What do you think?
Rate this book
Beyond Death: Exploring the Evidence for Immortality
Death - and what lies beyond - is not something you consider every day. But the thought of it raises some intriguing Are there good reasons for believing in life after death? What is the afterlife like? How valid are the reports of near death experiences? Do heaven and hell exist? And if so, how can hell be reconciled with a loving God? By sharing the very latest scientific, philosophical, anthropological, ethical, and theological evidence on life after death, noted Christian scholars Habermas and Moreland present a strong case for immortality with this book. They begin by taking up the question of whether life after death is real and what evidence supports its reality. They then explore what the afterlife is like and go on to show how having this reality in your future should affect the way you live here and now. This book will reassure you that there's no need to fear death - as long as you're prepared eternity that follows. It's also a great aid in developing a serious biblical, rational, and even scientific defense for the belief in life beyond the grave.
462 pages, Paperback
First published November 19, 2001
2 people are currently reading
332 people want to read
About the author
Gary R. Habermas
62 books171 followersGary R. Habermas was born just outside Detroit, Michigan in 1950. Although he was raised in a Christian home and attended a German Baptist Church, he began having serious doubts about Christianity. For more than ten years, he faced uncertainty about key Christian claims and searched other religious and non-religious systems, especially naturalism. His studies centered chiefly on investigating various world views, occasionally getting close to what he thought might be the proper approach. During this time, as he explains, "The last thing I did at night was recall what I had learned that day to further my search. Early the next morning, it seems that the first thing that came to my mind was, 'Where did I end my studies last night?'" This continued for several agonizing years.
Habermas' interest in the field of apologetics began early in his search when he realized that some religions made claims that could be either verified or falsified. He searched the various religious systems to ascertain if such claims were verifiable. After several years of study, he concluded that very few religious claims could be substantiated. Habermas concluded that even Christianity suffered in this sense. While certainly having more evidential considerations than other religions, there always seemed to be a reason why the argument could not be finalized. While Habermas conducted detailed studies of creation, fulfilled prophecy, archaeological discoveries, and the general reliability of the Old and New Testaments, he constantly asked if there were any "clinching" arguments.
Habermas especially studied the notion that Eastern metaphysics were confirmed by modern physics, as well as the claims made on behalf of various other holy books. He reached the conclusion that, while religious beliefs could be held by faith, they usually lacked great evidence and could not be "proven" to be true.
Habermas' search frequently took the form of debating with various adherents of non-Christian as well as Christian views. He told practitioners from both camps that their beliefs were not as grounded as they would like to believe. He especially recalls one encounter where an exasperated Christian told him that he was filled with demons! Once his mother called to see how he was doing, and he announced that he thought he was close to becoming a Buddhist, his latest research interest.
During this time, one subject began to appeal to Habermas more than any other. He realized that if Jesus had been raised from the dead, this would go a long way toward arguing that Christianity was true. He also studied the founders of the major religious traditions, along with some lesser-known figures, to see if there were other claims that someone had been raised from the dead. He was especially interested in whether there was any historical or other evidence for any such teachings. Thirteen hundred note cards later, he was well on the way to a lifetime of being "hooked" on the subject of Jesus' resurrection. Little did he know that his early years of study on this subject would begin his fascination with the topic that has never lessened.
Habermas continued his search as an undergraduate student at Tyndale College, graduating in 1972 with three majors and three minors. Foremost on his mind was still the question of whether it could be known if there was any basis for answering his religious questions. Habermas went straight to graduate school at the University of Detroit. Studying philosophical theology and the world religions, he earned an M.A. a year later, in 1973. After taking a year off, he pursued a Ph.D. at Michigan State University, graduating two years later (1976), after keeping up a torrid study schedule.
Studying relevant historical, philosophical, and religious questions, Habermas proposed an historical study of Jesus’ resurrection (what else?) for his Ph.D. dissertation. The topic was approved by his committee, but he was told specifically that he could not
Habermas' interest in the field of apologetics began early in his search when he realized that some religions made claims that could be either verified or falsified. He searched the various religious systems to ascertain if such claims were verifiable. After several years of study, he concluded that very few religious claims could be substantiated. Habermas concluded that even Christianity suffered in this sense. While certainly having more evidential considerations than other religions, there always seemed to be a reason why the argument could not be finalized. While Habermas conducted detailed studies of creation, fulfilled prophecy, archaeological discoveries, and the general reliability of the Old and New Testaments, he constantly asked if there were any "clinching" arguments.
Habermas especially studied the notion that Eastern metaphysics were confirmed by modern physics, as well as the claims made on behalf of various other holy books. He reached the conclusion that, while religious beliefs could be held by faith, they usually lacked great evidence and could not be "proven" to be true.
Habermas' search frequently took the form of debating with various adherents of non-Christian as well as Christian views. He told practitioners from both camps that their beliefs were not as grounded as they would like to believe. He especially recalls one encounter where an exasperated Christian told him that he was filled with demons! Once his mother called to see how he was doing, and he announced that he thought he was close to becoming a Buddhist, his latest research interest.
During this time, one subject began to appeal to Habermas more than any other. He realized that if Jesus had been raised from the dead, this would go a long way toward arguing that Christianity was true. He also studied the founders of the major religious traditions, along with some lesser-known figures, to see if there were other claims that someone had been raised from the dead. He was especially interested in whether there was any historical or other evidence for any such teachings. Thirteen hundred note cards later, he was well on the way to a lifetime of being "hooked" on the subject of Jesus' resurrection. Little did he know that his early years of study on this subject would begin his fascination with the topic that has never lessened.
Habermas continued his search as an undergraduate student at Tyndale College, graduating in 1972 with three majors and three minors. Foremost on his mind was still the question of whether it could be known if there was any basis for answering his religious questions. Habermas went straight to graduate school at the University of Detroit. Studying philosophical theology and the world religions, he earned an M.A. a year later, in 1973. After taking a year off, he pursued a Ph.D. at Michigan State University, graduating two years later (1976), after keeping up a torrid study schedule.
Studying relevant historical, philosophical, and religious questions, Habermas proposed an historical study of Jesus’ resurrection (what else?) for his Ph.D. dissertation. The topic was approved by his committee, but he was told specifically that he could not
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
January 28, 2017
Do not judge this book by the first 4 chapters, keep going because it gets easier the follow the thought process beginning in chapter 5 on Jesus resurrection. This book examines from a scriptural, philosophical, scientific, medical, ethical perspective everything having to do with life after death: the reality of the immortal soul, near death experiences, eternal life, heaven, hell, fear of death. I did skip the last chapter which addresses abortion, infanticide and euthanasia because I find these topics disturbing. I found the book, and particularly the scripture references, very helpful and even comforting.
May 1, 2018
Habermas and Moreland provide conclusive evidence supporting the immaterial self, the disembodied existence of the soul surviving death, and the future resurrection of the body in their classic book "Beyond Death." This is a must read for anyone curious about NDEs, eternity, and heaven and hell. "Beyond Death" is a resource you must have on your shelf. 5 stars all the way!!!
June 12, 2022
Fantastic book looking at evidence for life after death. Unfortunately, the weakest presentations are at the beginning of the book. Chapters 2-4 are J.P. Moreland's philosophical arguments for the existence of the soul/mind apart from the physical brain. While I don't necessarily reject his premises and syllogisms, I didn't find them particularly persuasive. To be convincing, they would need a fuller treatment than these few chapters allow.
Gary Habermas' chapters were, however, fantastic. He is at his best when discussing the historiographic evidences for the resurrection of Jesus, but this information can already be found in several of his other books. Where he—and this book as a whole—shines the most is in his 3 chapters on Near Death Experiences and their implications, particularly when he gets into the ones with corroborative evidence. This was my primary motivation for reading the book in the first place.
He also does a fair job discussing reincarnation, not simply dismissing it but offering alternative, yet still supernatural, explanations to account for the associated phenomena.
The chapter on hell was also more helpful than I had anticipated, but I was disappointed with the unqualified endorsement of molinism.
The third section of the book includes advice on living with an eternal perspective and some implications for ethical decisions (euthanasia, infanticide, etc.). In my opinion, they tried to do too much in one volume, and this section could have been omitted (though again, I don't disagree with the conclusions).
Gary Habermas' chapters were, however, fantastic. He is at his best when discussing the historiographic evidences for the resurrection of Jesus, but this information can already be found in several of his other books. Where he—and this book as a whole—shines the most is in his 3 chapters on Near Death Experiences and their implications, particularly when he gets into the ones with corroborative evidence. This was my primary motivation for reading the book in the first place.
He also does a fair job discussing reincarnation, not simply dismissing it but offering alternative, yet still supernatural, explanations to account for the associated phenomena.
The chapter on hell was also more helpful than I had anticipated, but I was disappointed with the unqualified endorsement of molinism.
The third section of the book includes advice on living with an eternal perspective and some implications for ethical decisions (euthanasia, infanticide, etc.). In my opinion, they tried to do too much in one volume, and this section could have been omitted (though again, I don't disagree with the conclusions).
June 18, 2024
A DETAILED STUDY OF THE RESURRECTION, NEAR-DEATH EXPERIENCES, AND MORE
Gary Habermas is Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy and chairman of the department of philosophy and theology at Liberty University. J.P. (John Porter) Moreland is Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology at Biola University.
They wrote in the Introduction to this 1998 book, “When we do think about death, we’re likely to raise various questions: Is there really such a thing as life after death? And if so, must I merely take its reality by faith or perhaps on the basis of something like the Bible?...What is the afterlife like?... Is reincarnation true?... Is there a hall, and how can such a place be reconciled with a loving God?... In this book we will explore answers to these questions as well as other related issues…You should know that we, the authors, are Christians. We think there are some excellent reasons to accept the Bible and its orthodox interpretation as true. Nevertheless, we do not assume the truth of Christianity of the Bible… There are many good reasons to accept orthodox Christianity, and we ask you to seek out these reasons…” (Pg. 9-10)
They clarify, “Why… are we looking at the rationality of belief in life after death apart from general considerations of the rationality of theism?... many people (even Christians) wonder whether or no there is any evidence for certain theological notions apart from the support they get from theism in general… So if a good case can be made for life after death independent of theism, then such a case will tend to confirm theism and… Christian theism as well.” (Pg. 19) Later, they adds, “When we see the interrelationship between belief in life after death and belief in the soul, we are in a position to understand one of the main reasons our modern culture has lost belief in life after death: We largely disbelieve in the soul, and those who still believe in such an entity often think that such a belief must be based on blind faith or an appeal to revelation alone. Few recognize that a serious rational case can be made for dualism.” (Pg. 37)
They point out, “No material thing presupposes or has reference to consciousness for it to exist or be characterized. You will search in vain through a physics or chemistry textbook to find consciousness included in any description of matter…. Assume that matter is actually like what our chemistry and physics books tell us it is. Now imagine that there is no God and picture a universe in which no conscious, living beings had evolved… there would be no consciousness anywhere in the universe. However, in this imaginary world, matter would still exist and be what scientists tell us it is… This is what we mean when we say that the existence and nature of matter are independent of the existence of consciousness.” (Pg. 43-44)
They note, “Mental properties---such as feeling sad, experiencing red… are self-presenting… There are two pieces of evidence for the claim that mental properties are self-presenting while physical properties are not: I can have private access to my mental properties and not to my physical ones, and I can know my mental properties incorrigibly but not my physical ones… Thus, physical states/properties are not identical to mental states/properties…The subjective texture of our conscious mental experiences … is different from anything that is simply physical. If the world were only made of matter, these subjective aspects of consciousness would not exist. But they DO exist! So there must be more to the world than matter.” (Pg. 50-52)
They argue, “At least three factors must be assumed if there are to be genuine rational agents who exhibit rationality. All three are ruled out by physicalism; only the last two are inconsistent with property dualism. First, humans must have genuine INTENTIONALITY… of or about the things they claim to know… Second, in order to think rationally through a chain of reasoning… one would have to be the same self present at the beginning of the thought process as the one present at the end… Finally, rationality seems to presuppose an agent view of the self and genuine libertarian freedom of the will… Therefore, physicalism and property dualism rule out the possibility of rationality… Thus, substance dualism is the best view of the self and is most consistent with the preconditions of rationality.” (Pg. 64-65)
They turn to Jesus’ resurrection; for reasons of space, I will not discuss this here. (See Dr. Habermas’s two books on the Resurrection, for his views.)
They then consider Near-Death Experiences (NDE): “Our claim is that if the brain is not functioning… and consciousness is still evidenced during that time, then this is the definition of minimalistic life that exists at THAT MOMENT AFTER DEATH. Therefore, if verified consciousness is both separate from and extends beyond brain activity, there is no reason to think that, just because there is no irreversible death, one can somehow magically account for this life by naturalistic means. Since these intellectual faculties exist independently of brain activity … there is no viable reason to assume that the permanent cessation of brain activity would adversely affect personal consciousness. In short, normal bodily activity does not explain these data, which actually provide significant evidence for at least minimal consciousness beyond death.” (Pg. 170)
They acknowledge, “Admittedly, the vast majority of reports involve blissful experiences. But a number of persons have also claimed they were in hell-like environments. These near-death reports were largely popularized by [Maurice] Rawlings, who theorizes that many of those who do not remember their near-death experience may actually be repressing painful hell encounters. He provides examples where several of his patients who had recently claimed to have been in hell, usually terror-stricken, later forgot the whole incident. This scenario has been disputed (but not denied) by [Kenneth] Ring. Other researchers have also reported hell cases, but in lesser numbers and not always of the same sort.” (Pg. 180)
They also caution, “vigilance is definitely in order for the believer. The presence of numerous occultic overtones, especially in some of the better-known authors on this subject of NDEs, indeed does make one wary of this element, particularly in light of the strong biblical warning to strictly avoid ethe occult… strong curiosity alone… can be a door to the occult… We conclude, then, that there is no doubt that occultic tendencies can and do play an important role … At the same time, it doesn’t follow that all near-death experiences are satanic counterfeits. Some even appear to follow biblical expectations. At any rate, there is nothing inherently occultic about NDEs. Dying is a natural event and does not automatically involve aspects of the occult, as some other activities do. Therefore, each NDE needs to be viewed according to its own merits.” (Pg. 183)
They summarize, “we have our answer to the first portion of the objection posed earlier. Corroborated NDEs have been reported while EACH of the definitions of death has been met. The criteria for clinical death has been fulfilled. The absence of… brain waves has also been observed, even for fairly long periods of time, indicating the probable absence of brain activity during these specific times… biological death in the broader sense… is satisfied by the near-death reports of previously deceased ones. The second issue raised was, can any residual bodily activity account for these NDEs?... most obviously, it cannot explain the cases where there were flat EEGs… Second… natural processes cannot account for these corroborative instances that occurred in the face of death, including those with shorter period without heartbeat… This brings us to the third inherent issue: Is there evidence for life after death here? It would be difficult to avoid the conclusion that NDEs provide a strong case for at least a minimalistic view of life after the initial moments (or hours) after death.” (Pg. 195-196)
They conclude, “reincarnation has no real data in its favor that cannot be both seriously challenged on its own grounds, as well as be accounted for by other explanations. Reincarnation simply does not offer any true or distinctive answer to the nature of life after death. In fact, [demonic] possession does an even BETTER job of explaining several cases that exhibited all the appropriate earmarks, while… reincarnation was not possible in those instances… However… Even if there is no evidence for reincarnation, our discussion produced another sort of consideration in favor of an afterlife. Since there is evidence for possession… by another spirit, this would appear to constitute some ‘back door’ data in favor of a spiritual world…where life after death is distinctly possible.” (Pg. 252-253)
Turning to Heaven, they note, “Scripture specifically tells us that sin will be kept out of the final state... So it is certainly possible that part of the glorification process… will itself involve the free choice to reach the state where we can no longer sin. If this is so, then it will not be a violation of our will for us to be unable to sin… It would be absurd for us to complain that our free will was being violated just because we could not do wrong in a glorified state… On the other hand, it may be that we will be able NOT to sin, rather than not being ABLE to sin.” (Pg. 277-278)
They assert, “The Bible is clear that people do not get a second chance to go to heaven after death… But is this teaching really fair and just? Yes. At least three factors tell us why. For one thing, certain passages indicate that God gives people all the time they need to make a choice about eternity… Another factor to consider is this: It is arguable that people do not have the ability to will or choose heaven after death… The longer one lives in opposition to God, his truth, and his ways, the harder it is to choose to turn that around… Third, one may think that the chock of judgment after death may be what people need to push them over the edge and cause them to respond to a second chance. But again, this seems to imply that God has not dealt fairly and earnestly with people in this life.” (Pg. 301-302)
Turning to Hell, they suggest, “We do not accept the idea that hell is a place where God actively tortures people forever and ever. There will indeed be everlasting, conscious, mental and physical torment in various degrees according to the lives people have lived here on earth. But the essence of that torment is relational in nature---the banishment from heaven and all it stands for. Mental and physical anguish result from sorrow and shame of the judgment of being forever relationally excluded from God, heaven, and so forth. It is not due to God inflicting torture.” (Pg. 303) Later, they add, “There are degrees of anguish in hell. But the endlessness of existence in hell at least dignifies the people there by continuing to respect their autonomy and their intrinsic value as persons.” (Pg. 309)
Of “those who have not heard,” they argue, “we believe it is certainly possible that those who are responding to the light from nature that they have received will either have the message of the Gospel sent to them (cf. Acts 10), or else it may be that God will judge them based on his knowledge of what they would have done had they had a chance to hear the Gospel… It does not seem just for another to be judged because of my disobedience in taking the Gospel to others, and it is… actually the case, that the Gospel has not been taken to others in the way God commanded. We (the authors) re not sure this line of reasoning is true, but it does seem plausible in light of the information we have.” (Pg. 311)
They continue, “We … offer a third alternative solution… no one who does not hear the gospel message and accept it will be saved… this solution … [implies] the following two theses: (6) In unevangelized areas, there will be people who will be saved if someone were to take the Gospel to them, but who would not be saved if no one took the Gospel to them. (7) In unevangelized areas, there will be no one who will go to hell who would have accepted the Gospel if someone would have taken it to them… But how can both 6 and 7 be true? How can it be the case that if we go to an unreached people, there will be people saved who otherwise would not be saved, while at the same time accepting the idea that if no one takes the Gospel to that unreached people group, no one will be lost who would have been saved had someone gone to them? The answer involves God’s middle knowledge. Suppose that God… is deciding whom he will and will not create among all the possible persons… Now suppose that among the possible persons God knows he could create in our people group, there is some specific set of possible persons who would respond to the Gospel if they were given the chance… Let us use the name ‘set A.’ … Should he create the people in set A or not? It depends on whether or not someone is willing to take the Gospel to the people group in question. If God knows someone will bring the Gospel, he will create the people in set A… if no one is willing to bring the Gospel to this people group, then the only people God will create are … those who would not trust Christ even if they had the chance to hear about him.” (Pg. 318-319)
There is a LOT of other material in this book (including a chapter on abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia); it will be “must reading” for Christians (and many others) studying Near-Death Experiences, Life After Death, and other such topics.
Gary Habermas is Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy and chairman of the department of philosophy and theology at Liberty University. J.P. (John Porter) Moreland is Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology at Biola University.
They wrote in the Introduction to this 1998 book, “When we do think about death, we’re likely to raise various questions: Is there really such a thing as life after death? And if so, must I merely take its reality by faith or perhaps on the basis of something like the Bible?...What is the afterlife like?... Is reincarnation true?... Is there a hall, and how can such a place be reconciled with a loving God?... In this book we will explore answers to these questions as well as other related issues…You should know that we, the authors, are Christians. We think there are some excellent reasons to accept the Bible and its orthodox interpretation as true. Nevertheless, we do not assume the truth of Christianity of the Bible… There are many good reasons to accept orthodox Christianity, and we ask you to seek out these reasons…” (Pg. 9-10)
They clarify, “Why… are we looking at the rationality of belief in life after death apart from general considerations of the rationality of theism?... many people (even Christians) wonder whether or no there is any evidence for certain theological notions apart from the support they get from theism in general… So if a good case can be made for life after death independent of theism, then such a case will tend to confirm theism and… Christian theism as well.” (Pg. 19) Later, they adds, “When we see the interrelationship between belief in life after death and belief in the soul, we are in a position to understand one of the main reasons our modern culture has lost belief in life after death: We largely disbelieve in the soul, and those who still believe in such an entity often think that such a belief must be based on blind faith or an appeal to revelation alone. Few recognize that a serious rational case can be made for dualism.” (Pg. 37)
They point out, “No material thing presupposes or has reference to consciousness for it to exist or be characterized. You will search in vain through a physics or chemistry textbook to find consciousness included in any description of matter…. Assume that matter is actually like what our chemistry and physics books tell us it is. Now imagine that there is no God and picture a universe in which no conscious, living beings had evolved… there would be no consciousness anywhere in the universe. However, in this imaginary world, matter would still exist and be what scientists tell us it is… This is what we mean when we say that the existence and nature of matter are independent of the existence of consciousness.” (Pg. 43-44)
They note, “Mental properties---such as feeling sad, experiencing red… are self-presenting… There are two pieces of evidence for the claim that mental properties are self-presenting while physical properties are not: I can have private access to my mental properties and not to my physical ones, and I can know my mental properties incorrigibly but not my physical ones… Thus, physical states/properties are not identical to mental states/properties…The subjective texture of our conscious mental experiences … is different from anything that is simply physical. If the world were only made of matter, these subjective aspects of consciousness would not exist. But they DO exist! So there must be more to the world than matter.” (Pg. 50-52)
They argue, “At least three factors must be assumed if there are to be genuine rational agents who exhibit rationality. All three are ruled out by physicalism; only the last two are inconsistent with property dualism. First, humans must have genuine INTENTIONALITY… of or about the things they claim to know… Second, in order to think rationally through a chain of reasoning… one would have to be the same self present at the beginning of the thought process as the one present at the end… Finally, rationality seems to presuppose an agent view of the self and genuine libertarian freedom of the will… Therefore, physicalism and property dualism rule out the possibility of rationality… Thus, substance dualism is the best view of the self and is most consistent with the preconditions of rationality.” (Pg. 64-65)
They turn to Jesus’ resurrection; for reasons of space, I will not discuss this here. (See Dr. Habermas’s two books on the Resurrection, for his views.)
They then consider Near-Death Experiences (NDE): “Our claim is that if the brain is not functioning… and consciousness is still evidenced during that time, then this is the definition of minimalistic life that exists at THAT MOMENT AFTER DEATH. Therefore, if verified consciousness is both separate from and extends beyond brain activity, there is no reason to think that, just because there is no irreversible death, one can somehow magically account for this life by naturalistic means. Since these intellectual faculties exist independently of brain activity … there is no viable reason to assume that the permanent cessation of brain activity would adversely affect personal consciousness. In short, normal bodily activity does not explain these data, which actually provide significant evidence for at least minimal consciousness beyond death.” (Pg. 170)
They acknowledge, “Admittedly, the vast majority of reports involve blissful experiences. But a number of persons have also claimed they were in hell-like environments. These near-death reports were largely popularized by [Maurice] Rawlings, who theorizes that many of those who do not remember their near-death experience may actually be repressing painful hell encounters. He provides examples where several of his patients who had recently claimed to have been in hell, usually terror-stricken, later forgot the whole incident. This scenario has been disputed (but not denied) by [Kenneth] Ring. Other researchers have also reported hell cases, but in lesser numbers and not always of the same sort.” (Pg. 180)
They also caution, “vigilance is definitely in order for the believer. The presence of numerous occultic overtones, especially in some of the better-known authors on this subject of NDEs, indeed does make one wary of this element, particularly in light of the strong biblical warning to strictly avoid ethe occult… strong curiosity alone… can be a door to the occult… We conclude, then, that there is no doubt that occultic tendencies can and do play an important role … At the same time, it doesn’t follow that all near-death experiences are satanic counterfeits. Some even appear to follow biblical expectations. At any rate, there is nothing inherently occultic about NDEs. Dying is a natural event and does not automatically involve aspects of the occult, as some other activities do. Therefore, each NDE needs to be viewed according to its own merits.” (Pg. 183)
They summarize, “we have our answer to the first portion of the objection posed earlier. Corroborated NDEs have been reported while EACH of the definitions of death has been met. The criteria for clinical death has been fulfilled. The absence of… brain waves has also been observed, even for fairly long periods of time, indicating the probable absence of brain activity during these specific times… biological death in the broader sense… is satisfied by the near-death reports of previously deceased ones. The second issue raised was, can any residual bodily activity account for these NDEs?... most obviously, it cannot explain the cases where there were flat EEGs… Second… natural processes cannot account for these corroborative instances that occurred in the face of death, including those with shorter period without heartbeat… This brings us to the third inherent issue: Is there evidence for life after death here? It would be difficult to avoid the conclusion that NDEs provide a strong case for at least a minimalistic view of life after the initial moments (or hours) after death.” (Pg. 195-196)
They conclude, “reincarnation has no real data in its favor that cannot be both seriously challenged on its own grounds, as well as be accounted for by other explanations. Reincarnation simply does not offer any true or distinctive answer to the nature of life after death. In fact, [demonic] possession does an even BETTER job of explaining several cases that exhibited all the appropriate earmarks, while… reincarnation was not possible in those instances… However… Even if there is no evidence for reincarnation, our discussion produced another sort of consideration in favor of an afterlife. Since there is evidence for possession… by another spirit, this would appear to constitute some ‘back door’ data in favor of a spiritual world…where life after death is distinctly possible.” (Pg. 252-253)
Turning to Heaven, they note, “Scripture specifically tells us that sin will be kept out of the final state... So it is certainly possible that part of the glorification process… will itself involve the free choice to reach the state where we can no longer sin. If this is so, then it will not be a violation of our will for us to be unable to sin… It would be absurd for us to complain that our free will was being violated just because we could not do wrong in a glorified state… On the other hand, it may be that we will be able NOT to sin, rather than not being ABLE to sin.” (Pg. 277-278)
They assert, “The Bible is clear that people do not get a second chance to go to heaven after death… But is this teaching really fair and just? Yes. At least three factors tell us why. For one thing, certain passages indicate that God gives people all the time they need to make a choice about eternity… Another factor to consider is this: It is arguable that people do not have the ability to will or choose heaven after death… The longer one lives in opposition to God, his truth, and his ways, the harder it is to choose to turn that around… Third, one may think that the chock of judgment after death may be what people need to push them over the edge and cause them to respond to a second chance. But again, this seems to imply that God has not dealt fairly and earnestly with people in this life.” (Pg. 301-302)
Turning to Hell, they suggest, “We do not accept the idea that hell is a place where God actively tortures people forever and ever. There will indeed be everlasting, conscious, mental and physical torment in various degrees according to the lives people have lived here on earth. But the essence of that torment is relational in nature---the banishment from heaven and all it stands for. Mental and physical anguish result from sorrow and shame of the judgment of being forever relationally excluded from God, heaven, and so forth. It is not due to God inflicting torture.” (Pg. 303) Later, they add, “There are degrees of anguish in hell. But the endlessness of existence in hell at least dignifies the people there by continuing to respect their autonomy and their intrinsic value as persons.” (Pg. 309)
Of “those who have not heard,” they argue, “we believe it is certainly possible that those who are responding to the light from nature that they have received will either have the message of the Gospel sent to them (cf. Acts 10), or else it may be that God will judge them based on his knowledge of what they would have done had they had a chance to hear the Gospel… It does not seem just for another to be judged because of my disobedience in taking the Gospel to others, and it is… actually the case, that the Gospel has not been taken to others in the way God commanded. We (the authors) re not sure this line of reasoning is true, but it does seem plausible in light of the information we have.” (Pg. 311)
They continue, “We … offer a third alternative solution… no one who does not hear the gospel message and accept it will be saved… this solution … [implies] the following two theses: (6) In unevangelized areas, there will be people who will be saved if someone were to take the Gospel to them, but who would not be saved if no one took the Gospel to them. (7) In unevangelized areas, there will be no one who will go to hell who would have accepted the Gospel if someone would have taken it to them… But how can both 6 and 7 be true? How can it be the case that if we go to an unreached people, there will be people saved who otherwise would not be saved, while at the same time accepting the idea that if no one takes the Gospel to that unreached people group, no one will be lost who would have been saved had someone gone to them? The answer involves God’s middle knowledge. Suppose that God… is deciding whom he will and will not create among all the possible persons… Now suppose that among the possible persons God knows he could create in our people group, there is some specific set of possible persons who would respond to the Gospel if they were given the chance… Let us use the name ‘set A.’ … Should he create the people in set A or not? It depends on whether or not someone is willing to take the Gospel to the people group in question. If God knows someone will bring the Gospel, he will create the people in set A… if no one is willing to bring the Gospel to this people group, then the only people God will create are … those who would not trust Christ even if they had the chance to hear about him.” (Pg. 318-319)
There is a LOT of other material in this book (including a chapter on abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia); it will be “must reading” for Christians (and many others) studying Near-Death Experiences, Life After Death, and other such topics.
July 19, 2021
This book is great for getting into the research and discussion around the afterlife. I think it's a good place to start, and it gives enough information for the reader to explore these issues further.
July 7, 2016
I don't think an honest philosopher would accept most of these arguments, but these two gents are very persuasive arguers.
August 11, 2016
I enjoyed this book very much. A review and defense of the existence of the afterlife based on three lines of evidence: the resurrection of Jesus, NDEs, and the existence of the soul/mind.
September 6, 2010
Good but very analytical.
April 25, 2017
Habermas and Moreland do a good job of summarizing some of the basic evidence for life beyond death. In particular, they look at evidence that points to a mind/body duality, near-death experiences, and the historicity of Jesus' resurrection. I don't think this book will convert many hardcore unbelievers but it does provide some good encouragement for those who are looking for a logical basis to their Christian beliefs.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews