That Religious Studies Website

Immortality and Life after Death

• Life after death: An introduction
• Life after death: An atheist perspective (Julian Baggini)
• Life after death: An introduction to Hindu beliefs
• Life after death: An introduction to Buddhist beliefs

Philosophy of Religion

• Arguments for the Existence of God
• The Problem of Evil and Suffering
• Atheism and Agnosticism
• Immortality and Life after Death
• Miracles
• Religious Pluralism

Recently added to the site

• The Ontological Argument: Introduction and Overview (Video)
• Visit to a Cathedral (Roman Catholic)
• Revision quiz: The Ontological Argument (Anselm of Canterbury)
• Revision quiz: Design arguments for the existence of God (Judeo-Christian): Part 1
• Revision quiz: Martin Luther King Jr.: Key facts
• Worksheet: Martin Luther King Jr.: The Early Years

Life after death: An atheist perspective (Julian Baggini)

Information: This article is based on ideas taken from Chapter 4 ('Meaning and purpose') of Julian Baggini's book Atheism: A Very Short Introduction. All quotes are taken from this chapter unless otherwise indicated.

Introduction

'If we pretend or imagine that life's purpose lies outside living itself, we will be searching the stars for what is underneath our feet all the time.'

In Atheism: A Very Short Introduction, philosopher Julian Baggini discusses atheist responses to the matter of life after death. In particular, he considers whether atheists can be accused of living meaning-less and purpose-less lives, because they do not believe in the existence of life after death (or any Divine Being/Transcendent Reality associated with it).

'The atheist unequivocally accepts human mortality, with no belief in after-life, reincarnation, or even dissolution of the ego into the world spirit. So, it is thought, if life is short and death is final, what is the point of it all?'

God should not tell us how to live

In response, Baggini believes it is perfectly possible to be an atheist and live a meaning-full and purpose-full life. In fact, he begins by considering whether those who believe in the existence of life after death have more of a problem finding meaning and purpose in their lives, especially when religions often teach that one's experiences in the next life will be vastly superior those here. Also, if one believes that it is only God who gives life a sense of purpose, then this seems to undermine the value people place on the lives they live here on earth. For if life has meaning and purpose only through obeying the Will of God (or doing that which God commands), then this leaves little room (if any) for people to make their own choices as to how they want to live, and also means humans are slaves to God:

'I find it hard to imagine why God would want creatures like us solely to serve him: it's not as though he's in need of domestic help or anything like that. It also seems unnervingly close in attitude to the people who for many centuries thought it was simply their role in life to work for the aristocracy and the upper classes. To take pride in one's lowly position and to see that as confirming meaning on one's life seems to me indicative of what Nietzsche called 'slave mortality': sanctifying what is in reality an unfortunate position so as to make that place seem much more desirable than it really is.'

The philosopher/theologian Don Cupitt argued something similar to Baggini here when he suggested that the existence of God was morally oppressive and left no room for personal choice, genuine moral freedom or the ability to revise established moral conventions in a changing world.

Something to think about: What for you is the purpose of life on earth, and what gives meaning to people's lives? On what basis do you hold these beliefs and believe (or know) them to be true?

Belief in the after-life undermines our present existence

Although it is often said that believing in the existence of life after death gives meaning and purpose to life (especially when people are suffering), Baggini feels that this belief actually undermines the value of life on earth. For instance, if one sees this life as a preparation (or means) for achieving better things in the next, then this immediately makes this life secondary to the next, and may also lead people to do horrendous things for the sake of getting there and having a better quality of existence. For instance, in the Hindu scripture The Bhagavad-Gita, Arjuna learns from Krishna that he should be prepared to fight his relatives (the sons of Pandu) because as a warrior is it his duty to do this. Now the lesson Arjuna learns from this is that in order for him to attain good karma (or good merit) in the next life, he cannot be sentimental towards the things in this one. Arjuna and the sons of Pandu were meant to fight against each other, but if they had decided not to do this based on their feelings of kinship, then this would have resulted in them attaining bad karma (and a lower form of re-birth).

Krishna is also teaching Arjuna that the soul is more important that the body, and that attachment to the things of this world will hinder the soul's journey back to God through subsequent lives.

'This is one reason why atheists can claim that life is more meaningful for them than it is for many religious people who see this world as a kind of preparation for the next. For these people, life isn't really that valuable in itself at all. It is like a coin which can be exchanged for a good that really does count: the after-life.'

Some suicide bombers have also been said to be prepared to blow themselves up, because they believe they are being martyrs and will be rewarded for their sacrifice in the next life.

'God would compensate the martyr for sacrificing his life for his land.' (Muhammad Abu Wardeh)

Advertisement

Atheists and social justice

Although the belief in life after death can bring hope that where one has suffered an injustice in this life that this will be rectified in the next, Baggini argues that living as though this life is all there is is a far better motivation for people to work for social justice right now. For instance, accepting that this is the only life we will get will make people 'seize the day', and as such instead of giving up and hoping that God will sort things out in the end, people will become interested in promoting morality and justice in the world:

'Arundhati Roy [is an atheist but also] a campaigner for social change and justice in India. In an interview, asked if she thought death was the end, she replied, 'Yes... sometimes even before you die, that's it'. I think this sharp reply shows how an atheist belief in mortality can motivate a real concern for those who, though still living, are not getting a good chance to enjoy the only life they have.' [Bracket mine]

Baggini's point is this; one is far more likely to be interested in making the world a better place, if one believes the world is all one has!

The pointlessness of eternity

Finally, Baggini argues that the belief in eternal life (or the notion that life will be extended in some way after death) is a pointless concept. For instance, he argues that the belief in eternal life offers little if any motivation for anyone to do anything. If one had an endless amount of time to do things, then there would be no sense of urgency to get anything done. One could take all the time in the world to decide to do (or not to do) something.  However, because we live in a world where the life expectancy is around 70 years, this is motivation for us not to waste our lives and to maximise our time here.

Another point Baggini makes is that almost all human activities require some form of 'closure' in order for them to be meaningful. Plays, novels, films, courses we take etc., all have meaning because there is some end to them; we are working towards something.

'A football match, for example, gains its purpose only because it finishes after 90 minutes and there is a result. An endless football match would be as meaningless as a kick around in the park.'

However, what is one working towards in a an endless existence? Even if one requires some continuation of life in order to resolve moral or spiritual difficulties encountered on earth, what happens once this has been achieved? What really is the point of having eternal life after this? Although people may wish for a longer time on earth, the fact that one day we will all die forces people to act. So Baggini's point is that rather than see mortality as something detrimental to finding meaning and purpose in life, it is actually something which motivates us to value life.

'We may regret death while at the same time knowing that its inevitability is what makes life so valuable in the first place.'

Furthermore, it those who believe that life will continue after death in some way, who (as far as Baggini is concerned) have their work cut out to find meaning and purpose in such an existence.

Another point Baggini makes in relation to this is that the after-life must have some resemblance to life here on earth, in order for us to be recognizably you or me in it. For instance, it is unclear how someone might live on as a disembodied spirit in a heavenly realm, when they are who they are through having a body and living in a physical realm. Of course, in response to this one might say that what makes us who we are is also to do with living in a particular culture and place on earth, and as such if we travel to another country we could not be considered to be the same person (according to this logic anyway).

Something to discuss: What makes us who we are, and who is the real you

Some issues

One of the biggest challenges for atheists is how to give hope to people who are suffering. For instance, some people are born in situations where they really do not have enough to eat or drink, whilst others are born disabled or with crippling illnesses. Now if this is the only life we have, then this situation sucks for those who are not born in places where they have access to plenty of food or water, or are able-bodied and healthy. Now atheism might be able to explain why people suffer (i.e. it is due to human greed, mismanagement of the earth's resources etc.), but they cannot justify why some people suffer and are born into these different circumstances. For the atheist, that is just the way things are.

Starving child in Sudan. Can atheism justify their suffering, or give them hope that one day all will be well for them? (Image source: www.godlovespeople.com)

Believing there is an after-life can provide those who suffer a sense of hope that in the end all will be well. Although this belief is not proof that there is an after-life, the belief can give people a sense of purpose and instill in them a feeling of hope far more than the atheist view of things can, which basically says 'That's all folks!'. This means the challenge for atheists who want to remove (what they consider to be be) false religious notions, is that they have to find non-religious ideas/concepts which have the same (if not more) meaning and value for people in these situations, in order for them to be accepted (and acceptable).

Atheists might say that because there is no after-life then this is a reason why everyone in the world should be working to make it a better place for all. However, one might counter this by saying that if this life is all there is, then why should anyone be giving up their time to help others?

Something to think about: What do you think might motivate atheists to devote time helping others in the world?

Although there is a danger in people being so heavenly minded that they end up being of no earthly use, there has been a new sense of environmental responsibility growing amongst certain groups of believers. Now one of the issues which has caused some believers to give up on the world, is the notion that it is a less-than-perfect place, which one day will be 'wiped-clean' and restored to its original goodness. However, in the Bible (for example) we read that God charged humanity with caring for the world (Genesis 2:15), and as such we should be responsible stewards of all that God has given us.

An example of one Christian group currently working to raise awareness of environmental issues is the Evangelical Environmental Network (www.creationcare.org).

This means that Baggini is wrong to suggest that belief in the after-life stops people from being interested in making the world a better place. In fact, many believers feel they should be responsible for how they act in and treat the world as we are all one global community, and that because of this the way one group acts in it will clearly affect others elsewhere.

Finally, Baggini's arguments are not so much arguments against the existence of life after death, but arguments which merely challenge certain notions surrounding  it. For instance, to say that the notion of eternal life can lead people to become disinterested in the world does not mean there is no after-life. It simply means that belief in the after-life can lead people to act in certain ways. It is logically unsound to say that because x belief leads to y way of behaving, that x belief is not true. This is like saying that because believing in Fascism leads people to be racists, then there cannot be any Fascists. Yet this is nonsense! A belief which leads people to act in ways we do not agree with is no basis on which to say that the belief is wrong. However, it is a basis on which to question the value of the nature of the belief as it stands.

Back to top