Skip to comments.Dinesh D'Souza on Life After Death: The Atheist Delusion
Posted on 02/28/2010 1:53:01 PM PST by NYer
In this provocative essay, Dinesh D'Souza argues that the atheist critique of life after death is actually irrational. He takes on Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and more to say their arguments lack evidence.
Recently I saw atheist Richard Dawkins being interviewed on Bill Maher's television show, and Dawkins declared that he wanted to have his own death videotaped. Asked why he might contemplate such a strange thing, Dawkins replied that he was sure religious believers would spread rumors that he had converted on his deathbed, and he wanted to make sure there was a record to show he did not.
Equally insistent about maintaining his unbelief in the face of death is philosopher Daniel Dennett. A few years ago, Daniel Dennett went in for a serious nine-hour heart operation that could well have been fatal. It was, Dennett admits, a "harrowing experience" which tested his atheism. In an essay published after his recovery, Dennett wrote his atheism emerged quite intact and in some ways strengthened.
Reviewing these episodes, I am intrigued that these two leading atheists seem willing to go to their deaths without taking seriously the possibility of life after death. In other words, they act as if they know that there is no such life. And this is the "knowledge" that Dawkins and Dennett are disseminating in their books and articles. So what do they know that we don't, and how did they come to know it?
The atheist confidence that there is no afterlife is, of course, matched by the religious believer's confidence that there is. Ask a Christian if there is survival beyond the grave and he or she will answer, "Of course there is." Pretty soon you are getting the full details about what such a life will be like in the good place and the bad place. When you demand sources for such a thorough account, you find that they are the familiar ones: The Old Testament, the gospels, the Book of Revelation. When I raised this issue with a member of my church, he pointed to a sticker in the parking lot, "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it."
Evidence of this sort makes atheists apoplectic. In The End of Faith, Sam Harris writes, "Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever."
Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine, wryly comments that no one has ever met a dead guy who came back to report on the afterlife. Lots of people have died, and none have filed reports or presented themselves for television interviews to give us the riveting details about what we can expect on the other side. Shermer's contention is that the believer has no good arguments for asserting that there is life after death. The believer's view is held in the complete absence of evidence. It is an assertion not of reason but of faith.
Shermer makes a good point, but it can easily be turned around. What does the atheist know that the religious believer doesn't? Nothing at all. Atheists haven't interviewed dead people any more than believers have. Nor have any atheists themselves crossed the river in death's boat to discover what lies on the other side. Death remains, as Hamlet tell us, the undiscovered country, and even the ghost tells the young prince, "I am forbid to tell the secrets of my prison house."
The bottom line is that the atheist has no better proof that there isn't life after death than the believer has that there is. Both groups are claiming knowledge that neither group actually possesses. For the atheist, no less than for the believer, it is entirely a matter of faith.
This equivalence between atheism and belief might seem equally damaging to both positions, but in fact it poses a much bigger problem for atheism. First, the faith of the believer at least has a plausible source. That source is divine revelation as expressed in a sacred text. So the believer is trusting in what is held to be an unimpeachable source, namely God. From where, by contrast, does the atheist get his faith? Who or what is the atheist trusting for the determination that there is no afterlife?
To this, the atheist typically replies that he is trusting in reason. Sam Harris writes that the truly rational person makes "the same evidentiary demands in religious matters that we make in all others." Richard Dawkins writes, "I believe not because of reading a holy book but because I have studied the evidence."
In this case, however, Harris and Dawkins have rejected the afterlife on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. How, then, do atheists convince themselves that they know things when they actually don't? The answer, surprisingly enough, has to do with a profound misunderstanding of science. In a famous incident a few decades ago, a group of Soviet cosmonauts returned from a space mission with the triumphant announcement that they had searched and searched but not found God. On this basis the cosmonauts affirmed the Communist doctrine that there is no God. I suppose by the same evidence the cosmonauts could have declared that there is no heaven.
When I mentioned this incident to the atheist writer Christopher Hitchens, he laughed and said, "It's hard to believe those guys were really that naïve." Hitchens understood right away that the Soviets were looking for God in all the wrong places. They were still captive to the medieval picture of heaven "up there" and hell "way down below" and earth somewhere in the middle. But for many centuries now religious believers have asserted that God and heaven can only be found in realms that transcend the universe. Imagine poor Hamlet running around the castle saying, "I've looked everywhere, and I can't find Shakespeare. I'm forced to conclude that Shakespeare does not exist."
In his book God: The Failed Hypothesis, physicist Victor Stenger writes that the issue of life after death is a scientific question. The problem, however, is that "no claimed connection with a hereafter has ever been verified in controlled scientific experiments." Biologist Francis Crick writes that if religious believers "really believe in a life after death, why do they not conduct sound experiments to establish it?"
The answer to Crick's question is that most religious believers probably don't care whether their belief in the afterlife meets scientific tests; they don't believe in it on that basis. As practicing scientists, one might have expected that Crick or Stenger would suggest some experiments that could help decide the issue. If the claim that "there is life after death" is a scientific hypothesis, then it seems reckless to reject it without even attempting an empirical refutation. Even so Crick and Stenger do reject it, causing me to wonder if these gentlemen routinely adopt opinions in the absence of facts.
Such a criticism is a bit unfair, however, because as many atheists realize, there are no controlled empirical experiments that can resolve the issue one way or the other. Consequently atheists seek to affirm the rationality of their position by taking a different route. They appeal to an argument offered in the late nineteenth century by William Clifford. In a famous essay, "The Ethics of Belief," Clifford argued that "it is wrong, always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."
Clifford offered the example of a ship-owner ship putting a ship to sea without performing the necessary safety checks; he wished the passengers well, but when the ship sank, he calmly collected the insurance money. The ship owner had no regrets, since he didn't know the ship was unsafe. Clifford's point is that the man was a scoundrel. He should have known! He had no right to declare the ship seaworthy without collecting all the evidence. Clifford's conclusion is that we should believe as true only propositions that come with sufficient proof; we should reject as false those that don't. This position can be summed up in the popular atheist slogan, "The absence of evidence is evidence of absence."
Clifford's principle seems praiseworthy for its heroic attachment to truth, but nevertheless there is something deeply wrong with it. Specifically, it confuses "what is known by a given person under the circumstances" with "what is or is not the case." Imagine a fellow living in ancient Greece in the fifth century B.C. As far as he can determine, using all the experience and evidence at his disposal, there are only three continents on the planet, no other planets in the galaxy, and only a handful of stars in the universe. What does this tell us about the actual number of continents, planets or stars in existence? Absolutely nothing. It only tells us that ancient Greeks had very limited information at their disposal.
As a second example, consider efforts on the part of contemporary scientists to find out if there is life on other planets. So far scientists have found nothing. Should we all, therefore, refuse to believe that there is life on other planets on the grounds that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Clearly this is premature. The absence of evidence may indicate only that we haven't figured out how to locate what we are looking for. "Not found" is not the same thing as "found not to exist."
These examples show the limitations of the "absence of evidence" principle, but the issue of life after death poses an even deeper problem. To see this, let me offer an analogy between life after death and having a large sum of money in a Swiss bank account. Imagine if I asked you whether or not I have such an account. You declare your firm belief that I do not. As evidence, you cite the fact that you have never seen me go the bank. Moreover, you have observed me shopping and notice that as I spend money my wallet gets thinner. You infer that at some point my wallet will be empty and I will be broke. So clearly I don't have a bank account.
Then I ask you, do you have access to the bank's internal records? You do not. Have you ever been to the bank? You have not; in fact, you have never been to Switzerland. Have you organized 24 hour surveillance of the bank in question so that if I did go there, you would be notified? Of course not. Obviously we can conclude from these facts that you have arrived at a most unreasonable conclusion. In reality you have far too little information to decide one way or another whether I have a bank account. And this is precisely the situation facing the atheist with regard to the afterlife. On the basis of the available facts, not only does the atheist not know what happens after death, he cannot possibly know. The absence of evidence is evidence of nothing.
So what do atheists have to say about all this? Basically, they say that to give up reason and evidence, even in situations which seem outside the bounds of reason and evidence, is to open the door to all kinds of craziness. Should we start believing in unicorns and centaurs on the grounds that there is no way to disprove them? The philosopher Bertrand Russell gave the example of a celestial teapot that is said to rove the solar system but is undetectable by all scientific instruments. Should we believe in such an absurdity simply because it cannot be refuted?
With some glee, Richard Dawkins invokes the example of an invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster that controls the operations of the universe. These way-out examples can't be disproved, Dawkins writes, "yet nobody thinks the hypothesis of their existence is on an even footing with the hypothesis of their non-existence." In other words, the odds in favor aren't the same as the odds against.
A little scrutiny of these examples will quickly show that the craziness here is entirely on the part of the atheists. We have combed the earth without locating a single unicorn, so we seem justified in rejecting unicorns. Centaurs are believed by scientists to be biologically impossible. In these two cases, the odds are clearly against. Celestial teapots are also very unlikely, as are Flying Spaghetti Monsters, but our derision is prejudicially solicited by the particular examples chosen. Teapots do not fly, and pasta is an unlikely ingredient to produce flying monsters.
On the other hand, if we modify the examples slightly to involve matter and energy that is undetectable by scientific instruments and yet is presumed to exist in order to account for the motions of the galaxies, we have just described "dark matter" and "dark energy," widely accepted by scientists today. Here the odds are heavily in favor, even if the phenomena in question are strange and not well understood.
I agree with Russell and Dawkins that even when propositions seem outside the bounds of verifiability, there is no cause to give up reason; I am merely arguing that we should be constantly aware of what reason does, and doesn't, tell us in a given situation. Moreover, there may be things that are outside experience that have features different from what is within our experience, and we should be open to such possibilities and not dismissive of them in advance.
Consider the possibility of aliens that exist in some galaxy far away. Is there anything we can say about them that would automatically count as absurd? For instance, can we reject out of hand the possibility that the aliens each have 10 eyes? No. Can we dismiss the suggestion that they weigh less than a speck of dust, or more than a skyscraper? No. Can we laugh out of court the idea that they don't have hearts, or that they communicate by telepathy, or that they sustain themselves by consuming metal? In each case, no.
So the bottom line is that there is nothing about the possibility of aliens that is prospectively out of bounds; we simply have no idea about what aliens, if they exist, might be like. Perhaps there is even one that looks like a Flying Sphagetti Monster! If atheists wrote about life on other planets in the way that they write about religious claims, their derision would be immediately seen for the ignorant prejudice that it is.
Atheists like to think of themselves as the party of reason, advancing views that are based only on facts and evidence. Here we see that when it comes to life after death, the atheist claim to knowledge constitutes a kind of false advertising. In reality, the atheist is in the same position of ignorance as the believer. Yet the religious believer doesn't claim to be a champion of reason and is content to hold his position based on faith. The atheist is a victim of what may be called the "Dawkins Delusion": he too holds a faith-based position while deceiving himself into thinking that his rejection of life after death is wholly based on the evidence.
In all his previous books, Dinesh D'Souza has typically challenged long-held assumptions in order to find, or get closer, to the truth. "Life After Death: The Evidence," however, examines a question most of us ask ourselves and one which all of us should be asking: what comes after we "die"? And by using this method, he helps us question how we may get closer to the truth about life and mortality, which leads logically to the question of immortality. Atheists frothing at the mouth to belittle a book based on faith in God and immortality (hey Boston College - why not release the debate tape between Alan Wolfe and D'Souza if Wolfe is as bright as he claims?) rushed in typical fashion to write simple-minded reviews blasting this book for doing what D'Souza does best: tackle tough questions that atheists cannot answer. But D'Souza confuses the nonbelievers in his new book by providing evidence for life after death by employing the scientific method - the same logic atheists claim eliminates any possibility of an afterlife. What do we "know"? We are "born," we hopefully live a fruitful life, and we "die." What happened before we were "born"? What happens after we "die"? D'Souza is one of the best analysts of qualitative and quantitative data and a first-rate researcher and author, and "Life After Death" is a gift to all of us. If we value our lives and those of others, there are no other issues more important than the one D'Souza brings to life in his new book. As usual, is it clearly written and logical. Buy this book and re-think your life. Then re-think your afterlife. This book belongs on everyone's bookshelf.
D’Souza’s “Illiberal Education” from around 91 is a masterpiece.
The mistake people make is thinking that Jesus was the first and/or the only person ever to be heard from after death under believable circumstances. In fact he was the last and it had been a long time since it had happened at the time, nonetheless there are other believable accounts e.g.
SA1 28:6 And when Saul enquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.
SA1 28:7 Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her. And his servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Endor.
SA1 28:8 And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me him up, whom I shall name unto thee.
SA1 28:9 And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die?
SA1 28:10 And Saul sware to her by the LORD, saying, As the LORD liveth, there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing.
SA1 28:11 Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, Bring me up Samuel.
SA1 28:12 And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice: and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul.
SA1 28:13 And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.
SA1 28:14 And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself.
SA1 28:15 And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do.
SA1 28:16 Then said Samuel, Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing the LORD is departed from thee, and is become thine enemy?
SA1 28:17 And the LORD hath done to him, as he spake by me: for the LORD hath rent the kingdom out of thine hand, and given it to thy neighbour, even to David:
SA1 28:18 Because thou obeyedst not the voice of the LORD, nor executedst his fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore hath the LORD done this thing unto thee this day.
It always boils down to this:
Incredible claims require incredible evidence.
This goes for everyone and everything.
Yeah but the Atheists have one problem that I and other Christians don’t have!
What if WE are right?
"All dressed up and nowhere to go"
The argument for that takes the form ranging from, if they were right, then everyone else has lived their only lives on an empty lie, to asking what if Buddhists were right, what if Muslims were right, what if Jews were right, etc.
All this affirms one thing- faith is what is the key.
Requiring incredible evidence, is a sign of wavering faith.
That's kind of an interesting statement since the Bible doesn't give full details about either place. I know some things but most has just not yet been revealed. I do know I want to go to the former and avoid the latter.
Christians can do just that. The atheists? Nothing.
If everyone reading this doesn't send me a dollar, you are all going to have a terrible accident tomorrow. I have special powers and can see this.
Sure, I could be wrong. But what if I'm not? It's only a dollar.
The irony here is that if I’m wrong, I’ll never know it. If they’re wrong, they will have all of eternity to regret it.
A month ago I read his book, “Life After Death: The Evidence” and found it profound and thought-provoking. It is one of the best books I’ve ever read.
Mr. D’Souza regularly debates atheists in public forums. I’ll bet the latter come out looking quite foolish...and shallow.
He refers to it as "christian martial arts" :-0
This only works if someone believes the testimony of the Scriptures. As a Christian, I believe it, but this will not convince an atheist.
The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.
It is appointed onto man once to die, but after this the judgement.
I have a feeling that within a nanosecond after Dawkins, Dennett or Maher passes from this life, they will be a true believers in life after death. Unfortunately they will spend eternity in torment and in hell, separated forever from God.
On the contrary, atheists are fully prepared for someone to shoot them scriptural citations. In a recently televised interview, Dinesh explained that christians need to meet atheists on their ground, by citing the empirical evidence of near death experiences. These are scientific studies that detail similar and repetitious details of seeing a bright light, dead relatives, a tunnel, etc. This, they cannot refute.
The proof for the early church of the reality of Christ that this was a recent event with multiple eye witnesses, and no dead body, but encounters with the risen Christ. But the most powerful evidence was and is empirical, outright miracles as well effects that testify to a specific cause.
That is, those who, with a broken heart and contrite spirit (Ps. 34:18) turn in their hearts to Christ from sin, and cast all their faith in Him (who died for their sins and rose again) realize effects that correspond to the Object of their faith, and are contingent upon them.
I believe if someone went to a growing evangelical, fundamental type church, and asked the Pastor for a list of people to interview. Find out what their hearts and lives were like before and after their conversion, and the manner in which it came about. Then interview those who knew them in their B.C days and after. What they can find is effects that overall cannot simply be attributed to psychological causes, etc. Along that line, a good documentary is: A Venture in Faith (History of Calvary Chapel)http://www.ccsaintpaul.org/ministries/servantsclass/A_VENTURE_IN_FAITH.wmv
http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/Amazing/ (various amazing testimonies)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3682855866783766146 (Glimpse of Eternity with Ian McCormack: stung by box jellyfish)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4136610474021109864 (Dr Maurice Rawlings - NDE Interviews: To Hell and Back; including an atheist)
http://net-burst.net/hot/ Issues That Make Christians Squirm!
http://www.epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=45&mode=detail (Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?)
Thank you, Wendy, for the scriptural quotes, but you missed the point of the article. The atheist is ready to respond to scripture. He is not prepared, however, for actual scientific data in support of near death experiences. That is where you have them on unfamiliar territory.
Requiring incredible evidence is a sign of wavering faith, but Biblical faith is not one that has no evidence, but like getting marriage, salvific faith is a step based upon evidence sufficient to warrant it. Abraham did not become a convert thru Baker’s Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, useful as that can be, and the miraculous changes which result when a soul becomes born again and continues in the faith testify to a cause which upon close examination overall can defy known natural explanations. Rational souls do not write thousands of hymns about Jesus because they are imagining things, and radical changes in heart that where sought in vain, but resulted when a soul simply prayed a contrite prayer to Jesus, ought to make an unbeliever at least be open to the possibility of God.
As for NDE’s, there is much research by secularists that make it very hard to deny life after death, at the least. I think these links still work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I9-XxBAEsQ (BBC - The day I died)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6547221602055506348&q=mickey+robinson&total=57&start=0&num=50&so=0&type=search&plindex=1 ( mickey robinson air crash to Christ)
Thanks for the links, but I do not put much trust in NDE testimonials because the NDE descriptions from other faiths testifying its own beliefs, are available, too. Same with the hymns and poetry.
Like I said earlier, seeking evidence is an indication of wavering faith.
“Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever.”
There is much truth to this statement. The thought of being tormented for eternity is a powerful motivator to blind obedience. In reasonable moments one thinks of hell sa remnant of tales told in ancient times by primitive people who feared everthing they did not understand. Oh yes! The boogey man “boogey man” will get you if you don’t say your prayers or do your chores. The idea of hell is at once preposterous, frightening and antithetic to justice tempered with merch.
But then the atheist idea of death being nothingness is very scary for some. But why? Actually you can’t experience “nothing” if you are not alive. Nothing = non-existence. Before you were conceived did you feel anything? Fear, joy, boredom? No there was no “you” to have feelings. You did not exist. You were oblivious. The atheists asserts that death is the same oblivion. Not so bad when you think about it.
Then there is heaven. Something to be really excited about. But I wonder if an ETERNITY of anything good or bad might be torture. I mean eternity is a long time, especially toward the end. An eternity of bliss and love, sorry it just does not do it for some people. I would rather have ups and downs and interesting things to do and not just sit around all day filled with love and joy. It sounds boring.
If there is nothing after this life, then why should one do what is not in one’s own best interest? There is no good or evil because those concepts are just inventions by men used to manipulate the people to act in a certain way.
The worst atheists, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, etc., really believed it and thus were not personally constrained by morals and ethics.
It is true that people from other faiths have NEDs, but that still testifies to the supernatural, and even witchcraft does that. Then they issue becomes which one is the right one. Moses 1st 3 miracles were duplicated by the devil (magicians), but he outdid them.
As for seeking evidence being an indication of wavering faith, that is true except sometimes when prayerfully seeking direction, but faith that has no evidence has no reality. The born again church did not grow to be what is (in the positive sense) because of good business strategy, or centralized CC, etc., or provides religious ritual, but most essentially because life giving truth and faith results in evidence.
I think the (sober) “Venture in faith” documentary (download) and many written testimonies are modern examples of what I am talking about, without asserting perfection. But every generation much have living Biblical faith, and share and maintain it.
And despite my faults and failures of faith, i can well testify that God keeps his promises as we trust and obey, and is also faithful to keep His promise to let you know when you are straying from that path.
He was born, he lived, he died, and now he’s compost.
Good luck with that. Atheists that think this life turns to nothingness must ask themselves why they believe in love, in right and wrong, in justice, in fairness, because if there’s no real meaning to life and we’re all a cosmic accident, none of that means anything because all of it just boils down to your opinion and everything is just relative and therefore meaningless in the end.
Most of us believe this life isn’t meaningless and that the things that count are not relative or subjective.
Forgot the hymns. While I do not know of any comparative research, I really think that the abundance of hymns by evangelicals, while being a minority, are unmatched in amount (per capita) and kind of content. Blind Fanny Crosby wrote 8,000, and others wrote thousands, testifying of what Christ did in their soul and the realities of the Christian faith.
You make an extremely astute statement: Eternity is forever. As mortals with a beginning and an end, we cannot comprehend that. So, once again, we turn to scripture for a better understanding.
But as it is written: "What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and what has not entered the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love him,"
1 Corinthians 2:9
So, what do we know? We know from those who have had a near death experience that they did not want to come back.
There can be no moral absolutes for atheists, no absolute measure of or authority for “good” and “evil”. As you have pointed out morality and ethics are determined by consensus.
You said, “But then the atheist idea of death being nothingness is very scary for some. But why? Actually you cant experience nothing if you are not alive. Nothing = non-existence. Before you were conceived did you feel anything? Fear, joy, boredom? No there was no you to have feelings. You did not exist. You were oblivious. The atheists asserts that death is the same oblivion. Not so bad when you think about it.”
The “peace” of nothingness. A billion years and a nanosecond, should feel the same, according to that.
Everything follows after that.
Not only. But despite the symphony of angry-at-God men like Dawkins, Harris and Hitches who espouse a superior basis for morality than those dangerous Christians who are may blow up the world, what assurance can relying on the “golden compass” of man provide when it so easily points south (or left)? That is the same moral reasoning the atheists as Mao and Pol Pot used in doing what seemed pragmatically reasonable to them, and the political religion the atheism fosters. Many atheists favor removing children from the homes of evangelicals, even likening them to drug users.
Meanwhile the atrocities (Inquisitions, etc.) they blame Christianity for were contrary to the Bible, and its influence has helped build strong societies, which they benefit from.
This is an ignorance comparison, and supposes that Christian faith rests on just words. It does rest on the Bible, but the reason the Bible became the Bible was ultimately believing its words and its gospel result in life. I was raised devoutly religious (RC) but had no interest in what the Bible said or meant until after i became born again, and then my hunger to know what it meant became nigh insatiable, and this was not because i was in some cult of strong church, much less in the “Bible belt”, but it was really the Lord and me - a truck driver with a radio tuned to the Christian station.
Read the Gospel story of Lazarus the beggar (LK 16,19-31) when Abraham addresses the rich man who is in torment, pleading to return to life to warn his family members about life after death. Abraham tells the rich man that even if his wish to return is granted, the living will not believe him. Maybe that is why nobody returns.
“What if WE are right?”
“If” connotes supposition or uncertain possibility. You have doubt.
“So, what do we know? We know from those who have had a near death experience that they did not want to come back. “
Yes interesting but how “near” was death? And are you sure no one wanted to come back? No one?
So you say the bible says heaven is just wonderful and we in our finite human capacity can’t begin to imagine it. But trust what the bible says of heaven is true. Sorry it just does not move me. If the bible says heaven is great, okay fine, but I am in no way in a hurry to get there and nothing said by the bible about heaven has ever changed that.
This is an ignorance comparison, and supposes that Christian faith rests on just words. It does rest on the Bible, but the reason the Bible became the Bible was ultimately believing its words and its gospel result in life. I was raised devoutly religious (RC) but had no interest in what the Bible said or meant until after i became born again, and then my hunger to know what it meant became nigh insatiable, and this was not because i was in some cult of strong church, much less in the Bible belt, but it was really the Lord and me - a truck driver with a radio tuned to the Christian station.”
Well I can tell you without hesitation that I am not ignorant of the bible. I was raised RC too and I learned plenty about the bible. Now this born again experience you are talking about I am somewhat skeptical of. Here’s why. It’s emotions. You feel all emotional inside and you answer the altar call. Or you feel repentance or whatever strong emotion with regard to Jesus.
I don’t trust emotions. They come and go and they are sometimes phony. So many people say, I was a Catholic but then I was born again and I “felt” such peace and now I have a personal relationship with Jesus. Let me say this there is nothing in the NT that says you have to “feel” certain emotions to become Christian. There is nothing that says you have to have a personal relationship with Jesus. This is not to say that Catholics are not emotional in the practice of their faith. Very many are. But you don’t have to be. A very dry faith is perfectly acceptable and sometimes it is even better because you are not needing emotional consolation all the time.
I don’t trust emotions. I trust logic and reason and what makes sense.
“Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine, wryly comments that no one has ever met a dead guy who came back to report on the afterlife.”
But, there is a dead guy who came back to report on the afterlife. That’s the point here. The point is not that Christians insist that they believe on their position without evidence, the point is that atheists reject evidence which doesn’t fit their preconceived notions.
I was an agnostic. However, the question has to be, if scripture is correct, and the account of Christ dying and coming back to life is correct, then the choice is simply to believe. That’s it.
But wait I was speaking of oblivion and you just brought emotions “peace” and time “billon” into the equation.
Before you were conceived there was no you and you had not entered into this world and hence there was no time to experience. So if there is no life after death there is only oblivion and really what is so bad about it? There is nothing to be afraid of if death is oblivion and why is not one life well lived enough? Why do people think life has to be eternal? And eternal bliss at that? Why is not virtue it's own reward? Why do you need a reward for doing good? If doing the right thing meant you had to go to hell would you still do the right thing>
Just one anecdote.
I’ve been at the bedside of many people dying in almost 30 years of nursing.
The only one I ever saw sit up and open their eyes to die was a professed atheist.
Wasn’t a sudden death either as what comes in a cardiac event.. He was comatose and expected to go as his liver shut down .
Bingo. We have ample historical evidence of what a world without Christian morality looks like. It is deadly and evil.
“I was an agnostic. However, the question has to be, if scripture is correct, and the account of Christ dying and coming back to life is correct, then the choice is simply to believe. Thats it.”
Yeah but what’s so great about eternal life? And what is so terrible about death followed by oblivion that one must be afraid of it? See the problem is if death were merely oblivion then eternal life does not seem quite so mean an alternative. According to scripture and many other religions there’s only two places you can end up. Eternal bliss or eternal torture. Let’s face it, fear is a motivator to faith. Fear of eternal torture if one does not surrender and believe. Do you want your spouse to marry you and love you because you will torture her if she does not? No! You would be a sick puppy if you hung that threat over her head! There’s something wrong with God if he has to threaten us with eternal torture to get our love and obedience. There can’t be anything wrong with God, he is perfect. Therefor there is either no God or we have him all wrong and he does not have a heaven or a hell prepared for us. When we die he just sends of back to the void of oblivion where we came from.
I think the biggest detriment to belif is the concept of hell. No loving God would send a person to an eternal torture chamber no matter what that person has done. The concept of hell has to go. And why eternal bliss? Why not live a good virtuous life as a reward in itself and let that be enough?? What’s wrong with that? And let the law, imperfect as it is take care of evil doers in this life? There does not have to be perfect justice in an afterlife where everyone gets what’s coming to them. The essence of virtue just might be accepting that many wrongs will never be redressed in this life or the next and neither will all virture be rewarded.
“Bingo. We have ample historical evidence of what a world without Christian morality looks like. It is deadly and evil.”
But Buddists are moral too. Many, many atheists are very moral. Humanity is mostly moral or has been to this point or we would have wiped ourselves out by now.
There just does not have to be a promise of an eternal life of bliss to give you strength or motivation to live happily and with charity to all mankind. I am sure there are a lot of happy, content atheists.
There just does not have to be a promise of an eternal life of bliss to give you strength or motivation to live happily and with charity to all mankind.
Just sharing this clever story:
Dr. Schambaugh, of the University of Oklahoma School of Chemical Engineering, Final Exam question for May of 1997. Dr. Schambaugh is known for asking questions such as, “why do airplanes fly?” on his final exams. His one and only final exam question in May 1997 for his Momentum, Heat and Mass Transfer II class was: “Is hell exothermic or endothermic? Support your answer with proof.”
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle’s Law or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:
“First, We postulate that if souls exist, then they must have some mass. If they do, then a mole of souls can also have a mass. So, at what rate are souls moving into hell and at what rate are souls leaving? I think we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, it will not leave.
Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for souls entering hell, let’s look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, then you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and souls go to hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in hell to increase exponentially.
Now, we look at the rate of change in volume in hell. Boyle’s Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay the same, the ratio of the mass of souls and volume needs to stay constant. Two options exist:
1. If hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure in hell will increase until all hell breaks loose.
2. If hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until hell freezes over.
So which is it? If we accept the quote given to me by Theresa Manyan during Freshman year, “that it will be a cold night in hell before I sleep with you” and take into account the fact that I still have NOT succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then Option 2 cannot be true...Thus, hell is exothermic.”
The student, Tim Graham, got the only A.
I do not believe Richard Dawkins exists. I have seen no proof of it apart from second, third, or even twelfth-hand accounts. He’s an illusion, and a sad and shameful one at that. He has no existence, no reality whatsoever.
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.