Home » Academics » Lecture Hall

Life After Death: The Evidence, Part 1

Is There Evidence for Life After Death?

While there is widespread interest in life after death, many today believe either that there is no such thing or that, even if the afterlife is real, given that there is no evidence either way, one is free to believe anything one wants about the afterlife if such belief is personally helpful. As philosopher John Hick pointed out more than 25 years ago, "This considerable decline within society as a whole, accompanied by a lesser decline within the churches, of the belief in personal immortality clearly reflects the assumption within our culture that we should only believe in what we experience, plus what the accredited sciences certify to us."¹ In response to this problem, let’s get clear on what the Bible teaches about the afterlife, and then see what kind of case can be made on its behalf.

Disembodied Intermediate State

Throughout history, Christianity has correctly been understood to teach that the human soul, while not by nature immortal, never ceases to be after it is created. Upon death, it enters a disembodied intermediate state, however incomplete and unnatural this state may be, and eventually it is reunited with a resurrected body.

There are two main rivals to the classic disembodied intermediate state position. First, the recreation position claims that at death the person ceases to exist and is recreated out of nothing at the final resurrection. Biblical statements to the effect that one is immediately with Christ at death are construed in terms of how things seem to the deceased person (it will seem that we are with Christ right after we die because, obviously, we cannot be aware of things during the period in which we cease to exist). However, clear biblical statements that to die is to be with Christ (Philippians 1:23) should be interpreted according to their literal sense. Moreover, the reality and activity of those in the intermediate state is often described in Scripture (Isaiah 14:9-10, Hebrews 12:23, Revelation 6:9-11). Further, the appearance in Scripture of deceased people is best taken as temporary embodiment of already existing people and not as a temporary creation of human beings out of nothing for a short period of time (e.g., Matthew 17:3). Finally, the Old Testament warnings against necromancy (communicating with the dead, see 1 Samuel 28) presuppose a conscious intermediate state.

Second, there is the soul sleep view according to which persons in the intermediate state are unconscious. This positions falls victim to several points: (1) Numerous texts clearly describe a conscious intermediate state (Luke 23:43, 2 Corinthians 5:1-10). (2) Death is described as gain for believers precisely because the next moment involves conscious enjoyment of Christ (Philippians 1:23). Why would death itself, as opposed to the final resurrection, be described as gain if soul sleep were true? (3) First Thessalonians 5:10 says that Christ died so that whether awake or asleep, we may live together with Him. This verse makes no sense if being asleep means being unconscious. (4) In ancient cultures, being asleep was used to describe the dead as they appear to those remaining, and those cultures also affirmed the conscious existence of the dead in another realm.

Given that the Bible teaches that at death one passes through a conscious intermediate state awaiting a resurrected body when Christ returns, is there a case for life after death? The answer is yes, and though I must be brief, it is important to have the skeleton of such a case before us, even if I cannot add meat to those bones here.

Two Empirical Arguments for Life After Death

The case for immortality consists in empirical and non-empirical arguments. There are two empirical arguments: Near Death Experiences (NDE's) and the resurrection of Jesus. A sufficient body of evidence exists for the view that people have died, left their bodies, had various experiences, and returned to their bodies. I had a student whose grandfather had one of these experiences. Immediately after dying, he watched as two doctors, one older and one younger, tried to bring him back to life. The younger doctor, however, gave up prematurely and when the man "woke up," he began to cuss out the younger doctor for giving up too quickly!

Attempts to explain NDE's naturalistically fail, especially in those cases where the disembodied person gained knowledge about things miles away (e.g., conversations of family members). One case involved a woman who, as her soul departed, saw things on the roof of the hospital that no one could have known about. One must be cautious about theological interpretations of NDE's, but their reality is well established. Some argue that, even if true, NDE's only provide evidence for temporary existence beyond death. Strictly speaking, this is correct. However, if biological death does not bring the cessation of consciousness at death, it is hard to see what could do so after death.

Obviously, I cannot undertake here a defense of Jesus' resurrection. Suffice it to say that if Jesus rose from the dead, this qualifies Him to speak about life after death because His resurrection 1) provides evidence that He was the Son of God and 2) means that He has returned from the afterlife, recounting it for us.

Non-empirical Theistic-Dependent Arguments for Life After Death

The non-empirical arguments divide into theistic-dependent and theistic-independent ones. The former assumes the existence of the God of traditional theism and therewith argues for immortality. So understood, the case is beyond reasonable doubt. Three such theistic-dependent arguments are especially important. The first is two-pronged and argues from the image of God and the love of God. Given that humans have tremendous value as image bearers, and given that God is a preserver of that which is highly valuable, then God is a preserver of persons. Moreover, given that God loves His image bearers and has a project of bringing them to full maturity and fellowship with Himself, God will sustain humans to continue this love affair and His important project on their behalf.

The second argument from Divine justice asserts that in this life, goods and evils, rewards and punishments, are not evenly distributed. If God is infinitely just, He must rectify these inequities, and an afterlife is thus required.

C O F F E E  S H O P

---

After reading part one of this article, do you find the arguments for the afterlife convincing? Why or why not?

Join the discussion!

Finally, there is the argument from biblical revelation: It can be established that the Bible is the truthful word of God,² and it affirms life after death. To be an argument, rational considerations must be marshaled on behalf of the Bible's divine status. This cannot be affirmed fideistically.

In part two of this article, I will explain the non-empirical theistic-independent arguments, as well as provide a final assessment of the case for life after death.