• email article
  • print article
  • small text sizemedium text sizelarge text size
  • comment on this article

Life after death

In my lifetime, I have come across a significant amount of suffering and experienced the death of a number of close relatives and friends; and yet, I believe life still has a positive meaning and that life with God follows death.

I acknowledge that for a number of people existence is senseless and useless and that nothing lies beyond the grave. This 'nihilistic' view of life is far from the isolated, oddball, radical philosophy many consider it to be. I have the highest respect for people who espouse this heartfelt belief.

What I find objectionable though is when militant atheists savage religion for the poisonous effect it has on our lives.

These people should acknowledge that different people have different beliefs about the afterlife and that these beliefs do not arise "from the innate self-importance of man, who is conceited enough to imagine that he survives death". Such beliefs do give these 'believers' a reason for living.

It has been argued that there is in all of us a need for connections that last beyond our own lifetime, a need to feel that our finite self is part of a larger something that endures. As Kahlil Gibran put it in his book The Prophet: "In the depth of your hopes and desires lies your silent knowledge of the beyond... And when the earth shall claim your limbs, then shall you truly dance".

For some, living on through nature serves them as an image of immortality. We die, they say, but the earth goes on and on and on. In returning to earth, we are literally part of that endless continuity. If the universe is consistently recreating itself, we would be the only aspect that is not involved, which does not make sense.

There is also the image of biological continuity, the image of living on through our children and theirs, or a broader 'bio-social' image of living through our nation, our race and mankind.

For others, immortality resides in those works and acts which have some impact on future generations - in the causes we fight for, and sometimes we die for, in the discoveries we make and the values we impart.

Others believe that we come back again into a new body - we are given a chance to fulfil desires and ambitions that were thwarted in this lifetime through some form of physical or mental handicap, an act of violence and whatnot.

Rapid advances in the field of stem cell therapeutics are bringing us closer to the elusive goal of harnessing the "immortal flame" that survives in a significant number of humankind. Indeed, it has become clear that, in the words of internationally known gerontology researcher Dr Michael West: "You and I are made from cells that have no dead ancestors and that we can harness the power of our undying cell lineage to achieve a taste of immortality." Time will tell.

In his book Life after Death, Dr Deepak Chopra, a Fellow of the American College of Physicians and a member of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, explores the theory that death is an illusion of the senses and that the soul survives in an ongoing spiral of refinement that ends in enlightenment. According to Dr Chopra, we are mind and spirit first and our home lies beyond the stars.

What remains of us after death is consciousness.

John Humphreys, a distinguished British journalist and agnostic had this to say in his book In God We Doubt about the common ground that exists between atheists and believers: "Both sides also acknowledge the presence of that still, small voice. But for believers its origin is divine and for atheists it is the voice of reason. As for me, it is difficult to understand the existence of conscience without accepting the existence of something beyond ourselves.

"You can call that higher power God or Brahma or Allah or - as Socrates did - your own personal oracle. What you cannot do is dismiss it."

  • Google Bookmarks Del.icio.us Facebook Blogger YahooMyWeb Digg Reddit Stumbleupon
  • email article
  • print article
  • small text sizemedium text sizelarge text size
  • comment on this article

Comments

Kenneth Cassar(on 9/12/08)
@ Alex Ellul:

Nothing ever happens by chance. We (and scientists) sometimes use the word "chance" as a shorthand, because every happening is the result of sometimes trillions of factors which make something to be such and nothing else. Even in evolution and natural selection, when we sometimes say that evolution happens through "random" mutations, the mutations are actually not random at all. It just so happens that embryology is such a complicated process that it is convenient for scientists to say that mutations are random.

So yes, you are perfectly correct in saying that life does not happen by chance.

As for the "beginning" of matter (and by extension, the universe), we are left with two options: Either the universe (or some other universe) always existed in some form or another, or everything had a cause. Both are too hard to prove (and might never be proven). Also, when postulating a first cause, or prime mover, or God, we are still faced with the question of what was the cause (who created) of the first cause/prime mover/God. I don't think this question can ever be answered.
Joe Xuereb (London igin UK)(on 6/12/08)
@ Sinclair Calleja. Thank you Sinclair for your wonderfully concise comment. May I say, some twenty years ago (when I was still a believer of sorts) I found myself in deep trouble health wise. I went to speak to a Catholic priest and, without going into details as they are not relevant, I started to offload my troubles, the causes and the effects, and so on. I guess at one point the conversation turned philosophical. Maybe I was exploring the pyschological origin of my distress and hopefully, its relief. He stopped me short and told me in no uncertain terms that the Church does not go down the psychology route to delve into problems for the purpose of solving them. I had to leave him, a hundred times more distressed than when I went in. I survived the ordeal (many doctors here are excellent - the NHS still delivers a good service on the whole). And,most important of all, I survived the onslaught of an insidious belief system that prefers its adherents to remain in the dark so that they are better manipulated. Power to the Church, but never, ever, to the people.
Alex Ellul(on 4/12/08)
Many a time have I tried to go down the atheistic road, trying to find ways and reasons to convince myself that all that we see, feel, hear etc was created by chance. I remember a time, way back in the 60's, Beatles years, when scientists tried to create life by simulating the primordial soup that existed billions of years ago on this planet. They taught that by putting in the basic molecules, methane, water, carbon, etc and some heat, in time some type of self-replicating molecule would emerge. Nothing ever did. Because life does not happen by chance methinks. Years ago, when astronomers started confirming the expansion of the universe, confirming that it had started from what is called a 'singularity', there were scientists who disputed this fact simply because they could not accept the fact that the universe had an origin and therefore, logically, an originator. One such scientist came from the officially atheistic empire of the ex-soviet union, today's Russia. Eventually this scientist lost all credibility except with his own government. Moral: Unless scientists leave all options open, they will end up with egg on their faces.
Kenneth Cassar(on 3/12/08)
@ s cuschieri:

No problem...everyone makes mistakes. At least you did not make the mistake someone else once did. Once, when replying to me, someone used my own name. So it was like me replying to myself. Hysterical.
s.cuschieri(on 3/12/08)
@ Kenneth Cassar
I apologise. I addressed the comment to you when i meant to address the first person who mentioned chaos in this debate. Sorry.
Kenneth Cassar(on 3/12/08)
@ Alex Ellul:

"I suppose that what you actually meant to say was that it took some 15 billion earth years to reach the state it is now. It is even expanding at an incredible speed approaching that of light, at which time stops. Incredible isn't it!!!".

Yes, that's what I meant. The universe is made of matter. Unless there was a prime-mover (who/which would not necessarily be omnipotent/omniscient/benevolent), matter would have always existed. The only difference would be the composition of that matter. Some scientific theorists say that the universe will keep expanding, some that it will contract again, and some that it will keep expanding and contracting in sequence. We do not yet know which the case will be.

Regarding the rest of what you say, I would agree with you up to a point. In my opinion, ours might well not have been the only possible world, but of course, if it had been any different, we would not be here to discuss this. So in a sense, we were extremely lucky.
Kenneth Cassar(on 3/12/08)
@ s cuschieri:

"You asked it not I!"

I know. I was merely adding to your question about who created the "chaos".

"The only fault you and those who believe blindly can find with us is that we ask".

I find no fault in asking. In fact, I am one who thinks we should take nothing for-granted and to question everything (with reasonable limits, of course). Also, I am an atheist, so one certainly cannot say that I "believe blindly". I think you have misunderstood my intentions.

"and is there anything wrong in not accepting everything just because it is described as a mystery?"

Again, "mystery" is simply another word for "yet unanswered or unanswerable question". So I would agree with you.
Chris Farrugia(on 2/12/08)
Part 1 of 2

The debate on this issue should merely restrict to discussion. There is no point in trying to convince others but rather just accept what he or she believes in. Just remember one thing, that it is much more difficult for an atheist to conceive the concept of no afterlife than any other believer. Man lives with a hope, a hope of living forever, a hope of carrying all his lifetime knowledge and experiences to another level. When you stop believing in that, it makes life seem very short and start appreciating more what's given to us in this life.
By now we all know that the Garden of Eden didn't exist and man is the product of millions of years of evolution. The transition from fish to apes to man didn't occur overnight. The question obviously pops up - "At what point in this transition did God set in, and included man as part of his plan?
Chris Farrugia(on 2/12/08)
Part 2 of 2

I don't believe in an afterlife, and I don't indulge in the never-ending loop of what created who etc. What I will never accept that the world forms part of some greater plan created by "Him". We all know that this is no fair world, kids and families are exterminated on a daily basis in remote parts of the world, ill people going through hell and back etc.

By now we all know that the Garden of Eden didn't exist and man is the product of millions of years of evolution. The transition from fish to apes to man didn't occur overnight. The question obviously pops up - "At what point in this transition did God set in, and included man as part of his plan?
s. cuschieri(on 2/12/08)
@ Kenneth Cassar
You asked it not I! The only fault you and those who believe blindly can find with us is that we ask. Is there anything wrong in asking? and is there anything wrong in not accepting everything just because it is described as a mystery?
Sinclair Calleja(on 2/12/08)
Hi Frank, I respect your opinion expressed in this letter. One small point to note. There are no militant atheists. There are just people who you find offensive, and, having no counter-argument to their claims, you see them as militant. On the other hand, I can provide various examples of militant theists. Think crusades, "holy" wars, North/South Ireland, Palestine/Israel, Charles the Great, religious discrimination, etc, etc.

People are of course free to believe in what they like. Yet some people find that, unless something is proven, they cannot believe in it. These people were the inventors of many of the technologies we enjoy today. I rather respect, in my opinion, people who I can argue with using logic and reasoning, than people who believe in something that no one can prove to be true. If I tried to convince you that fairies exist, you would consider me a lunatic. But if two billion people are convinced that fairies exist, it becomes a religion.

The point is, unless we employ reason to arrive at some conclusion, we can't argue. Religion conveniently tells you to have faith and throw reason out of the window. To each his own...
Alex Ellul(on 2/12/08)
Dear Kenneth Cassar: According to present day scientific theory, the universe did form in an instant. I suppose that what you actually meant to say was that it took some 15 billion earth years to reach the state it is now. It is even expanding at an incredible speed approaching that of light, at which time stops. Incredible isn't it!!!

Regarding the perfect universe I referred to, the perfectness lies in the laws of science that were created weith the universe, the weak and strong forces that dominate over matter. Had these been different, the universe would have just collapsed back on itself or it would have overheated or... Its just came out perfect in way that it can last for 'ever' and create what it has created and it keeps on creating all that can be seen by our telescopes and other observatories.

Alex Ellul(on 2/12/08)
In my opinion the chaos was created by the politicians. :)
Kenneth Cassar(on 2/12/08)
@ s. cuschieri:

"the universe was created, out of chaos, And who created the chaos?!"

This question is unanswerable, no matter how much we theologise or philosophise, since it extends to the next question: Who created the creator?
Gerry Cowie(on 1/12/08)
Alex Ellul puts forward some odd, if not amusing ideas.

I think the idea of a soul is that it is spiritual and therefore unlikely to live on a silicone stick.

"The guy who wrote the bible stories" was probably in fact a lot of people over time. It might well be true to say that the universe was created from out of chaos in that there would appear to be order to the universe. The genesis account is a short form story to try to put across the actions of a creator.

I try to imagine nothing sometimes, but I just cannot do so. "Nothing comes from nothing - nothing ever could" (Sound of Music). That is what convinces me that there is a power far greater than I responsible for all this!

Nobody can adequately explain what happened or how. The fact that we are "creatures" of conscience makes us different from all other life forms. A cat will scratch, but it will not consider if it is fair and right to scratch - it just does it on instinct. But people can make a choice.
s.cuschieri(on 1/12/08)
the universe was created, out of chaos
And who created the chaos?!
r.mangion(on 1/12/08)
BANG, and hey presto you got a brand new universe. So perfect that it ends up in what it is today.
What is the definition of perfection? perfection cannot exist because in order to define perfection one needs to compare it to something. and since we cannot recognise perfection (if it existed) being ourselves limited how could we tell what it is?
a.meilaq(on 1/12/08)
@Joe Tabone-Adami
"When atheists stop believing in God as their Creator and their destiny, they will start believing anything. Poor shepherds lost in the mist!"
You seem to believe in destiny(which I don't) so if it's my destiny not to believe in god then it's not my fault is it?!
a.meilaq(on 1/12/08)
@ Gerry Cowie
As Kahlil Gibran put it in his book The Prophet: "In the depth of your hopes and desires lies your silent knowledge of the beyond... " if you had read the letter you would have noticed that the quotation I used came directly from it!
Joe Xuereb (London UK)(on 1/12/08)
It is tiresome when commentators make the obvious sound like some great breakthrough discovery. Naturally conscience draws on information already stored inside the brain. In other instances, it is what is popularly known as 'making informed decisions' - much the same process at work.
Joe Xuereb (London UK)(on 1/12/08)
Frank, we are all entitled to express an opinion. However, I would have thought if one is going to invest in the Christian tenets, one could choose from any number of western gurus including home-grown ones. Interesting that you refer to Deepak Chopra, an Indian medical doctor plus accolades. You could have added, indeed should have, that he is now primarily an entrepreneurial businessman purveying an everlasting life of serenity in - were else? - America, a country rich in dollars but bereft of much spirituality where people invest heavily in talking therapies or, more cheaply, self-help books. But gullible they are not. I should explain. Back in India, were gurus are two a rupee, Dr Chopra would create no ripples and certainly, no money. So he chose the west, tellingly, the U.S.A. His aim was to get impressive credentials and thence, his brand of spiritual messaging. Well, he could not well reach out to people's frantic needs through sacred cows and other fantasies so he latched on to an extant deity already known in the west, ie Jesus. In the land of evangelising Christians and terrorism, Chopra gained appeal. I do not buy Christianity so Chopra impresses me not.
Kenneth Cassar(on 1/12/08)
@ Alex Ellul:

"Even moments before that, there was nothing but chaos. Time, space and matter did not exist. Then, BANG, and hey presto you got a brand new universe".

It doesn't work that way. A complex universe does not form in an instant. The "big-bang" theory only attempts to explain how the process might have started. However, it has taken billions of years for the appearance of simple beginnings to the complex and interconnected world we live in today.
Alfred Grech(on 1/12/08)
Andy, that suggestion was for you because I believe in after life.
William P Flynn(on 1/12/08)
@Joe Tabone-Adami

You say,"When atheists stop believing in God as their Creator and their destiny, they will start believing anything". You make god harder to believe in than anything. Did you really mean that?

As much as I believe the (agnostic, atheist) sheep are happily grazing and it is indeed the "Poor (religious) shepherds (who are) lost in the mist!"; didn't you mean "sheep" lost in the mist? Freudian slip on a slip?

If there is a god, he/she/it would have winced at that one.

Between you, Gerry Cowie' assumptions (assume - makes an ass out of u and me) and C. McNeil's interesting logic, you give god a hard row to hoe and can do with less "help" from you three.
Alex Ellul(on 30/11/08)
Just suppose, something that may be realised in time, considering the successes that technology and science have achieved, suppose that our thoughts, experiences, remembrances; that is, all that goes into our brain (mind?) during our lifetime, would be saved on a piece of silicon memory stick. Wouldnt that be like living outside one's body. So what's the fuss? Wouldn't that be a kind of soul?

Just suppose, in a thousand years, man would have terraformed a distant planet, created DNA designed for that planet, and filled it with life based on our DNA but altered for conditions existing in that planet. Wouldnt that be playing god. So what's the fuss about God.

Now lets do a fast-rewind-in-time, and we find that the universe has shrunk in size so much that it would fit on a pin head. Even moments before that, there was nothing but chaos. Time, space and matter did not exist. Then, BANG, and hey presto you got a brand new universe. So perfect that it ends up in what it is today. I wonder how the guy who wrote the bible stories thousands of years ago new about the way the universe was created, out of chaos.
Kenneth Cassar(on 30/11/08)
@ Joe Tabone-Adami:

"When atheists stop believing in God as their Creator and their destiny, they will start believing anything".

Have you any evidence in support of this absurd claim?
Joseph Vella(on 30/11/08)
There are as a matter of fact many variations in the definition of immortality as ably summarized by Mr. Frank Muscat. Each theory carries with it a semblance of aspiration which robs death of its finality, and in Dr. Chopra uplifting assessment provides survival of the soul in an ingoing spiral of enlightened refinement. Here again poetic license overshadows the fear of the unknown. A book worth reading with contrarian viewpoints is “The Spiral Staircase” by famed British authoress and ex-nun Karen Armstrong. .

In tribute to Mr. Frank Muscat’s excellent posting I defer to his concluding statement that, "You can call that higher power God or Brahma or Allah or - as Socrates
did - your own personal oracle. What you cannot do is dismiss it." I add only to be true to thy self, and not be a slave to conformity.

Joseph Vella(on 30/11/08)
Few if any sound minded folks would argue that people are of one mind in their belief of an afterlife. The matter of claiming to possess a soul, is to some akin to the futility of trying to relate our species with God’s image and likeness. What gives such wishful beliefs a reason for living, makes others less pretentious shudder, in demeaning an omnipotent God to the level of an imperfect humanity. The slight by people of faith towards their deity of choice, is at best unintended.

Kahlil Gibran’s observation about “the silent knowledge of the beyond” is a masterpiece of poetic flourish, yet it remains an oxymoron expression of another side of existence which can never be proven, unless Lazarus resurrects once again from his grave, in Karma fashion, in evidence of immortality. Meanwhile the only certainty we are aware of is that in death our bodies change their chemical compositions, and return to ashes. In the universe of physics matter is indestructible.

Continued….
Joseph Vella(on 30/11/08)
Prosit for a beautifully crafted introspection of man’s inner conflict, which carefully balances the two opposing poles of expressing a belief based on faith, and displaying rationality. Mr. Frank Muscat is clearly a man of exceptional foresight, one who weighs his words with deliberation, the likes of which rarely bring a calm approach to heated discussions, bordering on subjective hysteria.

That some people who do not subscribe to the existence of a codified God, might experience a sense of futility in life, is as real as for those who likewise fear the dire consequences of an afterlife spent in damnation. Neither instance is quantifiable, nor can one hypothesis be used against the other to advantage. The claim of savaging religion by those who profess no faith but champion spirituality, is however a wee bit far fetched. A person of Mr. Muscat’s objectivity somehow failed to affirm that religious values transcend formal membership in an established denomination.

Continued….
Andy Towler(on 30/11/08)
@Alfred Grech: that's not how it works. Either someone believes or they don't. There's no point pretending to believe, in order to 'be prepared' - try googling 'Pascal's Wager'.

And as for 'poisoning' others - if your faith is so insecure that you're offended or even worried about what I and others of a like mind say, then I don't think that's the kind of faith worth having.
Kenneth Cassar(on 30/11/08)
@ Gerry Cowie:

True, conscious effort and conscience are not merely genetic. There are various factors building up a conscience, genes being only one. Others are education, influences from others, the study and examination of moral philosophy and ethics, etc. These all build on the genetically installed (albeit limited and primitive) conscience everyone acquires through natural means. Of course, religious education plays an undeniably big part, but atheists can supplant them through secular moral codes.
Joe Tabone-Adami(on 30/11/08)
When atheists stop believing in God as their Creator and their destiny, they will start believing anything. Poor shepherds lost in the mist!
C. Mc Neil(on 30/11/08)
About life after death; If we could only put our hands into the wounds of a dead man who had risen again! most certainly that life after death for the Christian believes in it not because of an argument, first of all, but because of a witness. The Church is that witness; 'apostolic succession' means first of all the chains of witnesses of His resurrection..... and we testify (witness) to you.” This is the answer to the septic who asks: “What do you know for sure about life after death anyway? Have you ever been there? Have you come back to tell us?” The reply is: “No, but I have a very good Friend who has. I believe Him, and I follow Him not only through life but also through death.”

Since we are claiming that there is no God gives us ground, not for the belief that there is a God, but for undertaking “the project of coming to believe that there is a God.” This involves things like going over one's reasons for rejecting belief in God to see if this holds up and checking most carefully reasons for thinking there is a God.
C. Mc Neil(on 30/11/08)
About life after death, let's take an Cosmological argument [a.k.a. First cause argument] ....Therefore, if I say something must have a cause, it has a cause. If I say universe must have a cause. Then, therefore, the Universe has a cause....Therefore, God exists. But if we take the argument from lack of evidence, then any evidence would be against faith. But without faith, God is nothing, unfortunately you must agree that “faith does exists.” Therefore, if God is not nothing and evidence for God's non-existence cannot exist, so He does exist. Don't argue... He's waiting.
Gerry Cowie(on 30/11/08)
I also feel that Frank Muscat gives a balanced view from his own point of view.

Even secularists are searching for something but deny it is a God.

They generally respond with sarcasm - A Meliaq as usual comes up with a quote from somewhere, though he or she does not give his or her source.

Assuming there is an afterlife it would seem sensible that it is open to all, regardless of what religion or not which they follow.

We are different from all other creatures in that we have a conscience and can choose various paths; we seem to believe that some things are wrong and some things are right. This has to be more than simply a genetic happening.

By all means make the most of this life, but with the caveat that you do not do so selfishly, having regard for others around you who also would like a good life! We only have to look abroad to see that there are many who have little or no life whatsoever based on that principle. Again we can choose to help those people rather than just focus on ourselves. Surely such conscious effort is not merely genetic!
Kenneth Cassar(on 30/11/08)
@ Frank Muscat:

Life for an atheist need not be "senseless and useless". Not all atheists are nihilists, just like not all Christians are fundamentalists. In both cases, only a comparatively small minority are so.

Regarding John Humphreys' book (which I have read and found to be wanting in research on the topic he discusses - I could write a whole book answering his unanswered questions), and particularly on "conscience", Mr Humphreys unfortunately failed to acknowledge that there is a genetic and neurological explanation for conscience.

In fact, conscience works differently on different people, depending on what values and information they have acquired in their lifetime. For instance, my conscience tells me that I should not eat the bodies of killed animals. I assume your conscience does not trouble you on this. This is presumably because conscience is not some abstract supernatural state of being. Conscience works through acquired values and experience.
Alfred Grech(on 30/11/08)
@Andy Towler: No, it's not "that's it", that's the way YOU want to see it but you are wrong and you're free to remain in the wrong but please, stop poisoning others.

It's better if you're prepared even if you believe there is "nothing" just in case there is "something" - don't you think?
a.meilaq(on 30/11/08)
"In the depth of your HOPES and DESIRES lies your silent knowledge of the beyond... "
and that's just what they are, hopes and desires.
Andy Towler(on 30/11/08)
We live, we die, we decompose, and eventually we become fossils. That's it.

It's about time people focused on enjoying this life and getting the most out of it, because it's the only one we get.
Monica Muscat(on 30/11/08)
I agree with this balanced well written letter. I have to add a point or two. We say that 'No one ever came back'. Well you ask that famous non-believer who working all his life with the terminally ill, and having experienced soo many ADE - After Death Experience converted to the Christian believe of Life After Death. I have a question to ask about re-incarnation, which, as a practicing Roman Catholic, I cannot espouse. But what about those of our Saints who are on records to have been "saintly" as from a very tender age? Does this not present two options: Either not every soul has the same opportunity to gain Saintlyness - or these souls have been through other lifes where they were gradually gaining perfection and thus Sainthood. No polemics please. This is just my personal passing thought.

Poll

Do you agree with proposals made to the European Parliament for maternity leave to be extended to 20 weeks?

  • yes
  • no
  • don't know
  • don't care


View results

Fun Stuff


Play Sudoku