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.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Yes, that is the question. No answer to that question?

[MarkBsnr]

God does not micromanage anything. If you have Scripture to indicate that God manages the health or finances of anyone, let’s have it.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

So now the RC apologist even puts "good health" on the list of items God does not "micromanage."

Why do you pray to God to heal anyone if that is true?

[MarkBsnr]

Scripture, please. As a Reformed woman, how can you claim any theological position outside of Scripture? Chapter and verse. Your turn.

[Forest Keeper]

The phrase it was god who hardened Pharaoh's heart is simply a summation, and is no more literal than saying a philandering wife or husband hardened yours...not that I'm comparing God or his actions to a philandering spouse, mind you. As such, if you are suggesting here that Pharaoh's demeanor is actually God's demeanor by proxy, then I obviously disagree...

No, I'm not suggesting that God's demeanor was anything like Pharaoh's. I am suggesting, though, that it was part of God's plan that Pharaoh do what he did. To accomplish His plan, God left Pharaoh to his sinful nature SUCH THAT it was guaranteed that Pharaoh, in this case, would not listen to Moses and Aaron.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You've been given this Scripture many times from a variety of books in the Bible.

"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" -- 1 Corinthians 4:7

(Cue the "Music to Trash Paul By.")

[Forest Keeper]

FK: From what I could find your Church does not discriminate between what you are calling the words of men and the red letter words.

Not insofar as their inspired status is concerned ......... The Orthodox have a saying lex orandi, lex credendi, loosely translated "how we pray is how we believe." In other words, the Church liturgically sets the Gospels apart and above all other scripture because it considers the Gospels apart and above all other scripture, through which all other scriptures is interpreted and reconciled.

The CCC I quoted said flat out that the words of the Bible ARE the words of God. How can some of God's words be above other of God's words as a general matter? The effect is naturally to have God trumping Himself through contradiction. I can't imagine why God would leave such a legacy to His beloved. I also do not recall Jesus ever ranking the values of the OT scriptures. In fact He referred to "every jot and tittle". That would seem to indicate that Jesus had no interest in setting any of God's word above any other.

Frankly, it seems to me that this "everything through the prism" routine was conveniently invented since all claimed authority of the hierarchy of the Apostolic Church comes from the Gospels. In order to make sure that authority was "super duper" true, it was decided that everything else in the Bible was lesser than the Gospels in value. This way the super duper true high authority could interpret the lesser non-Gospel words of God any way they wanted, including effectively voiding them as needed. More than once the response I have gotten to my quoting of scripture has been "But that's not in the Gospels", as if my point was moot unless something in the Gospels specifically backed it up. If that isn't putting man above scripture I don't know what is. :)

[MarkBsnr]

You've been given this Scripture many times from a variety of books in the Bible.

"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" -- 1 Corinthians 4:7

Paul is telling the Corinthians that they are to be content with what they have, and not puff themselves up with their own self importance, when you read the chapter and not this particular verse. What does that have to do with your non Scriptural claim that God gives prosperity to his favoured? I didn't realize that Joel Osteen is a preacher to the OPC.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: So, the focus is really on the nature of the faith in comparison to the appearance of the child.

A child, by necessity, has blind faith. A child also does not know right from wrong, so how can that be the "model" to strive for? It is more likely that Jesus was not talking about the nature of their faith but about their de facto innocence.

It depends on the age of the child, but it sounds like you are talking about the very very young. From the context Jesus says let them come to me, implying that they are old enough to do so (walk) on their own. In any case, in my opinion part of what Jesus is talking about is that a child-like (as opposed to a childish) faith is one that is unblocked by any agenda or pride that an adult frequently has.

If child-like faith is on one end of a scale, the other end might be an atheist liberal scientist. A child-like faith can accept presented truth even if it cannot explain all there is to explain. Trust of the source is involved. A child will trust a parent about a truth even if he cannot explain it all, and likewise we should trust our Lord. I would add that this is not a blind faith, but a reasoned faith that is simply not the equal of Christ's perfect faith.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: Nevertheless, I would still maintain that those verses [Paul going solo, e.g. 1 Cor. 7:12, 25] met with God's approval

Based on what?

Based on the fact that everything in the Bible still IS God's word and is true. The CCC makes no exception for these passages and considers them God's word also. "God's word" includes "God's approved word".

[Forest Keeper]

FK: I guess he was Nader before Nader was Nader in your home state. :)

Nader was never in a position to derail naitonal elections. Perot did and what good did that do?

If I remember correctly, Bush won Florida by 500+ votes and Nader got 90,000+ Florida votes. Without Nader, Gore would have easily won the Presidency.

FK: Do you know if he could compete money-wise as an Indy?

Charlie Crist is a Greek-American (original surname Christodoulos) and Greeks tend to place ethnicity above party lines. Of course, they are not the only group that does. But in this election they are a factor and they are a tight group that has money.

Maybe the fear of what Obama is going to do to everyone through unemployment and higher taxes will tighten their wallets. :) I saw Crist on Chris Wallace's show a few weeks ago against Rubio. Crist looked positively petty going after things like expensive haircuts as his best ammo. I can't imagine what he expects to accomplish even if he wins as an Indy. Lieberman I could understand because he was protecting the legacy of the end of a long career. But with Crist he must know that he has no future in the GOP forever, so where is there for him to go? He'll never chair a committee, etc.

Which Republican advocates fiscal liberalism nowadays? That's not very original of her FK. How can you even make that an issue when we piled up the deficit to begin with?

Republicans who were there can make it an issue by asking forgiveness for their sins. The younger House Repubs can claim a clear conscience and run on the real thing. Regardless, it has to be done. Obama's spending (which makes the GOP look like pikers) and job-killing policies WILL bankrupt the nation. Republicans plus tea partiers plus other independents can stop it in time. It doesn't have to be original, it just has to get done.

[kosta50]

The CCC I quoted said flat out that the words of the Bible ARE the words of God

Actually it doesn't. CCC 105 says "have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." Now, under the inspiration is not the same as "dictated" or written down directly by God.

But, then, the Catechism is a book written and translated by mortals and capable of incompletely expressing the faith, even gross errors. Take for instance CCC 101, which says that God "became like [sic] man."

So, why should I uncritically assume that everything in the Catechism is necessarily correct and error-free any more than another book written and rewritten, copied, and recopied, adulterated, added-to, "harmonized" and what not throughout the history such as the Bible, and still insist that is "the word of God?"

Everything in the Catechism you quoted form indicates that it was not God actually writing or dictating the Bible, but that he was "working in and through" (whatever that means) the human authors to express the truth.

In other words, the truth is believed to be expressed in the books the Church deemed to be scriptures. That can mean a lot of things, FK. It can mean that every word is the word of God, or that every word is true even if it is not the word of God (such as Paul's own commandments, and his own gospel). Or it can mean that, overall, the message of the Bible expresses truth, but not necessarily in every word.

I also do not recall Jesus ever ranking the values of the OT scriptures. In fact He referred to "every jot and tittle". That would seem to indicate that Jesus had no interest in setting any of God's word above any other.

That is convincing for the pagan Greeks and equally ignorant Christians of other backgrounds, but anyone who knows a little about Judaism realizes that this was something written by Christian authors for effect.

Jesus, being a pious Jew, would have believed, as all Jewish believers do, that only the Five Books of Moses are the very words of God (directly dictated to Moses), and that these books are set apart and above all the rest.

In fact, just as the Christians stand only when the Gospels are read, the Jews stand only when the Five Books of Moses are read. Clearly, both Jews and Christians differentiate what are believed to be God's living words, from those written by human authors under God's (presumed) guidance. Knowing this, he could not have said that, or else he wasn't telling the truth.

[kosta50]

Based on the fact [sic] that everything in the Bible still IS [sic] God's word and is [sic] true

Correction: Based on the fact belief that everything in the Bible still IS believed to be God's word and is believed to be true

[kosta50]

It depends on the age of the child, but it sounds like you are talking about the very very young. From the context Jesus says let them come to me, implying that they are old enough to do so (walk) on their own

Which is two years of age at the latest. So, you are suggesting that unless our faith is just like that of a 2-year-old we are not true believers? Wow.

In any case, in my opinion part of what Jesus is talking about is that a child-like (as opposed to a childish) faith is one that is unblocked by any agenda or pride that an adult frequently has.

Child-like, as in—naïve, gullible and easily persuaded?

A child-like faith can accept presented truth even if it cannot explain all there is to explain

If I were creating a religion, I would want my followers to be child-like, naïve, gullible, uncritical, and capable of believing anything and everything, no matter how bizarre or unreal it may be. A child-like faith can also accept any lie and Ponzi scheme one can think of.

[kosta50]

If I remember correctly, Bush won Florida by 500+ votes and Nader got 90,000+ Florida votes. Without Nader, Gore would have easily won the Presidency.

Gore actually won the popualr vote; it's only our electoral college rules that gave Bush the victory. But I stand corrected. Your point is well taken. I agree that Nader was a spoiler, in this case for the Democrats, the way Perot was for the Republicans.

It doesn't have to be original, it just has to get done

The sooner the better.

[Forest Keeper]

The Church has not given a definition on this presumably because the idea that, for instance, Nehemiah to be as authoritative as the words of God Incarnate is so ludicrous so as to be not even worthy of consideration.

Alright, then you disagree with the CCC when it says that the whole Bible is the inspired word of God. Your comment indicates a belief that every speaker in scripture was speaking for him or herself, so naturally Jesus was the most trustworthy. Since all others are less trustworthy, I can only assume the Church decides when to believe any of them and when not to?

I mean, really. If you have Jesus Christ Himself standing beside Ezra, who are you going to pay more attention to?

I would say whoever Jesus is speaking through since He does not contradict Himself. Again, it seems your position would presume that Jesus cannot or does not speak through other people.

[kosta50]

Alright, then you disagree with the CCC when it says that the whole Bible is the inspired word of God

Inspired is one thing; dictated or spoken to directly is another. Otherwise we wouldn't need the names of human authors! The insistence that God "wrote" the Bible simply doesn't reflect the reality that the books are credited not to God but to humans!

We name books after the real author, not according to some typist or secretary! Who names a book after the typist, or an official memo after the secretary who took the dictation? But that's exactly whom the Bible credits—typists and secretaries! Their names appear as the authors of each book! The whole notion is ridiculous! If God is the presumed author of the Bible then credit it "according to God!" Who cares who penned it for him?!?

[kosta50]

I would say whoever Jesus is speaking through since He does not contradict Himself. Again, it seems your position would presume that Jesus cannot or does not speak through other people

LOL! So, if you saw Jesus and Ezra talking to you, you would possibly ignore Jesus because Ezra may be more genuine?

[Forest Keeper]

Thank you for the posting - I learn much of Reformed thought each time that you exchange this sort of information. Piper does bring up Acts 2:23 which is quite plain, yet, there is no indication of the 'how' of the plan. Foreknowledge, certainly, but not predestination. Does God plan based upon His foreknowledge, but not predestination? That is the Christian belief from the beginning. And, since God has already experienced everything, the idea of 'plan' is an anthropocentric one, since we are in time, and God is not.

You're welcome. We specifically believe that God does NOT plan based on His foreknowledge, but rather on what He wills. WCF Chapter 3 says: "II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions."

In essence, God's will IS His plan, and IS predestination. Providence is the means of implementing it. Although it is in fact simultaneous, for purposes of discussion the logical order would be that foreknowledge (everything that happens) is the RESULT of predestination. God can look into the future but He is seeing His own work, which has already been planned and carried out. Therefore, it would not make sense for Him to plan based on what He has already planned and completed. This is why God planning based on foreknowledge makes no sense. His foreknowledge includes His own actions which were already purposed. Instead, what God wills He predestinates and His foreknowledge is knowing that He will do (has done) as He wants.

Do I believe that God Created His Universe and then interferes in it subtly, poking and nudging? Sure. Does He have two wills, one of which is more dominant than the other? On the face of it, no.

I don't think of it as one will dominating or competing with another. One will is God's Holy standard. The other is His plan within a time filled with sinful creatures. It was God's choice. He let sin happen by His choice, not because He was beaten by a greater power. So, He chose to interact with the sinful and His will was in control. Naturally, the sinful will not live up to God's standards, so there is a plan and will that are carried out. At some point God's dealing with the sinful will be over and that will (plan) will be completed. God's perfect will, OTOH, is infinite.

[kosta50]

Frankly, it seems to me that this "everything through the prism" routine was conveniently invented since all claimed authority of the hierarchy of the Apostolic Church comes from the Gospels. In order to make sure that authority was "super duper" true, it was decided that everything else in the Bible was lesser than the Gospels in value

Actually, that "super-duper" idea comes straight from Judaism. Apostolic Chirstianty is a  direct derivative of Judaism and was, at one time, considered a sect thereof. Of course, this is alien to a German, man-made religion, literally created in the city of Worms (of all names!) some 1500 years later. From the Jewish Encyclopedia:

"Nevertheless, a distinction was made between the Torah, on the one hand, and the Prophets and the Hagiographa, on the other; for, while the study of the latter books would bring the same reward as would that of the Torah (Lam. R. i. 13, iii. 10), the Prophets and the Hagiographa were not of equal importance with the Torah..."

"Any inference drawn from the Prophets or the Hagiographa had to be authenticated in the Torah (Yer. Kid. 66a). Simeon b. Lakish said outright, "What need have I of the Psalms? It is stated in the Torah" (Pesik. R. 21b; compare 22a, below; 146a, 10; 174a, below). The Prophets and the Hagiographa are only transmitted (Naz. 53a; M. K. 5a), so that no legal (Torah) deductions are to be drawn from the prophecies ( , B. K. 2b, etc.)..."

 

There is also a difference recognized between the Prophets and the Writings (the non-Torah sections of the Pharisaical Bible):

"Tradition thus distinguished, as to rank, between Moses and the other prophets; but it knew nothing of a difference between the prophetical gift and the Holy Spirit (), as defined by Maimonides: such distinction rests upon verbal expressions for "prophets" and "Holy Writings." In the treatise Soferim, and elsewhere, the Hagiographa are called ("holiness") in distinction from the Prophets, which are styled ("revelation").

Clearly, the Torah (Pentateuch) stands above revelation. The Torah, it is said, existed eternally and was given (not revealed).

 

More than once the response I have gotten to my quoting of scripture has been "But that's not in the Gospels", as if my point was moot unless something in the Gospels specifically backed it up

 

Insofar as Christianity is concerned, Christ did not reveal the Gospels, but the Gospel was given to his disciples. It, being considered a direct word of God, is higher than the knowledge gained by others through indirect revelation. I mean it borders on ridiculous that some self-styled Chrstians consider Christ's own words on the par with human prophets. Christ was no prophet. At least not in the eyes of the Apostolic Church.