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

[Bohm_Bawerk]

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

Think about the subtext of this claim - that without God, and without an afterlife, life is fundamentally meaningless. What you’re really saying, whether you realize it or not, is that unless [an] experience lasts FOREVER, then it’s not worth having.

Map that idea onto your everyday life for a second, and see how much sense it makes. Since movies end, watching a good movie is no different than watching a bad movie. No point in reading any good books, since they too eventually end. Since all relationships eventually end (for one reason or another), there’s no reason to have them in the first place either.

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

 

[Hubriss]

I think whoever posted that got it from Hitchens. I don’t remember if I heard him or someone else say it exactly, but it sounds like something he would say. Or maybe it was Harris.

 

[You]

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?

I don’t think books and movies are responsible for the belief nor have any influence on it. I thought the belief came from here;
[23] That day there came to him the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection; and asked him, [24] Saying: Master, Moses said: If a man die having no son, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up issue to his brother. [25] Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first having married a wife, died; and not having issue, left his wife to his brother.

[26] In like manner the second, and the third, and so on to the seventh. [27] And last of all the woman died also. [28] At the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven shall she be? for they all had her. [29] And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. [30] For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven.

[31] And concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken by God, saying to you: [32] I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

 

[Julian0404]

Well, I suggest you follow the example of Saint Padre Pio, who was confronted with a man declaring he did not believe in hell. Padre Pio looked at him intently and declared “you will when you get there”.

 

[Hubriss]

Well, I suggest you follow the example of Saint Padre Pio, who was confronted with a man declaring he did not believe in hell. Padre Pio looked at him intently and declared “you will when you get there”.

lol padre pio said that? that’s some Rambo stuff right there. Understandable though for someone cold-hearted enough to be such a fraud.

 

[fhansen]

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?

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.

 

[JRKH]

To me the flaw in the idea exists here, whee it says:
What you’re really saying, whether you realize it or not, is that unless [an] experience lasts FOREVER, then it’s not worth having.

Life is not an “experience” or even a series of experiences. It is a state of being. While in this state of being called Life, we have experiences, but those experiences are not the same thing as our state of being.
In addition, life continues on regardless of the type, quantity or quality of the "experiences we have.
To despair of life, even for a non-believer, is not seen as a good thing. I dare say that most atheists, if they had a friend threatening suicide, would seek to help them get professional intervention in order to keep them alive. Why would an atheist do this if they did not consider life something to be continued as long as possible?

Christians accept that life is a state of being that continues beyond the grave and, by our Love, our faith, our trust in God seek to continue that “state of being” in service to our God and to our fellow beings on their journey.

Peace
James

 

[dmelosi]

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?

I think this sums up the athiest position. “If we on earth cannot understand or prove it, it can’t be true.” I have always thought athiests were extremely arrogant to think “we” know it all.

If a person tries to find the answer of the difference between good and evil and where did that definition come from, it will lead them to Catholicism.

 

[Godith]

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?

Is life without God meaningless? I would argue that it isn’t. Atheists find meaning in their lives, I think? There is meaning in our work, and meaning in our relationships, without having to refer to God. If you believe in God, that meaning is different than if you don’t, that’s all.

I would argue, as a Christian, that believing in God adds extra dimensions to a person’s life. We are spiritual beings, intended to be living in communion with our Creator. Living in this way adds richness and depth to life. Jesus came to offer us ‘life in all it’s fullness’ (John 10 v10). That means life now, as well as life in the hereafter.

I agree with JRKH, in that life isn’t an ‘experience’. It’s much greater than that. Christians believe that life continues beyond the grave, and that our eternal destiny matters. I love God, and I’m looking forward to being with Him for all eternity in Heaven. However, my life isn’t only about that. It’s also about the here and now, just like yours.

Another thought - Heaven isn’t just one long experience of the same thing. We don’t just sit on a cloud playing the harp forever. The Bible talks about a heavenly city. I imagine it full of life, full of stuff happening. It’s just better than here, because God is there, and there’s no sin.

Basically, I think the argument put forward misses the point of what the Christian life is about. My life doesn’t have meaning because I’m going to Heaven. I’m going to Heaven because my life has meaning.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

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 answer is painfully simple:

1. 
   *]You are eternal, that is, you will never die.
   *]You is also called, “Your Soul”, “Your Spirit”
   *]Your Body will die one day.
   *]So, it does not make sense for You, who are eternal, saying that you are not eternal.
   
   OK?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I think this sums up the athiest position. “If we on earth cannot understand or prove it, it can’t be true.”

Replace “the athiest” with “some athiest’s” and I’d find this statement more agreeable and less dependent on a stereotype. Though I’ve personally have never met a person who believed that all things about the universe can be known or proven.

 

[Phaedra777]

Think about the subtext of this claim - that without God, and without an afterlife, life is fundamentally meaningless. What you’re really saying, whether you realize it or not, is that unless [an] experience lasts FOREVER, then it’s not worth having.

Map that idea onto your everyday life for a second, and see how much sense it makes. Since movies end, watching a good movie is no different than watching a bad movie. No point in reading any good books, since they too eventually end. Since all relationships eventually end (for one reason or another), there’s no reason to have them in the first place either.

I don’t find this argument valid at all. While a particular book or movie ends, you can continue to read/watch others so your book/movie experience is not ended. Same with relationships.

Also, claiming that believers feel unless an experience lasts forever, it’s not worth having is false as well. My experience of playing with Barbie ended a long time ago. It was fun while it lasted, but I certainly don’t wish to experience it now. I’m having too much fun dusting and vacuuming…

 

[dmelosi]

Replace “the athiest” with “some athiest’s” and I’d find this statement more agreeable and less dependent on a stereotype. Though I’ve personally have never met a person who believed that all things about the universe can be known or proven.

This statement would seem to indicate that “some athiest’s” do accept some things that cannot be known or proven. Wonder what the criteria for believing any of those unknown or unproven things are?

 

[Blacksword]

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?

I’ll respond: I’m not seeing anything disagreeable about the premise actually. Inwould say that I’d prefer wording this as that “experience” itself or “life” is meaningless if there is no eternity, but otherwise the sentiment is absolutely correct.

Atheism must of necessity ultimately collapse into nihilism. The new atheists like Harris are hypocritical and pitiful compared to the greats like Sartre and Nietchze, they had the courage to go where it rationally needs must end. Harris and his bunch want all the nice things that depend on a theistic world-view and notion of objective meaning like the brotherhood of man and human rights, equality and fraternity. But if annihilation is all that awaits us, and, as science now suggests, awaits the universe itself as ultimately dark energy accelerates the expansion of the universe until atoms themselves fly apart and energy diffuses across a formless non-expanse, then it is as correct to say that the experience of a good book, a terrible movie, love, or anything else, is meaningless, as are the sentimental and quaint notions of fraternity, equality, “rights”, or human worth. We are in this instance all nothing but electrified meat. It is preposterous to talk of “meaningful” experiences for pure happenstances of chemical biology. Nothing is everything, and everything is nothing. One can have entertaining distractions, but cannot have “meaning” if there is no existence of an eternal nature.

It all would quite simply come out in the wash, there is absolutely no ultimate difference between Blessed Mother Theresa and Hitler, who they, or we ourselves, were and what we did is meaningless without eternity, and this applies to reading a good book as much as to feeding the hungry. I really can’t understand why this conclusion isn’t obvious to all frankly.

 

[GEddie]

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

 

[Neildown]

Think about the subtext of this claim - that without God, and without an afterlife, life is fundamentally meaningless. What you’re really saying, whether you realize it or not, is that unless [an] experience lasts FOREVER, then it’s not worth having.

Map that idea onto your everyday life for a second, and see how much sense it makes. Since movies end, watching a good movie is no different than watching a bad movie. No point in reading any good books, since they too eventually end. Since all relationships eventually end (for one reason or another), there’s no reason to have them in the first place either.

Very interesting argument - however, I see some holes.

You must realize that the body and the spirit are two separate things. The spirit/soul lasts forever but the body only has a certain time frame that it can exist within. Because, as humans, we are predominantly physical in our mental nature we tend to see things in a “physical light” so to speak. We can perceive meaningfulness in our physical acts, but we can also perceive meaningfulness in eternity, [you have a general grasp of *pi I’m sure] though most people, including myself, sometimes have a hard time seeing what exactly that meaningfulness is. I intend, as a Roman Catholic, to discover that meaning some day.

I don’t believe that if an experience doesn’t last forever it is meaningless - however in the light of the possibility that earth explodes someday and humanity is wiped out, who or what is there to give meaning to all the lives and little things that once lived/happened there except for God? If earth existed forever [without being part of His plan] then yes you might attribute some sort of meaning to living without God, as there would be other humans to see you and maybe gain something good from you, but even they would just be humans like you and I. It would just be a continuous cycle, and for what?

If there is no such thing as an afterlife there is no real purpose for your “existence”. There will be purpose to your “living” because you are completing tasks to keep yourself running, but without a life after the limited one you have you serve no true purpose. Even if your purpose in life is to keep the earth populated or contribute to its knowledge there is no meaning because humanity itself serves no ultimate goal.

Essentially, if there is no God and there is no soul, your worth equates to that of an animal. You are born, you live, and you die. Whether or not you had a good time being born, living, and dying would not matter because your consciousness would cease to exist.

In your life, however, you can read a book or watch a movie, and though it doesn’t last forever it remains in your conscious thought and serves to harm or benefit you.

I hope I was clear enough to pass along my point, as I can’t tell how other people look at my posts - if I was unclear about something please let me know.

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by dmelosi
I think this sums up the athiest position. “If we on earth cannot understand or prove it, it can’t be true.”

Replace “the athiest” with “some athiest’s” and I’d find this statement more agreeable and less dependent on a stereotype. Though I’ve personally have never met a person who believed that all things about the universe can be known or proven.

This statement would seem to indicate that “some athiest’s” do accept some things that cannot be known or proven. Wonder what the criteria for believing any of those unknown or unproven things are?

I don’t think that this is necessarily what is meant.
You are presuming that there are two possibilities in play - Acceptance or Rejection - sort of a “Boolean” reality. However, in point of fact there is a third, perfectly viable, option - No opinion - or “keeping an open mind”.

ThinkingSapien, If I have misrepresented your position, please do correct me.

Peace
James

 

[dmelosi]

I don’t think that this is necessarily what is meant.
You are presuming that there are two possibilities in play - Acceptance or Rejection - sort of a “Boolean” reality. However, in point of fact there is a third, perfectly viable, option - No opinion - or “keeping an open mind”.

ThinkingSapien, If I have misrepresented your position, please do correct me.

Peace
James

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

 

[JRKH]

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

This is pretty much true, but in the context of the flow of the conversation “God” did not come into play.
You stated that, "I think this sums up the athiest position. “If we on earth cannot understand or prove it, it can’t be true”.
This is a pretty broad statement that can encompass much more than the "God’ question, r or even more narrowly defined, the “Christian God” question. So I think that ThinkingSapien was quite correct in his objection to the very broad supposition.

Then too I think that there are degrees that must be dealt with. For instance, a person might try to keep an open mind, but if pressed for a position, they might say, “Based on current evidence and argument I lean toward there being no God”…
So “Certain” is something that can come in degrees rather than black or white.

Peace
James

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I don’t think that this is necessarily what is meant.
You are presuming that there are two possibilities in play - Acceptance or Rejection - sort of a “Boolean” reality. However, in point of fact there is a third, perfectly viable, option - No opinion - or “keeping an open mind”.

ThinkingSapien, If I have misrepresented your position, please do correct me.

Thanks for your concern for not misrepresenting me. It was actually this same concern that motivated me to type the response that I did. The statement to which I responded seemed to draw from a stereotype that isn’t universally true among those that don’t have a belief in a deity. So I felt the qualifier “some” should be there if there is interest in not misrepresenting those that don’t have a belief in a deity and do not hold the viewpoint describe.

While there are certain beliefs whose presence and absence may be associated with a label when we look at individual people we many times will find that people don’t polarize their views to those that are associated with the label. “Do Catholic’s believe in the Miricle of Fatima?” If I answered that question with “yes” or “no” I would be overlooking the various views that Catholics have. If I ask “Do some Catholics believe in the Miricle of Fatima” I can answer with “some do” or “some don’t” without putting myself into “True Scotsman” territory.