• Bevis för livet efter döden

    En kristen författares syn på ateismen och livet efter döden. Intressant text så jag låter er läsa den på engelska. Argumenten han kommer med gäller alla som tror på ett liv efter döden.

    Life after death: What does the evidence show?

    a.. Christian Science Monitor:
    By Dinesh D’Souza Dinesh D’souza – Wed Dec 9, 4:00 am ET
    Rancho Sante Fe, Calif. – Is there life after death? I don’t think there is
    a thoughtful person alive, whether believer, atheist, or seeker, who hasn’t
    pondered that question.

    For me, the question seriously arose a few years ago when my dad died. And
    then a year ago my best friend was diagnosed with cancer. ”What I have
    learned from this,” he told me, ”is that the apparent normalcy of our
    everyday lives is a sham.” To him and others, death is the great wrecking
    ball rolling down the corridor, threatening to wreck all our past
    accomplishments, present projects, and future plans.

    It seems impossible to figure out what comes after death, since none of us
    can return from the other side of that curtain, nor can we interview those
    who have already died.

    Yet belief in life after death is both timeless and global. Almost every
    culture believes in an afterlife. Belief in life after death runs especially
    high in non-Western countries, but even in America it runs as high as 75
    percent. Only in parts of Asia and Europe is belief in an afterlife an
    uncommon view.

    Atheists who deny both God and an afterlife may be vastly outnumbered, but
    they think they occupy the intellectual high ground on this question. That’s
    because religious believers typically affirm the afterlife on the basis of
    faith, while atheists regard themselves as denying it on the basis of
    science and reason.

    Reasons for believing
    Setting aside religious convictions, what does reason alone say about life
    after death? That’s the question I sought to answer in my latest book ”Life
    After Death: The Evidence.”

    I began by leveling the playing field between atheists and believers. Sure,
    the believer hasn’t been to the other side or questioned any dead people,
    but the atheist hasn’t either. So what information does the atheist have
    that the believer doesn’t? None. The absence of proof is not proof of
    absence, so the atheist’s denial of life after death, like the believer’s
    affirmation of it, is ultimately a faith-based position.

    The evidence that does exist mostly cuts the other way. Consider the only
    empirical evidence we have, which is near-death experiences. In these cases,
    patients were clinically dead; their hearts stopped. Yet tens of thousands
    of such people around the world report that consciousness and experience
    continued even when their body ceased functioning.

    From a scholarly compendium of articles on the subject, ”The Near-Death
    Experience: A Reader,” edited by Lee Bailey and Jenny Yates, we discover
    that these accounts are remarkably similar. Subjects report being drawn
    through a tunnel and seeing a bright light. They often experience their
    whole lives flash before them, what scholars terms the ”life review.” In
    many cases, they encounter deceased relatives and friends. Frequently they
    are in a presence of a celestial being.

    When near-death experiences were first reported by Raymond Moody in the
    1970s, they were written off as anecdotal and unverifiable. But now these
    experiences are so widespread from across cultures that they cannot be
    easily dismissed and there is a whole body of scholarship devoted to
    studying how they come about and what they mean.

    Alarmed by the obvious implication of near-death experiences, atheists have
    been laboring assiduously to explain them away. Today, the best atheist
    explanation is that near-death experiences are the result of a dying brain.
    When the brain irreversibly breaks down, psychologist Susan Blackmore
    contends, it generates special effects that closely track the near-death
    experience.

    There are several problems with this theory but one fatal one is that many
    survivors of clinical death are now going to work, looking after their
    families, and functioning just fine. So much for an ”irreversible”
    breakdown.

    Insights from modern physics
    In my research I also explored evidence from physics, biology, and brain
    science to see if life after death is consistent with or even corroborated
    by these fields of study.

    Consider the evidence from physics. For the Christian conception of life
    after death to be viable, there have to be realms beyond the physical
    universe that are quite literally outside space and time. This is what the
    Christian concept of ”eternity” means. God is eternal and heaven is His
    eternal realm. But in Newtonian physics these concepts made no sense,
    because time was presumed to extend indefinitely into the past and the
    future, and space was presumed to stretch unendingly in all directions.

    Today, however, you just have to wander into an introductory college science
    class to see how 21st-century physics has greatly widened our horizons.
    Today scientists routinely speak of hidden dimensions, multiple realms, and
    even multiple universes. What do we know about multiple universes? Not a
    lot, but we know that if they do exist they would have laws radically
    different from those in our universe.

    One of the direct implications of the Big Bang is that not only did the
    physical universe have a beginning, but space and time also had a beginning.
    Space and time are properties of our universe. This means that in realms
    beyond our universe, if such realms exist, there might be no space and no
    time. Suddenly the Christian idea of eternity is rendered intelligible.

    In considering the question of life after death, I moved from why it’s
    possible to why it’s probable to why we should embrace the idea. Since we
    are dealing with a future event, I acknowledge that we cannot have
    certainty. I don’t claim to prove my case beyond a reasonable doubt, but I
    do claim to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. In the end, we have
    to resolve this residual uncertainty by asking a practical question, ”Is it
    good for me to believe?”

    For me, the clear answer is yes. If there is no life after death, we are
    like passengers on the Titanic: We can rearrange the deck chairs and turn up
    the music, but we are ultimately doomed. By contrast, if there is life after
    death, we can face death with serenity, viewing it is a gateway to another
    life. Also we have reason to hope that good will eventually be rewarded and
    evil held accountable. Moreover, recognizing that our terrestrial existence
    is part of a larger drama, we can forge a sense of lasting purpose in our
    lives. So not only is belief in an afterlife reasonable; it is also good for
    us.

    Dinesh D’Souza, a policy analyst in the Reagan White House, is the
    bestselling author of many books about politics, patriotism, and religion.
    His latest is ”Life After Death: The Evidence.”

    Post Tagged with , , , , , , ,

7 Responsesso far.

  1. PeterSingerFanboy skriver:

    Hehe D’Souza gillar verkligen Pascals trossats!

    ”In considering the question of life after death, I moved from why it’s
    possible to why it’s probable to why we should embrace the idea.”

    Hur han använder teser som saknar bevisning angående universum och passar in dem i högst tvivelaktiga ”bevis” för nära-döden-upplevelser är skrattretande.

  2. Bahlool skriver:

    Peter det finns ju lite sanning i det, jag menar ingen vet for sure, så varför vara så säker?

  3. PeterSingerFanboy skriver:

    Visst, alla får ju tro vad de vill, men för att köpa hans logik måste du också anta att just kristendomen är den rätta, du kan ju inte be till fel gud och ändå hoppas på paradiset.

  4. Bahlool skriver:

    Det är ju inte det som diskussionen handlar om, utan om att det finns något efter döden..islam tror också på en själ som går vidare till nästa plan

  5. PeterSingerFanboy skriver:

    Ja, alla religioner har sin grund i vår rädsla för det vi inte inte kan förklara eller förhindra och det faktum att vi är medvetna om att vi ska dö. Men jag syftade på att han använder Pascal i sin argumentation och detta utgår från att man spelar på ”rätt” gud. Att islam precis som alla religioner säger sig veta vad som händer efter döden gör ju inte att sannorlikheten för detta ökar, snarare visar det ju på att människor är beredda att köpa rätt mycket vidskepelse pga sin rädsla…

  6. Musa skriver:

    Vad har peter för åsikt om nära döden upplevelser där personen upplevt att han lämnat sin kropp och beskådat sig själv på sjukbädden från sidan?, och sedan beskrivit för de som var där vad som hände?
    Det finns många sådana väl dokumenterade händelser. Därmed handlar det inte om ifall det skett eller inte , utan varför det skett och vad det beror på… Jag finner ingen annan förklaring än att det är deras själ,
    Det finns bara en Gud, de 3 monoteistiska religionerna tror på denna Gud och jag tror därför att de som är rättfärdiga anhängare till dessa religioner kommer att visas barmhärtighet av Gud. Så det spelar ingen roll ifall du är världes godaste människa, dyrkar du inte Gud kommer du aldrig klara dig i slutet när du återvänder till honom.

  7. H-Rad skriver:

    Om alla skulle vara ateister så skulle enbart ”ovetskap” råda inför livet efter döden vilket i sin tur skulle leda till rädsla inför ens egen död. Det är därför många tror på gud, för att försöka öka sin förståelse om livet efter döden samt minska sin rädsla, oavsett om det är sant eller inte (troende vet att det är sant dock). Trots detta så blir ändå många människor rädda inför döden även om de är djupt troende, för ingen har kunnat visa någon säker garanti. Människan försöker alltid motivera sin nuvarande samt framtida existens på något sätt…

    En ateist eller agnostiker upplever på så sätt indirekt ”grupptryck” från alla troende när han/hon vet att han/hon ska dö inom en snar period. Rädsla uppstår för vad som kan hända om man inte tror på gud, konsekvenserna har ateisten/agnostikern hört av alla troende och människan faller många gånger för grupptryck… På samma sätt, om du torterar eller skrämmer en levande människa så kan du få honom att tro och säga vad som helst.

    Det vi vet enligt vetenskapen är att energi inte kan skapas, utan enbart omvandlas till en annan form av energi…

Kommentera

E-postadressen publiceras inte. Obligatoriska fält är märkta *

Scroll Up