How do believers respond to the following criticism of the afterlife?

[ASimon]

Yes, agnostic, please correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t athiest mean that they are certain there is no God?

This isn’t the definition that I hold to (as an atheist). To me, you only need to say you don’t believe in God to qualify as an atheist. Believers often insist that you must be certain of your unbelief to be an atheist, otherwise, you’re only an agnostic.

But here’s the problem: That a God (of any sort) exists is an unfalsifiable claim. You can’t prove it to a certainty, and you can’t disprove it to a certainty. What both sides are left with is belief, based on evidence. No, I don’t believe the evidence is equal to both sides, but that’s not my point here. In my view, it is not intellectually honest for an atheist to say the KNOW God doesn’t exist, any more than it is for a theist to say they KNOW God does exist.

So, leaving aside the validity of the evidence for each side, what we have is belief vs. unbelief - though neither known to an absolute certainty. So, if a theist wants to insist that unbelief without certainty equals agnosticism, it would seem to be that they are unwittingly lumping most theists into the agnostic category as well. The only folks left out of the lumping are atheists and theists who claim to be CERTAIN of what they believe. I don’t take either of these claims seriously.

The point is, if so many of us are to be considered agnostics based on the fact that we’re not claiming to KNOW something we can’t possibly know, then there’s really no point to separate categories.

Perhaps needless to say, I think the stand-alone term “agnostic” is outdated. It probably carried more value back when was coined (in 1869), but to me, a true agnostic is someone who doesn’t know what to think about the God question, and doesn’t really care to know. In other words, they’ve all but completely removed themselves from the equation. That’s their prerogative, of course, but it returns us to my earlier point: If there’s nobody in the agnostic bin (or if everybody’s in the agnostic bin), there’s very little point to having an “agnostic bin.”

So to sum up - if you believe in God, you’re a theist. If you don’t believe in God, you’re an atheist. If you claim to be CERTAIN of the former or the latter, you might be clinically insane.

 

[GEddie]

On another thread of mine, one criticism held against belief in the afterlife goes as follows:

I found the analogy pretty convincing. How would you, as a believer, respond?

The analogy is really somewhat of a “straw man”, for the simple reason that most of our experiences are intended to end.

No one wishes to be in school forever.

Most people don’t want their job to be forever.

We go on vacation trips to places we would never want to reside permanently.

We take sightseeing tours in countries we would not want to emigrate to.

Etc.

But even though the experiences end, we keep the memories of them, and have a richer life because of them.

A more apropos question would be, “Would an experience that is totally and irreversibly unremembered be worth it?”

ICXC NIKA

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

That argument has zero weight for me, as I have never spent a minute of time wondering whether life has a meaning. Being physically alive is awesome, is it’s own reward, irrespective of it’s meaning or possible lack thereof. And if we have an afterlife, so much the better.

In any case, meaning or lack thereof is hardly an argument about the afterlife. Either it’s there, or it’s not. One day you’ll roll back your eyes and see for yourself.

ICXC NIKA

I like that one too. Some call it a “bet”. But this time, everyone may bet on the right horse…

 

[Sair]

The analogy is really somewhat of a “straw man”, for the simple reason that most of our experiences are intended to end.

No one wishes to be in school forever.

Most people don’t want their job to be forever.

We go on vacation trips to places we would never want to reside permanently.

We take sightseeing tours in countries we would not want to emigrate to.

Etc.

But even though the experiences end, we keep the memories of them, and have a richer life because of them.

A more apropos question would be, “Would an experience that is totally and irreversibly unremembered be worth it?”

ICXC NIKA

What’s interesting to me is that everyone on this thread thus far has been buying into the implication that meaning can only exist after the fact. We create meaning every moment of our lives, simply by being in that moment. The ending of an experience doesn’t destroy its existence at its own moment in time. Human brains are good at looking into the past for causes and portents of the present, and into the future for destinies and ultimate goals, but we’re less good, it seems, at simply being alive in the here and now.

To those who do believe that life is meaningless without eternity, and that there is no point to healing the sick, feeding the hungry or comforting the dying if death and oblivion are all that awaits us, ask yourself what you might do if you knew there was ultimately no afterlife. Would that make you any less aware of your hunger pangs if you were starving now? Would it make the strains of your favourite music less sweet? Would it make the embrace of a loved one any less comforting? Would it give you any less satisfaction right now to help someone in need? Here and now is when our actions make a difference in the world, not after we are gone.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I found the analogy pretty convincing. How would you, as a believer, respond?

I’m not a believer, I’m a knower, but I’ll respond, anyway.

Life is eternal. Not after you die, right now. That’s just a fact.

As for the argument: The movie ends because it was created to have a beginning and an end. Just like your life in Time is. But the creators of the movie exist before it and continue to exist after it. The actors don’t end when the film runs out.

 

[Blacksword]

What’s interesting to me is that everyone on this thread thus far has been buying into the implication that meaning can only exist after the fact. We create meaning every moment of our lives, simply by being in that moment. The ending of an experience doesn’t destroy its existence at its own moment in time. Human brains are good at looking into the past for causes and portents of the present, and into the future for destinies and ultimate goals, but we’re less good, it seems, at simply being alive in the here and now.

To those who do believe that life is meaningless without eternity, and that there is no point to healing the sick, feeding the hungry or comforting the dying if death and oblivion are all that awaits us, ask yourself what you might do if you knew there was ultimately no afterlife. Would that make you any less aware of your hunger pangs if you were starving now? Would it make the strains of your favourite music less sweet? Would it make the embrace of a loved one any less comforting? Would it give you any less satisfaction right now to help someone in need? Here and now is when our actions make a difference in the world, not after we are gone.

I would answer in the affirmative to all of these questions. Yes, and again I’m not sure why this isn’t obvious to all. The embrace of a loved one becomes anguish when you have decided that in but a moment in time you will be eternally lost to one another.

 

[Sair]

I would answer in the affirmative to all of these questions. Yes, and again I’m not sure why this isn’t obvious to all. The embrace of a loved one becomes anguish when you have decided that in but a moment in time you will be eternally lost to one another.

But the thing is, if you don’t exist, you won’t be around to experience loss. The assumption that you will somehow miss what you no longer have when you are no longer in existence strikes me as decidedly odd.

Also, if you were starving right now, would it be only the hope of an afterlife that would motivate you to eat? Again, that seems odd to me. Similarly, if you happened upon a fellow who was suffering now and you had the opportunity to ease his pains, why wouldn’t you do it? He might not last forever to give you his eternal gratitude, but he still has ample time to appreciate your assistance.

For my part, I don’t know why it isn’t obvious to more people that those who hope for an afterlife are holding themselves back from embracing the one life we know we get.

 

[Blacksword]

But the thing is, if you don’t exist, you won’t be around to experience loss. The assumption that you will somehow miss what you no longer have when you are no longer in existence strikes me as decidedly odd.

Also, if you were starving right now, would it be only the hope of an afterlife that would motivate you to eat? Again, that seems odd to me. Similarly, if you happened upon a fellow who was suffering now and you had the opportunity to ease his pains, why wouldn’t you do it? He might not last forever to give you his eternal gratitude, but he still has ample time to appreciate your assistance.

For my part, I don’t know why it isn’t obvious to more people that those who hope for an afterlife are holding themselves back from embracing the one life we know we get.

But that’s not what I said. It’s a source of anguish and pain that diminishes ALL joys in this life, including that of holding a loved one, if we have decided that eternal separation is rapidly closing in. This has nothing to do with the strange notion of missing or feeling loss when you no longer exist at all, but rather the here and now. And lastly, your point about belief in the afterlife holding us back in this one is backwards, at least emphatically so in my experience. My conversion to Catholicism and the fullness of the faith brings me great great joy and happiness. It truly gives me a sense of meaning, of purpose, and the life most abundant that Jesus our Lord spoke of.. I don’t feel like I’m missing out on anything, quite the contrary! If someone does feel that way they are missing out on what the faith is really all about. In my RCIA class one of the first weeks was about good reasons to be Catholic and it had an ancient little poem that read “Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine, there be music, laughter, and good red wine!”

 

[Julia_Mae]

For my part, I don’t know why it isn’t obvious to more people that those who hope for an afterlife are holding themselves back from embracing the one life we know we get.

I don’t hope for an afterlife, I understand the nature of existence is eternal. In our Faith, Christ is in us. We help when we see suffering because Mercy is the Nature of Christ.

 

[Sair]

But that’s not what I said. It’s a source of anguish and pain that diminishes ALL joys in this life, including that of holding a loved one, if we have decided that eternal separation is rapidly closing in. This has nothing to do with the strange notion of missing or feeling loss when you no longer exist at all, but rather the here and now.

It is a here and now focussed on the future, a future of which we can have no certain knowledge. Anguish is caused by the knowledge of loss, so in that sense, the fear of oblivion has everything to do with the idea that we will somehow still exist to feel the absence of our lives or the loneliness of separation from others who no longer exist.

I fail to see how eternal existence is required for us to have meaning, purpose and happiness in the comparatively brief span of life that we do possess. While we live, we may have love, joy, hope, companionship and pleasure, we may engage with the world and affect the lives of others, writing our own stories in time. After we die, we can have no need of such things - there would be nothing left of us to mourn their absence. Why should we fear such a state of affairs? Why should it be a cause of anguish?

 

[GEddie]

It is a here and now focussed on the future, a future of which we can have no certain knowledge. Anguish is caused by the knowledge of loss, so in that sense, the fear of oblivion has everything to do with the idea that we will somehow still exist to feel the absence of our lives or the loneliness of separation from others who no longer exist.

I fail to see how eternal existence is required for us to have meaning, purpose and happiness in the comparatively brief span of life that we do possess. While we live, we may have love, joy, hope, companionship and pleasure, we may engage with the world and affect the lives of others, writing our own stories in time. After we die, we can have no need of such things - there would be nothing left of us to mourn their absence. Why should we fear such a state of affairs? Why should it be a cause of anguish?

The fact remains that those questions are not an argument either against God, or against eternity. Their existence is independent of whether or not we find “meaning” in life either way.

 

[Blacksword]

It is a here and now focussed on the future, a future of which we can have no certain knowledge. Anguish is caused by the knowledge of loss, so in that sense, the fear of oblivion has everything to do with the idea that we will somehow still exist to feel the absence of our lives or the loneliness of separation from others who no longer exist.

I fail to see how eternal existence is required for us to have meaning, purpose and happiness in the comparatively brief span of life that we do possess. While we live, we may have love, joy, hope, companionship and pleasure, we may engage with the world and affect the lives of others, writing our own stories in time. After we die, we can have no need of such things - there would be nothing left of us to mourn their absence. Why should we fear such a state of affairs? Why should it be a cause of anguish?

Again, because if this is true, none of it matters, it’s meaningless and purposeless. Solomon wrote “vanity, vanity, all is vanity”. This is true if their is no other objective, higher Truth. And I still disagree that the anguish is based on some nonsensical ideaof missing when I don’t exist at all. It’s based in the here and now where I do exist.

 

[Luke_K]

On another thread of mine, one criticism held against belief in the afterlife goes as follows:

I found the analogy pretty convincing. How would you, as a believer, respond?

Temporal experiences only hold their meaning afterward because the subject of the experience is still around to remember and reflect on that experience. Once all subjects cease to exist then there is no longer any meaning, and the whole of existence will become absurd. On the atheistic view, the inevitable destruction of all minds will be the destruction of all meaning.

It’s impossible to imagine that state of affairs because you have to use your own self-conscious mind to do it, so that’s why it seems like our temporal experiences will still have meaning after we’re gone. But they won’t- they’re ultimately meaningless.

 

[GEddie]

How was the original argument so convincing?

It goes somewhat as follows:

People seek meaning to life via belief in an afterlife (A)

I can derive meaning in my life without recourse to an an afterlife (not even not-A)

Therefore, there is no afterlife (not B)

Since B is not logically linked to A, this is not even a logical fallacy, it is logically askew.

So what’s so convincing about it?

ICXC NIKA

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

On another thread of mine, one criticism held against belief in the afterlife goes as follows:

I found the analogy pretty convincing. How would you, as a believer, respond?

… dear bohm ,

… food for thought , and true i believe : there is no time in our world at all , time and change are an illusion of necessity , as we cannot experience all our change at once , we are in eternity always – even here , now in eternity there is no beginning , end or middle , there is just " now " , so how can you really say something starts or ends in " now " ,??? , you cannot , it just is , everything that exists in eternity is eternal , even if something comes and goes in eternity it is still eternal , but as to man he is different to our fellow creatures here , given his superior intelligence he is able to solve the problem that he needs and wants to live forever , and if god did not grant this his misery would know no bounds , and this is why many non - believers suicide , atheism leads to this pointless , meaningless , purposeless , valueless view of life and the true atheist who knows what he claims to believe is so susceptible to suicide it is almost inevitable when the bad times get too much , nothing to hope for , man has to hope for something better or he’s lost , eternity in heaven is that hope man must have to truly live and survive , and heaven and god and demons , angels etc etc are truy real and the testimony and not just blind faith of millions testifies to this , atheism is the hardest faith of all to even consider accepting if you really think it through , catholicism is the easiest faith to accept becauuse it makes perfect sense and has all the answers bar none dear friend ,

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bohm

I found the analogy pretty convincing. How would you, as a believer, respond?

As analogy it simply doesn’t work.

Life is always forward looking, as well it should be. When a movie ends, you look forward to another movie. When a book ends, you look forward to another book. When a song ends, you look forward to another song. When a life ends, you look forward to another life.

Now there’s a real analogy.

 

[Joel_PF]

When we say an experience is meaningful, it means that it somehow articulates and contributes with the life of which it is a part. Watching a movie is meaningful if it has some good effect on my life and personality. The movie I watched in an idle hour in front of the TV and whose plot and characters made no impression on me was not meaningful for me.

What does it mean, then, for life to meaningful? It must contribute to something relating to the person. It is hard to see how a life that ends in nothingness can be said to be meaningful if it has no goal or value that transcends it.

I see one possibility: living for a cause or for another person. An atheist may die for a cause he believes in; his life was thus meaningful, as contributing to something that he regards as greater (let’s say, mankind).

However, once we go a step further and realize that all men and all societies will, with absolute certainty, end; and if we believe that this end is basically the same nothingness as they came from, then it is hard to see how any human life can be meaningful. Living for a cause is meaningful, but if the cause itself is bound to end in nothingness, that individual life has also been meaningless.

Our aspirations demand something greater, something that will make sense of existence; that will reveal to us its true meaning.

 

[fred_conty]

What you’re really saying, whether you realize it or not, is that unless [an] experience lasts FOREVER, then it’s not worth having.​

I would agree. I want heaven which lasts FOREVER. The world we are in is purgatory #1.
I will be happy when it ends and can have the FOREVER experience that Jesus has promised us. All the PASSING experiences, no matter how good, cannot equal the
one FOREVER experience of heaven.

God is merciful, the cross of love is his message.

 

[Simpleton]

St Thomas put it this way, “God, alone satisfies”.

We all know that our earthly experiences only satisfy us temporarily, but we still look for something more, something that would satisfy more- the elusive pursuit of happiness, if you will. And God is that very “one thing”, that is an inexhaustible supply of happiness/satisfaction. What we do here on planet earth is to explore all the other options that exist within creation, so that we’ll hopefully find that what we really need exists outside of creation.

See this is the thing that got me thinking about an afterlife. I noticed that all of our actions are done because we believe that we will be happier if we do them; however our capacity for happiness is infinite which is why finite things cannot and do not satisfy us completely. It’s like we’re all a bunch of addicts looking for that one thing that will sustain us but never find it amongst the physical and material things of this world because hey they cant give what they dont have.

It made me think, if I have the ability to be infinitely happy then wouldn’t that suggest there is a part of me that isn’t finite?

 

[GEddie]

See this is the thing that got me thinking about an afterlife. I noticed that all of our actions are done because we believe that we will be happier if we do them; however our capacity for happiness is infinite which is why finite things cannot and do not satisfy us completely. It’s like we’re all a bunch of addicts looking for that one thing that will sustain us but never find it amongst the physical and material things of this world because hey they cant give what they dont have.

It made me think, if I have the ability to be infinitely happy then wouldn’t that suggest there is a part of me that isn’t finite?

Actually, “you” are finite; your soul is the soul of a finite body.

Because you are finite, only an infinite life (eternity) can satisfy an infinite need in your being.

ICXC NIKA