What shall I rail against today? Hmm ... how about this article about life after death, entitled "Life after death: What does the evidence show?" Presumptive logic, my favorite source of anger!
This fellow, Dinesh D'Souza, summarizes his book about proof of the afterlife by stating that, since atheists have no proof that life does not continue after death, yet so many people have had near-death experiences, there is an afterlife. Really. While I agree that NDE's, as the folks like to call them, are interesting and heretofore unexplained by science, I can't make that logical leap Mr D'Souza is calling for. NDE's are evidence of something, certainly, but proof of life beyond the grave? I think not, any more than the idea that magnetism isn't fully understood is proof of God's existence. A gap in scientific knowledge is not a point for faith. It's simply something we don't know yet.
The author expands this reasoning into physics: Every day we're learning new things about physics, so why couldn't there be a Heaven? Well, of course there could be a Heaven, but again, no proof that there isn't is not proof that there is.
Mr. D'Souza caps off his article by saying that, while his presented evidence is not absolute proof, it is a "preponderance" in favor of his side. Besides, he says, it is simply good for us to believe that life does not end with death. It makes us happier.
So, the crowning point of the argument is "because I want it to be true." Thanks. I'd love to believe that there is an afterlife, but "because it makes me feel better" just makes it that much more difficult for me to buy into it. Try again, Mr D'Souza.
Comments