paul. :)

[Forest Keeper]

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.

Amen, and thanks for the great link, Dr. E. Many Jews thought they had a birthright to acceptance by God. His word teaches that is not the case and that was what the idea concerning being a respecter of persons was about.

[MarkBsnr]

You are being sarcastic I hope.

Certainly. I find racial prejudice repugnant; I find cultural prejudice often justified. The Reformed who brought slaves into North America were only operating from the doctrinal and theological perspective that they had. There were a few Catholics who indulged in places like Hispaniola, but they were few, far between and short lived.

[MarkBsnr]

We find Christ throughout the OT. He is the same God, now and forever.

Negative. You find find hints and obscure references. You do not find the God of Mercy and Love.

The elect will receive the kingdom of God like a little child. The reprobate will reject the kingdom of God.

I believe that the Reformed have it backwards in terms of cause and effect. The elect are those who accept salvation and the reprobate could be those who reject it. Confusing predestination with foreknowledge might be relevant.

Well, I certainly have learned that the Apostolic Church does treat some of God's word very differently from other of God's word, and even has it competing against itself.

The words of men are different and are of lesser value than the words of Jesus. The words of the Chronicler are not equivalent to the words of God Incarnate.

I still don't understand how anyone can acknowledge that the Bible is God's word and yet treat it as if some of God's word is more true such that some parts should be kept and interpreted a certain way and other parts should be ignored or discarded.

Call it surpassed or overridden. You indulge in it yourself, unless you follow the dietary laws, for instance.

It is quite a different thing to throw out Paul when he disagrees with a certain interpretation of the Gospels. Nowhere does the Bible tell us to do that. Perhaps it is the interpretation that is wrong and not Paul. :)

We do not discard Paul. We discard the erroneous interpretations of Paul when read through the words of Jesus.

[kosta50]

You are right that the verses you cite do not apply to the reprobate. They refer to true faith being pure and innocent, like a little child

How can someone born bound to hell be "pure and innocent?"

The elect will receive the kingdom of God like a little child

But we are supposedly born condmened, rember?

Well, I certainly have learned that the Apostolic Church does treat some of God's word very differently from other of God's word, and even has it competing against itself

Yes, the Gospels are believed to be the quotes of what Christ actually said, as opposed to what was "revealed." There is no competition: the Gospels comes first; everything esle is interpreted through the prism of the Gospels.

It is quite a different thing to throw out Paul when he disagrees with a certain interpretation of the Gospels

Well, obviously Paul is not Christ, otherwise if Christ wrote the Epistles using Paul's hand, then Paul's name on the Epistles would be superfluous.

[kosta50]

Thanks Makr. Your answer sounded so real I wasn’t sure... :)

[kosta50]

The words of men are different and are of lesser value than the words of Jesus. The words of the Chronicler are not equivalent to the words of God Incarnate

And St. Paul explicitly says on occasion that what he writes is not the Lord's commandment but his own, and thereby incomparable to the words of Jesus.

[Forest Keeper]

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.

Do you have any local/inside info about whether Crist would go independent when he becomes convinced he has no shot against Rubio? That would sure be a test to see if the tea partiers really carried any weight. If we're forced into a three-way race I'd love to see the tea partiers make the difference.

[Forest Keeper]

Orthodox divine liturgical hymn "It is Truly Meet...:" (Axios Estin in Greek, or Dostoyno Yest in Slavonic) mentions this hierarchy and places Mary above the highest angelic hosts

That's interesting considering how Mary interacted with the angel at the Annunciation. The atmosphere of that scene sure seemed to have the angel in the higher position.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Does God give us all we possess?

[kosta50]

If we're forced into a three-way race I'd love to see the tea partiers make the difference.

A lot of young and zealous Republicans may not remember the disfavor Ross Perot did the Republican Party. Thanks to his "mavericky" attention-seeking egotistic short moment in the limelight, we were dishonored with the Clinton administration with the unfortunate knee-jerk reaction that followed, which then resulted in the second knee-jerk reaction that we have today in the White House.

There was a lot of anger with Bush SR and his arrogance (I guess it runs in that family) over his 'read my lips...no new taxes' stunt. So, Perot's third party took off and siphoned the conservative vote from the GOP, leading to Clinton's victory (ironically his slogan was also "Change." I guess some things never change except our memory).

Charlie Crist is another McCain character that we don't need, but perfectly capable of splitting the GOP. For one he is of Greek descent and surely has unquestioned support among Greek voters the way Doukakis and Olympia Snowe and other liberal Greek Republicans do. Unfortunately, Greeks tend to put ethnicity first, but I am sure they are not the only ones who do.

Sarah Palin is another "talent" we don't need. She appeals to many in the GOP ranks and is also capable of siphoning the vote from the GOP. I don't think the Tea Party is a good idea at all.

Any third party in this instance will fracture the GOP because the Democrats will stay put, and they only stand to gain from the Republican divisions. But I wouldn't put it past Charlie Crist to do us one more major disfavor and run as an independent, thereby making sure our next Governor is more socialist than he was.

[kosta50]

That's interesting considering how Mary interacted with the angel at the Annunciation. The atmosphere of that scene sure seemed to have the angel in the higher position

The angel (meaning a messenger) merely carried a message from God, so in carrying out the message he was speaking on behalf, as an ambassador of God, and as such was in a "higher" position.

But angels are not treated as being higher. There is an instance in the NT where someone kneels before an angel and the angle rebukes him for it. Yet, angles are said to be 'higher' than humans in other parts of the Bible, but they will be judged by humans for some reason.

There is even reference that the angels can see God, iirc, while other references say they can't, so Christian angeology is very "cut and paste." probably as a result of varyius influences that shaped it over the centuries.

The particular hymn is interesting because it mentions the hierarchy of angelic hosts (which means the orthodox laity is aware of it), while other Christian traditions seem to neglect it to a large extent.

Mary's position as the one sitting at the right foot of her Son is part of Marioogy that developed over the centuries in the Undivided Church. As such, she is seen in terms of honor as higher than any angelic creature in the eyes of the Church.

[kosta50]

Does God give us all we possess?

You mean when a carpenter cuts off his finger on a table saw that is God's doing? I don't think so.

If you are referring to our intellect, looks, health, wealth, poverty, misfortune, blond hair, blue eyes, or Huntington's Chorea, to mention just a few, I must respectfully disagree too.