What do you think?
Rate this book
Life After Death: The Evidence
Unlike many books about the afterlife, Life after Death makes no appeal to religious faith, divine revelation, or sacred texts. Drawing on some of the most powerful theories and trends in physics, evolutionary biology, science, philosophy, and psychology, D'Souza shows why the atheist critique of immortality is irrational and draws the striking conclusion that it is reasonable to believe in life after death. He concludes by showing how life after death can give depth and significance to this life, a path to happiness, and reason for hope.
------
(From the Inside Flap)
Is death the end? Or, as bestselling author Dinesh D’Souza argues, do the latest discoveries in physics and neuroscience, the most convincing philosophical deductions, and the most likely conclusions from anthropology and biology lend increasing credibility to the prospect of life after death?
Life After Death: The Evidence presents a reasoned, scientifically based case that life after death is more than possible, it is highly probable. Indeed it has far more evidence on its side than atheistic arguments about death marking our complete and utter extinction. In a stunning tour de force, D’Souza reveals:
-How modern science lays the groundwork for a science-based belief in life after death
-The distinctions between mind and brain—and why it is perfectly reasonable to assume that your immaterial consciousness can survive the dissolution of your material body
-The great atheist philosopher who provided one of the most ingenious proofs for the likelihood of an afterlife
-How the theory of evolution, far from undercutting the idea of life after death, supports it
-The evidence of Near Death Experiences—what it tells us, what it doesn’t
-Why the Christian view of the afterlife is the most compelling and best suits the evidence
-What the probability of life after death means for our lives before death
Provocative, and combining a mastery of the arguments from philosophy, physics, and biology with an incisive analysis of how the world’s major religions have viewed the afterlife, D’Souza shows why we can expect that what Shakespeare called the “undiscovered country” will be discovered by us all.
Dinesh D'Souza is co-founder and director of the Y God Institute. Formerly he was a White House policy analyst and fellow at the American Institute at Stanford University. The author of several best-selling books, including Illiberal Education, What's So Great about America, and What's So Great about Christianity, he lives in Rancho Santa Fe, California, with his wife Dixie and their daughter Danielle. His websites are: dineshdsouza.com, ygodinstitute.org .
From the Back Cover
Praise for Life Afer Death
“A brilliant investigation of the fascinating and crucial issue of what happens when we die. It is an inquiry conducted on the basis of scholarship and reason and it provides a convincing answer that is explosive in its impact.”
--RICK WARREN, author of The Purpose Driven® Life
“An indispensable, electrifying book. Writing clearly, forcefully, and fairly, D’Souza covers an amazing range of arguments. I know of no better way to understand the issue of life after death than to get this book and just follow the argument.”
--DALLAS WILLARD, professor of philosophy, University of Southern California
“From the moment I started reading Life After Death, I found myself compelled and enthralled. This is an important and fascinating book that will reinforce the faith of the believer and enlighten and challenge even the most hardened skeptic.”
--MICHAEL MEDVED, nationally syndicated radio host
“Never one to be daunted by attempting the impossible, Dinesh D’Souza here shows again the argumentative skills that make him such a formidable opponent.”
--CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, author of God Is Not Great and The Portable Atheist
“Writing not only for the religious believer but also for the honest seeker, Dinesh D’Souza displays a sophisticated understanding of religion, philosophy, history, and science in making a convincing case for life after death.”
--DEEPAK CHOPRA, author of Ageless Body, Timeless Mind
“It is always a pleasure to read works by Dinesh D’Souza, and Life After Death is no exception. The author guides the reader gently through the thickets of philosophy, physics, and brain science toward his stunning conclusion that is made to seem entirely reasonable—because it IS reasonable.”
--DANIEL ROBINSON, philosophy faculty, Oxford University
“A delightfully readable book on a subject of surpassing importance. I found myself constantly amazed at the clear and accessible way in which D’Souza writes about such deep and subtle questions. Drawing upon his broad knowledge of the latest discoveries in fields as diverse as cosmology and neuroscience, he makes a powerful case for life after death.”
--STEPHEN BARR, professor of theoretical particle physics, University of Delaware
------
(From the Inside Flap)
Is death the end? Or, as bestselling author Dinesh D’Souza argues, do the latest discoveries in physics and neuroscience, the most convincing philosophical deductions, and the most likely conclusions from anthropology and biology lend increasing credibility to the prospect of life after death?
Life After Death: The Evidence presents a reasoned, scientifically based case that life after death is more than possible, it is highly probable. Indeed it has far more evidence on its side than atheistic arguments about death marking our complete and utter extinction. In a stunning tour de force, D’Souza reveals:
-How modern science lays the groundwork for a science-based belief in life after death
-The distinctions between mind and brain—and why it is perfectly reasonable to assume that your immaterial consciousness can survive the dissolution of your material body
-The great atheist philosopher who provided one of the most ingenious proofs for the likelihood of an afterlife
-How the theory of evolution, far from undercutting the idea of life after death, supports it
-The evidence of Near Death Experiences—what it tells us, what it doesn’t
-Why the Christian view of the afterlife is the most compelling and best suits the evidence
-What the probability of life after death means for our lives before death
Provocative, and combining a mastery of the arguments from philosophy, physics, and biology with an incisive analysis of how the world’s major religions have viewed the afterlife, D’Souza shows why we can expect that what Shakespeare called the “undiscovered country” will be discovered by us all.
Dinesh D'Souza is co-founder and director of the Y God Institute. Formerly he was a White House policy analyst and fellow at the American Institute at Stanford University. The author of several best-selling books, including Illiberal Education, What's So Great about America, and What's So Great about Christianity, he lives in Rancho Santa Fe, California, with his wife Dixie and their daughter Danielle. His websites are: dineshdsouza.com, ygodinstitute.org .
From the Back Cover
Praise for Life Afer Death
“A brilliant investigation of the fascinating and crucial issue of what happens when we die. It is an inquiry conducted on the basis of scholarship and reason and it provides a convincing answer that is explosive in its impact.”
--RICK WARREN, author of The Purpose Driven® Life
“An indispensable, electrifying book. Writing clearly, forcefully, and fairly, D’Souza covers an amazing range of arguments. I know of no better way to understand the issue of life after death than to get this book and just follow the argument.”
--DALLAS WILLARD, professor of philosophy, University of Southern California
“From the moment I started reading Life After Death, I found myself compelled and enthralled. This is an important and fascinating book that will reinforce the faith of the believer and enlighten and challenge even the most hardened skeptic.”
--MICHAEL MEDVED, nationally syndicated radio host
“Never one to be daunted by attempting the impossible, Dinesh D’Souza here shows again the argumentative skills that make him such a formidable opponent.”
--CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, author of God Is Not Great and The Portable Atheist
“Writing not only for the religious believer but also for the honest seeker, Dinesh D’Souza displays a sophisticated understanding of religion, philosophy, history, and science in making a convincing case for life after death.”
--DEEPAK CHOPRA, author of Ageless Body, Timeless Mind
“It is always a pleasure to read works by Dinesh D’Souza, and Life After Death is no exception. The author guides the reader gently through the thickets of philosophy, physics, and brain science toward his stunning conclusion that is made to seem entirely reasonable—because it IS reasonable.”
--DANIEL ROBINSON, philosophy faculty, Oxford University
“A delightfully readable book on a subject of surpassing importance. I found myself constantly amazed at the clear and accessible way in which D’Souza writes about such deep and subtle questions. Drawing upon his broad knowledge of the latest discoveries in fields as diverse as cosmology and neuroscience, he makes a powerful case for life after death.”
--STEPHEN BARR, professor of theoretical particle physics, University of Delaware
256 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 2009
170 people are currently reading
831 people want to read
About the author
Dinesh D'Souza
53 books904 followersDinesh D’Souza is a political commentator, bestselling author, filmmaker and a former policy analyst in the Reagan White House, Dinesh D'Souza graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Dartmouth College in 1983. He served as John M. Olin Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and the Robert and Karen Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. D'Souza writes primarily about Christianity, patriotism and American politics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 113 reviews
April 10, 2012
This was really interesting, I came in pretty skeptical, thinking he was going to try and prove an afterlife (something I feel can't be done), but instead he just tried to show there is evidence, even from a secular point of view. i think D'Souza does a good job showing it's a reasonable belief to hold, and maybe even more reasonable then that which the atheist dogmatically proclaim with religious zeal. I couldn't help but be amused by his treatment of the new atheist, D'Souza has debated them and couldn't help but take a stab at them several times throughout the book.
I liked his use of philosophy throughout the book, his chapter on Barkley, Hume, Kant and Schopenhauer were fascinating. He made me want to pull Schopenhauer's "The world as will and representation" off of my book shelf and start reading it. I thought D'Souza made a wise choice bringing up Nietzsche who fully understood the death of God, means the eventually loss of the structure that was built upon this faith. The New Atheist naively think they can eliminate God and somehow keep morality, the value of life, our inalienable rights, equality and the true meaning of life. They choose keep a blind eye to the 100,000,000 people murdered by atheistic regimes during the 1900s, in the name of creating a secular utopia. Nietzsche practically prophesied it and even looked forward to it. The removal of God means moving beyond good and evil, but the new atheist refuse to learn from history or acknowledge that western civilization was built upon a theistic foundation. Full of gusto they think they can destroy the foundation and still live in the comfort of the structure that rest upon it, but it will eventually collapse to all of our demise.
I liked his use of philosophy throughout the book, his chapter on Barkley, Hume, Kant and Schopenhauer were fascinating. He made me want to pull Schopenhauer's "The world as will and representation" off of my book shelf and start reading it. I thought D'Souza made a wise choice bringing up Nietzsche who fully understood the death of God, means the eventually loss of the structure that was built upon this faith. The New Atheist naively think they can eliminate God and somehow keep morality, the value of life, our inalienable rights, equality and the true meaning of life. They choose keep a blind eye to the 100,000,000 people murdered by atheistic regimes during the 1900s, in the name of creating a secular utopia. Nietzsche practically prophesied it and even looked forward to it. The removal of God means moving beyond good and evil, but the new atheist refuse to learn from history or acknowledge that western civilization was built upon a theistic foundation. Full of gusto they think they can destroy the foundation and still live in the comfort of the structure that rest upon it, but it will eventually collapse to all of our demise.
July 18, 2012
In "Life After Death," Dinesh D'Souza says he can't present a case for the afterlife beyond all reasonable doubt (the standard in a criminal case), but can demonstrate that the preponderance of the evidence supports it (the standard in a civil case). He cites experiential, scientific, philosophic and moral arguments that he says point toward a life beyond this life. Along the way, he discusses everything from string theory to zombies.
He does so in a conversational style, explaining difficult concepts with remarkable clarity. Reading this book reminded me of why I am not a scientist and made me glad I never took a philosophy class. Yet I understood most of what D'Souza wrote, at least while I was reading it.
He enlivens this serious subject with a sly sense of humor, something he says is lacking in some of his atheistic sparring partners.
"I've debated (philosopher Daniel) Dennett twice, and the man does not even attempt humor," D'Souza writes.
One D'Souza opponent who certainly had a sense of humor was Christopher Hitchens, and it's evident there was a mutual respect between the two. Hitchens was even one of the authors who offered praise for "Life After Death" on the back cover of the book. Among the others were Rick Warren and Deepak Chopra, and I'm willing to wager that Hitchens, Warren and Chopra don't all appear on the back cover of any other single book.
This is not to say that Hitchens agreed with D'Souza. He wrote, "Never one to be daunted by attempting the impossible, Dinesh D'Souza here shows again the argumentative skills that make him such a formidable opponent."
Given Mr. Hitchens' recent death, a passage D'Souza directs toward him seems poignant. Responding to Hitchens' remark that he'd rather be with his friends in hell than endure the monotony of heaven, D'Souza writes:
I hope to convince Hitchens that hell is eternally boring. I want him to picture a graduate student who won't go away eternally pestering him, "Christopher, let me show you my 50,000-page thesis disproving the Trinity." I want Hitchens to envision the tedium of constantly yelling back, "For heaven's sake, shut up."
He does so in a conversational style, explaining difficult concepts with remarkable clarity. Reading this book reminded me of why I am not a scientist and made me glad I never took a philosophy class. Yet I understood most of what D'Souza wrote, at least while I was reading it.
He enlivens this serious subject with a sly sense of humor, something he says is lacking in some of his atheistic sparring partners.
"I've debated (philosopher Daniel) Dennett twice, and the man does not even attempt humor," D'Souza writes.
One D'Souza opponent who certainly had a sense of humor was Christopher Hitchens, and it's evident there was a mutual respect between the two. Hitchens was even one of the authors who offered praise for "Life After Death" on the back cover of the book. Among the others were Rick Warren and Deepak Chopra, and I'm willing to wager that Hitchens, Warren and Chopra don't all appear on the back cover of any other single book.
This is not to say that Hitchens agreed with D'Souza. He wrote, "Never one to be daunted by attempting the impossible, Dinesh D'Souza here shows again the argumentative skills that make him such a formidable opponent."
Given Mr. Hitchens' recent death, a passage D'Souza directs toward him seems poignant. Responding to Hitchens' remark that he'd rather be with his friends in hell than endure the monotony of heaven, D'Souza writes:
I hope to convince Hitchens that hell is eternally boring. I want him to picture a graduate student who won't go away eternally pestering him, "Christopher, let me show you my 50,000-page thesis disproving the Trinity." I want Hitchens to envision the tedium of constantly yelling back, "For heaven's sake, shut up."
March 15, 2010
Gee, I wish i could be as certain of anything in this world as the author is of everything in the next world. To borrow a quote from Hemingway The Sun Also Rises), "Isn't it pretty to think so."
August 22, 2010
I was so skeptical about this book I almost didn't read it. I will admit out front that I have a bias against some religious books, especially Christian ones. The reason is that in the US the commercialization of Christianity has made me deeply suspicious of any book written by Christians about Christian themes. It is a sad fate because I do believe there are those out there who will gladly use religion to make a buck and others who are actually sincere, the difficult part is telling them apart. But Alas I will further admit that since the author's name wasn't a typical American one it tipped the scales enough for me to actually read it. I am grateful I gave this book a chance.
Now I have read books by Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" and "Unweaving the Rainbow" and though I enjoyed many of his arguments he left me still unconvinced. I found his arguments getting weaker further into his books. This book partially serves as a counter point to Dawkins, Hitchens and Bennett and their ideas. Outlining each of their major contention and then tackling them one by one.
Now I went into this book deeply skeptical yet open enough to hear the author out. I think Dinesh D'Souza does a superb job using sound reasoning and scientific evidence to back up most of his claims. Regardless of what one believes his arguments are compelling and I found myself accepting some of them.
Sometimes I feel like being a skeptic is tricky because there is always the danger of missing something of true value just for the sake of staying skeptical.
Now I have read books by Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" and "Unweaving the Rainbow" and though I enjoyed many of his arguments he left me still unconvinced. I found his arguments getting weaker further into his books. This book partially serves as a counter point to Dawkins, Hitchens and Bennett and their ideas. Outlining each of their major contention and then tackling them one by one.
Now I went into this book deeply skeptical yet open enough to hear the author out. I think Dinesh D'Souza does a superb job using sound reasoning and scientific evidence to back up most of his claims. Regardless of what one believes his arguments are compelling and I found myself accepting some of them.
Sometimes I feel like being a skeptic is tricky because there is always the danger of missing something of true value just for the sake of staying skeptical.
July 5, 2010
The book jacket said this was going to be based on science and philosophy ... and it was, to a point. It felt like the author was trying too hard to disprove atheism that he missed the chance to talk to people (the "fence sitters") who really are trying to figure out whether there is life after death and what that might entail. And his approach was too slanted toward Christianity. The author did make some good points, but he ignored some basic problems with his argument and didn't answer some of the questions I had when reading the book. This book would probably be best for those who already believe in Christianity and are looking for confirmation of their beliefs. For those who are looking for real answers, keep looking elsewhere.
October 8, 2025
Life After Death by Dinesh D'Souza is not quite the powerful defence of and elucidation on Heaven I was hoping for. Nor is it - somewhat to my disappointment, if not quite my surprise - a peculiar marriage of tight Christian apologetics with an argument for the existence of ghosts (or spirits, to be more precise). Rather, it reads much more like round-two of his seminal What's So Great about Christianity.
So, yes - while I do feel like the title has been kind of misleadingly tagged on, and it was not exactly what I expected and wanted it to be, it's still a very good book, and another strong point in favour of D'Souza's status as a serious Christian writer. Not as good as the larger book it succeeds, it's still absolutely worthy of consideration by the devout and curious sceptics alike.
So, yes - while I do feel like the title has been kind of misleadingly tagged on, and it was not exactly what I expected and wanted it to be, it's still a very good book, and another strong point in favour of D'Souza's status as a serious Christian writer. Not as good as the larger book it succeeds, it's still absolutely worthy of consideration by the devout and curious sceptics alike.
November 14, 2011
Well, I was hoping this book would rattle my beliefs and force me to ponder life and death. It did not. Every page I read made me angry. The author's arguments lack logic and his references to scientific "evidence" are flaky at best and completely ridiculous at worst. Instead of reflecting intellectually on life and afterlife, the book concludes with a not-so-subtle threat that if you don't believe in Christ's Resurrection, then you are DOOMED. But this is your choice. So many more things I'd like to say, but instead I'll just end with: AARGH!!!
August 19, 2017
This should have been called "Life After Death: The Weak and Irrelevant Attacks on Atheism". It contains no evidence whatsoever for life after death and is instead just a poor presentation of some of the weaker arguments for Christianity and against atheism.
November 27, 2020
Dinesh always writes great books based off of fact over fiction. In terms of Life After Death, Dinesh warns the reader at the beginning to keep an open mind. When that is said just know that there will be newfound facts that will upset you. After listening to this Audible book. I gained a new perspective on where we go in the afterlife. Unlike other books on death this focuses on all aspects of religion around the world and what they believe in. Dinesh also explains the pros and cons of atheism with the intention to argue a thesis on Christianity's profound impact on creation. This book isn't going to sugar-coat the afterlife like many other books do. He will give you insight into how to look at life while bracing the unknown of where we go when we die. One thing is clear - with having faith or not. Nobody knows where we go when we die.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 4, 2016
Better than expected
I am going to have to stop underestimating D'Souza's books. I have a few reservations, but all together this is a great book. I really enjoyed what turned out to be a philosophical survey of great thinkers. D'Souza has the ability to make complex topics understandable, always the mark of a great communicator. I debated giving the book four stars, but based on the number of my highlights, I must give it five. I learned a good many things and will likely return to the text for later review. What more can a reader ask?
I am going to have to stop underestimating D'Souza's books. I have a few reservations, but all together this is a great book. I really enjoyed what turned out to be a philosophical survey of great thinkers. D'Souza has the ability to make complex topics understandable, always the mark of a great communicator. I debated giving the book four stars, but based on the number of my highlights, I must give it five. I learned a good many things and will likely return to the text for later review. What more can a reader ask?
January 4, 2020
Might be a little too complicated for the average layperson. D’Souza makes the case for life after death using quantum physics, psychology, and philosophy. The sections on quantum physics and psychology were quite good but the philosophy section was quite difficult to understand. Maybe that’s just me. Overall, decent book and the author is very eloquent.
October 12, 2011
Evidence? I don't think so. I read this before reading D'Souza's book about Obama and thus I was prepared for the exposure to logical fallacies that dominate both of the books.
January 15, 2011
My mother passed away last year and now, having lost both of my parents, and being past my prime myself, I can no longer ignore the fact that I am next up. This book is a bracing, deep, clear pool from which you cannot help but emerge more hopeful and enlightened. Mr. D'Souza is a Christian, but he only puts forth Christian theology on the afterlife in the very last chapter. Step by step, the other chapters look at near death experiences (including one had by his wife after a car accident), physics (are there other universes than ours?), teleology (looking at our biological design and whether any part of us lives on in another form), neuroscience (is the mind separate from the brain and can consciousness survive death?), and a look at what various philosophers have had to say about the afterlife. The explanation of the ideas of various philosophers I found especially fascinating. This is heavy-duty stuff, but Mr. D.Souza explains it very clearly. For example, he explains that Kant "says that our knowledge of the world comes filtered through the apparatus of our senses, our brains, and our nervous systems. What we perceive and understand is what that human apparatus enables us to perceive and understand. And clearly this apparatus has limits" (p.155). So, Kant says, we live in two worlds: the world we can perceive (phenomenon) and the world as it is, beyond our senses (noumenon). Science can, thus, only study the reality we can perceive, but not the totality of reality. The world we can perceive is subject to material laws, including laws of space and time. But there is a reality which does not need to adhere to those rules. "What has been established by Kant is that the world of our experience is not the only world. In fact, it is merely the manifestation of another world, a reality hidden behind the veils of human experience"(p. 158). This is absolutely fascinating material and even if you are not convinced by his arguments, I guarantee it will set you thinking.
June 15, 2010
This isn't a bad book. I suppose I should (as I've done before) in the spirit of complete disclosure point out that I'm a Christian. This book is argued from at least a nominally Christian point of view. A lot of people will find it frustrating of course. No matter your stance the problem of reading a book on a controversial topic is that when you see what you perceive as a flaw in an argument, you can't point it out or argue your point.
Atheists and some Theists alike will find problems here. He sets out to prove not only the continuation of life after death but also the existence of God. His arguments are all fairly well thought out though (of course) I doubt any reasoning will ever actually prove the point one way or the other. (Every argument that is used to prove that God or continued life is "unprovable also "proves" that the negative argument is as unprovable.) Atheists (I hate that word does anyone remember "i before e except after c"...I always type it wrong first and have to go back and change it.) As I was saying, atheists will argue with his proof points and his witness accounts of "NDEs" (Near Death Experiences). Many Christians will find flaws in some of his other arguments/conclusions (for example he seems to think that reincarnation is "possible" but not likely.)
Mostly, those who pick this book up will already have at least some idea of what they think/believe on the subject and will approach it so. That being said, this will probably be an exercise in thought provocation and open mindedness for the majority of those who read it. I doubt it will change anyone's mind.
So, read, think agree, disagree, argue debate. Not a bad read, though there are better books on the subject.
Atheists and some Theists alike will find problems here. He sets out to prove not only the continuation of life after death but also the existence of God. His arguments are all fairly well thought out though (of course) I doubt any reasoning will ever actually prove the point one way or the other. (Every argument that is used to prove that God or continued life is "unprovable also "proves" that the negative argument is as unprovable.) Atheists (I hate that word does anyone remember "i before e except after c"...I always type it wrong first and have to go back and change it.) As I was saying, atheists will argue with his proof points and his witness accounts of "NDEs" (Near Death Experiences). Many Christians will find flaws in some of his other arguments/conclusions (for example he seems to think that reincarnation is "possible" but not likely.)
Mostly, those who pick this book up will already have at least some idea of what they think/believe on the subject and will approach it so. That being said, this will probably be an exercise in thought provocation and open mindedness for the majority of those who read it. I doubt it will change anyone's mind.
So, read, think agree, disagree, argue debate. Not a bad read, though there are better books on the subject.
January 25, 2018
I heard D'Souza, years ago when he spoke at my college. A bright fellow, out of Princeton.
This is the first book of his I've read. I have to say, I'm disappointed. I don't think he marshals what evidence there is well. I'm not looking for him to do the impossible. I'm not looking for happy talk.
It feels like he got a title. Then he got a contract. Then he got an advance. Then he was stuck. Then he crammed in a writing session in the two weeks before the deadline.
Others have done it better. But integrity would have required something more honest, on what could be shown and would could not. Integrity might have required a different title. Or more work.
This does not live up to the D'Souza I heard years ago. It lives up to the work of, say, his alcoholic nephew, looking to help his uncle, while drying out, while his uncle is off in, oh, Belize or something.
I'm more likely to win the lottery than have D'Souza see this. But if he sees this, he ought to a) withdraw it from the market, or b) issue a massively revised second edition.
The paucity of the case marshaled in his book tends to prove the opposite of what D'Souza ostensibly set out to prove.
This is the first book of his I've read. I have to say, I'm disappointed. I don't think he marshals what evidence there is well. I'm not looking for him to do the impossible. I'm not looking for happy talk.
It feels like he got a title. Then he got a contract. Then he got an advance. Then he was stuck. Then he crammed in a writing session in the two weeks before the deadline.
Others have done it better. But integrity would have required something more honest, on what could be shown and would could not. Integrity might have required a different title. Or more work.
This does not live up to the D'Souza I heard years ago. It lives up to the work of, say, his alcoholic nephew, looking to help his uncle, while drying out, while his uncle is off in, oh, Belize or something.
I'm more likely to win the lottery than have D'Souza see this. But if he sees this, he ought to a) withdraw it from the market, or b) issue a massively revised second edition.
The paucity of the case marshaled in his book tends to prove the opposite of what D'Souza ostensibly set out to prove.
December 29, 2014
While D'Souza is thorough and at times very interesting, his weakness is that he can be very arrogant in a way that makes him insufferable. For example, he speaks of how he loves to take atheists down in their own arena by using their own strength against them, and uses the phrases: "Christian cage fighters" and "Christian martial arts". Culture war much? And the real problem of his arrogance is that he often doesn't play by his own rules. For example, in one chapter he writes about the studies of Near Death Experiences (NDE's). I give D'Souza credit for exploring the reports that seem to support reincarnation in the same chapter, but what I find curious is how he seems to put these reports to a more rigorous process of questioning than the NDE reports he is so fond of. He comes up with reasons that disqualify the reincarnation stories which could just as easily be applied to the NDE stories!
December 21, 2020
Most of it is usable for most religions. The last chapter is heavy Christian and I recommend avoiding it if you got enough of distasteful conversion attempts. The author didn't considered that Buddhism could be the true one, jesus survived due to being in 4th jhana, and God, jesus etc all are deluded into believing that jhana are eternal, and the end when it's not, nibbana is.
Also, I came in not knowing that this guy is a christian, but expecting something along the lines of rebirth evidences as investigators around the world investigated. No mention at all about rebirth evidences. Ha.
Also, I came in not knowing that this guy is a christian, but expecting something along the lines of rebirth evidences as investigators around the world investigated. No mention at all about rebirth evidences. Ha.
January 14, 2010
The book is broader in scope than its title suggests, but for the most part, that's a good thing. Near death experiences make up just a small part of the book, while logical arguments make up the majority.
I skipped a little of the chapter on philosophy, covering views of Schopenhauer and Kant. I found it a little deep and dry, like math'l topology.
Other than that, other parts were really, really interesting. Most definitely worth a look. Try it.
I skipped a little of the chapter on philosophy, covering views of Schopenhauer and Kant. I found it a little deep and dry, like math'l topology.
Other than that, other parts were really, really interesting. Most definitely worth a look. Try it.
August 11, 2010
I must admit that after the last generally successful book by author Dinesh D'Souza (What's So Great About Christianity?) his most recent book came as quite a surprise. I have read a number of D'Souza's books and I honestly had no idea why he would tackle such an unusual subject. I definitely debated whether to invest the time on his new book, Life After Death (The Evidence). I'm glad I did.
D'Souza has spent much of the last decade debating the foremost atheists like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett on the validity of atheist claims that all religions are complete nonsense and in fact damaging to society. I've also seen some of his debates on C-Span, YouTube and BookTV. D'Souza's knowledge of atheism and debating skills are definitely impressive. The following statement from atheist Christopher Hitchens appears on the back cover of this book: "Never one to be daunted by attempting the impossible, Dinesh D'Souza here shows again the argumentative skills that make him such a formidable opponent."
In this book, D'Souza attempts to look for proof of life after death using only the atheist's tools, science and logic. He begins by making some pretty bold assertions in chapter one. D'Souza boldly claims he will successfully dismantle the atheist's arguments and show religious beliefs concerning the afterlife are equally or even a better answer to scientific discoveries and assumptions about the possibility and even the probability of a material and immaterial reality. After reading this, I really thought he was setting himself up for certain failure.
This is one of those books that must be read carefully, with attention to details, as each argument builds on the last one, and each chapter adds additional information to D'Souza's arguments. Skimming or reading a chapter here and there will fail to allow the reader to glean D'Souza's evidence. Clearly, some chapters are more interesting than others. However, I strongly recommend the reader resist skipping any material, or only read D'Souza's summary conclusions.
D'Souza tries to build his case by first revealing atheists as clever purveyors of false arguments and false accusations, which amount to what D'Souza calls "false advertising." Then he compares the atheist's refusal to consider life beyond the material world to that of actual cases of universal and philosophical-based belief in the afterlife. In one of the more unusual chapters, he explores communication with the dead, reincarnation, and near-death or beyond-death experiences. Unless this is a particularly interesting subject for the reader, this can be a tedious chapter. Some Reviewers take D'Souza to task over this chapter. Most seem to see this information as the most likely way to prove life beyond the grave and got pretty upset when D'Souza generally dismisses the validity of the claims of what he calls dialogues with the dead.
Beginning with chapter five, D'Souza gets to the science of his arguments. He considers how physics has changed in the last half-century or so and what Physicists now believe concerning our universe and beyond and the laws that govern it. He specifically compares Newtonian physics with Einstein's conclusions concerning relativity, spacetime and curved gravity, as well as information from quantum mechanics. I thought this was one of his best chapters.
The next chapter was a little confusing. Primarily because D'Souza seems to spend as much time personally embracing the evolutionary process as he does pointing out its shortcomings. He does point out that evolution cannot, and does not claim to apply the theory to the origins and beginning of time, space and matter, the essential building blocks of life. In chapter six, he focuses on Psychology and the search for the immaterial within the material body, the soul and the mind. According to D'Souza, many psychologists insist there is no immaterial part to mankind; thus the mind, thought process, reasoning, desires, wishes, etc. are simply the operation of neurons in the brain. Yet others, like biologist Jacques Monod, operate according to what is called "postulate of objectivity," which D'Souza says means modern science's subjective domain is limited to only the study of material (observable) things, making, therefore, the study of the mental outside the reach of science. By the end of this chapter, D'Souza concludes the scientific argument against the existence of a human soul collapses because the soul is neither material nor objective. D'Souza states, "Does this make life after death reasonable? Not yet, but it does make it plausible."
D'Souza then considers whether consciousness and free will actually exists and, according to science, is material or immaterial. In this chapter, he shows how doggedly stubborn scientists can be when faced with the obvious. D'Souza states that "Philosopher Daniel Dennett has made perhaps the best sustained effort to explain consciousness from a scientific point of view." Yet what is Dennett's conclusion?... "Consciousness does not exist." D'Souza summarizes one of Dennett's arguments about "Zombies" during a debate: "Although people aren't conscious and consequently have no feelings or intentions, we should treat them as if they were conscious and did have feelings and intentions." "Why would an intelligent man like Dennett say this?" replies D'Souza. Later, D'Souza closes that chapter showing that Immanuel Kant actually proved that both an immaterial human consciousness and free will do exist, something modern science denies. "We have seen with Kant's help that free will exists, and therefore it follows that we are not merely material objects in a lawful universe. The startling conclusion is that there is a part of human nature that transcendentally operates outside the physical laws governing material things." From this D'Souza draws his conclusion that consciousness and free will have no natural explanation and terefore function beyond the bounds of physical law. Thus, he says, they are not perishable and regardless of what happens to our material bodies and brains after death, our souls live on.
I took Philosophy classes in college and I admit that has been awhile ago. And I certainly never imagined myself a philosopher. So now after reading D'Souza's chapter entitled Philosophy Discovers the Afterlife, I am absolutely sure I will never become one either. Clearly, this was the most difficult chapter for me to grasp and I'm still not sure I understand D'Souza's central point. He contends that Kant's view of the real world, and the world of our sensory perceptions of it, allows the existence of a rational route to afterworlds. German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, a kind of modern-day protégé of Kant, took Kant's volume of work even further, correcting and adjusting it as he went along. D'Souza concludes "In a sense they provide solid intellectual grounding for what previously was affirmed only on the basis of faith. Our conclusion, then, is that there is good reason to believe in the afterlife." In my opinion, that's easy for D'Souza to say. I feel like I missed a turn somewhere in this chapter.
D'Souza really begins to roll in the next few chapters. But rather than give away the specifics of the ending, suffice it to say D'Souza really bears down here and focuses on the final analysis and conclusions of his thesis. Yes, you will just have to get the book and read it for yourself. When I picked up this book, I expected a much larger volume. D'Souza has packed a lot of material in this book's 235 pages. Most of it has significant footnoting, which is cited in an Endnote section, along with a Subject Index at the end of the book.
Generally speaking, D'souza uses his last chapter to summarize his arguments. However, if you are tempted to flip back and read that chapter first, you will probably be disappointed. His summary is very brief and could leave the reader bewildered and dissatisfied. Most of the final chapter is not unlike the ending of his previous book "What's So Great About Christianity?" Some of it was worthwhile, while the rest of it left me with the question...Why was this added?
Just like the question "Is there an afterlife?" the book "Life After Death (The Evidence)" and its author's analysis and conclusions will be discussed, debated, lauded, criticized, and maligned for years to come. So, whether there is an afterlife or not, this question will continue to be asked, pondered and argued by mankind now and on into the future. Whether or not you took the time to carefully read and considered D'Souza's extensive material, arguments and conclusions, he has certainly shown courage in tackling this subject, knowing very well all the criticism he will draw. I do take my hat off to him for his bold adventure into such an emotionally-charged arena. Read it if you care, or just read it if you dare, but please avoid putting sneeringly sarcastic comments in print like those who didn't bother giving this book fair consideration, but rather opted to spill their ideological guts all over Amazon.com anyway. My time reading D'souza's book was time well spent, so I chose to write a Book Review instead of a personal blog full of my own opinions. This book was definitely a worthwhile read, even though all of D'Souza's arguments weren't always as clear and convincing as I'm sure he would have liked them to be.
D'Souza has spent much of the last decade debating the foremost atheists like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett on the validity of atheist claims that all religions are complete nonsense and in fact damaging to society. I've also seen some of his debates on C-Span, YouTube and BookTV. D'Souza's knowledge of atheism and debating skills are definitely impressive. The following statement from atheist Christopher Hitchens appears on the back cover of this book: "Never one to be daunted by attempting the impossible, Dinesh D'Souza here shows again the argumentative skills that make him such a formidable opponent."
In this book, D'Souza attempts to look for proof of life after death using only the atheist's tools, science and logic. He begins by making some pretty bold assertions in chapter one. D'Souza boldly claims he will successfully dismantle the atheist's arguments and show religious beliefs concerning the afterlife are equally or even a better answer to scientific discoveries and assumptions about the possibility and even the probability of a material and immaterial reality. After reading this, I really thought he was setting himself up for certain failure.
This is one of those books that must be read carefully, with attention to details, as each argument builds on the last one, and each chapter adds additional information to D'Souza's arguments. Skimming or reading a chapter here and there will fail to allow the reader to glean D'Souza's evidence. Clearly, some chapters are more interesting than others. However, I strongly recommend the reader resist skipping any material, or only read D'Souza's summary conclusions.
D'Souza tries to build his case by first revealing atheists as clever purveyors of false arguments and false accusations, which amount to what D'Souza calls "false advertising." Then he compares the atheist's refusal to consider life beyond the material world to that of actual cases of universal and philosophical-based belief in the afterlife. In one of the more unusual chapters, he explores communication with the dead, reincarnation, and near-death or beyond-death experiences. Unless this is a particularly interesting subject for the reader, this can be a tedious chapter. Some Reviewers take D'Souza to task over this chapter. Most seem to see this information as the most likely way to prove life beyond the grave and got pretty upset when D'Souza generally dismisses the validity of the claims of what he calls dialogues with the dead.
Beginning with chapter five, D'Souza gets to the science of his arguments. He considers how physics has changed in the last half-century or so and what Physicists now believe concerning our universe and beyond and the laws that govern it. He specifically compares Newtonian physics with Einstein's conclusions concerning relativity, spacetime and curved gravity, as well as information from quantum mechanics. I thought this was one of his best chapters.
The next chapter was a little confusing. Primarily because D'Souza seems to spend as much time personally embracing the evolutionary process as he does pointing out its shortcomings. He does point out that evolution cannot, and does not claim to apply the theory to the origins and beginning of time, space and matter, the essential building blocks of life. In chapter six, he focuses on Psychology and the search for the immaterial within the material body, the soul and the mind. According to D'Souza, many psychologists insist there is no immaterial part to mankind; thus the mind, thought process, reasoning, desires, wishes, etc. are simply the operation of neurons in the brain. Yet others, like biologist Jacques Monod, operate according to what is called "postulate of objectivity," which D'Souza says means modern science's subjective domain is limited to only the study of material (observable) things, making, therefore, the study of the mental outside the reach of science. By the end of this chapter, D'Souza concludes the scientific argument against the existence of a human soul collapses because the soul is neither material nor objective. D'Souza states, "Does this make life after death reasonable? Not yet, but it does make it plausible."
D'Souza then considers whether consciousness and free will actually exists and, according to science, is material or immaterial. In this chapter, he shows how doggedly stubborn scientists can be when faced with the obvious. D'Souza states that "Philosopher Daniel Dennett has made perhaps the best sustained effort to explain consciousness from a scientific point of view." Yet what is Dennett's conclusion?... "Consciousness does not exist." D'Souza summarizes one of Dennett's arguments about "Zombies" during a debate: "Although people aren't conscious and consequently have no feelings or intentions, we should treat them as if they were conscious and did have feelings and intentions." "Why would an intelligent man like Dennett say this?" replies D'Souza. Later, D'Souza closes that chapter showing that Immanuel Kant actually proved that both an immaterial human consciousness and free will do exist, something modern science denies. "We have seen with Kant's help that free will exists, and therefore it follows that we are not merely material objects in a lawful universe. The startling conclusion is that there is a part of human nature that transcendentally operates outside the physical laws governing material things." From this D'Souza draws his conclusion that consciousness and free will have no natural explanation and terefore function beyond the bounds of physical law. Thus, he says, they are not perishable and regardless of what happens to our material bodies and brains after death, our souls live on.
I took Philosophy classes in college and I admit that has been awhile ago. And I certainly never imagined myself a philosopher. So now after reading D'Souza's chapter entitled Philosophy Discovers the Afterlife, I am absolutely sure I will never become one either. Clearly, this was the most difficult chapter for me to grasp and I'm still not sure I understand D'Souza's central point. He contends that Kant's view of the real world, and the world of our sensory perceptions of it, allows the existence of a rational route to afterworlds. German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, a kind of modern-day protégé of Kant, took Kant's volume of work even further, correcting and adjusting it as he went along. D'Souza concludes "In a sense they provide solid intellectual grounding for what previously was affirmed only on the basis of faith. Our conclusion, then, is that there is good reason to believe in the afterlife." In my opinion, that's easy for D'Souza to say. I feel like I missed a turn somewhere in this chapter.
D'Souza really begins to roll in the next few chapters. But rather than give away the specifics of the ending, suffice it to say D'Souza really bears down here and focuses on the final analysis and conclusions of his thesis. Yes, you will just have to get the book and read it for yourself. When I picked up this book, I expected a much larger volume. D'Souza has packed a lot of material in this book's 235 pages. Most of it has significant footnoting, which is cited in an Endnote section, along with a Subject Index at the end of the book.
Generally speaking, D'souza uses his last chapter to summarize his arguments. However, if you are tempted to flip back and read that chapter first, you will probably be disappointed. His summary is very brief and could leave the reader bewildered and dissatisfied. Most of the final chapter is not unlike the ending of his previous book "What's So Great About Christianity?" Some of it was worthwhile, while the rest of it left me with the question...Why was this added?
Just like the question "Is there an afterlife?" the book "Life After Death (The Evidence)" and its author's analysis and conclusions will be discussed, debated, lauded, criticized, and maligned for years to come. So, whether there is an afterlife or not, this question will continue to be asked, pondered and argued by mankind now and on into the future. Whether or not you took the time to carefully read and considered D'Souza's extensive material, arguments and conclusions, he has certainly shown courage in tackling this subject, knowing very well all the criticism he will draw. I do take my hat off to him for his bold adventure into such an emotionally-charged arena. Read it if you care, or just read it if you dare, but please avoid putting sneeringly sarcastic comments in print like those who didn't bother giving this book fair consideration, but rather opted to spill their ideological guts all over Amazon.com anyway. My time reading D'souza's book was time well spent, so I chose to write a Book Review instead of a personal blog full of my own opinions. This book was definitely a worthwhile read, even though all of D'Souza's arguments weren't always as clear and convincing as I'm sure he would have liked them to be.
May 14, 2023
This is some clever and compelling Christian evangelism! Maybe the best I've ever heard.
I listened to this book for a very specific reason knowing what I was getting into. And for the reasons I was listening to the book (to help me comfort someone afraid of dying or sad that a loved one died), it was great. But I cannot condone this type of insidious evangelism so I can only give it two stars.
I think it's important to understand where someone's coming from when it comes to this book. I'm Jewish, independently fairly strongly anti-Christian (which I associate with colonialism, racism,etc.), and fairly left wing politically. But I am also religious and pro-spirituality (not all Jewish people either of these things; many aren't), and if you forced me to tell you whether I believe there's life after death I would say I do. And I have lately had some reason to be in hospitals with people scared of dying and around people with relatives who have died and not knowing what to say about it.
And - and this is probably the kicker - I have become highly annoyed at atheism and the acceptance of it, just like D'Souza. This part of the book tearing down atheism was quite satisfying to me. Empirical research / science parades around as if it's not just as much of a belief system as religion. But - as D'Souza points out in different words - science relies on an assumption that this isn't the matrix. But we can't prove that. Like, the only way we could prove whether this is or isn't the matrix is if we got strong evidence that it IS. But we don't have that, and our experiences are what they are so we kind of have to, to some extent, act in accordance with the assumption that objective reality exists. D'Souza cites a ton of secular philosophy, which I haven't previously gotten into, and which was very cool.
There's no way to prove objective reality, only to disprove it, and D'Souza (who DOES believe that this is the matrix in at least some sense) admits that there is only inconclusive evidence to disprove reality at that. We therefore have to make, as D'Souza also points out, a risk-based decision on whether to believe in life after death. I'm a lawyer, and I am all about risk-based decision making. So love it, great, let's go. And I do agree with the basic principle that believing in some form of life beyond this earth is the better risk-based decision, and that disbelieving it lead to problems.
But then D'Souza jumps the shark by going further, when he really didn't need to. In the guise of rejecting an argument used against afterlife generally--hedonism / fatalism--he invokes a straw man that allows him to casually throw out with the bathwater ALL the afterlife concepts except the ones that involve the resurrection of Jesus.
The way he does this is super DUPER clever, and super duper misleading / manipulative. I can't remember all of the things that made my head explode while listening, but let's see what I can:
First, the way he tries allows for the possibility that Jesus wasn't actually resurrected, but points out that the facts are equally if not more consistent with Jesus having truly died and been truly resurrected is a sus. He does a lot of fun logical maneuvering here like "as if Roman soldiers didn't know how to kill people" to reject "maybe Jesus didn't really die." And "the lengths to which his disciples went to spread the gospel of his resurrection makes no sense as a fabrication because who does that." And "they can't ALL have hallucinated this."
Like, okay, but this isn't the first part of Jesus's life that involves something completely fanciful... It seems bizarre to me that D'Souza is analyzing the empirical evidence of the resurrection as if Jesus were just any old dude who showed up after his own death, and all these witness accounts suffice to not discredit that possibility completely, and normal people aren't motivated to perpetuate a lie to the extent that these dudes did. He does this all without mentioning explicitly that the dude happened to be the dude who had been crucified for claiming to be the SON OF GOD, born of a virgin and doing other wizardry. Right?
I really don't know what Jesus actually claimed or did, and I don't totally care to, but that context is pretty relevant to how credible claims are of his subsequent resurrection. We have lots and LOTS of evidence of how far humans will go to cling to misguided belief systems. LOTS of it. People convince themselves of their delusion no matter how much evidence shows up to the contrary. Like, humans LOVE to do that. Like, think of every cult leader ever and lots of other criminals too. D'Souza is obviously part of the false political narratives problem at present so we can't expect him to see that. But what about the Salem witch trials?
In other words, it is 100% plausible to me that the Jesus-as-lord-and-savior fabrication was rationally self-perpetuated in this way after his crucifixion. Further, I--a religious and spiritual person who thinks science is a functional approach to a world where it makes no sense to deny objective reality and not much more than that--think that of the various explanations of the existence of the New Testament gospels referencing Jesus's resurrection, the least plausible of them is Jesus's actual resurrection.
I am like D'Souza in the sense that I don't claim to know this for sure, and I don't agonize over it because it doesn't matter to my life decisions.
But, seriously, offering this as the "logical" conclusion after a bunch of very well-reasoned chapters about philosophy and comparative religion: "We might as well believe Jesus died for our sins because it provides the right moral incentive structure and the empirical evidence doesn't disprove it" - is quite something. It suffers from the same problems as all his anti-atheism arguments and additionally that, ahem, IT DOESN'T PROVIDE THE RIGHT INCENTIVE STRUCTURES AT ALL, and we have a crap ton of actual evidence of just how frigging awful the moral incentive structures of Christianity are.
I could go on. I found the evangelizing portions of the book both helpful and disturbing. Disturbing because of how damaging Christianity has been to the world, though again, I can't logically prove it's been a net negative from a utilitarian perspective and I admit there is *some* evidence to the contrary. Helpful to understand how intelligent and logical Christians think - I have struggled with the same incredulity about "how can any intelligent person not see how ridiculous this is, especially when some of those intelligent people DO use logical arguments to reject other religions, even those as intertwined in the same narrative as Mormonism." D'Souza expressly addresses this "every religion but mine is stupid" part quite well, but then kind of walks into the same thing.
I would go so far as to say that atheism, which D'Souza and I both dislike for what appears to be the same reason (they think they're objectively correct when no one can ever claim that about anything), emerged BECAUSE Christianity is so problematic. Had Christianity never claimed to be objectively correct and then tried to conquer the world on that basis, I wonder if we'd all have embraced something closer to secular Buddhism (which is what my Jewish husband tends to believe).
In the vein of me doing the same exact thing, I'll say I quite enjoy Judaism as a non-evangelist ethnoreligion. And a final caveat: I have fervently and proactively avoided the topic of Jesus / being evangelized since I was a teenager, so it's quite possible I misstated the precepts of Christianity in some way here.
If you just want to hear his synthesis of the evidence of life after death without the Jesus stuff, just put down the book as soon as he starts that part - it's mostly in the finale.
I listened to this book for a very specific reason knowing what I was getting into. And for the reasons I was listening to the book (to help me comfort someone afraid of dying or sad that a loved one died), it was great. But I cannot condone this type of insidious evangelism so I can only give it two stars.
I think it's important to understand where someone's coming from when it comes to this book. I'm Jewish, independently fairly strongly anti-Christian (which I associate with colonialism, racism,etc.), and fairly left wing politically. But I am also religious and pro-spirituality (not all Jewish people either of these things; many aren't), and if you forced me to tell you whether I believe there's life after death I would say I do. And I have lately had some reason to be in hospitals with people scared of dying and around people with relatives who have died and not knowing what to say about it.
And - and this is probably the kicker - I have become highly annoyed at atheism and the acceptance of it, just like D'Souza. This part of the book tearing down atheism was quite satisfying to me. Empirical research / science parades around as if it's not just as much of a belief system as religion. But - as D'Souza points out in different words - science relies on an assumption that this isn't the matrix. But we can't prove that. Like, the only way we could prove whether this is or isn't the matrix is if we got strong evidence that it IS. But we don't have that, and our experiences are what they are so we kind of have to, to some extent, act in accordance with the assumption that objective reality exists. D'Souza cites a ton of secular philosophy, which I haven't previously gotten into, and which was very cool.
There's no way to prove objective reality, only to disprove it, and D'Souza (who DOES believe that this is the matrix in at least some sense) admits that there is only inconclusive evidence to disprove reality at that. We therefore have to make, as D'Souza also points out, a risk-based decision on whether to believe in life after death. I'm a lawyer, and I am all about risk-based decision making. So love it, great, let's go. And I do agree with the basic principle that believing in some form of life beyond this earth is the better risk-based decision, and that disbelieving it lead to problems.
But then D'Souza jumps the shark by going further, when he really didn't need to. In the guise of rejecting an argument used against afterlife generally--hedonism / fatalism--he invokes a straw man that allows him to casually throw out with the bathwater ALL the afterlife concepts except the ones that involve the resurrection of Jesus.
The way he does this is super DUPER clever, and super duper misleading / manipulative. I can't remember all of the things that made my head explode while listening, but let's see what I can:
First, the way he tries allows for the possibility that Jesus wasn't actually resurrected, but points out that the facts are equally if not more consistent with Jesus having truly died and been truly resurrected is a sus. He does a lot of fun logical maneuvering here like "as if Roman soldiers didn't know how to kill people" to reject "maybe Jesus didn't really die." And "the lengths to which his disciples went to spread the gospel of his resurrection makes no sense as a fabrication because who does that." And "they can't ALL have hallucinated this."
Like, okay, but this isn't the first part of Jesus's life that involves something completely fanciful... It seems bizarre to me that D'Souza is analyzing the empirical evidence of the resurrection as if Jesus were just any old dude who showed up after his own death, and all these witness accounts suffice to not discredit that possibility completely, and normal people aren't motivated to perpetuate a lie to the extent that these dudes did. He does this all without mentioning explicitly that the dude happened to be the dude who had been crucified for claiming to be the SON OF GOD, born of a virgin and doing other wizardry. Right?
I really don't know what Jesus actually claimed or did, and I don't totally care to, but that context is pretty relevant to how credible claims are of his subsequent resurrection. We have lots and LOTS of evidence of how far humans will go to cling to misguided belief systems. LOTS of it. People convince themselves of their delusion no matter how much evidence shows up to the contrary. Like, humans LOVE to do that. Like, think of every cult leader ever and lots of other criminals too. D'Souza is obviously part of the false political narratives problem at present so we can't expect him to see that. But what about the Salem witch trials?
In other words, it is 100% plausible to me that the Jesus-as-lord-and-savior fabrication was rationally self-perpetuated in this way after his crucifixion. Further, I--a religious and spiritual person who thinks science is a functional approach to a world where it makes no sense to deny objective reality and not much more than that--think that of the various explanations of the existence of the New Testament gospels referencing Jesus's resurrection, the least plausible of them is Jesus's actual resurrection.
I am like D'Souza in the sense that I don't claim to know this for sure, and I don't agonize over it because it doesn't matter to my life decisions.
But, seriously, offering this as the "logical" conclusion after a bunch of very well-reasoned chapters about philosophy and comparative religion: "We might as well believe Jesus died for our sins because it provides the right moral incentive structure and the empirical evidence doesn't disprove it" - is quite something. It suffers from the same problems as all his anti-atheism arguments and additionally that, ahem, IT DOESN'T PROVIDE THE RIGHT INCENTIVE STRUCTURES AT ALL, and we have a crap ton of actual evidence of just how frigging awful the moral incentive structures of Christianity are.
I could go on. I found the evangelizing portions of the book both helpful and disturbing. Disturbing because of how damaging Christianity has been to the world, though again, I can't logically prove it's been a net negative from a utilitarian perspective and I admit there is *some* evidence to the contrary. Helpful to understand how intelligent and logical Christians think - I have struggled with the same incredulity about "how can any intelligent person not see how ridiculous this is, especially when some of those intelligent people DO use logical arguments to reject other religions, even those as intertwined in the same narrative as Mormonism." D'Souza expressly addresses this "every religion but mine is stupid" part quite well, but then kind of walks into the same thing.
I would go so far as to say that atheism, which D'Souza and I both dislike for what appears to be the same reason (they think they're objectively correct when no one can ever claim that about anything), emerged BECAUSE Christianity is so problematic. Had Christianity never claimed to be objectively correct and then tried to conquer the world on that basis, I wonder if we'd all have embraced something closer to secular Buddhism (which is what my Jewish husband tends to believe).
In the vein of me doing the same exact thing, I'll say I quite enjoy Judaism as a non-evangelist ethnoreligion. And a final caveat: I have fervently and proactively avoided the topic of Jesus / being evangelized since I was a teenager, so it's quite possible I misstated the precepts of Christianity in some way here.
If you just want to hear his synthesis of the evidence of life after death without the Jesus stuff, just put down the book as soon as he starts that part - it's mostly in the finale.
January 22, 2022
Rounded up from 2.5 stars. D'Souza wants to do two things with this book. First, he wants to convince you that there is life after death, specifically an afterlife. Secondly, he wants convince you without using any appeals to religion or their sacred texts. Appealing only to scientific findings, he argues that life after death is not only plausible - it is likely.
There was some good and helpful chunks here and there throughout the book, but to me, it was like a teacher handing out a test to her students - she knows the answers ahead of time and she is looking to see how the pupils work through the issues on their own. I knew the answer to the book's questions before opening the book, the interesting part was seeing how D'souza argued for his thesis.
There was some gobbledygook interspersed throughout the book as well. For instance, I am not willing to hear other religion's points of view on the afterlife any more than I am willing to hear a muderer's view on the value of life. In other words, placating the whole world is not a very convincing way to end up arguing for one truth that disagrees with the whole world. But, D'Souza is known for doing that in handfuls.
There was some good and helpful chunks here and there throughout the book, but to me, it was like a teacher handing out a test to her students - she knows the answers ahead of time and she is looking to see how the pupils work through the issues on their own. I knew the answer to the book's questions before opening the book, the interesting part was seeing how D'souza argued for his thesis.
There was some gobbledygook interspersed throughout the book as well. For instance, I am not willing to hear other religion's points of view on the afterlife any more than I am willing to hear a muderer's view on the value of life. In other words, placating the whole world is not a very convincing way to end up arguing for one truth that disagrees with the whole world. But, D'Souza is known for doing that in handfuls.
November 27, 2021
The book explores a variety of philosophical and scientific angles towards death and life. I liked it, maybe worth having a printed copy.
February 10, 2014
An amazing feat to have been able to put together, for the benefit of the common citizen, thousands of years of human thinking and discovering: What we call philosophy and science, all brought together as evidence that life after death not only is possible, but plausible, and more and more provable with the advances made in different areas of science. Rather those who have to find better evidence for their claims of “death and that's it” are the atheists: A hard task indeed for those so-called scientists who ride on prejudices and give shape to modern day's Inquisition.
Mr. D'Souza reveals all the latest discoveries from physics, neuroscience, etc that point to a continuance of some kind of life after death which escapes to our methods of observation. Without any esoteric aid or pseudo-scientific arguments the author shows how new discoveries are being made that completely question the establishment in science.
When too much evidence points in a new direction, those holding to their old dogmas are betting their reputation and privileges they will surely not let go without a fight. Those who haven't been so outspoken against the possibility of the afterlife will prove to be more trustworthy scientists than the prejudiced kind: like the one referred to here, who admits candidly he couldn't tolerate the idea of living under the dictatorship of a God, so that´s why he doesn't want to believe in a God (funny way of being a scientist).
The book is not about Christian apologetics, save for the last chapter where you are invited to make your own choice. All the cards are on the table, and fairly presented.
Mr. D'Souza reveals all the latest discoveries from physics, neuroscience, etc that point to a continuance of some kind of life after death which escapes to our methods of observation. Without any esoteric aid or pseudo-scientific arguments the author shows how new discoveries are being made that completely question the establishment in science.
When too much evidence points in a new direction, those holding to their old dogmas are betting their reputation and privileges they will surely not let go without a fight. Those who haven't been so outspoken against the possibility of the afterlife will prove to be more trustworthy scientists than the prejudiced kind: like the one referred to here, who admits candidly he couldn't tolerate the idea of living under the dictatorship of a God, so that´s why he doesn't want to believe in a God (funny way of being a scientist).
The book is not about Christian apologetics, save for the last chapter where you are invited to make your own choice. All the cards are on the table, and fairly presented.
January 23, 2010
A few...very few...interesting angles. I read this because it was a gift from friends for my B day.
D'Souza's approach is definitely pseudo-intellectual. He is very well-read. However, he has a very strong tendency to pull things from other weighty authors in various fields, throughout intellectual history, take them out of context, and then interpret them for the reader in a way that feeds into his thesis. At times, his interpretations are just downright erroneous.
His analysis is also often trite. The problem is that, for most of his typical audience, they will be unfamiliar with much if not all of the things he quotes from Kant, Sartre, Hawking, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and many other physicists, biologists, etc.
I have watched a number of debates between him and someone like Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens, of course, calls him on this type of twisted logic every time. In my opinion, he usually makes D'Souza out to be the light-weight thinker that he really is.
Of course, your take on it might be very different. So, if you want to invest the time, enjoy!
D'Souza's approach is definitely pseudo-intellectual. He is very well-read. However, he has a very strong tendency to pull things from other weighty authors in various fields, throughout intellectual history, take them out of context, and then interpret them for the reader in a way that feeds into his thesis. At times, his interpretations are just downright erroneous.
His analysis is also often trite. The problem is that, for most of his typical audience, they will be unfamiliar with much if not all of the things he quotes from Kant, Sartre, Hawking, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and many other physicists, biologists, etc.
I have watched a number of debates between him and someone like Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens, of course, calls him on this type of twisted logic every time. In my opinion, he usually makes D'Souza out to be the light-weight thinker that he really is.
Of course, your take on it might be very different. So, if you want to invest the time, enjoy!
October 8, 2015
Although the author's bias towards Christianity was clearly evident and certainly not concealed, this book on the whole presented a very objective and convincing argument that the possibility of life after death is a clear possibility and not just wishful thinking for some who prefer to mitigate the fear of death. Although the bias tended to be more defensive for Christianity I was hoping a more compatible argument to be made where philosophy, science and religion are not always enemies but rather complimentary in spirituality and life in general. It does flirt with this idea and does in the end make a strong case for keeping our thoughts open to the after life. A very good read.
August 8, 2014
In this book, the author covers a wide range of arguments for and against a belief in life after death. He discusses the major religions of the world and their takes on life after death. He goes over the study of near death experiences. He also covers physics, science, and philosophy. We hear from most of the "greats" of modern philosophy (1600s on) and their belief/disbelief concerning life after death, the mind-body connection, materialism, etc.
July 10, 2015
Must read for sheltered christians and atheists to expose them to logic and reason in support of a world beyond the material.
September 29, 2022
I enjoyed this book. I liked the evidence he gives. It really makes you view things differently.
August 20, 2024
In summing up his own word in “Life After Death: The Evidence,” author Dinesh D’Souza writes, ‘We have repelled the atheist case against the believers. … We have accomplished more than a refutation of the other side. We are also equipped with strong positive arguments from several different fields for the afterlife.’
In D’Souza’s book, he offers no such equipping, and if I were an atheist, I would at all not feel like he successfully turned back atheist rejections to an afterlife. If I were an atheist, I would not feel defeated by D’Souza in any way.
D’Souza offers 8 arguments: near-death experiences; scientific discoveries of dark energy and dark matter; a teleological argument from biology and Darwinian evolution; the demonstration of the difference between the brain and the mind; the Kantian noumenal reality as distinct from actual reality; a source for moral law; practical benefits of believing in the afterlife; and finally, the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. The near-death experiences and the existence of the mind, distinct from the brain, do indeed indicate realities outside of empirical scientific proof, but they do not indicate the necessity of an afterlife. The sourcing of morality is a compelling notion that might lead one to consider a divinity, or least superhuman or supernatural creator of morality, but it doesn’t in any way establish an afterlife. The biological teleology and the Kantian noumenality discussions don’t graduate past the level of esoteric musings. The argument that belief in an afterlife is good for individuals might be demonstrably true, but it doesn’t mean there actually is an afterlife. Christmas is more fun if I think Santa Claus is real.
The only compelling argument he makes is the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. He adequately summarizes N.T. magisterial analysis. The best explanation for the birth of Chrisitanity in the mid-first century AD is that Jesus actually died and rose from the grave. This is the only convincing argument in D’Souza’s book.
D’Souza writes, “I love the idea of confronting atheists in their own arena, taking them down … and forcing them to tap out. This book is a continuation of my attempt to demonstrate Christian martial arts. For the Christian cage fighter, it’s fun to take on your opponent with one hand tied behind your back (p.15). Can you picture Jesus using such militant language? He did not speak this way when he encountered the Pharisee Nicodemus. And Jesus wept over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41). If D’Souza is going to be so cocky, he should come up with substantive arguments instead of the mostly incomplete ones he offers in this book.
He would do well to emulate the gentle, whimsical approach of Alister McGrath. McGrath, also practices apologetics and he participated in debates with the same “New Atheists” D’Souza confronted. However, McGrath never wanted to win his debates or force his opponents to “tap out” to use D’Souza’s crude imagery. McGrath wanted his interlocutors to meet Jesus. McGrath’s approach is that of a disciple. It’s much more convincing than the empty bombast of D’Souza.
In D’Souza’s book, he offers no such equipping, and if I were an atheist, I would at all not feel like he successfully turned back atheist rejections to an afterlife. If I were an atheist, I would not feel defeated by D’Souza in any way.
D’Souza offers 8 arguments: near-death experiences; scientific discoveries of dark energy and dark matter; a teleological argument from biology and Darwinian evolution; the demonstration of the difference between the brain and the mind; the Kantian noumenal reality as distinct from actual reality; a source for moral law; practical benefits of believing in the afterlife; and finally, the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. The near-death experiences and the existence of the mind, distinct from the brain, do indeed indicate realities outside of empirical scientific proof, but they do not indicate the necessity of an afterlife. The sourcing of morality is a compelling notion that might lead one to consider a divinity, or least superhuman or supernatural creator of morality, but it doesn’t in any way establish an afterlife. The biological teleology and the Kantian noumenality discussions don’t graduate past the level of esoteric musings. The argument that belief in an afterlife is good for individuals might be demonstrably true, but it doesn’t mean there actually is an afterlife. Christmas is more fun if I think Santa Claus is real.
The only compelling argument he makes is the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. He adequately summarizes N.T. magisterial analysis. The best explanation for the birth of Chrisitanity in the mid-first century AD is that Jesus actually died and rose from the grave. This is the only convincing argument in D’Souza’s book.
D’Souza writes, “I love the idea of confronting atheists in their own arena, taking them down … and forcing them to tap out. This book is a continuation of my attempt to demonstrate Christian martial arts. For the Christian cage fighter, it’s fun to take on your opponent with one hand tied behind your back (p.15). Can you picture Jesus using such militant language? He did not speak this way when he encountered the Pharisee Nicodemus. And Jesus wept over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41). If D’Souza is going to be so cocky, he should come up with substantive arguments instead of the mostly incomplete ones he offers in this book.
He would do well to emulate the gentle, whimsical approach of Alister McGrath. McGrath, also practices apologetics and he participated in debates with the same “New Atheists” D’Souza confronted. However, McGrath never wanted to win his debates or force his opponents to “tap out” to use D’Souza’s crude imagery. McGrath wanted his interlocutors to meet Jesus. McGrath’s approach is that of a disciple. It’s much more convincing than the empty bombast of D’Souza.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 113 reviews