Based on Pocket handbook of Christian apologetics (2003) by Peter Kreeft & Ronald Tacelli. This is a course taught at LTCi, Siliguri.

1. Life after
Death
Pocket Handbook of Christian Apologetics
Chapter 11
Peter Kreeft & Ronald Tacelli

2. The Six Basic Theories
of the Afterlife
Materialism: Nothing
survives. Death ends all of
me. Seldom held before the
eighteenth century,
materialism is now a strong
minority view in
industrialized nations. It is
the natural accompaniment
of atheism.

3. Paganism: A vague, shadowy
semiself or ghost survives and
goes to the place of the dead,
the dark, gloomy Underworld.
This is the standard pagan
belief. Traces of it can be found
even in the OT Jewish notion
of sheol. The "ghost" that
survives is less alive, less
substantial, less real than the
flesh and blood organism now
living. It is something like a
"ghost image" on a TV set: a
pale copy of the lost original.

4. SHEOL—in OT thought, the abode of the dead.
Sheol is the Hebrew = of the Greek hades, which
means “the unseen world.”
Sheol was regarded as an underground region
(Num. 16:30, 33; Amos 9:2), shadowy and
gloomy, where disembodied souls had a
conscious but dull and inactive existence (2
Sam. 22:6; Eccl. 9:10). The Hebrews regarded
sheol as a place to which both the righteous and
unrighteous went at death (Gen. 37:35; Ps. 9:17;
Is. 38:10), where punishment is received and
rewards are enjoyed. Sheol is pictured as having
an insatiable appetite (Is. 5:14; Hab. 2:5).

5. However, God is present in sheol (Ps. 139:8;
hell, nkjv). It is open and known to Him
(Job 26:6; Prov. 15:11). This suggests that
in death God’s people remain under His
care, and the wicked never escape His
judgment. It is apparent that Jesus emptied
that portion of sheol where the righteous
were waiting until redemption’s completion
(Luke 23:43). Sheol gives meaning to
Psalm 16:10.

6. Reincarnation: The individual
soul survives and is reincarnated
into another body. Reincarnation
is usually connected with the
next belief, pantheism, by the
notion of karma: that after the
soul has fulfilled its destiny, and
learned its lessons and become
sufficiently enlightened, it reverts
to a divine status or is absorbed
into (or realizes its timeless
identity with) the divine All.

7. Pantheism: Death changes
nothing, for what survives death is
the same as what was real before
death: only the one, changeless,
eternal, perfect, spiritual, divine,
all-inclusive Reality, sometimes
called by a name ("Brahman") and
sometimes not (as in Buddhism).
In this view—that of Eastern
mysticism—all separateness,
including time, is an illusion.
Therefore, in this view, the very
question of what happens after
death is mistaken. The question is
not solved but dissolved.

8. Immortality of the soul: The
individual soul survives
death, but not the body. This
soul eventually reaches its
eternal destiny of heaven or
hell, perhaps through
intermediate stages, perhaps
through reincarnation. But
what survives is an
individual, bodiless spirit.
This is Platonism, often
confused with Christianity.

9. Resurrection: At death, the
soul separates from the body
and is reunited at the end of
the world to its new,
immortal, resurrected body
by a divine miracle. This is the
Christian view. This view, the
supernatural resurrection of
the body rather than the
natural immortality of the
soul alone, is the only version
of life after death in Scripture.
It is dimly prophesied and
hoped for in the OT, but
clearly revealed in the New.

10. Resurrection: At death, the
soul separates from the body
and is reunited at the end of
the world totwonew,
The last its
arguments -
immortal, resurrected body
by a divine miracle.the soul
immortality of This is the
Christian view. This view, the
and resurrection -
supernatural resurrection of
both argue that the
the body rather than the
soul survives death - it
natural immortality of the
soulthis point that version
is alone, is the only
ofKreeft tries to prove.
life after death in Scripture.
It is dimly prophesied and
hoped for in the OT, but
clearly revealed in the New.

11. The argument from the
soul’s simplicity
Major Premise: what is not
composed cannot be
decomposed. A molecule can
be split up into its atoms, cells
into molecules, an organ into
cells, a body into organs, a
person into body and soul.
What is not composed of parts
cannot be taken apart.

12. Minor Premise: the soul is not
composed of parts - it has no
quantifiable parts as the body
does - you can’t cut a soul in
half.
Conclusion: therefore the soul
is not decomposable. There are
only 2 ways of being destroyed
- decomposed into parts or
annihilation - nothing simply
pops out of existence, so if the
soul does not die in parts
(decompose) or is annihilated
as a whole - then the soul does
not die.

13. The argument from the soul’s
ability to objectify the body
Major Premise: if there is a
power of the soul that cannot
come from the body, this
indicates that the soul is not
part of the body. That in turn
indicates it is not subject to
any laws governing the body,
including mortality.

14. The argument from the soul’s
ability to objectify the body
objectify |əbˈjektə
Major Premise: if there is a
ˌfī|
power of the soul that cannot
come from the body, this
verb that the soul is not
indicates
part of the body. That in turn
• degrade to theto
indicates it is not subject
status of a mere
any laws governing the body,
including mortality.
object

15. The argument from the soul’s
ability to objectify the body
Major Premise: if there is a
power of the soul that cannot
come from the body, this
indicates that the soul is not
part of the body. That in turn
indicates it is not subject to
any laws governing the body,
including mortality.

16. Minor premise: I can know my
body as an object only because I
am more than my body. E.g. I
know a stone as an object only
because I am merely a stone - the
data projector can show images
because it is not merely one more
image - I can remember my past
because I am more than my past: I
am a present knower. The knowing
subject must be more than the
known object.
Conclusion: therefore the soul is
not subject to the body’s mortality.

17. The argument from two
immaterial operations
Major Premise: if I perform
operations which are not
operations of my material
body, then I am more than
my body. I am an
immaterial soul - which
need not die when my body
dies.

18. Minor premise:
1. Thinking as distinct from
external sensing or internal
sensing (imagining)
Proof: our thought is not simply
limited to images like the Taj
Mahal, but we can understand
abstract, immaterial principles
and essences - like trigonometry,
we can imagine the difference
between a 3 and 4 sided figure but
only understand the difference
between an 103 and 104 sided
figure. So our understanding
transcends our imagining.

19. 2. Deliberate, rational, responsible
willing, as distinct from instinctive
liking, desiring or feeling.
Proof: if willing is only instinctive
desiring then:
A. We could not control our desires
or will and none of us would be
responsible for our choices.
B. If there was only instinct in us
and not will then the strongest
instinct would always win - this is
not the case, e.g. when fear is over-
ridden by compassion.
Conclusion: I am an immaterial
and immortal soul

20. The antimaterialist self-
contradiction argument
Major Premise: a
computer is not reliable if
it has been programmed
by chance (e.g. throw
stones at the keyboard)
not be design. The human
brain and nervous system
are a computer (and much
more) but it is not reliable
if programmed by chance.

21. If materialism is true then
the soul is just the brain -
there is no spirit, no soul
and no God - then the
programming of the brain
is by chance through
genetics and environment
and this is therefore by
unintelligent, undesigned,
random chance - brute
forces and physical
reasons no logic to it.

22. On this basis materialism
cannot be true - if the brain
is nothing but blind atoms
then why should we trust
what it tells us about itself?
If it is just atoms why listen
to what atoms tell us about
atoms?
If materialism is not true
then there is an immaterial
reality too - called spirit,
soul etc. - this is not subject
to the laws of material
reality including mortality

23. The argument from ultimate
justice
Justice is often not done in the
short term on earth, so either,
1. Justice is done in the long
run, which would include life
after death,
2. The demand we make for
moral meaning and justice are
not met by reality and are just
a “quirk” of the human psyche
- in which case there is no
cause for our desire for justice
or morality

24. So a desire for justice is only the
same as any other physical desire,
for food etc. It does not reveal
anything of how things should be,
it simply tells us how things are.
The price here of denying life
after death is that of moral
seriousness - stop believing that
morality has a place in objective
reality and it becomes a set of
feelings and wishes, a private
desire - there is then no need to
obey such when it is personally
inconvenient.

25. So a desire for justice is only the
same as any other physical desire,
“If there is no
for food etc. It does not reveal
anything of how things should be,
it simply tells us how things are.
immortality,
The price here of denying life
after death is that of moral
everything is
seriousness - stop believing that
morality has a place in objective
permitted”
reality and it becomes a set of
feelings and wishes, a private
Dostoevsky
desire - there is then no need to
obey such when it is personally
inconvenient.

26. Pascal’s wager
Before we looked at this as
an incentive to believe in God
- it is not a proof - but it can
also be used as an idea for
believing in life after death.
Sceptical people tend to
favour arguments which
show we don’t know
something - e.g. arguing
against abortion on the basis
that you don’t know a fetus
isn’t a baby.

27. Pascal’s wager
Before we looked at this as
an incentive to believe in God
The wager proof - but it can
- it is not a argument doesn’t
prove life after death for
also be used as an ideajust
suggests in life after to
believingit is sensibledeath.
believe in people tend to
Sceptical it.
Mk 16:16 - is it false, or is
favour arguments which it
true? Isn’t it foolish
show we don’t know to ignore
if it is true e.g. arguing
something - after all
remember Mk 8:36
against abortion on the basis
that you don’t know a fetus
isn’t a baby.

28. Pascal’s wager
The wager argument doesn’t
prove life after death just
suggests it is sensible to
believe in it.
Mk 16:16 - is it false, or is it
true? Isn’t it foolish to ignore
if it is true - after all
remember Mk 8:36

29. Pascal’s Wager
This is a different type of argument - precious to you lay
Suppose someone terribly
and is not a proof for the existence
Supposeayou for searching for that youra new is
dying, and the doctor offered to try house
of God but help hear reports
Godfire and your children are inside. You do not
on in the absence of such proof.
"miracle drug" that he could not guarantee but
Pascal assumed that logical
that seemed to have a 50-50 chance false.
know whether thenot prove are true orof saving
reasoning of itself could reports
the existence of reasonable thing to it be
Whatbeloved friend's was Woulddo—to ignore
your is the God - there life.
good reasoning on both sides. So if
reasonabletake the even if run home or
them or prove it, try it,ittime to it cost a littleat
we cannot
to to and if is so
important, And suppose in case the reports are
least phone we need justit were free—wouldn't it
money? then home to “wager”.
The question becomes: “Where
true?
be utterly reasonable to try it and
are you going to place your
unreasonable not to?
bet?”

30. Pascal’s Wager
This is a different type of argument -
and is not a proof for the existence
Supposeayou for searching for that your house is
of God but help hear reports
Godfire and your children are inside. You do not
on in the absence of such proof.
Pascal assumed that logical
know whether thenot prove are true or false.
reasoning of itself could reports
What is the reasonable thing to do—to ignore
the existence of God - there was
good reasoning on both sides. So if
them or prove it, and if ittime to run home or at
we cannot
to take the is so
important, then home to “wager”.
least phone we need just in case the reports are
The question becomes: “Where
true?
are you going to place your
bet?”

31. Pascal’s Wager
This is a different type of argument -
and is not a proof for the existence
of God but a help for searching for
God in the absence of such proof.
Pascal assumed that logical
reasoning of itself could not prove
the existence of God - there was
good reasoning on both sides. So if
we cannot prove it, and if it is so
important, then we need to “wager”.
The question becomes: “Where
are you going to place your
bet?”

32. Pascal’s Wager
This is a different type of argument -
and is not a proof for the existence
of God but a help for searching for
God in the absence of such proof.
Pascal assumed that logical
reasoning of itself could not prove
the existence of God - there was
good reasoning on both sides. So if
we cannot prove it, and if it is so
important, then we need to “wager”.
The question becomes: “Where
are you going to place your
bet?”

33. Place it with God - and even if he doesn’t you lose nothing.
Place it against God - if he does exist, you lose everything.
The argument is that if you win, you win everything, if
you lose, you lose nothing.
This can seem very selfish, but has been reformulated to apply
to a higher moral motive: If there is a God of infinite
goodness, and he justly deserves my allegiance and
faith, I risk doing the greatest injustice by not
acknowledging him.

35. The wager should not coerce belief
- but can be an incentive to search
for God - it can motivate the prayer
of the sceptic:
“God I don’t know whether you
exist or not, but if you do, please
show me who you are.”
Pascal suggests 3 kinds of people:
- those who have sought God and
found him (reasonable and happy)
- those who are seeking and have
not yet found (reasonable and
unhappy)
- those who neither seek nor find
(unreasonable and unhappy)

36. The wager should not coerce belief
"Ask, and it will be
- but can be an incentive to search
for God - to you; seek,prayer
given it can motivate the and
of the sceptic:
you will find; knock,
“God I don’t know whether you
exist orit will be opened to
and not, but if you do, please
show me who you are.”
you.suggests 3 kinds of people:
For everyone who
Pascal
- asks receives, and the
those who have sought God and
one who seeks finds,
found him (reasonable and happy)
- those who are seeking and have
and to (reasonablewho
not yet found the one and
knocks it will be
unhappy)
- those whoopened. nor find
neither seek
(unreasonable and unhappy)

37. The argument from sehnsucht
(longing)|ˈzānˌzoŏ kh t|
Major Premise: every real
innate desire within us
corresponds to a real object
that can satisy that desire:
Hunger - food
Thirst - drinks
Eros - Sex
Curiosity - knowledge

38. Minor premise: there exists
within each one of us a desire
that nothing in this life can
satisfy, a longing (sehnsucht)
that differs from all others but is
undefinable and unattainable in
this life.
We don’t really understand this
but we do all want paradise,
heaven, eternity - Augustine,
“Our hearts are restless until
they find their rest in thee”
We might not know who or what
the thee is but that does not stop
the deep longing in our souls.

39. Conclusion: there is more to
life than this, there is eternal
life.
Ultimately complaint about
something shows that there
can be something better - we do
not complain about 2+2=4, but
we do about pain, hunger,
poverty - even about a lack of
time (we want eternity).
Therefore there must be
eternity - there must be a place
where it is all good enough

40. The argument from love
Inspired by Gabriel Marcel - it
is less “tight” than others but
deeper - it depends upon
“seeing” not on a straight
logical understanding.
However it is formulated
logically here.
1. Love means agape not eros;
gift love not need love; love of
the other not love of
enjoyment.

41. 2. Love is not blind - it has
‘eyes’ and it reasons - e.g. Who
is best for you a person who
loves you more but is less
bright, or a person who loves
you less but is more
intelligent? We all know it is
the latter - eros might be blind
but agape is not. Ow could love
be blind if God is love? God is
not blind!

42. 3. Love sees the intrinsic value
of the beloved - this goes
beyond what they can do - you
become indispensable when
someone sees you for your own
sake not for any ability or for
their own sake.
4. On this basis it can now be
argued that the indispensable
should not be dispensed with -
this is morally intolerable.

43. 5. Why couldn’t this morally intolerable
situation be real? Because itf it were then
reality (ultimate, universal, cosmic
reality) - would do to all persons in the
end what is morally intolerable, what we
should never do; in that case our values
would have no ground in reality.

44. 6. Therefore either moral
values are groundless or
persons are not dispensed with
and we all live forever.
The eye of death seems to see
the eclipse of love, but the eye
of love sees the eclipse of death.
The weakness here is the
weakness of love - it is a choice,
free not compelled. If you don’t
choose love you will not see it, if
you really want to know it you
can perform the relevant
experiment.

45. “Insofar as you advance in
love, you will grow surer of
the reality of God and of the
immortality of the soul.
This has been tried. This is
certain”
Dostoevsky in The Brothers
Karimazov
As with all roads you have
to travel it with sincerity to
really see.

46. The argument from Christ’s
resurrection
What would be the best evidence
for life after death? Probably
seeing and touching one who has
died and risen again, then we
could be sure.
This is the risen Christ - 1 Jn
1:1-3 - a witness is the first
guarantee of life after death for
the Christians. We might not
have died and been raised - but
we have a good friend who has!