Life after Death

Pocket Handbook of Christian ApologeticsChapter 11

Peter Kreeft & Ronald Tacelli

The Six Basic Theories of the Afterlife

Materialism: Nothing survives. Death ends all of me. Seldom held before the eighteenth century, materialism is now a strong minority view in industrialized nations. It is the natural accompaniment of atheism.

Paganism: A vague, shadowy semiself or ghost survives and goes to the place of the dead, the dark, gloomy Underworld. This is the standard pagan belief. Traces of it can be found even in the OT Jewish notion of sheol. The "ghost" that survives is less alive, less substantial, less real than the flesh and blood organism now living. It is something like a "ghost image" on a TV set: a pale copy of the lost original.

SHEOL—in OT thought, the abode of the dead. Sheol is the Hebrew = of the Greek hades, which means “the unseen world.”Sheol was regarded as an underground region (Num. 16:30, 33; Amos 9:2), shadowy and gloomy, where disembodied souls had a conscious but dull and inactive existence (2 Sam. 22:6; Eccl. 9:10). The Hebrews regarded sheol as a place to which both the righteous and unrighteous went at death (Gen. 37:35; Ps. 9:17; Is. 38:10), where punishment is received and rewards are enjoyed. Sheol is pictured as having an insatiable appetite (Is. 5:14; Hab. 2:5).

However, God is present in sheol (Ps. 139:8; hell, nkjv). It is open and known to Him (Job 26:6; Prov. 15:11). This suggests that in death God’s people remain under His care, and the wicked never escape His judgment. It is apparent that Jesus emptied that portion of sheol where the righteous were waiting until redemption’s completion (Luke 23:43). Sheol gives meaning to Psalm 16:10.

Reincarnation: The individual soul survives and is reincarnated into another body. Reincarnation is usually connected with the next belief, pantheism, by the notion of karma: that after the soul has fulfilled its destiny, and learned its lessons and become sufficiently enlightened, it reverts to a divine status or is absorbed into (or realizes its timeless identity with) the divine All.

Pantheism: Death changes nothing, for what survives death is the same as what was real before death: only the one, changeless, eternal, perfect, spiritual, divine, all-inclusive Reality, sometimes called by a name ("Brahman") and sometimes not (as in Buddhism). In this view—that of Eastern mysticism—all separateness, including time, is an illusion. Therefore, in this view, the very question of what happens after death is mistaken. The question is not solved but dissolved.

Immortality of the soul: The individual soul survives death, but not the body. This soul eventually reaches its eternal destiny of heaven or hell, perhaps through intermediate stages, perhaps through reincarnation. But what survives is an individual, bodiless spirit. This is Platonism, often confused with Christianity.

Resurrection: At death, the soul separates from the body and is reunited at the end of the world to its new, immortal, resurrected body by a divine miracle. This is the Christian view. This view, the supernatural resurrection of the body rather than the natural immortality of the soul alone, is the only version of life after death in Scripture. It is dimly prophesied and hoped for in the OT, but clearly revealed in the New.

Resurrection: At death, the soul separates from the body and is reunited at the end of the world to its new, immortal, resurrected body by a divine miracle. This is the Christian view. This view, the supernatural resurrection of the body rather than the natural immortality of the soul alone, is the only version of life after death in Scripture. It is dimly prophesied and hoped for in the OT, but clearly revealed in the New.

The last two arguments - immortality of the soul and resurrection - both argue that the soul survives death - it is this point that Kreeft tries to prove.

The argument from the soul’s simplicity

Major Premise: what is not composed cannot be decomposed. A molecule can be split up into its atoms, cells into molecules, an organ into cells, a body into organs, a person into body and soul. What is not composed of parts cannot be taken apart.

Minor Premise: the soul is not composed of parts - it has no quantifiable parts as the body does - you can’t cut a soul in half.Conclusion: therefore the soul is not decomposable. There are only 2 ways of being destroyed - decomposed into parts or annihilation - nothing simply pops out of existence, so if the soul does not die in parts (decompose) or is annihilated as a whole - then the soul does not die.

The argument from the soul’s ability to objectify the body

Major Premise: if there is a power of the soul that cannot come from the body, this indicates that the soul is not part of the body. That in turn indicates it is not subject to any laws governing the body, including mortality.

The argument from the soul’s ability to objectify the body

Major Premise: if there is a power of the soul that cannot come from the body, this indicates that the soul is not part of the body. That in turn indicates it is not subject to any laws governing the body, including mortality.

objectify |əbˈjektəˌfī|verb• degrade to the status of a mere object

The argument from the soul’s ability to objectify the body

Major Premise: if there is a power of the soul that cannot come from the body, this indicates that the soul is not part of the body. That in turn indicates it is not subject to any laws governing the body, including mortality.

Minor premise: I can know my body as an object only because I am more than my body. E.g. I know a stone as an object only because I am merely a stone - the data projector can show images because it is not merely one more image - I can remember my past because I am more than my past: I am a present knower. The knowing subject must be more than the known object.Conclusion: therefore the soul is not subject to the body’s mortality.

The argument from two immaterial operations

Major Premise: if I perform operations which are not operations of my material body, then I am more than my body. I am an immaterial soul - which need not die when my body dies.

Minor premise: 1. Thinking as distinct from external sensing or internal sensing (imagining)Proof: our thought is not simply limited to images like the Taj Mahal, but we can understand abstract, immaterial principles and essences - like trigonometry, we can imagine the difference between a 3 and 4 sided figure but only understand the difference between an 103 and 104 sided figure. So our understanding transcends our imagining.

2. Deliberate, rational, responsible willing, as distinct from instinctive liking, desiring or feeling.Proof: if willing is only instinctive desiring then:A. We could not control our desires or will and none of us would be responsible for our choices.B. If there was only instinct in us and not will then the strongest instinct would always win - this is not the case, e.g. when fear is over-ridden by compassion.Conclusion: I am an immaterial and immortal soul

The antimaterialist self-contradiction argument

Major Premise: a computer is not reliable if it has been programmed by chance (e.g. throw stones at the keyboard) not be design. The human brain and nervous system are a computer (and much more) but it is not reliable if programmed by chance.

If materialism is true then the soul is just the brain - there is no spirit, no soul and no God - then the programming of the brain is by chance through genetics and environment and this is therefore by unintelligent, undesigned, random chance - brute forces and physical reasons no logic to it.

On this basis materialism cannot be true - if the brain is nothing but blind atoms then why should we trust what it tells us about itself? If it is just atoms why listen to what atoms tell us about atoms?If materialism is not true then there is an immaterial reality too - called spirit, soul etc. - this is not subject to the laws of material reality including mortality

The argument from ultimate justice

Justice is often not done in the short term on earth, so either,1. Justice is done in the long run, which would include life after death,2. The demand we make for moral meaning and justice are not met by reality and are just a “quirk” of the human psyche - in which case there is no cause for our desire for justice or morality

So a desire for justice is only the same as any other physical desire, for food etc. It does not reveal anything of how things should be, it simply tells us how things are.The price here of denying life after death is that of moral seriousness - stop believing that morality has a place in objective reality and it becomes a set of feelings and wishes, a private desire - there is then no need to obey such when it is personally inconvenient.

So a desire for justice is only the same as any other physical desire, for food etc. It does not reveal anything of how things should be, it simply tells us how things are.The price here of denying life after death is that of moral seriousness - stop believing that morality has a place in objective reality and it becomes a set of feelings and wishes, a private desire - there is then no need to obey such when it is personally inconvenient.

“If there is no immortality, everything is

permitted”Dostoevsky

Pascal’s wager

Before we looked at this as an incentive to believe in God - it is not a proof - but it can also be used as an idea for believing in life after death.Sceptical people tend to favour arguments which show we don’t know something - e.g. arguing against abortion on the basis that you don’t know a fetus isn’t a baby.

Pascal’s wager

Before we looked at this as an incentive to believe in God - it is not a proof - but it can also be used as an idea for believing in life after death.Sceptical people tend to favour arguments which show we don’t know something - e.g. arguing against abortion on the basis that you don’t know a fetus isn’t a baby.

The wager argument doesn’t prove life after death just suggests it is sensible to believe in it.Mk 16:16 - is it false, or is it true? Isn’t it foolish to ignore if it is true - after all remember Mk 8:36

Pascal’s wager

The wager argument doesn’t prove life after death just suggests it is sensible to believe in it.Mk 16:16 - is it false, or is it true? Isn’t it foolish to ignore if it is true - after all remember Mk 8:36

Pascal’s Wager

This is a different type of argument - and is not a proof for the existence of God but a help for searching for God in the absence of such proof.Pascal assumed that logical reasoning of itself could not prove the existence of God - there was good reasoning on both sides. So if we cannot prove it, and if it is so important, then we need to “wager”. The question becomes: “Where are you going to place your bet?”

Suppose you hear reports that your house is on fire and your children are inside. You do not know whether the reports are true or false. What is the reasonable thing to do—to ignore them or to take the time to run home or at least phone home just in case the reports are true?

Suppose someone terribly precious to you lay dying, and the doctor offered to try a new "miracle drug" that he could not guarantee but that seemed to have a 50-50 chance of saving your beloved friend's life. Would it be reasonable to try it, even if it cost a little money? And suppose it were free—wouldn't it be utterly reasonable to try it and unreasonable not to?

Pascal’s Wager

This is a different type of argument - and is not a proof for the existence of God but a help for searching for God in the absence of such proof.Pascal assumed that logical reasoning of itself could not prove the existence of God - there was good reasoning on both sides. So if we cannot prove it, and if it is so important, then we need to “wager”. The question becomes: “Where are you going to place your bet?”

Suppose you hear reports that your house is on fire and your children are inside. You do not know whether the reports are true or false. What is the reasonable thing to do—to ignore them or to take the time to run home or at least phone home just in case the reports are true?

Pascal’s Wager

This is a different type of argument - and is not a proof for the existence of God but a help for searching for God in the absence of such proof.Pascal assumed that logical reasoning of itself could not prove the existence of God - there was good reasoning on both sides. So if we cannot prove it, and if it is so important, then we need to “wager”. The question becomes: “Where are you going to place your bet?”

Pascal’s Wager

This is a different type of argument - and is not a proof for the existence of God but a help for searching for God in the absence of such proof.Pascal assumed that logical reasoning of itself could not prove the existence of God - there was good reasoning on both sides. So if we cannot prove it, and if it is so important, then we need to “wager”. The question becomes: “Where are you going to place your bet?”

Place it with God - and even if he doesn’t you lose nothing.Place it against God - if he does exist, you lose everything.

The argument is that if you win, you win everything, if you lose, you lose nothing.

This can seem very selfish, but has been reformulated to apply to a higher moral motive: If there is a God of infinite goodness, and he justly deserves my allegiance and faith, I risk doing the greatest injustice by not acknowledging him.

The wager should not coerce belief - but can be an incentive to search for God - it can motivate the prayer of the sceptic:“God I don’t know whether you exist or not, but if you do, please show me who you are.”Pascal suggests 3 kinds of people:- those who have sought God and found him (reasonable and happy)- those who are seeking and have not yet found (reasonable and unhappy)- those who neither seek nor find (unreasonable and unhappy)

The wager should not coerce belief - but can be an incentive to search for God - it can motivate the prayer of the sceptic:“God I don’t know whether you exist or not, but if you do, please show me who you are.”Pascal suggests 3 kinds of people:- those who have sought God and found him (reasonable and happy)- those who are seeking and have not yet found (reasonable and unhappy)- those who neither seek nor find (unreasonable and unhappy)

"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and

you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who

knocks it will be opened.

The argument from sehnsucht (longing)|ˈzānˌzoŏ kh t|

Major Premise: every real innate desire within us corresponds to a real object that can satisy that desire:Hunger - foodThirst - drinksEros - SexCuriosity - knowledge

Minor premise: there exists within each one of us a desire that nothing in this life can satisfy, a longing (sehnsucht) that differs from all others but is undefinable and unattainable in this life.We don’t really understand this but we do all want paradise, heaven, eternity - Augustine, “Our hearts are restless until they find their rest in thee”We might not know who or what the thee is but that does not stop the deep longing in our souls.

Conclusion: there is more to life than this, there is eternal life.Ultimately complaint about something shows that there can be something better - we do not complain about 2+2=4, but we do about pain, hunger, poverty - even about a lack of time (we want eternity). Therefore there must be eternity - there must be a place where it is all good enough

The argument from love

Inspired by Gabriel Marcel - it is less “tight” than others but deeper - it depends upon “seeing” not on a straight logical understanding. However it is formulated logically here.1. Love means agape not eros; gift love not need love; love of the other not love of enjoyment.

2. Love is not blind - it has ‘eyes’ and it reasons - e.g. Who is best for you a person who loves you more but is less bright, or a person who loves you less but is more intelligent? We all know it is the latter - eros might be blind but agape is not. Ow could love be blind if God is love? God is not blind!

3. Love sees the intrinsic value of the beloved - this goes beyond what they can do - you become indispensable when someone sees you for your own sake not for any ability or for their own sake.4. On this basis it can now be argued that the indispensable should not be dispensed with - this is morally intolerable.

5. Why couldn’t this morally intolerable situation be real? Because itf it were then reality (ultimate, universal, cosmic reality) - would do to all persons in the end what is morally intolerable, what we should never do; in that case our values would have no ground in reality.

6. Therefore either moral values are groundless or persons are not dispensed with and we all live forever.The eye of death seems to see the eclipse of love, but the eye of love sees the eclipse of death.The weakness here is the weakness of love - it is a choice, free not compelled. If you don’t choose love you will not see it, if you really want to know it you can perform the relevant experiment.

“Insofar as you advance in love, you will grow surer of the reality of God and of the immortality of the soul. This has been tried. This is certain”Dostoevsky in The Brothers KarimazovAs with all roads you have to travel it with sincerity to really see.

The argument from Christ’s resurrection

What would be the best evidence for life after death? Probably seeing and touching one who has died and risen again, then we could be sure.This is the risen Christ - 1 Jn 1:1-3 - a witness is the first guarantee of life after death for the Christians. We might not have died and been raised - but we have a good friend who has!