Is There Really Life Beyond The Grave?

As I got on the bus today, it was fairly empty. People usually like to leave various newsletters on vacant seats as they leave. I find this quite convenient because then I can pick one up and read while on my way to school. I'm able to re-use the newsletter, thus save some trees, and I save myself the time of having to go to a newspaper stand.

However today, instead of the typic daily newsletter I found an Awake! magazine on one of the seats with the front page title called "Is there Life Beyond the Grave?". As I flipped over the cover I realized that it was a Watchtower magazine (a huge Jehovah's Witness publication here in Canada, and I believe in the US as well).

I've always wanted to read one of these and tackle some of the issues inside and today seemed like an excellent opportunity, especially because the title was so straightforward. I was curious to see how they were going to explain life after death in a way that made sense to the general population. Unfortunately, their approach was quite poor - a standard, inverse-thinking approach that preachers often use.

I'm going to take the article part by part and look closely at the problems in the way they arrive to their conclusions.

Death: Is it really the end?

The first section begins by telling the story of an 85-year-old skeptic who get converted by his son as he finds out he is terminally ill and decides to discontinue using the dialysis machine that has been keeping him alive. It's the infamous death bed conversion.

"That final time together provided an opportunity for the two to reflect on a subject they had discussed before: Is life possible beyond the grave? The father, a college-educated man, was a skeptic. He had been influenced by the teaching of evolution and was repelled by the hypocrisy of religion. He called himself an agnostic -- believing that the existence of God is unknowable."

Right off the bat my hope that the article would remain fairly neutral was shot out of the park. Just a few sentences in, the author is already setting up evolution, and hence college-education, to be the villain.

"The son, desiring to provide comfort and hope, shower his father why life beyond the grave is a real possibility. As death approached, the father acknowledged that living again, enjoying another life with renewed vigor and health, would be desirable."

The entire article's main argument for why there is life after death is set up right at the beginning. Life after death is desirable, therefore it exists. This is all possible because God wants us to be happy and he can do everything. Just because we want to live forever, we can. It's that simple. Miracles are possible.

However, at this point, the author starts telling us that there is a price to pay and there are certain rules. So it's not all that easy.

"Most people, if not all, would want to live again if they could do so with restored health and vigor in a world where peace prevails. Humans are unlike animals, which are described in the Bible as "unreasoning," or as "Creatures of instinct." (2 Peter 2:12; New International Version) We bury our dead. We contemplate the future. We do not want to grow old, get sick, and die. Yet, these are realities of human experience."

This paragraph begins to emphasize the heightened status of the human over animals. The author completely avoids the fact that humans are animals as well. There are several major issues with this paragraph and I will briefly go through them.

1. Humans are not unlike animals. Humans are animals. We are no different, except that we have a bigger and better brain. Like giraffe's have bigger necks, anteaters have longer tongues, falcons have better eyes, and dogs have better noses - we have a better brain. The reason is simple. It's because we use our brain to survive, and thus natural selection used that as the driving force. If we relied on sheer force and power to stalk and kill our pray, we would probably have huge muscles. Instead, our ancestors were fox-like, clever inventors who found cunning ways of survival. This requires brain power. The smarter humans were favored because they survived and therefore our brain and its power grew. There's no reason to favor a better brain, anymore than a better neck or tongue. Who's to say that thoughts and brain power are better than good eye-sight, or really strong muscles?

2. We have no way to prove that other animals are "unreasoning". Consciousness science is still in its infancy, and we still don't understand our own consciousness, much less the consciousness (or lack thereof) of other animals. To claim that other animals are unreasoning is to make a blind guess. This is not a good way to approach an argument or to convince people to join your side. We simply don't know if it's true or not. Now certainly, it could be true, and the author could have a point, but until we know for sure this statement has to be completely rejected as myth.

3. Now although we can't prove that animals can reason, we can certainly observe animals behaving in ways that go beyond natural "instinct". There are tons of stories of animals behaving in incredible ways that defy our common preconceptions. Things like eye-seeing dogs, and dogs that have rescued their owners (risking their own lives in the process) are the first examples that come to mind. Animals certainly do not rely purely on instinct. They adapt to environments in the same way that we do. Or if you want to think about it in reverse, you could also make the argument that humans behave purely on instinct too. It all depends on what the author means by "instinct". Again, we don't really know how much they reason, but to say that animals behave solely on instinct is not true. The fact that we bury our dead and contemplate the future does not separate us from animals. There are plenty of things other animals do that we don't. Why are the things we do so special?

4. "We do not want to grow old, get sick, and die." And who says that animals do? That's why they hunt, eat, sleep, drink and reproduce. This is not "human" experience. It's the experience experienced by all life forms. The inherent nature of life is that it wants to go on. It wants to survive. All life, not just human life. Even plants don't want to die. They spread their seeds, and sprout in new places. They evolve bigger leaves and longer roots.

5. Finally, this paragraph raises quite a bit of concern for animal and pet lovers. Do you not get to see your beloved pet in the afterlife? What if your entire life you've lived with an animal, and they have been your loyal companion? I would imagine that your "paradise" land after life would be to be with them again. Even if we admit that animals are not worthy of God's love, are they not worthy of our love? And if God loves us, how could he not allow animals amongst us? Why is there this favoritism for humans?

Next the article explains exactly why we don't want to die.

"For one reason, we have an inborn desire to live and enjoy life in peace and security. Death -- nonexistence -- is inherently repulsive. It is difficult, if not almost impossible, to accept. The Bible explain why: "[God] has put eternity into man's mind," or "in their heart." *(Ecclesiastes 3:11; Revised Standard Version) We want to live -- no die. think about it: Would that desire be so strong if it were not our Creator's original purpose for us to live forever? Is another life in endless health and happiness possible?"

Why yes -- yes -- the desire would be so strong if it were not our Creator's original purpose for us to live forever. This argument doesn't make any sense. We don't need a creator to want to live forever, all we need is a reason to live... Not even that. All we need is to be alive. Love, simple pleasures, entertainment... all these things are a reason to live. We don't need a creator to plant desires into our mind. Doesn't this violate some sort of freewill rule that Christians are always so concerned about?

Also, what about those people that no longer have the desire to live? The people with no love, no simple pleasures, no entertainment, no Creator - only suffering, pain and heartache? Are people who commit suicide not created by the Creator, since they have no desire implanted in their heart? What about those people who attempted suicide and then later found some desire to live? Were they first created by the devil and then reincarnated by God?

The answer is that the desire to live comes from how we live our lives. There are times when things are so hard that our desire to live may fade.

"Last year, AARP The Magazine, published by the American Association of Retired Persons, featured the article "Life After Death." Interview of scores of people who were over 50 years of age revealed that "nearly three quarters (73 percent) agree with the statement 'I believe in life after death.'" On the other hand, the magazine reported that nearly one quarter agreed with the statement "I believe that when I die, that's the end." But is that what people really want to believe?"

What people "want" to believe has no importance. Certainly, when things are going well we want to live. Most of us want to live forever. This is not a valid point for an argument. Some of us want to believe that we can fly. Some of us want to believe that we are rich. Wanting to believe doesn't make things so and false hope is often more harmful than realism.

Giving people, especially dying patients false hope is a terrible thing, and a crime. A crime blatantly disregarded by Christian Science practitioners.

"... many are skeptical -- as was the father mentioned at the outset, who would often say to his son, "Belief in religion is OK for those who can't handle the reality of death." yet, as he and other skeptics have had to acknowledge, belief in an all-powerful Creator provides an answer to otherwise incomprehensible miracles."

The authors decides not to mention any such "incomprehensible miracles". Instead he uses the following example,

"For example, just three weeks after conception, the human embryo begins to form brain cells. These cells multiply in spurts, at times up to a quarter of a million of them a minute! Nine months later a baby is born with a brain that has a miraculous capacity to learn. Molecular biologist James Watson called the human brain "the most complex thing we have yet discovered in our universe. When considering marvels like this, are you -- as most are -- filled with awe? Have such reflections helped you arrive at an answer to the question raised by a man long ago: "If an able-bodied man dies can he live again?""

The author's example is what Richard Dawkins refers to as the 'Argument from Beauty' in his book The God Delusion. It is quite possibly the most common argument religious people use in defense of creation and quite possibly the weakest.

I am not going to delve very deeply in explaining all of its problems, but will simply quote Dawkins, "If there is a logical argument linking the existence of great art to the existence of God, it is not spelled out by its proponents. It is simply assumed to be self-evident, which it most certainly is not. Maybe it is to be seen as yet another version of the argument from design: Schubert's musical brain is a wonder of improbability, even more so than the vertebrate's eye. Or, more ignobly, perhaps it's a sort of jealousy of genius. How dare another human being make such beautiful music/poetry/art, when I can't? It must be God that did it."

Life Beyond the Grave - It is Possible!

In this section the author tries to give us "evidence that provides reason for us to believe that life after death is possible." The way this is achieved is by explaining exactly why we die,

"Regarding Jehovah God, our Creator the Bible says: "Perfect is his activity." (Deuteronomy 32:4, Psalm 83:18) The first man, Adam was created perfect, and he had the potential of living forever in Eden, the earthly Paradise garden in which God placed him. (Genesis 2:7-9) Why did Adam lose that Paradise home and grow old and die? Simply stated: Adam failed to obey the command not to eat fruit from a particular tree. God had clearly warned Adam of the penalty for doing so, saying: "You will positively die." (Genesis 2:16, 17) Adam joined his wife, Even, in disobeying that command, so God evicted them from Eden. The reason for God's prompt action is significant. The Bible states: "That [Adam] may not put his hand out and actually take fruit also from the [garden's] tree of life and eat and live [forever]." -- Genesis 3:1-6,22. Adam and Even died for their disobedience, but why do all their descendants grow old and die? Because they inherited sin from Adam, and sin has resulted in the imperfection and death of every one of his offspring. The Bible explains: "Through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned." -- Romans 5:12."

Alright, so let's tackle the problems of the story of Genesis, and some of the questions that get ignored.

1. We've seem favoritism towards humans above, but why the sudden favortism towards Adam? Simply because he's the first one, does that really justify the sin to be passed down to all mankind? I mean, it's God and He can do as He wants, but you have to wonder about His motives and reasons, right?

2. Next I'll throw in the whole feminism problem, being why should Eve pay for Adam's sin? Christianity in general has a lot of sexist statements all over the place, so I won't say much more about it.

3. Now, lets question the whole scenario for a second. So let's say you are God, all-powerful and all-knowing. Why would you create a tree of fruit that cannot be eaten? There are really only two reasons; 1, you're evil and you want to cause your human creations pain and 2, you're purposely setting up a situation for Adam to fail and then feel bad - which again doesn't make you look very good either. There is no reason for that tree to be there. There is no reason create a trap for Adam. Since God is all-knowing, He must have known that Adam would eat from the tree. So firstly, why bother with the whole charade at all and why not just create humans as creatures that eventually get old and die, instead of doing the whole sin thing? And secondly, why does God care so deeply about fruit? If it's an "earthly Paradise garden" then certainly we should be able to do as we please and have an abundance of fruit and freedom?

The reason why the Bible contains this passage is to instill fear into its worshipers to do as God says. It's a means to demonstrate that if you do something that God doesn't like you'll be punished, and to set up a situation which states that your actions will reflected upon others. In principle this isn't all bad, you should always be aware of your actions, but in this particular case the concept of sin and fear and doing as you're told needs to be taken lightly and questioned.

Had I been Adam I would have asked God, "Well what is so special about this tree? Why can't I eat from it?" I'm curious as to what God would have said. "Because I say so?" seems like the only possible response, and if that's the case - then perhaps God really isn't very nice at all.

My point is backed up when the author continues with,

"What is it that makes possible a righteous standing with God and the enjoying of everlasting life?"

It's all about serving God and doing as He says. It's about pleasing Him. Which we know from studying history is a terrible way to go about life. Life should be about being in a righteous standing with your fellow human beings (and animals), not some omnipotent being.

"Why, though, is Jesus the only human who could "give his soul [as] a ransom" for us and thereby save us from the deadly consequences of sin? -- Matthew 20:28. Jesus is the only one who could give his soul as a ransom because he is the only human who did not inherit sin from the first man, Adam. Why so? Because the life of Jesus was miraculously transferred from heaven to the womb of Mary, who was a virgin. So, as an angel told Mary, her son was "holy, God's Son." (Luke 1:34, 35) That is why Jesus is called "the last Adam" and why he did not inherit sin from "the first man Adam" and why he did not inherit sin from "the first man Adam." (1 Corinthians 15:45) As a sinless human, Jesus could thus give himself as "a corresponding random" -- his life corresponded to or was the once perfect, sinless, first man. -- 1 Timothy 2:6."

It seems like mankind's existence and our whole lives are based on a single event - a virgin birth 2000 years ago. It seems like the entire Christian faith would fall apart without this event occurring.

We have to blindly believe in so many things in order for this story to be true. We have to believe to God impregnated a random woman in Jerusalem, we have to believe that there are angels and that one of them spoke to Mary. We have to believe that God cares only about sinless people. We have to believe that no man (aside from Adam and Jesus) are even sinless. We have believe so many things, a lot of them relying on us believing in more things. What's worse is that a lot of the things we are required to believe in have to support other than the story of the Bible. A few have other references (like the existence of Jesus). But none of these things can be tested in the modern day.

So in the end, if you really want there to be an afterlife it seems easier to just believe in an afterlife rather than believe in the story of the Bible. If you're at the stage where you're about to die and you don't want it to be the end, believe in anything you want. It's likely that what you want is more plausible than the Biblical story.