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.

[Gamecock]

Yup.

After all those who are saved are, we turn our attention to those triaged as expectant.

For military triage, think D.I.M.E.

Delayed
Immediate
Minimal
Expectant

[betty boop]

Oh Future Snake Easter, you ask such interesting questions, which surely are not "stupid!"

Why is it that NDEs are always described as very pleasant events? It’s as if nobody who almost dies is destined for Hell. Has anyone here heard of such “negative” NDEs?

To answer your second question first: NO. At least I haven't heard of any. So probably you may be right, that "23 Minutes in Hell" is not a description of an NDE. I.e., the person who wrote it was not undergoing the physical death process at the time the epiphany/meditation (whatever it was!) on the reality of Hell occurred.

Beliefnet reports:

Wiese claims that he was lying in bed at 3 a.m. when he was plunged into hell — not in a dream, but in actuality; not because he had died and was being punished, but because God wanted him to experience hell and warn others.

FWIW, I had a similar experience once, "lying in bed at 3 a.m." However I was spared the vision of Hell; something entirely different was presented to my view. To boil it all down to essentials, what I heard and saw was that God loves His creation so very, very much; but that above all, He loves His creature, man — not in the abstract, but as unique, individual souls, individually called to be sons of God. That was it, in a nutshell. With "full graphics" and "voiceover." Next thing I knew, I was safely restored to my bed, and crying my eyes out for the sheer beauty and glory of what I had seen and heard. I am absolutely sure this was no mere dream.

So I have to say these things do happen. But as far as I know, I, like Bill Wiese, was not "at death's door" when it happened to me. Therefore, it was not an NDE.

There have been such meditations of Hell across Christian creedal confessions. A particularly harrowing one is St. John of the Cross' "dark night of the soul." I don't think he was at death's door when this vision came to him. So that couldn't be called an NDE. Or St. Theresa of Avila's vision of divine Love, in which she dies to herself, the victim of a divine arrow of Love struck straight into her heart. I don't think she was at death's door when this happened to her. So that couldn't be called an NDE either.

It seems to me that nobody who has ever had such an experience asked to have it. It is something that simply happens to one, unasked for. Such experiences get classed into the category of "mystical experience." And as such, in our thoroughly rationalistic age, are simply dismissed (e.g., as hallucinations, maybe even as the result of bad digestion). Notwithstanding, they tend to be life-changing events for the persons who suffer them....

Which is presumably what they have in common with NDEs. Which brings us to your first question, Future Snake Eater: "Why is it that NDEs are always described as very pleasant events?" Well, it seems to me if you are at death's door, and then you see loved ones who have died, and you see them "well"; you've gotten to a "place" where an angel tells you, "You're not ready to die yet, because you still have something to accomplish in the world, so you have to go back," from the standpoint of mortality, you'd probably find that pretty pleasant, too.

I think you're right about this, Future Snake Eater: "NDEs seem to only brush with the actual afterlife." YES. It's as if in an NDE one comes to the boundary of incarnated existence and one's eternal spiritual being, and one is denied the ability to cross it. One is "sent back" into the world, presumably for a purpose which God intends.

Or so it seems to me. But then, what do I know? There are no "experts" in NDEs or mystical visions — not even among the ones who experience them.

Thank you ever so much for writing dear Future Snake Eater!

[betty boop]

The other thing is, is that they have arbitrarily determined that something like *hard* evidence, physical evidence like fossils, is much more reliable than eyewitness testimony, not considering the fact that the physical evidence needs to be interpreted, which is a form of witness testimony of its own, from what I can see.

I've got to say I couldn't agree with you more, right there at the bold italics, dear sister in Christ. At bottom, that's what I see, too.

But the persons holding the view that physical evidence is alone sufficient for our understanding of the world would never admit that the only thing backing up their presupposition is substantially nothing more than a personal wish....

Thank you ever so much for your astute observations, dear sister in Christ!

[betty boop]

What are spirits, are they creatures, are they beings?..

Perhaps they are both at once — in Timelessness, eternity?

Angels, for instance, though eternal, are widely acknowledged in the Christian tradition to be created beings. [That makes the fallen angel, the formerly most exalted archangel Lucifer, "Prince of Light," — a/k/a Satan, the Devil — a created being.] Angels are also widely referred to as "spirits." In other traditions, as devas, daimonion, and suchlike — all such words conveying the same central meaning: eternal beings with a job to do (so to speak; please see the following).

Maybe what your question really goes to is the question of souls. Human souls, like angels, are created beings. Like angels, souls are eternal. Unlike angels, with humans, souls are incarnate — mired in space and time as it were — and while so can never be purely spirit.

Also unlike angels — who seemingly are programmed to unfailingly execute God's Will without a second thought, as it were — ensouled humans have been granted free will. That means any person can elect against God's Will for whatever reason that makes sense to him — or for no reason at all for that matter. The entire point of Judgment Day — it seems to me — is the separation of the wheat from the chaff, the gathering in of God's faithful beloved. Those souls who chose another path — e.g., a falling away into the Satanic "gravitational field," so to speak — probably face a pretty serious situation at that point.

Thank you ever so much, dear brother in Christ, for your beautiful and so gracious essay-post!

[betty boop]

... rocks cry out against them....

Oh, FWIW I imagine the entire Creation groans in misery for the shortcomings of mankind, in these days!

May God have mercy on us, and show us His Light.

May God ever bless you, dear brother in Christ — you and all your dear ones.

[betty boop]

And this "testimony" of Eloi Cole, "a strangely dressed young man" who time travels in his spare time, has relevance to our discussion of NDEs — HOW???

Especially when Eloi's "testimony" has nothing to do with the problems engaged by the testimonies of such as John of the Cross, or Theresa of Avila?

You are screening out evidence here — Eloi's, John's, and Theresa's alike. There are no distinctions to be made; according to your simplistic rule: If I don't understand it, then flush it down the rathole of oblivion. Thenceforth, the problem does not exist for me. Whatta relief!!!

Here's a question, spunkets. I ask it, not to aggravate you, but merely because I'm curious. If you're not doing this for personal jollies, why on earth are you doing it?

[betty boop]

Thank you, dear calex59, for the further details.

I have no doubt that what your Uncle told you was a truthful account.

May God ever bless him. And you.

[hosepipe]

[ But then, what do I know? There are no "experts" in NDEs or mystical visions — not even among the ones who experience them. ]

I didnt even believe in the biblical concept of "visions" until I had one.. My vision had no language at all only images in my mind, while fully awake.. But the image(s) were worth many thousands of words.. each.. Actually I've had three visions.. All different but all with no words.. only images.. I'm open that others can visions of another character than mine.. My visions keep me fairly sane in an insane world.. Could be visions are "for us" to strengthen our faith.. or "a peek" at what we cannot "see".. in some respect..

Could be that's what NDE's are too.. a form of encouragement.. or gift from the other realm.. or even an answer to prayer like mine was.. an answer to questions asked in prayer.. Call them Near LIFE experiences(NLE)... LoL.. I've had 3 NLE's.. which have made me wealthy in a spiritual sense.. Answered many questions of mine.. and made my faith full and robust.. Leading me to anticipate life here or there (wherever there is)..

My last vision was what is heaven and hell going to be like.. I think we shared that one in past discussions.. Visions are so cool.. Is God Kool or WHAT?...

[Quix]

Actually, I forget who did the research . . .

HOWEVER, NDE visits to hell are fairly common

IF—A BIG IF—

IF SOMEONE ASKS QUESTIONS

IMMEDIATELY UPON RESUCITATION.

OTHERWISE,

THE EXPERIENCE IS SO HORRIBLY TRAUMATIC THE PERSON EVIDENTLY REPRESSES IT SUCCESSFULLY.

I think it was Dr Eby sp? who was an atheist MD . . . died 11 times!!! in the hospital. Every time he’d come around, he was

SCREAMING—I’M IN HELL—GET ME OUT OF HERE—GET ME OUT OF HERE!

Finally, in desperation, the attending MD remembering something from Sunday School in exasperation said

‘OH, PRAY TO JESUS AND SHUT UP!’

Dr Eby did and became a believer, was saved and lived many more years with his testimony.

[Quix]

LIKEWISE.

THANKS THANKS.

[spunkets]

"And this "testimony" of Eloi Cole, "a strangely dressed young man" who time travels in his spare time, has relevance to our discussion of NDEs — HOW?"

It's testimony. Are you saying that you only accept some testimony, where the particulars support some preferred claim? This guy Cole risked all out death, not just near death!

"Especially when Eloi's "testimony" has nothing to do with the problems engaged by the testimonies of such as John of the Cross, or Theresa of Avila?"

I don't see a free unlimited supply of Kit-Kats as being problematic. Nevertheless, I see the creativness of a wandering inventive mind.

"You are screening out evidence here — Eloi's, John's, and Theresa's alike."

Yep. The "evidence" is testimony htat conflicts with reality.

"If you're not doing this for personal jollies, why on earth are you doing it?"

Jollies-yeah that's it! Anyone that challenges the value of testimonials as valid evidence is after jollies? Standing up for truth and putting pure testimony about other worlds, that conflicts with reality, in it's proper place as fiction is important.

[wmfights]

I find it interesting that when scientists talk about the search for life in space and extra-terrestrials, everyone takes them seriously, including themselves. When Christians talk about angels and demons, those same scientists (and evos) scoff and mock.

I think this is the result of several different things. Scientists are like most people and want to be accepted and respected by the group they are a part of. Today the orthodox position is science explains everything and religion is for superstitious fools. The other factor is dissent is frowned on by the group and tenured positions are under the control of the the orthodox group.

What's interesting though is most major breakthroughs come from the outliers of the dominant orthodox group. The best example is Einstein. He couldn't get a teaching position at any university and was working as a patent clerk when he wrote his Theory of Relativity.

[kosta50]

It's been amusing to read these anonymous testimonies, thanks mainly to your unsolicited pings.

I think spunkets' reply in #36 speaks volumes, and there are volumes on the subject of the so-called NDEs, but I will not get mired in another pinhead debate that is equivalent to discussing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

Speaking of angels you write "Also unlike angels — who seemingly are programmed to unfailingly execute God's Will without a second thought, as it were — ensouled humans have been granted free will?

Well, in that case, Satan was not an angel because noëtic creatures that are "programmed to unfailingly execute God's will without a second thought" would be incapable of rebellion against God!

And last time I checked, as the story goes, Satan did exactly that — rebel against God all on his own! Not only that, but he was followed by no less than one third of the angelic hosts all on their own will!

How can angles who are "programmed to unfailingly execute God's will without a second thought" rebel against God in such numbers and not have free will???

The very Church to which you claim you belong (and preusmably share her beliefs) teaches that angels have a free will just as we do.

"Before He created Man, God created the Angels. He gave them intellect and free will also. He created them to share with Him the joy of Heaven and so invited them to choose to do so."

Otherwise how can angles also be saints! Sometimes I really don't know where you are pulling youir beliefs from, but they sure seem to be the exact opposite of the teachings of the Church you claim as your own.

In Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas writes:

"Augustine says (De Trin. x, 11,12) that the image of the Trinity is found in the soul according to memory, understanding, and will. But God's image is found not only in the soul of man, but also in the angelic mind, since it also is capable of knowing God. Therefore there is will in the angels..."

"Free-will is part of man's dignity. But the angels' dignity surpasses that of men. Therefore, since free-will is in men, with much more reason is it in the angels." [Summa Theologica, Question 59] "

[kosta50]

Nevertheless, I see the creativness of a wandering inventive mind.

People hallucinate. When they begin to believe their hallucinations they create delusional beliefs in the magical world that doesn't exist except, apparently, in their heads.

Standing up for truth and putting pure testimony about other worlds, that conflicts with reality, in it's proper place as fiction is important.

Absolutely. Otherwise we will operate in a Harry Potter type of the world.

[little jeremiah]

placemark.

[stfassisi]

“”The very Church to which you claim you belong (and preusmably share her beliefs) teaches that angels have a free will just as we do.””

BB, Kosta is right on this. The Angels certainly have free will.

I suggest reading Aquinas and the late FR John Hardon on this

Excerpted from
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Angelology/Angelology_001.htm

“The existence of angels, their spiritual nature, the fact that there are good and bad angels, the fall of the evil spirits of their own free will, and the role of the devil in bringing about the fall of man are doctrines of the Catholic faith solemnly proclaimed by the Church.”

[stfassisi]

OOPs -Forgot to ping you to post #56

[MarkBsnr]

Also unlike angels — who seemingly are programmed to unfailingly execute God's Will without a second thought, as it were — ensouled humans have been granted free will.

Negative.

Revelation: 1 1 A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman 2 clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2 She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth. 3 3 Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon, 4 with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems. 4 Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. 5 Her child was caught up to God and his throne. 6 The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days. 6 7 7 Then war broke out in heaven; Michael 8 and his angels battled against the dragon. The dragon and its angels fought back, 8 but they did not prevail and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. 9 The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, 9 who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world, was thrown down to earth, and its angels were thrown down with it. 10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: "Now have salvation and power come, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Anointed. For the accuser 10 of our brothers is cast out, who accuses them before our God day and night. 11 They conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; love for life did not deter them from death. 12 Therefore, rejoice, you heavens, and you who dwell in them. But woe to you, earth and sea, for the Devil has come down to you in great fury, for he knows he has but a short time." 13 When the dragon saw that it had been thrown down to the earth, it pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14 But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle, 11 so that she could fly to her place in the desert, where, far from the serpent, she was taken care of for a year, two years, and a half-year. 15 The serpent, 12 however, spewed a torrent of water out of his mouth after the woman to sweep her away with the current. 16 But the earth helped the woman and opened its mouth and swallowed the flood that the dragon spewed out of its mouth. 17 Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus. 13 (18) It took its position 14 on the sand of the sea.

Lucifer rebelled against God. Free will. He took 1/3 of all the angels with him. More free will. These 1/3 of all angels had more than second thoughts. They had the ability to rebel against God in the same way that we can as well.

The entire point of Judgment Day — it seems to me — is the separation of the wheat from the chaff, the gathering in of God's faithful beloved. Those souls who chose another path — e.g., a falling away into the Satanic "gravitational field," so to speak — probably face a pretty serious situation at that point.

That is much more in line with Christian beliefs.

[MarkBsnr]

People hallucinate. When they begin to believe their hallucinations they create delusional beliefs in the magical world that doesn't exist except, apparently, in their heads.

The Book of Mormon is quite a piece of work, should you seek Restoration era fantasy.

[MarkBsnr]

BB, Kosta is right on this. The Angels certainly have free will.

And a good evening to you both. Nice to see you up and about.