The Atheist Afterlife
The Atheist Afterlife describes an afterlife that is consistent with known law and requires nothing more than physics. It demonstrates that an afterlife is possible based on reason, and supports the probability of an afterlife with an original and testable support for dualism – the proposition that our mind and body are separate.
An afterlife based on reason has profound implications. An afterlife that requires only physics requires no God; it makes the concept of God irrelevant and removes the ‘God of the Gaps’ completely. It enables us to prove that many religious conceptions of an afterlife are false, including the concepts of judgement, selectivity based on belief, and the existence of Heaven and Hell. It removes the concept of an afterlife from its religious associations so humanists and other rationalists can examine it on its own merit. And an original and testable support for dualism could resolve a philosophical debate that’s been going on for more than 2,000 years!
Entertaining and well-reasoned, The Atheist Afterlife is a significant contribution to philosophy and free thought.
Introduction
Part of the joy of living is endeavouring to understand what the experience of life is all about. We can experience life without examining it, but every increase in understanding seems to make the experience more wonderful, and certainly more honest.
An understanding of ‘life’ requires an understanding of ‘death’, in the same way that an understanding of ‘day’ requires an understanding of ‘night’; we can only appreciate one with reference to the other. The meaning of ‘life’ – if it waits for us anywhere – awaits us in the meaning of ‘death’.
Do we live in a world where death is final and fatal, as the evidence suggests, or is it possible for our consciousness to survive?
It’s a fascinating question for a number of reasons. First, the alternatives couldn’t be more different: we are either extinguished or we survive in some extraordinary way; the alternatives describe two very different worlds. Second, the answer requires a deep understanding of difficult concepts such as ‘mind’ and ‘consciousness’ and their relationship with ‘body’. And third, in this subject, perhaps more than any other, we are all prone to some degree of bias.
The dividing line between belief and non-belief in an afterlife is very close to the dividing line between belief and non-belief in God. Religious people generally accept the concept of an afterlife on faith, as a promise made by God, with Heaven a reward for obedience and Hell a punishment for sin. Atheists, on the other hand, in their rejection of faith, generally reject the concept of an afterlife as a fiction – a fiction bestowed by a fictitious God.
It’s not surprising that the concept of an afterlife has become so closely connected with religion because all religions affirm its existence. But while the phrase ‘non-religious afterlife’ is awkward, it is not a contradiction in terms. The concept of an afterlife can be removed from its religious context and examined on its own merit.
This book is the result of prising the concept of an afterlife out of the grasp of religion and applying rational thought to the subject without prejudice; that is, neither accepting it on faith, nor dismissing it as a religious fiction.
Although the balance of evidence and reason make the existence of an afterlife doubtful, the question is unresolved. There is no final proof one way or the other, and a number of scientific and philosophical questions remain unanswered. But while we can’t make a definitive judgement about the existence of an afterlife, we can do three things:
- We can make a definitive judgement about the context and conditions of an afterlife should it exist;
- We can make a definitive judgement about whether or not that context requires a God; and
- We can come closer to answering the questions that will prove or disprove an afterlife’s existence.
The Atheist Afterlife describes a rational, non-religious afterlife that requires nothing more than physics. This is what an afterlife would look like if it exists. It is possible to determine a model of existence even though the question of existence is unresolved. The second goal derives from the first, because an afterlife that requires nothing more than physics requires no God – but I guess the title of the book gave that away already!
When we build a rational model of an afterlife we find that many of the religious conceptions of life after death are irrational and harmful. False belief in eternal damnation, for example, has fostered fear and guilt over natural forms of sexual expression for thousands of years, while false belief in eternal reward seems to justify acts such as hijacking aeroplanes and flying them into skyscrapers. We should all be concerned about what people believe about life after death, because people take actions based on these beliefs that affect countless lives.
But The Atheist Afterlife is more than just a thought experiment to remove God and put the boot into harmful theology. The Atheist Afterlife brings us closer to answering the questions that will one day either prove or disprove an afterlife’s existence by presenting an original and possibly testable support for mind–body dualism – the proposition that our brain and mind are separate.
The question of mind–body dualism is at the heart of the question of the existence of life after death. Philosophers generally frame this question in terms of our brain and our mind, with the question: are our brain and our mind the same thing, or two different things? It’s a crucial question, because if our brain and our mind are the same thing, an afterlife is impossible; but if our brain and our mind are two different things, an afterlife is likely.
It was always going to be philosophy that moved this debate forward. Religion has its set views and its scriptures aren’t changing, and science has more practical and realisable challenges to address. Philosophy, on the other hand, has never grown tired of reasoning through the issues of the relationship between the mind and the body – the relationship on which the possibility of an afterlife depends. Philosophy has never been comfortable with a religious afterlife because philosophers seek wisdom, and wisdom is not found in faith; but philosophy has always known that a lack of sensory evidence for something does not guarantee that it doesn’t exist. Philosophy has had one arm tied behind its back by the absence of a law prohibiting an afterlife, and the other arm tied behind its back by the absence of any logical mechanism to support it.
Until now.
Go to a Core Principle of The Atheist Afterlife: The Argument from Geometry.
Read Frequently Asked Questions, or go to the Bookshop.