Identity
The Possibility of an Afterlife
Is it irrational to be open to the possibility of life after death?
Posted January 27, 2015 Reviewed by Ekua Hagan
Last week, the results of a major survey into religious attitudes in the UK were published. One of the most interesting findings was that a quarter of people who called themselves agnostic believed in life after death. There was a similar finding last year in the US, in a survey by the Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture. This found that 32 percent of those who identified themselves as agnostics and atheists believed in an afterlife of some form.
These findings might seem surprising since belief in an afterlife is traditionally associated with religions. Conversely, it’s usually taken for granted that atheists believe that death means the end of our identity and consciousness.
I personally don’t find this strange, however. I consider myself an atheist — I’ve never followed any religion, and I’m firmly convinced that there is no supernatural entity who overlooks the world and has the power to intervene in human affairs. And yet I’m also open to the possibility that there may be some form of life after death.
Many people see the idea of life after death as one of the pre-scientific superstitions which rationality has superseded, like the belief in fairies, or in witchcraft. Surely it’s as irrational to believe in an afterlife as it is to believe that the world was created in seven days, or that illnesses are caused by evil spirits?
However, it’s important to detach the idea of life after death from a religious background. The concepts of paradise or heaven in traditional religions are clearly full of fantasy and wishful thinking. It’s probable that they developed many centuries ago, when life was extremely brutal and hard for most people, as a kind of pipe dream to compensate and console people for the sufferings which filled their lives; a way of providing some hope in a seemingly hopeless world.
To accept that these concepts of an afterlife are delusory doesn’t automatically invalidate the idea of an afterlife itself. To say that I believe in an afterlife might be too strong; I don’t like the word "believe" because it implies accepting a possibility without any evidence or experience of its reality. But I certainly don’t think it’s possible to say with certainty that there isn’t an afterlife. I'll give three reasons to substantiate this.
The Question of Consciousness
The question of life after death is essentially about consciousness. If there is life after death, this will involve the continuation of my consciousness (and my sense of identity, associated with that consciousness) in some form. So if my consciousness is just a product of brain activity, life after death would be impossible. My consciousness would die with my brain, and that would be the end of me.
Many scientists do believe that consciousness is produced by the brain, but this is really just an assumption that has no clear evidence for it. Despite many years of intensive research, scientists yet haven’t come up with any viable explanations of how the brain could produce consciousness — or even about which parts of the brain (or what type of brain activity) might be related to consciousness.
Some philosophers believe that it’s not actually possible to explain consciousness in terms of brain activity and that we should look elsewhere for an explanation. One alternative, suggested by David Chalmers and others, is that consciousness may be a fundamental force of the universe, which potentially exists everywhere and in everything. The function of the brain may not be to produce consciousness, but to receive it, like a radio aerial.
Until it is categorically proven that the brain produces consciousness — and in my view, it is extremely unlikely that it ever will be — we cannot be certain that consciousness ends when the brain dies. Alternatively, if it is true that consciousness is a fundamental force, or stems from another source besides the brain, then it is possible that it may continue in some form after the death of the body.
The second reason why I’m open to the possibility of life after death stems from near-death experiences. There have been many attempts to explain in NDEs in physicalist terms, but none of them are convincing. (See my recent post on NDEs for further details.) Even many skeptics admit that there are serious flaws in trying to explain the experiences as the result of cerebral anoxia, undetected brain activity, a rush of endorphins, or the release of DMT.
In a sense, NDEs don’t automatically suggest that there is life after death. It may be that this apparent continuation of consciousness and individual identity is only temporary. But NDEs certainly suggest that there isn’t a direct causal relationship between consciousness and the brain. They suggest that consciousness may continue, at least for a period of time, following cessation of brain activity.
On the other hand, in NDEs, it is common for people to encounter deceased relatives. In some cases, people even meet relatives they didn't know were dead — family members they had lost contact with, or who had died very recently. This could obviously be seen as more direct evidence of life after death.
Beyond Materialism
My third reason is a little more vague. It’s a philosophical viewpoint that we can’t be certain that there no life after death because we are animals who have a limited understanding and awareness of reality.
We sometimes like to believe that we are capable of understanding everything, that one day we will possess a complete explanation for all phenomena. This belief is based on the assumption that we are aware of the world as it is, that there is nothing beyond our present conception of reality. But our awareness is limited, just as the awareness of an insect or a sheep is limited.
There must be phenomena — forces, energies, laws of nature — beyond those which we are presently aware of. It is highly unlikely that a materialist conception of reality (which sees matter as the only reality, and life and consciousness purely the result of chemical and biological processes) is valid. We do not — and probably cannot — fully understand the phenomenon of life, death, or consciousness, and therefore cannot categorically state that consciousness ends with the death of the body.
So I don’t believe that a clear-cut case has been that the cessation of the physiological functioning of our bodies means the end of our consciousness. I think we should at least be open to the possibility that some form of continuation of consciousness occurs.
Who knows what form this continuation might take? Who knows if it will continue indefinitely? Perhaps it might not take place at all. We will probably never know, at least until we actually experience it ourselves. And until then, we should keep our minds open.
Steve Taylor, Ph.D. is a senior lecturer in psychology at Leeds Beckett University, UK and the author of Spiritual Science.
