The Atheist Afterlife - FAQ
What is The Atheist Afterlife about?
The Atheist Afterlife argues that it is possible to believe in an afterlife based on reason rather than faith. It describes a rational, non-religious afterlife that requires nothing more than physics and therefore requires no God, and supports this argument with an original and testable support for mind-body dualism (the proposition that our mind and brain are separate).
How is The Atheist Afterlife different from other books on the subject of life after death?
The Atheist Afterlife provides four things that make it credible and unique.
1. The most important fact to consider when we talk about the subject of an afterlife is this: there is no generally observable evidence of an afterlife. There is no evidence in our normal dimensions of time and space that the dead continue to live. A credible afterlife theory must therefore provide evidence of a different context of time and space.
2. But a different context of time and space is not enough. A credible afterlife theory must also provide evidence that we have a constitution that allows a transition of consciousness to that context of time and space. It must therefore provide support for dualism, the proposition that our mind and brain are separate. Only if our mind and brain are separate can there be somewhere for our consciousness to go when our physical body dies.
3. A credible afterlife theory must not attempt to explain one mystery with another mystery; and
4. A credible afterlife theory, like all credible theories, must be able to be falsified.
The Atheist Afterlife ticks all four boxes, which makes it unique in its field.
What is the difference between the Argument from Geometry and the Inside-Out Theory?
The Argument from Geometry is an argument that supports dualism, the proposition that our mind and brain are separate. The Argument from Geometry is testable.
The Inside-Out Theory is a comprehensive theory that describes the only possible context of an afterlife. It describes how the laws of physics would operate in that context, and how that context would be experienced. The Inside-Out Theory is falsifiable.
How is the Argument from Geometry testable?
It is possible to form a conception of how an additional dimension of space and an additional dimension of time would affect our experience. The Argument from Geometry predicts a strong correlation between this experience and dream experience. This correlation could is testable with lucid dreamers.
How is the Inside-Out Theory falsifiable?
The Inside-Out Theory would be proved false if neither dark matter nor dark energy were responsive to emotions and thought.
What empirical reason do we have to investigate an afterlife? What set of data is there that demands interpretation?
As far as I can tell there are no compelling reasons to investigate an afterlife from a scientific perspective. The compelling reasons come from psychology and philosophy. The psychological questions that the theory sheds light on include: the context and content of dreams, an explanation of the recurrence of thought, an explanation for the subconscious mind, and an explanation for our inability to properly remember our dreams.
The philosophical reasons to go there are manifold. These matters - mind-body dualism, the causal connection between thought and action, consciousness, etc - have engaged the minds of philosophers for a few thousand years.
Another reason for pursuing this subject comes from the atheist perspective. While it’s not possible to make a definitive judgment about whether an afterlife exists or not, I believe it’s possible to make a definitive judgment about what an afterlife would look like if it exists. This is similar to a scientist saying, 'while it’s not possible yet to say whether there’s life on Mars, these are the features of life that we would expect to find if it exists'. Now, say that afterlife required nothing more than physics and therefore nothing supernatural, wouldn’t that remove the ‘God of the Gaps’ entirely?
Why haven't you made a comprehensive defense of atheism in the book?
There are many excellent books that make these arguments - they can be found in the Bookshop - and I did not wish to repeat them, but rather keep the focus on an exploration of a rational afterlife. The atheist argument made in The Atheist Afterlife is solely: if you can describe an afterlife that requires no supernatural realm, doesn’t this remove the “God of the Gaps’ entirely? or, alternately, if God exists, isn’t His definition becoming so close to ‘the laws of physics’ that you have defined Him out of existence?
Is The Atheist Afterlife written for the general reader?
The Atheist Afterlife is written for the general reader. There is no prior knowledge of science or philosophy assumed, and the arguments are clearly made in everyday language.
Read the Introduction or go to the Bookshop.