(13 votes, average: 4.54 out of 5)
Loading...I’ve enjoyed getting readers’ opinions on topics over the past few months, and now I’d like to hear what you think about another, which strikes me as unusually important. It has to do with the afterlife.
The traditional Christian belief, of course, is that when a person dies, their soul either goes to heaven to be rewarded for eternity or to hell to be punished, for the same length of time. (“Length of time” and “time” itself no longer make much sense in eternity, of course. Eternity is infinite, not long. Though admittedly eternal ecstasy or torment sure seems long….).
Many Christians today are moving away from an idea of hell, to think either in terms of temporary punishment, or annihilation, or …. something else.
Many others, including me, do not think there is an afterlife at all. Like the other animals, we simply cease to exist.
Here I am NOT asking for your opinions about whether there *is* an afterlife or about what it is *like* if you do. (If you don’t know, I have a book on the topic, Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife). But if you do want to share your views, hey, why not.
BUT, my question is something else.
Many of my students – OK, virtually all of them – think that if there is no afterlife, there is absolutely no reason to be religious. I point out to them that for the vast majority of the human race, afterlife was not part of religion or the reason to be religious.
Let’s say homo sapiens appeared 200,000 years ago; I’m not equipped to debate the point, but pick your own number back there and it’s the same issue. It really wasn’t until Christianity came along 2000 years ago that religion had a strong afterlife focus. So empirically speaking, religion has almost never been driven by the afterlife. So it shouldn’t have to be.
On the other hand, my students do have a point. If this is all there is, why bother?
So my question is: what do you think?
Why bother?
My question would be why people in ancient times “bothered”, and if we in modern times would have any similar reasons to “bother”.
My understanding is that worship and rituals seemed to be related to more more immediate matters in this life and how various gods influenced those matters if worshipped properly.
But these days we don’t believe in those gods so… it wouldn’t be for those reasons.
Some forms of modern Buddhism today such as Zen and others downplay the belief in rebirth and focus on the importance of living in the now. Zen practitioners don’t seem overly concerned with an “afterlife”, but believe in enlightenment, some describing it as the realisation that the universe is more fundamentally “us” than our perceived individualised selves are, which are ultimately an illusion.
Some also say that time is an illusion, therefore asking about an “afterlife” is asking the wrong question. Spiritual practice is about unravelling the mystery as to what we are NOW, which is supposed to be eternal.
So I’d say there’s probably reasons to be “spiritual” for many who may not focus on the question of an afterlife. But “religious”? That might be a different thing. Maybe…
It seems to me that the story of Jesus fell to the wayside and a lot of strange metaphysical speculation occured.
I don’t understand the obsession with an afterlife in connection with Jesus.
I think we are instinctively and especially prone to detecting and interacting with “persons not present”, gratuitious *presence*, and it’s often a big deal just *outgoing* that experience, then there are all our entertainments which thrive on it. Love of *theatre* and connection, i know so many who belong to the United Church of Canada for example who are otherwise out and out atheists/naturalists but subscribe for social/moral ends, and social creatures we indeed are.
The Quakers also attract atheists, agnostics and the spiritual but not religious.
Yes, there is a reason, because you are a human being. All human beings have a belief system and that’s all religion is. Therefore all humans are religious by definition, even the ones who don’t believe in an afterlife. After all, no one knows whether there is an afterlife.
Ah, what a great question! A question I wrestled with for quite a while. Though I have been a Christian most of my life, I shed the idea that God shows any partiality to believers a long time ago. Then came the question of the certainty of afterlife, and, in examining that carefully, I had to concede that it is really just a matter of hope, which never worked when it came to my lottery tickets. However, by the time I came to wrestle with the question, I had also grown spiritually to the point that I believed the only thing God would really want from us is love for others. I had experienced joy and purpose, and mitigated nihilism that came from living out love as Jesus, and Paul, and James expressed it. That became my religion. As a pastor, I find much fulfillment in teaching that religion and have seen it transform many people. I think Love, as a religion, is great! Some would count me naïve, but naïve or not, it doesn’t matter when I die with a smile on my face.
In my opinion, religion’s primary purpose is and has always been to control and manipulate people through fear, and hope of divine intervention. In the last two thousand years the clerical con artists merely stepped up their game by adding an afterlife. The goal is to make people content while enduring and tolerating injustice, so they can be exploited. Upton Sinclair’s “The Profits of Religion “ is over the top with its socialist views (another religion of sorts) but he makes some good points and cites some good examples from his era.
There may or may not be a god, or an afterlife for humans. Religion has nothing to do with either, the five human senses are not capable of perceiving other worldly entities. Humans can not even perceive all things on earth. No one is capable of knowing god’s will or motivations.
Religion is malicious.
Religion’s primary purpose – at least once you get to the stage where there are priests and temples and so on – is to ensure that the priestly class have a good living in positions of respect and power.
That’s one of the things Jesus railed against at the Temple. The temple priests were on to a good thing with their money-changing racket – turning the money in common use into special religious money suitable for offering – and all the other sacrifice boondoggles. Doubtless the Romans were getting a good kickback as well.
Jesus taught about following the bible rather than the high priests and to live in a way that increased happiness and satisfaction. Help others. Look after the poor. Be prudent. Study the holy books. Be sure of mind. Etc.
Christianity sells the afterlife. Pay your tithe into the collection bowl and you get a pleasant eternity with your loved ones. The priest collects the money but doesn’t have to deliver on this expensive product, and there are no complaints from the buyers. Nice.
I believe in a divine world in a Platonic sense, but certainly no afterlife in the way it is sold to us.
What would be good reasons to be religious?
The most obvious to me would be: search for truth, search for meaning and moral guidance.
Notice I am not saying that religion will actually help you with any of these,
just that if you even suspect religion might help, that is a good reason.
None of these have anything to do with the afterlife.
So to me the answer is clearly yes.
I would hope that the purpose of religion is to make someone a better person on this side of the grave. It that is the case… then yes… and that would also mean that there is a beauty in various religious expressions.
Hmmm…religious? Not really. Spiritual? Perhaps. Much lies in definitions: it seems that “religious” implies fealty to some deity, while “spiritual” is a bit less confined. I think the real issue that your students (and all of us) ponder is—Why be ‘good’? Why not live with abandon?
And the simple answer, for me and perhaps others, is that being ‘good’ is…good. Being good to avoid ‘hell’ is actually rather shallow, while goodness for its own sake is…good. My code, my religious bent, is this: enjoy life, and don’t be a pest, to yourself or others. It works out nicely, and covers a lot of ground.
The problem with being driven by an afterlife is that it devalues this life. And, as far as I can tell, even the religious folk can only be *certain* of this one!
According to Philip Goldberg, religion in its most complete form serves five basic functions:
1. Transmission: to impart to each generation a sense of identity through shared customs, rituals, stories, and historical continuity.
2. Translation: to help individuals interpret life events, acquire a sense of meaning and purpose, and understand their relationship to a larger whole (in both the social and cosmic senses).
3. Transaction: to create and sustain healthy communities and provide guidelines for moral behavior and ethical relationships.
4. Transformation: to foster maturation and ongoing growth, helping people to become more fulfilled and more complete.
5. Transcendence: to satisfy the longing to expand the perceived boundaries of the self, become more aware of the sacred aspect of life, and experience union with the ultimate ground of Being.
This functional view of religion helps explain why people can choose to be religious without a belief in an afterlife.
This makes sense. Is this the author of American Veda?
Yes. The source of my first comment is a 2010 post by Philip Goldberg titled “Toward a Broader Understanding of Religion’s Functions” :
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/toward-a-broader-understa_b_545314
I think that it would certainly be a major blow, particularly as tangible rewards in this life are often (usually) hard to demonstrate. What is the purpose of honoring a god who gives you literally nothing in return? For martyrs, what would be the point of dying for your faith, if death is all you end up getting? It is, of course, the subjective nature of evaluating such returns that keep it all going, and going, and going . . . One might, indeed, ask the similar question of what is the worthwhile value of the struggle of being a decent person, beyond some degree of personal satisfaction, and the merely superficial advantages of avoiding jail.
I’m with you, Dr. E.
For as many people who sit in pews come Sunday mornings there are reasons to be religious. I stopped believing in a literal hell some years ago, and refocused my efforts to act as Jesus suggested: love your neighbor, pray for your enemies. (I don’t identify as a Christian, BTW) I have peace that when we die we simply decompose and cease to be. I didn’t exist for billions of years, and my human death will simply return me to that state…if that even makes sense. I have religious family members who are hellbent on going to heaven. That, to them, is the ultimate goal: To live with Jesus forever. I am saddened when I hear that there is fear in them, that that they are not sure if they have checked all the boxes for salvation despite having been born again for decades. My heart breaks. But, an all-powerful god could clear all that confusion up by, you know, actually intervening in human affairs to the extent that we are each presented evidence that convinces us of their literal existence. Not sure I answered the question, but there we are. Namaste.
It seems like a difference between when Christianity came along 2000 years ago and prior to that is that religion was a way of life prior. You were born Jewish and your way of life was Judaism. Over time after Christianity came along, religion became a business. It seems that a lot of people today are put off by the business side of religion but still want to be spiritual.
I was just starting your book “How Jesus Became God” and you have a few paragraphs on Judiasm in the Ancient World. You explain that Jewish life was about a set of practices and not a set of beliefs, per se. I assume that’s still true for most Jews today. Anyway, I think that’s a classic example of how you can be religious without a belief in the afterlife. Moving away from a specific, clearly defined religion, I think a certain ethos or philosophy, maybe secular Buddhism or secular Stoicism can be considered a religion, without belief in an afterlife. As an atheist, I see the value in such a secular, almost religious worldview. With religious rituals and practices usually come a sense of place, contentment and meaning. Those things tend to happen in a social context, and for humans, making social connections is essential. As a person who doesn’t believe there is any objective meaning or purpose to life, I believe anyone can make their own meaning (classical existentialism) and many do this without needing any afterlife at all.
dr bart i heard from scholars taht many word in new testament didnt actually said by jesus many in john and other part i want to ask about that word that said “must be born again” saying hinges upon double entendre but in aramaic and hebrew itdidnt exist? how could scholars be sure it didnt? what if the language was evolved ? moreover the aramaic
THat view is based on an understanding of *ancient* Aramaic.
Pagans were religious and didn’t believe in an afterlife. I think humans are predisposed to religiosity, because it serves some useful function in humankind as a superorganism. Religious beliefs regulate behavior and serve to organize groups into societies. Religious beliefs give rise to moral codes, which serve as the basis for laws, which enable the formation of states, which perpetuate the welfare of their inhabitants. Religion enables scaling up a thriving humanity.
But if religions are all fictions, then what is the true nature of reality and personal existence? The very question of an “after” life presupposes our linear experience of time. But if all of time exists simultaneously in 4-dimensional space-time, then we ought to think of an “elsewherelife” rather than an “afterlife”. This question becomes more mindboggling when you consider an 11-dimensional reality, as suggested by string theory. And after experiencing individual sentience here in this material life, will my energy move on to an elsewhere life (matter being a manifestation of energy)?
I think, therefore I am. But am I eternal? I think so. Is there anything about my here-and-now timebound life that impacts my elsewhere life?
I think that without the hope of an afterlife, all of the arguments that you make about the problem of evil (which you do very well), logically and emotionally and even philosophically, should lead any atheist to despair, since for those who suffer the greatest, life is meaningless and hopeless, and there is nothing to look forward to after this life — no “cosmic justice” — , to make up for all the suffering undergone. Hence, the far greater problem, in my opinion, is the atheist “problem of good”.
John Lennon sang, “imagine there’s no heaven.” If neither heaven nor God exist, the universe is ultimately, existentially a cruel, tragic, and meaningless place. This is presupposed by the very argument from evil that is used against us! It rebounds back upon you.
And atheists would have us believe that the millions who don’t have enough to eat right now, the victims of genocide and sex slavery in the Sudan, China, and elsewhere, and Hitler’s six million victims, are annihilated, but, nevertheless they ought to be happy and joyful during their tortured lives? What sense does that make?
Only a God and an afterlife give any purpose at all to that abominable suffering.
Who says that atheists believe that those experiencing such suffering ought to be happy and joyful? As an atheist I certainly to do not, but I can’t speak for all atheists.
Belief in an afterlife is different than belief in cosmic justice. I understand that they tend to go hand in hand. Which religious tradition offers the best combination of an afterlife and cosmic justice to you?
And does this one provide evidence that God exists? Or does it just give a reason for believing in that kind of God?
The universe is a cruel and tragic place, whether God exists or not. Humans experience cruel suffering every day, this we know. Either a God let’s it happen or there isn’t a God to let it happen and it just does.
“Either a God let’s it happen or there isn’t a God to let it happen and it just does”.
That’s assuming a god who has the ability to control what happens in his/her/its creation.
Yes, that’s true. I don’t. I assumed he does believe in such a God. I’m guessing there are hundreds of beliefs about what God or gods can and can’t do.
It was rhetorical exaggeration to make a point; reductio ad absurdum. The point was that the obvious state of the great numbers of people who suffer greatly throughout their lives is despair and meaninglessness and nihilism. This is what I maintain is the logical end-point of atheism and the notion that there is no afterlife and no “cosmic justice.”
It’s easy for those of us in the west and the well-to-do countries to achieve a modicum of happiness and personal fulfillment based on material comfort and lack of the mundane needs that have occupied most people in the history of the world and a good half or more of the world today.
I’m a Catholic, but Christianity overall offers the most realistic and joyful worldview. I believe it’s true, of course. I don’t believe it because it makes me happy. I would say it makes me happy and joyful because it’s true (what I call “reverse pragmatism”).
There are many reasons to believe that God exists. I think it’s a cumulative argument that becomes strong due to having many arguments all working together, adding up to theism and then Christianity. See my blog, “Biblical Evidence for Catholicism” for over 4,000 articles.
Thanks Dave! I was raised Catholic. I see your point about your beliefs making you happy and joyful because they’re true. I feel the same way. As I questioned Catholicism, Christianity and then the existence of that kind of God or any supernatural beings or entities, I realized that I want happy accepting those things as they weren’t ringing true. I’m more happy now than ever; I’m much more at ease being uncertain about God or an afterlife, and not following a specific doctrine based on those things.
If you’re Catholic you probably don’t take the creation myths in Genesis literally, and believe in things like evolution, but why do you believe that God created this type of existence? This realm where one is born, suffers earthly existence, but then dies, lives on in another realm and experiences some eternal existence post earthly existence?
The Christian view is that God *didn’t* create this sort of world. It was our rebellion against Him that brought it about. God made a way to redeem the mess and save those of us who accept His free offer of salvation, but there is a lot of suffering now, whereas originally there wouldn’t have been.
Most of the suffering is clearly caused by human sinfulness and wickedness. God didn’t cause, e.g., the Nazi Holocaust. That was Hitler and the Nazis, and the Allies, who sat on their butts all during the military buildup from 1932-1938 doing nothing (ignoring Churchill’s desperate warnings), and then initially trying to appease Hitler (Chamberlain) when it was clear what his intentions were.
Suffering from the natural world is another issue that I have written about. I argued that to eliminate it would be to take out the uniformitarianism that is fundamental to the scientific endeavor. Science would then be very difficult or impossible.
No one has responded to my brief description of the atheist “Problem of Good.” That’s usually how it goes, though a marvelous exception was one debate I had with an atheist in 2001 on this topic. It’s my favorite of some 1000+ online debates.
“And atheists would have us believe… happy and joyful during their tortured lives?”
Really? Golly. I have a very good atheist friend who would have ‘us’ believe no such thing. This friend doesn’t give a hoot what religious people of any stripe believe as long they mind their own business. The abominable suffering we all are witness–at a distance–to in Ukraine is driven in great part by Russian orthodox mullahs.
This friend would, I’m sure, disagree respectfully with your premise.
See my replies to RandomRules.
dr bart i heard taht in jesus seminar they colored the words of jesus that they feels is it comeback to jesus or not? how many of that words were regarded as fake and only put in jesus mouth
I don’t remember the exact number but I believe it was over 70%.
Yes, the Jesus Seminar estimates that only about 18% of the statements attributed to jesus in the “five gospels” were things he actually said. So 82% were for various reasons “put on Jesus’ lips” by others.
Remind me: is that red AND pink, or just red?
The 18% combines both the Red and Pink sayings.
Is there any chance that you will one day post on why you’re not a fan of the Jesus Seminar ?
I think I say a few things about it in my book Jesus: Apoclayptic Prophet of the New Millennium. I know I posted on it at least once: https://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-seminar-john-baptist-members/
Hi Bart,
I have been very interested in the apocalyptic Jesus view and I tend to hold to it. However, I don’t think it is as open and shut as you do. Admittedly, Crossan didn’t prove his view in the book you cited, but there was an fairly thorough debate of this issue in a book, “The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate” d. 2001. It features a debate with 1 apocalypticist, Dale Allison vs 3 non-apocalyptic scholars; Crossan, Marcus Borg, and Stephen Patterson. I think Borg’s analysis of the interplay between apocalypse and present kingdom is brilliant, though he can’t be said to have won the debate, only to have clarified the issues in play very well.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Apocalyptic_Jesus/QlsRAQAAIAAJ?hl=en
Yes, I was asked to participate in that volume and turned it down (maybe before Allison was asked?). I didn’t think it was write to have 3 against 1 when in fact in teh scholarly community the great majority think JEsus was an aapocalyptiicst. Marcus over time made a lot of claims about apocalyptic sayings that simply were not true (I don’t recall if they were in that contribution or not), e.g., that never in the Gospels is “Son of Man” language conneected with Kingdom of God language. Uh, Mark 8:38 and the verse that follows it, e.g.??
I’m curious whether “fragmentp52” has a special role in the blog or is just another member. For one thing that bright green box instead of a photo seems to lend some special authority to him or her. Also, his or her comments seem to have a more authoritative tone.
Anyway, just curious. And I do appreciate “fragmentp52’s” comments.
Hi Seeker1952. Thanks for your comment. To answer briefly :
The green box serves two purposes :
1. it makes it easy for me to find my comments, being a fairly distinctive avatar on the blog
2. it signifies my interest in the Green movement, Green new deal, eco-friendly sustainable solutions etc.
I’m just a regular member of the blog. I have no special role here. And the authoritative tone of which you speak comes from the fact that my beliefs rest on a solid bedrock of knownothingness lol.
Thanks for noticing my comments. I generally find (with some exceptions) that the quality of comments here is quite high. I hope I can contribute to that high quality in some small way, and not just cause other readers to groan and gnash their teeth. A little of my lame ass humor also creeps in to my comments from time to time.
There are benefits to regular church attendance — even if it doesn’t save us a spot in paradise.
1) It is a community-building activity. It allows us to get to know people we otherwise wouldn’t, including poorer folks. When we know people and understand their needs, we are happy to help them. In American Grace: How Religion Unites and Divides Us, Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam found that regular participation in religious services increases participants’ charitable giving even outside the church community.
2) Church attendance may be important to your spouse and other family members. Going to church isn’t too high a price to pay for nurturing family relationships, IMO.
3) You may learn something, especially about the Bible. It’s also an opportunity to apply insights we get from Bart, even if we mostly keep that application to ourselves.
4) There are places to serve at church. Serving can be an opportunity for personal growth.
In sum, one need not embrace all the doctrine to still go to church, and to enjoy doing so in this life.
I agree, and I suspect that for the majority of moderate Christians, their reasons for attendance are probably similar to what you suggest. I’m sure some folks also go to be seen doing the right thing, to build business contacts, and other reasons related to a middle class life. Some would say there’s nothing wrong with this, but I’m not so sure. Stripped of the social gospel and stripped of a real activism and agency for positive social change, your local church becomes little more than a religious club, much like the local Chamber Of commerce, your local Bridge Club etc. A whole bunch of generally pleasant people, attending for “non essential” reasons, in and out in an hour.
Even Robert Sapolsky, an ardent Atheist and Biological Determinist, says that religion is nature’s anti-depressant. Lots of people think that life would suddenly be wonderful if all religion simply vanished. My own suspicion is that they are wrong. Life might certainly be different, but not necessarily in ways that they would like.
I’d add that there is much to be learned and ruminated upon in both the HB and the NT, as well as spiritual books. The wisdom literature is called that for a reason, IMHO.
This is analogous to the question Plato addresses in Book 10 of The Republic. What if you could commit crimes with impunity? Would you be more inclined to commit them? I suspect that many would say “Yes!” In large measure, it’s the fear of getting caught and suffering punishment that, they would say, keeps us from acting badly and thinking wrongly. Absent this fear, only the most base form of self-interest rules. Of course, it takes some wisdom to recognize the fact that generalizing this principle would lead to harm for everyone, including ourselves. But that requires some long-range thinking and some willingness and ability to see the so-called “big picture.” Loving my neighbor and doing unto others is good for me and mine. Until it isn’t. And then, heaven help us.
Our ancestors believed there were spirits that controlled things like the weather, the herds of animals, other facets of their lives in this world. It made sense that they wished to stay on the good side of these powerful entities. When you have no idea what causes thunder or where the sun goes at night it makes a certain sense.
First, what is religion? Let’s say it’s belief in the existence and power of intentional, supernatural beings (ie, gods) with whom people can interact, who can affect people’s lives, and whose actions explain some part of the universe. So even without an afterlife, religion can affect this life for good or ill as well as help explain what’s happening. And religion undoubtedly serves many social, cultural, and moral purposes. So yes there are good reasons to be religious without an afterlife.
But it’s hard to see reasons for being religious if there are no gods (even if there is somehow still an afterlife). Using my definition, it’s a contradiction. I haven’t given much thought to what reasons there might be for being religious if there is an afterlife but no gods exist.
Nevertheless, much of religion-with or without gods-can promote human flourishing. It can promote cultural ideals, bind society together, provide solace, and nurture human cooperation. Religious stories, even if not literally true, can be myths that help us better understand life and the universe and what’s valuable.
To be continued
I don’t agree that “religion has almost never been driven by the afterlife,” and that the concept of an afterlife more or less began with Christianity. The extant literature we have from a number of pre-Christian ancient civilizations and their religions refers in some way to an afterlife, and archeological excavations as old as 34,000 years suggest that ancient people believe in some kind of survival after death.
As a scholar of early Christianity, I think Bart is naturally focused on what can be gleaned from written sources. Ancient textual sources are his bread and butter, and precisely because he is a scholar, he is laser-focused on one area of study. These days, there are very few polymaths, simply because the literature in any one field is too vast to do much reading in any other. I agree with you that archaeology has much to teach us, and is essential in interpreting the past precisely because it isn’t filtered through an ancient ideological or polemical lens.
Pre-Christian religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Zoroastrianism all have the notion of an afterlife.
Continuation of above
Most importantly, parts of religion, even if there are no gods, can possibly help us overcome the egoism that makes us fear death absent the possibility of a happy afterlife. It can help us identify with things bigger than ourselves that will continue after our individual lives end.
One reason I’m interested in Buddhism is that I think it might eliminate fear of death through a clear and robust understanding that I don’t actually exist in the first place—ie, don’t exist as a being separate from the people and world around me. I’m simply one part of a whole and that boundaries between things are (mostly) an illusion. And maybe we are all really a single conscious being that includes the entire universe.
On the other hand, there’s Epicurus who tells us that it’s much better to simply and peacefully enjoy this life and accept that death is simply the end (which we won’t actually be here to experience anyway) than to ruin our lives and happiness by terrible anxiety about what happens after death.
Nevertheless, death is the great unknown. Who knows what will happen and what the right attitude toward it is, eg, Pascal’s Wager?
My two cents: check out the Meditations (Marcus Aurelius). He combined a beautiful ethic, a natural sense of religion and piety, and a respect for reason and inquiry, without any belief in an afterlife.
As a believer, to me it is a beautiful way to live and a beautiful way to die (thinking we will be seeing our
departed loved ones again). My husband was not a believer but he wanted our sons to grow up with that same faith and attended church with us. Before my older son’s first brain surgery, I taught him the Twenty-third Psalm to say during those long hours of being prepared for the procedure. It was a help and a comfort. That is what religion is to me.
Correction!
I jotted off that earlier response too quickly! If there were no God or afterlife then would we live as we do with faith? My answer is yes. To love myself and love others as myself is impossible but striving for it makes life richer, I think.
I do not expect there is a literal afterlife of my individual consciousness after the physical death of my brain. On the other hand, traditional ideas about heaven and hell still make sense to me in pragmatic terms: they are real in their consequences for the people groups that hold them. Furthermore, I think ideas about Third Heaven and Paradise had a this-life meaning for Paul. Like Paul, I have been shaped by religiously interpreted altered states of consciousness.
I tend to take a full-scale or 360-degree viewpoint. jscheller seems to be aligned with Elaine Pagels, as she expresses her view in “Why Religion?” Living with a system that helps you is all fine because no moral absolute exists. I never really understood Kant’s categorical imperative because either god provided the moral absolute, and rewards for those morals or none existed. Absent that I now understand how Kant conceived of the categorical imperative – at a philosophical level. Additionally, we now know through physics that only four fundamental forces govern the physical processes in the universe. Kant did not know this. Even though physicists have not fully described dark matter or dark energy, these four forces, i.e. gravity, electro-magnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force, do not even begin to allow formulating existence in some afterlife realm or meta-universe. Believe what you want if it helps you, but ultimately reality does not support anything else.
Definitely. Assuming that it was consistent with my religion (Roman Catholicism), I would still be a Catholic if there was no afterlife. God could still exist. And besides, religion is not merely some abstract thought you have in mind, it’s your community, your language, your culture etc
Speaking for myself only as a muslim
Eternal paradise and hell have always I think been the strongest motivations I’ve had. One simply doesn’t look at the world in the same way, neither creation nor behavior once you realize eternity is just not like what is temporary.
I am not sure what I’d do if, say the Quran said nothing really happens after you die. Do we at least get some record of who God thinks was the best while they were on earth? In that case, that might be some motive for me to “live on” in that sense.
But survival and perpetuating is simply hardwired in our existence. The atheist probably argues that our biological drive to reproduce and pass on fertile, offspring who have the best likelihood of repeating that process is at the core of religious faith-the human mind imposing an imagined perpetuity mapped onto our primal biological drive.
To continue:
The believer flips that and says we have this want because God put it in us, and we have the other animals to see the difference! They live without the kind of language-constructed visions of the future that we do, but we have actual purpose on this earth beyond just breeding and its through *this* that we exceed them, getting the privilege of enjoying eternal life in paradise with the King. They hear and see and feel as do we, they try to perpetuate as do we, but we’re shown them to see ourselves better-as not mere animals but favored and honored creations with a higher purpose to be grateful for, our hearing sight and feelings to be employed in God’s work, our want and fear not like animals which is merely temporary, but ours is eternal.
Even nonbelievers want in some way for their work to have perpetual consequences. To put it like one atheist from the Silo series- you will forever “have had done what you did.” If I save someone’s life then this is for eternity, what I chose to do in that moment. If I lie or steal, the same.
I’m currently in a place of seeking God and seeking to serve Him without actually having any more of a big epistemological reason to think He exists than when I identified as an atheist. If God exists, then He is the ultimate beginning, cause of all joy and beauty and every good thing we have in our lives. If someone does something good for you, you want to give thanks, not because they’re going to give you an additional reward for your gratitude, but because it is good to be grateful. If God exists He is also the ultimate end, one whose goals, if we could understand them, would be aligned with our own and would be a reconciliation of all disparate human goals. If someone wise gives you advice, you’ll want to do what they say, not because they’ll additionally reward you, but because doing so is likely to help you and the world. Religion, if it gets us closer to God, gives us both a way to express gratitude and wisdom to live by, whether or not there’s some additional reward beyond that
Depends on how you define ‘religious.’ What was that term I heard on The Good Place — moral desserts? If you need a reward to motivate you to follow the tenants of your religion, then you don’t believe that the religious practices have inherent value and can lead to a good life on their own. They are just a means to an end, like pressing a button to get a prize. But if you truly believe they increase your chances of being truly happy, heaven is a lot less central.
I was curious about reincarnation. I had read articles and saw interviews about people claiming they had been reincarnated and it sparked my curiousity. I found the work of Ian Stevenson and Jim B Tucker to be compelling and lean that way though I don’t really buy into people being hypnotized and recall past lives.
I would like your opinion about the The New Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible used for understanding more of what I walked away from- seeing how all the cross referencing for scriptures . In my opinion one needs to examine both sides of the fence – belief and unbelief in the Abrahamic faiths. Am I making sense? Do you have any suggestions for reading material. I want to have a better comprehension of walk I walked away from.
A concordance is a very useful tool: it tells you every place a certain word appears in teh Bible. Is that what you’re looking for? Or a book *about* the Bible. If the latter, you might try my book The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction, or if you’re mainly interested in the NT, then The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings.
My process out of faith was gradual, and what I believed about the afterlife went from the somewhat standard Christian position, to seeing how that just didn’t comport with what I was learning about biology and neurology, to finally realizing that it was really just wishful thinking. I tried really hard to keep the religion, even attending a UU church for a while, but it just wasn’t my thing. I think what is important is to focus on the here and now. Maybe not just now, but the hear future here (what we can do to make this place better for others, and for those that come after us). I think different people will find a different answer here, and there is place for religion. But, for myself, with my background, there really doesn’t seem to be much point to it.
The question depends on how one defines “religious”. If all we mean by “religious” is engaging in moral/ ethical behavior or having a moral/ethical system, then belief in an afterlife is not required. In fact, belief in an afterlife is a very shallow, dehumanizing motivation for moral/ethical behavior. Humans would be a pretty sad, childish lot, if we behaved well merely for the stick of hell or the carrot of heaven.
Religions that long predate belief in an afterlife (that long predate Jesus for that matter) already espoused the principle of reciprocity. Jesus worded it as “do unto others …” but other versions are just as valuable, such as:
“Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain and your neighbor’s loss as your loss.” (T’ai-Shang Kan-Ying P’ien – 12th century BC)
Humans have long recognized that we depend on cooperation; and evolution jump-started this recognition by favoring cooperative species that develop a sense of empathy. This evolved sense of empathy means that the care humans have for each other is even more powerful than the principle of reciprocity on its own. We care for each other both because it makes sense, and because it increases our own sense of well-being to do so.
Regarding “if there is no afterlife … why bother?”, what about having a god to help with problems in the here and now? As a boy I used to find myself on occaison appealing to god for help to find a lost pocket knife. Even after my liberal protestant beliefs had mostly faded, I still found myself appealing to god for help to find a pair of glasses or a cell phone, while simultaneously realizing it would be the height of presumptuousness to call upon a deity for such trivial concerns. A farmer praying for rain for the crops, a person praying for a lover’s recovery from cancer, a soldier praying to survive a bombardment, I think such things would be more real to most people than vague notions of an afterlife.
As Peggy Lee sang, “Is this all there is?” Most likely. It is what it is. Either there is life after death or there is not. Hope will not get us anywhere. Is there any real evidence for some kind of life after death? Some of the NDE evidence can be enticing but I am not persuaded and such evidence is certainly not consistent as far as I know. Buddhism isn’t theistic, is it, and that religion has been far longer than Christianity. Millions believe in reincarnation, but there is not evidence for it as far as I know and in any event reincarnation seems ridiculous to me. But YES no doubt many people find meaning and purpose in life without religion. Believing that this life is all there is focuses the mind on this life just like the prospect of being hanged does wonders to focus the mind.
I think whoever asks this question needs to go to the Sociology Department and ask for an independent study in “The Sociology of Religion – The Social Functionalism of Religion.”
Religion, however one defines that term, has always been with us and a part of who we are at a deep level. This probably extends to other human species with whom we (homo sapiens) shared the planet for most of our history. There was much exchange of genetic material (sex) between h. sapiens and other groups over time, so that what even constitutes h. sapiens is debatable. Archaeologists are also rethinking the origins of religion. It seems, with finds like Gobekli Tepe, that what we think of as “organized” religion didn’t need settled agricultural life to get started: https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-near-eastern-world/the-gobekli-tepe-ruins-and-the-origins-of-neolithic-religion/
I think that whatever ancient peoples thought or didn’t think about an afterlife perhaps gets colored by our modern way of separating reality into the mundane (earthly) realm and the divine (heavenly) realm of the gods. For most ancient peoples, this sharp distinction didn’t exist. With the advent of Christianity (Greek cosmology and philosophy), this separation became more distinct.
Apocryphile. I agree with so much with what you say. All of your responses are completely aligned with my views, as well as Dr.Ehrman’s angle of his studies as you described. The difference for me is that i could not say it so eloquent as you do, but I feel that deepness and truth it resonates. Religion, no matter how defined, is truly become a part of who we are at a deep level and, in my view, will never seize to exist. Thank you for the wonderful non conflicting posts you provide. They benefit everyone.
Thank you so much! It’s nice to be appreciated occasionally. 🙂
What I was trying to stress in my comments is that whatever religion is, it is inextricably a part of who we are at a fundamental level. I think this goes beyond merely a fulfilling of psychological and social needs. What it’s ultimate meaning and purpose is, of course, up for debate, but I think religion fulfills more than simply an evolutionary function. There is a part of who we are that can’t be distilled down to molecules, atoms, and particles. Dr. Ehrman has said that he is a materialist, but I think that this philosophy, mostly a product of the post-Enlightenment, has lately proven inadequate at explaining what constitutes reality at a fundamental level. Whatever the ultimate stuff of reality is, it appears that it has more to do with what we would normally define as being “mental” constructs – meaning, information, and relational associations. And… in order for these mental constructs to exist, one of course needs to assume *consciousness* a priori. So, could consciousness be the ultimate stuff of reality?
I heard something that evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins said that early on in the evolution of man the sense of order had to be established in order to work together and tribalize.
When rules are made for the purposes of order those who make the rules may not actually believe in them either but they know that in order for a large group of individuals to create and advance certain accommodations had to be made. ( and continue to be made)
Things can’t evolve in anarchy
As APC (Ancient Psychology Castles) commonly known as religions & cultures in general domesticate humans from birth, humans in return generally tend to embrace and defend them because they find identity, shelter & nostalgia in them. But generally religion has numerous benefits. Here is a list of 7 -mm a mythically perfect number 😉-
1-Maintains society order & structure.
2-Maintains a singular community way of living.
3-Creates identity & pride for its followers.
4-Creates short term hope for the near future & a meaning for existence.
5-Disciplines believers & morph them into certain character (Herd).
6-Gives sense of security to its followers.
7-Motivates believers to abide to certain morals.
A philosophical diversion on what constitutes “reality” that you may find interesting/entertaining is David Chalmers’ new book: Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy.
I don’t know if cease to be religious in general, but if I were a Christian (I’ve only been baptised, never an active believer), I’d certainly felt lied to or betrayed. So I guess there’s no reason to be a Christian (which for most people in the West might as well mean the same). Sorry for the grammar ☺️
I think religions cover some vital human needs: they help people in their need to explain the world and give meaning to their existence, they help people delineate their morality, they help people feel they belong somewhere.
I would argue that religion is probably the most lazy way to cover these needs, but there are millions of intelectually lazy people. So, in that sense, religion is really important – apart from its role to alleviate the existential terror.
I love this question! Yes, the Bible teaches about an afterlife, but I think today’s evangelicals are obsessed with the issue. When evangelizing, I was taught to ask people “do you know with certainty where you are going when you die?”
I don’t see that question in the New Testament, whether it’s in Acts or Paul’s epistles. I also see evangelicals reading the afterlife into the Old Testament where it is virtually non-existent.
I think today’s emphasis on the afterlife is derived from logic, like this: “What could be more important than where you spend eternity? Therefore, that’s the most important question to resolve.” OK – makes sense, but why don’t we see that emphasis in the Bible?
Yes, we hear a lot about eternal life in the New Testament, especially in John. But Jesus says that eternal life is “that they may know … the only true God, and Jesus Christ…” So it has a qualitative aspect as well as quantitative. I think the emphasis in the Bible is qualitative.
So, is religion important without the afterlife? Yes, I think so! I think that the Bible puts the emphasis on the here and now.
And a follow-up question for Professor Ehrman. Do you think that historically there has been as much emphasis on the afterlife as there is in modern evangelicalism? Thanks!
Yup! From the get-go.
I see a couple of reasons. First, we can go back to the ancients and have gods (with the attendant religion) as super beings to which we can appeal – both for good things to happen and to keep bad things away, typically things outside of our control. We see this impulse today when people pray for the healing of a sick loved one or pray for their job promotion to come to pass or even for the completion of a Hail Mary pass in seeking a favorable sports outcome at the expense of others. Because this belief in the gods can provide a material benefit in this life, religious practices to worship or curry the favor of the gods could flourish without an afterlife reward. Second, and more metaphysical, a religion, even without an afterlife, could help explain the eternal question “how did we get here?” It may not do a great job of answering the follow up question: “why?” but everyone likes a good origin story. Probably not a compelling reason to most in the modern world where science can provide an origin answer without a divinity.
Since the concept of an afterlife is relatively new to religion then asking “why bother” seems odd in my opinion. Billions of us since the beginning of our species have gone to our graves without religion and with no expectation of continuing awareness, so life seems to have either had meaning without it or meaning itself was not highly rated in all that time. If the definition of character is your behavior when no one is looking, then perhaps meaning is defined as being moral without religion watching – or even existing. I’m an atheist and I consider myself highly spiritual with no concern for punishment or reward at the end of my life. History shows religion as an authoritarian construct to control the masses using the afterlife as leverage. Not a good reason to be religious regardless of belief in life after death.
Have just been listening to Pentatonix version of Amazing Grace My Chains are Gone. Right there – that is Heaven. It makes no difference at all if there is a God or the verses represent anything true about ransom or atonement or Christ or an after-life. The experience of listening is luminous and sacred – and humans need that, that alone, that sense of illumination, overflowing kindness and unending love. Wherever we can find it in art, science, engagement with each other, fact or fiction. Good enough for me to be a religious atheist.
Your comment reminds me of the Teresa of Avila quote “ The important thing is not to think much but to love much; and so do that which best stirs you to love.”
Of course, as an unbeliever I don’t think there is any afterlife.
But I would love to go back to earth, say, a couple of days every 100 years.
I’m curious, just enough to see how things go for Earthlings! :-)))
YOLO, so why not live the best life by loving everyone?
“Many of my students – OK, virtually all of them – think that if there is no afterlife, there is absolutely no reason to be religious.”
While I’m coming in from the Islamic Studies side of things, I find that odd! In my understanding of the scriptural tradition reward in the afterlife is an *added* blessing from God for righteous conduct; otherwise, God created the universe, it belongs to Him (and so do we), we are His to dispose of as He likes; in other words, much like I can ‘borrow’ a friends cell phone for an emergency call (if so friend gave it to me), in return there are certain rules which govern how I am to use the phone while its in my possession: i can’t look through his private pictures, change his background, erase his favorite games, etc. The same goes for God-man-the cosmos. As far as I’m aware, only one strand of Islamic tradition made it an obligation for God to reward the righteous in Heaven (and, conversely, punish the evil in Hell; in fact, they derived one from the other) but that strand has been long dead. Has it survived in Christianity, then?
If I may be permitted to share a tradition of Muhammad that speaks to this question: `Aisha, the Prophet’s wife: Muhammad used to spend so much of the night standing in prayer that his feet would ‘fall apart.’ He was asked, “Why do you do this, Messenger of God? After all, God has forgiven your sins, what has preceded and whatever shall come to pass!” He replied, “Well, then, would I not like to be a gracious servant?”
I think that there is definitely a reason to be religious if there is no afterlife. Religious ethics would still have a place in society so the human race can actually function!
If religion is a search for the transcendent things of life – what is love, mercy, justice, fairness, purpose, etc.- then it has much value for this life, however limited it might be. Unfortunately religion usually is a matter of following a religious institution’s tenets, usually to the benefit of that institution. No value in that.
Excellent! And, in my own deconstruction I think about this everyday. I’ve pretty much given up on my view of 55+ years that was Christianity. No heaven or hell now, no Holy Spirit, etc.
I was diagnosed with cancer about two weeks ago. Oh, my brain wants to go back to the place of prayer and hope. I still love playing the songs on the piano, It Is Well, My Hope is Built, these are powerful! My life is ending, is this all there is?
Religion? Sadly, Christianity has intertwined religion with afterlife. There is incredible need for faith, hope and love though. I’ve had an incredible life (and plan to have much more and fight this evil evolutionary cancer), in spite of growing up fundamental Christian. Now, more than ever, I celebrate that life, yes, this may be all there is but how exciting is that! It depends on what one thinks religion is. We need something, maybe it’s just love, true love for one another to celebrate life and death! Is this religion? I think we can call it that.
Death is the promise of accepting life. As I age I eagerly anticipate it and I know it will happen, regardless of technology. I am no longer a christian, (a catholic), but I find solace in all that I learned from that moment in my life. I thunder out a hymn or meditate on the rosary and find balance in the chaos. You will do well. You will do your very best work now.
gmphap1, I send every good wish for your recovery!!!
Judith, thank you so much!!
I would say that for many people yes and for many people no. If you live in a secular society and your community is secular, then it doesn’t really matter. Many people do not get their morals from religion anyway and have many other things that give them meaning and purpose outside of faith. It matters if religion/spirituality makes you a better person or gives you peace of mind (regardless of whether you believe the myths are literally true or not). For many people, religion gives them a basis to organize their life around and a deep sense of value and higher meaning and community.
For me, religion was all about avoiding hell. Now, I do not think there is a hell (just like the author of Ecclesiastes) and find myself depressed that I gave so much of my own blood, sweat, and tears to churches and for a fantasy that does not really exist. Because I built my entire life around the idea of God and Paul, I’m still not sure which camp I fall under. I am still dealing with the fact that this life is all there is, so all the misfortunes that I’ve gone through mean nothing.
There is a difference between Religion and Spirituality. Religion requires no afterlife, but spirituality requires it. I polled a very large Christian Facebook group with this same question, and was not that surprised that at least half of all respondents said that afterlife was not a requirement of their “faith”. This of course raises the question as to what they place their faith in and why? Certainly not the faith Paul outlines in Romans 2:7. Religions are much like nations in that they are based on laws and customs and why “war” occurs between Religions. In that way, eternal life is not a requirement for one to adopt a religion, but rather adopt for reasons of the laws and customs or better said “politics” of said religion.
My impression is that most Christians I know don’t truly believe in an afterlife in more than a superficial way, so the obvious answer must be yes. The afterlife may be an important part of the “sales pitch” of modern religions, but once one is believer, religion is a huge part of one’s self identity. It gives people certainty and purpose and a way to understand what is otherwise an unfathomably large, complicated and seemingly arbitrary existence.
That shouldn’t be construed as an endorsement, but there is a reason why religion is still so wide spread. I could probably fill a very large book with my thoughts on this question, but since no one would read it, I’ll stop there.
An afterlife of some sort is an open question. Conservation of information? There are excellent reasons not to be religious, like the advantages of having an open mind, thinking outside of the box, being creative and tolerant and and accepting diversity. You can’t be religious and have any of that. Does it make sense to be ethical? If you are a normal human being and have empathy you are ethical simply because you identify with others and feel their pain. And then there’s the need that most of us have to live in an orderly and predictable world. Kant covered that one. The real problem for humanity is the psychopathic/sociopathic personality, sometimes charismatic and sometimes very smart. No amount of religion or afterlife will make those individuals less toxic and destructive. You can see that playing out on the world stage– throughout human history. I guess I could lump in the authoritarian personality as well– born to be seduced by any sufficiently attractive psychopath.
Before proposing any answer we need to address the question “What, at its basis, _is_ the role/function/purpose of Religion?”
It is certainly true that, as typified by the answers given by your students above, for many the initial (literalist) response is that Religion is a set of practices that can, for example, help us “prepare for the afterlife”.
But an obvious, reasonable question to ask is: To what extent is this really what is going on here?
Rather, isn’t at least equally reasonable to suggest that for the majority of the practitioners of any religion the true appeal of that religion is the sense of community, of mutual aid or support, of “meaning”, of “fellowship” that they experience as a member.
(I’ve often wanted to ask dismissive, snaky, caricaturists like, say, Bill Maher, do you *really* think that the real, or that the only possible reason a person might choose to turn to a religion is that it provides them an opportunity to —to use his term— “believe in a talking snake?”)
I just finished writing a book for young people about evolution, and 200,000 years ago is a good date for fully anatomically modern humans. A skull found in Morocco and dated to 315,000 years ago is considered H. sapiens though it retains some archaic features. But as to your question, the simple answer is that religion offers direction, emotional satisfaction, social connection, etc. in THIS life. Otherwise it is very hard to explain why religion is universal in human societies.
Thanks. The question, of course, is how far back we can know there was something like “religion.” When they find a 250,000-year-old grail, then we’ll know!
I’d argue being religious or being a part of a faith community offers other benefits to an individual then just the promise of an afterlife. It’s a way to gather as a community and socialize. It offers a way to celebrate a birth together and a way to grieve loss together. We mark transitions from childhood to “adulthood” with it…together. It can help give meaning and purpose to our actions. Perhaps in a large city or college environment, you can find other outlets to do these types of things, but in some spaces, it’s hard to come by.
I was a believer for most of my 60 years, but honestly, the afterlife was never a big part of my thinking. I always had doubts about life after death. I never really accepted Hell as being eternal torment and had serious doubts about Heaven as well. As the late great Isaac Asimov said (paraphrasing from memory) “I’ve yet to find any description of Heaven that seems a paradise for any intelligent being.” I was actually a bit terrified upon meditating on the fact that I would spend not 100 years, not 1,000, not even a trillion years, but ALL OF ETERNITY just hanging out with angels and praising God. With no “out clause.” Now, I am actually comforted by the knowledge that one day I’ll just take a nap that never ends. You can’t be sad or lonely if you’re not conscious, so why dread it? At the end of the day, I choose to be a good person (mostly) because I want to live in a world where people are good. Period.
The idea of not having an afterlife would be difficult in Christianity. If the main theological premise that humanity is separation from God, by the original sin, condemning us to hell unless we have reconciliation through Jesus, is no longer needed because of no afterlife, then Christianity would unravel. The early Middle Ages through the Renaissance many peasants lived in unbelievable conditions with the church agreeing the peasant existence is horrible, but their reward will be in heaven. There is a version of this today in the prosperity gospels granting wealth here on earth before going to heaven. Christianity provides the hope of something better to come that Christians want, and without that future promise, Christianity would not survive. One argument that I have heard; if there is no religion then there would be no morality or ethics. This is completely wrong. Long before religion modern humans, in hunter/gather bands, had to work together to survive. They understood that it did not benefit the group if one person murders another or steals food. As modern humans evolved culturally these ideas would eventually find their way into religious texts. For Christianity it is impossible to remove the afterlife.
This idea resonates with Paul’s observation that “if Christ be not risen, then your faith is vain.” In Paul we are dealing, not with the religion *of* Jesus, but a religion *about* Jesus, so in that context it makes some kind of sense, but I have never held with that view. Likewise with a personal afterlife, if the WORLD can be saved through the application of truth and the injection of righteousness into our lives, incrementally and collectively, then that is surely worth the endeavor.
If by religious you mean to subscribe to a creed (a list of mandatory beliefs), I think that’s the stumbling point for your students. They don’t want to be told that they must subscribe to some religious doctrine under the threat of eternal punishment if the deviate from the creed. That’s thought control and it’s inherently totalitarian.
Some of your students may even know the history of religious intolerance over the last 1000 years (Crusades, Inquisitions, Wars of Religion, Holocaust, ethnic cleansing, racism, etc) and have developed an abhorrence of organized religion.
And maybe your students have figured out that religious belief is not necessary for one to act ethically and according to the Golden Rule. You don’t need the Ten Commandments to realize that murder, theft, lying, etc. are wrong. If those commandments were necessary, the Israelites would never have made it to the foot of Mt. Sinai (ref. Christopher Hitchens).
Christianity isn’t the first religion to have a focus on the afterlife; there’s Hinduism and Buddhism, though their ideas of an afterlife are quite different. I will say that Christianity may well have been the first religion to use its idea of the afterlife to reward and punish over belief rather than behavior.
But, to your question: there is value in believing in something beyond oneself, whether we call it god or gaia or the universal human consciousness. Religion is one of the ways in which we can learn to think about and care for the world beyond our immediate boundaries. All too often it doesn’t, but the failure of religious leaders to properly (by my definition) their religion doesn’t render the whole concept of religion necessarily illegitimate.
Buddha wouldn’t even comment on the existence of God from what I have read but none would accuse him of not being *religious*. The Greeks had a term for living a *good* and *beautiful* life that meant “excellence” (help, Dr. B, I forget it) “Love thy neighbor as thyself” was not originated by Jesus, but in Leviticus (and many other religions). Heck, look at bee and ant colonies to see the benefits of living in synch and peace with your community. No afterlife? Let’s worry about this one first.
Long after I stopped believing in an afterlife I have found aspects of Taoism and Zen Buddhism very helpful. It may be more accurate for me to lean more on their philosophical than religious nature, but still, useful as a practice. Also, I’m not sure Ethical Culture counts as something of a religion, but it provided a community which was missing in my life at the time. In fact, community is perhaps the best thing about religion.
Humans thrive on acceptance; believing as others do has its rewards, but regardless of the justification, doing good feels better than doing ill toward others.
Supernatural beliefs among hunter-gatherers add to group cohesion, seeming the best explanation for the unknowns of life and natural phenomenon. As more complex societies with authorities such as a king developed, one believed and obeyed or forget about reproductive success. Religion added justification to authority.
We are in a new era of science, revealing that we are just like other animals – different by degree but not by kind. Still, even in our affluent, science-educated societies, the social costs of not believing can still be greater than announcing one’s atheism.
Without religion as a guide, we turn to many things to find meaning in life, ethics for example, and turn to various philosophical stances (Existentialism!). No matter what we say or believe, we all live with hope for social acceptance and the love of family. We are genetically tuned that way.
I think people seem to have an innate wanting to be spiritual. I keep thinking there is a higher plane or higher understanding that I have not achieved. I ask, “Am I missing something”? After 40 years in the Methodist church, I now question everything. I had doubts about the virgin birth, the resurrection and afterlife but pushed it to the back of my mind. Maybe my faith was on auto-pilot, although I didn’t recognize it as that. I thought I was loving and caring. Maybe belief in an afterlife is a cop-out. My faith only required I believe in the resurrection and his death for my sins. I didn’t really have to love or help anyone. Just give it lip service. I believe religion should mean being a better person, “to do no harm”, and If you will allow me, provide “heaven” here on earth. Did our earliest ancestors have such thoughts? Instead of religions with competing beliefs, each believing its the only true way. I cant help but think sometimes, if God is there, is he shaking his head and saying to himself …….”They got it all wrong”.
God is there, and the Judaic Christian Orthodoxy eminating out of the 4th century got it wrong. I currently believe that the Gostics were more dialed into the Law God instills into all mankind in the New Covenant (Jer:31:33). I you look in the greek of Rom 2:12-16 you will see Pauls use of “Nomou”. Nomou is the word in the sepaugint used for the “My Laws” of Jer 31:33. In the Romans Passage 2:12-16 you will see that
Verse 12 “Nomou” is the law that Jesus will Judge by.
Verse 13 “hearers” of “Nomou” are not righteous but “doers” of Nomou are.
Verse 14 Gentiles doing what is natural (within them) the things of “Nomou” without knowledge of the “Nomon” (torah, next word I am addressing).
Verse 15 “Nomou” written on hearts and consciences also bearing witness. I don’t think Paul could have made his homonym of Nomos more clear.
Nomou is not written nor taught by others but revealed from within. God is known by All. This is very Gnostic, and not how Christianity was passed down from 4th Century. The Gnostics were driven into hiding.
My opinion is that belief in an afterlife, and especially a fear of “hell”, is the primary driving force behind any religion, no matter how the believers or followers try to say that it isn’t.
Religion has only to do with this life. All of the rules and ritual of any of the worlds religions have to do with the society of the church and the individual within the church. The afterlife is but a carrot for behavior. And yet; and yet there is much beyond the eye that is unseen. There is a giddy rapture in a meditation well done a prayer well said. I think the pedestrian image of the afterlife found in christianity is a poor scribble of a picture of what may await. What does a butterfly find when it is no longer a caterpillar? Does that bug suspect of sipping nectar on the wing? Many eastern religions taught reincarnation, some as a reward, some as a further purification. Christianity made it’s afterlife from those rumors. Carl Sagan says no afterlife but if not what a monstrous waste of life.
Your point about humans practicing religion for thousands of years without the concept of an afterlife strikes me as unassailable. From the little that I know, religious behavior also appears to be universal. I suppose human life has many dimensions of experience that form religious frameworks for stories to explain the cosmos, stories to provide hope in times of need, to provide ethical and moral direction about how to live good lives. Those stories are the foundations for rituals to create and maintain community to pass those stories on. Thus the cycle passes and evolves through generations.
Thinking that the mystery of the afterlife drives religious behavior put the cart before the horse. Those aspects of religious life that face death is the source of the the many rituals and understandings we attempt to share about our own and everyone else’s afterlives.
Why bother? Because the many ways to worship and practice religion are gifts from our predecessors. We many not appreciate them the same way, or even practice them the same way, but our religious nature is still there and still needful of care and attention.
I believe that the human brain has evolved to create a special kind of internal life experience — we can “look at ourselves.” We can imagine what others are thinking, what exists far away or far into the past or future, we can create elaborate structures that did not previously exist, and appreciate the marvels of nature. I think of this inner life as my “soul.” And it is such a special blessing that we do not want it to end. That gives rise to the hope for eternal life, and that hope is tempered by an internal sense of justice. But the truth is that this miraculous inner life is dependent upon the brain, so as the brain develops, this inner life develops. And as the brain dies, so this inner life dies. The energy in the atoms of our bodies may continue, but not the sense of self.
The back-slapping, social-club aspect of modern assemblies representing all religions (save a few) is a turn-off for me, so I find being “religious” today (as religion is currently represented) essentially hypocritical. I can, however, find allure and deep curiosity in many proven evidences of unexplained spiritual phenomena in the course of human existence. I also find great attraction to a life course promoted by essential Christian spiritual tenets of selfless love and selfless charity. I’m not going to be “bothered” about whether to be religious, but I will continue to be very curious about where the existence of spiritual things may fit into the present life and afterlife.
Raised a lukewarm Methodist, now an agnostic/atheist, I still find myself doing and saying Christian things. It’s in the air I breathe, in our literature, and in my upbringing.
My understanding is that before Christianity, religion meant simply the shared customs and beliefs that tied the members of a society to each other. No particular (or even any) god was needed to hold a society together, nor was the threat or promise of an afterlife. Current religions like Buddhism still work without them. The civil “religion” of the U.S. or of European countries works in the same way to strengthen their societies.
Is there any point in “religion” if there is no afterlife? Sure. A society-wide story (mythology) helps you in your journey through life. It helps you communicate and understand others’ ideas and makes the whole group more willing to cooperate. It aids society.
It doesn’t have to be “true” and can even be science’s story of the development of the universe, if widely accepted — a story which changes over time, has been “wrong” in the past, and is never complete.
Living a life based on what you think will happen to you after death is a terrible testiment on our being. A “good” person should do “good” things without the need for reward. Perhaps the being “good” is a reward onto itself.
I am always amazed by the notion of afterlife. It might be a comfort to those who have nothing, live in misery and pain to think of a wonderful existence that is the opposite of what they endure in life. But what of the well-off, the powerful, the leaders?
Can a bible thumping, right-wing, well-off American truly think an afterlife with no purpose, no control, no money, no influence and no superiority should really be sought for eternity? Why would a democratic (perhaps less democratic than one thinks) capitalist leader (or would be leader) of industry think her way was wrong but bliss in a communistic, dictatorship without monetary values was correct?
Although I no longer personally find an afterlife plausible, I still maintain my involvement in a Christian Church and community that very much does and I do not try to persuade my fellow believers otherwise. The rituals, practices, and personal relationships of my chosen faith are so much a part of my identity that I see no reason to cease keeping them. Sure, it’s not logical, but a lot of human life isn’t logical. All of humanity may eventually outgrow religion, but that time hasn’t yet come. I think it’s best not to force the issue. Evolution succeeds when it is allowed to proceed incrementally.
In reading Leviticus 26, God tells the jewish people that if they obey his decrees and commands, they will have peace, prosperity , increase in numbers, rain, crops, etc. while on this earth, but if they do not obey, there will be Hell (on earth) to pay. Terror, diseases, defeat by enemies, starvation, and the list goes on. Could it be that other non-eternal religions are believing in higher powers that will make life so much better while they’re here?
Yup!
Today, I was thinking about this post when I had an insight.
If Christianity was the first religion to give a strong focus on the afterlife—specially, when compared to the rest of the religions of the Roman Empire—isn’t that the answer to the question of why did it spread and become so popular in the first centuries?
Isn’t the promise of heaven and fear of hell the main reasons for people to convert to Christianity and remain faithful, even today?
It’s one of the reasons! I deal with the isseu in my book Triumph of Christianity.
A thought.
My afterlife is / are my offspring, my kids, their kids, having and speaking of kind fond memories of me. In 50 + years some descendent of mine saying, I hear he was a good man.
My journey was a bit backwards. I began the process of giving up religion while still believing in an Afterlife.
The fear of Hell was a huge driver in my evangelical/fundamental/pentecostal home/church/extended family. Other major drivers were the threat of a terrible life absent peace, joy, a successful life, marriage and family, and an otherwise dreadful existence leaving one vulnerable to all sorts of evil.
At age 16 I started moving away. Deprogramming was a slow and thoughtful process over many years. As I let those beliefs drop away, the happier, more peaceful, joyful and excited about life I became.
How could this be? I’d violated everything I was taught to believe. I should be miserable, lost and subject to all sorts of evil onslaughts.
It turns out that my non-Christian self was a much improved version.
By now, the Afterlife had long ceased to be an issue. I could not go back even if I could be made to believe that Hell was my destiny. My life without religion was infinitely better.
Afterlife or not, I see no value in being religious.
For me the existence of an afterlife is irrelevant to my faith. Promise of reward and threat of punishment are ultimately self–centered reasons for doing anything. What I find in my faith is a challenge to do good for the sake of doing good; to follow Christ because in his compassion and call for justice I see someone worth following. I I don’t see my face as a set of rules or beliefs that will give me some kind of favored status. It is a relationship with someone I love, which informs my human relationships.
Thank you. Refreshing. I could not agree more.
Yes, an interesting question which first drove me to check the definition of both “religious” & “religion”. I have often thought that we (humans), for all our imagined capacity or claims to objective rationality, are hopelessly constrained to (actually our being is defined by) our biology and psychology. We cannot escape them and, I think, should not want to. And the will to live is THE most fundamental outworking of these two foundational building blocks. From this, I think both religion / religious tendency AND a hope for (or fear if no) Afterlife spring forth. They are usually linked but don’t need to be. I see plenty of people with zero religious conviction or behaviour but still with a vague hope in an Afterlife.
How can a person be certain or even confident about whether there is an afterlife? But there are plenty of other things in my life about which I’m not certain. And I don’t agonize over those like I do the afterlife. A large part of the reason is that the consequences of being wrong are, well…so consequential, eg, everlasting torture. But it’s logically possible that anything that’s not a formal contradiction could lead to such torture. Logically speaking, there’s no reason that an evil God couldn’t torture me forever for believing in the Christian faith. It’s a question of how much evidence there is and how good the reasons are for having a belief.
In addition to the possible consequences, I probably agonize because I was taught the Christian faith-rather than something else-at a very young age. It was somehow imprinted on me emotionally. But that doesn’t rule out the Christian faith being true. Maybe I just got lucky to be raised that way.
My problem is how to approach the question in a reasonable way-without all this emotional baggage.
It probably won’t go away until practically everyone believes one or way or the other for a few centuries.
Following up on the above, maybe agnosticism is the best conclusion. Don’t believe something unless there are good reasons and good evidence for belief. There are probably some situations where this isn’t the best rule to follow. But maybe it should be the general rule and that exceptions have to be justified.
Or maybe a pragmatic solution is the best one. Believe something when it works (eg, makes one happier) AND there are NOT strong reasons and evidence for believing it’s NOT true.
Dr. Ehrman: first time commenter (standard materialist/physicalist metaphysics: no afterlife for me).
I partially question the premise that “[the/an] afterlife was not [saliently?] part of religion” prior to Christianity: from what little I know, that’s basically true of Christianity’s Judaic and Hellenic predecessors, but both Egyptian and (my amateur guess at) ur-IndoEuropean religion before the Iranian/Indian split (extrapolating backward from the Avestan Saoshyant mostly to infer, at minimum, early Zoroastrianism’s eschatology) had quite an emphasis on an afterlife. I imagine that there are lots of arguments among specialists about temporal primacy between Christianity and Zorostrian eschatological concepts implicating afterlives, given that the key surviving Zoroastrian texts postdate Christianity.
I’m not a scholar of comparative early religion (not do I want to get into the ontological weeds of what is or is not a “religion”), but at least some other religions that must have diverged *long* before the Natufian had afterlife-concepts (e.g. Mictlan in Nahuatl/Aztec mythology), although a lot of those afterlives seem mostly kind of unpleasant.
I am a lapsed catholic who converted as an adult. I do not believe there is an afterlife, and I’m not a theist anymore, either. I actually hold the position that belief in afterlife makes people less moral. After all, if there is some sort of divine punishment or reward, we really should not need to strive for justice, should we? Justice will come after death, anyway. But do I think there are good reasons to be religious in spite of that? Definitely! Religion is a way to organise your life and place yourself within a tradition, it gives your life order and meaning. Maybe even comfort. Is being religious enough, though? Absolutely not! Religion as a way of life and thinking about the world can provide you with some answers and coping mechanisms, but it definitely doesn’t address everything, at least not adequately. I myself see the christian tradition as a sort of a “mirror” to my life. I compare what I see in it with my own life, but I’m really a humanist at heart. To me, religion is a fascinating, engaging subject worthy of exploration for sure, but definitely not worthy of worship.
If one believes that god is active in the world and they answer prayers then that could be beneficial. I don’t believe that but in many religions god does more than just provide other worlds after this one.
In the past, my disbelief in the afterlife and the resurrection of Jesus did not prevent me from being a parishioner of the Orthodox Church. But over time, it lost all meaning. One day I admitted to myself that I am not a Christian.
I think faith in God without the afterlife makes sense if it guarantees a good earthly life. However, experience suggests that success in our life does not depend on prayers and rituals.
Therefore, purely practically there is no need to believe. And for reconciliation with death and suffering, psychotherapy is much more effective than religion.
The absence of an afterlife is ENERGIZING for me. Do ALL thevGOOD that i can dobwhile I am alive! My life has NOT been very pleasant at all! I’d hate for there to bei another one.
As others have pointed out, Indian religions like Buddhism, Hinduism/Brahmanism, and Jainism also believed in the afterlife before Christianity. So did Zoroastrianism, an Iranian religion. Indeed, there are some very, very vivid depictions of heaven and hell realms in even the earliest stratum of Buddhist literature — beware, because the way Buddhism is presented in the west (“Secular Buddhism”) can be very, very sanitized of these things.
Perhaps Christianity’s innovation was less the afterlife per se and more the emphasis on faith in a very specific person (and theological claims about said person) as an *exclusive* means to determine said afterlife. Also, the finality of it — you got this one life, and that’s it, for all of eternity.
I’m a pastor’s spouse and go to church pretty much every Sunday, so I’d say I qualify as religious. I have very little interest in the conventional notion of the afterlife, though.
The closest I get to it is in response to the crushing smallness of human existence. Even the most famous, most impactful humans will be almost certainly completely forgotten in the blink of an eye of geological time, and then there’s the size of the universe to consider, and all that.
In this specific instance, God’s importance is as the force that holds my life and the lives of those I love as precious, eternally, in the vast hollow expanse of existence. Sure, the notion that I’d get to see my deceased friends and relatives again would be lovely, but it’s not something I can ever lean on.
So no, obviously, I don’t think belief in an afterlife is that essential for religious practice.
Why don’t you consider the Egyptian pyramid texts (2400-2300 BC) or Plato’s myth of Era (375 BC) to be religions focused on the afterlife?
Are you asking me? I do. I deal with the Myth of Er, e.g., in my book that just came out on Journeys to Heaven and Hell.
I don’t believe religion has anything to do with the afterlife. Two entirely different things.
Defined broadly, religion is a human activity that seeks, through ritual and language, to bring focus and meaning to an important aspect of life. Whether it be a high funeral mass or children burying a beloved pet, we seem to need to mark great passages – death, birth, marriage, etc. – with words and symbolic actions, like sprinkling water or pouring a loved one’s favorite beer on a grave.
I doubt that atheists refuse to attend birthday parties or stand vigil at a loved one’s wake. This seemingly innate human desire to be present – when all attention is placed on a single aspect of a loved one’s lifeline – is the beginning of religion. Dress it up with sacred words, special vestments and symbolic actions if you like. Or do the same ironically. At an atheist friend’s recent wake, friends gathered, told stories and listen to Monty Python’s “The Galaxy Song.” Religion was served.
So, I answer your question with a resounding “Yes,” and with the observation that it is almost impossible to go through life without words, gathering and actions that focus those present on a human passage.
As much as I love Buddhist secular philosophy, I am not particularly enamored with Buddhist religion. And, since deconverting from Christianity, I can’t say as I’m drawn to any religion. Unless, panentheism is a religion? But I think that is more a philosophy.
So, I guess I don’t see ANY reason for being religious.
But spiritual? Absolutely. I have received far more from my last 7 years of meditation practice than I got from 40 years as a Christian.
If suicide is ultimately about disconnection, feeling disconnected from others, from oneself, and that is the worst way to live, then the best way to live is to feel a deep connection to others and to oneself. So connected in fact, that one walks outside and feels connected to the trees. The breath. To life. Whether or not there is an afterlife and what kind of life it is, doesn’t really matter so much anymore. But I confess to a hope that there is some ongoing eternal consciousness that we are all a part of.
My unorthodox Marxist Christianity doesn’t see the resurrection as a miraculous event, but as a symbolic one, crafted to attack the legitimacy of the Roman Empire. Jesus was raised above all principalities and powers to the throne of the cosmos alongside the Creator-Father. It was an explicitly theo-political myth, just as was the Roman Emperors’ claims of being exalted Sons of The Gods and assumed into the heavens upon their deaths.
And Paul does claim the saints shall join Jesus in this theo-political resurrection by being given immortal spiritual bodies that he contrasts to “flesh and blood” which cannot inherit the heavenly regime. 1 Corinthians 15:44-50.
Luke seems to hold that flesh and body can’t be so neatly separated, Luke 24:39.
In any event, I see the resurrection visions as symbols of apocalyptic hope, that one day the divine regime will come on earth as it is in heaven. Matthew 6:10.
I’ve seen it in myself and in many others. So, yes. Since I eventually gave up all organized religion you could also say once you stop believing in some ultimate consequence that could last forever, or ultimate revelation available beyond this life, that it’s inevitable you will become non-religious. But we know people have a wide range of beliefs.
I’m glad Bart mentioned the 2,000 year point. I agree with others who have noted that religion was not a separate thing that one chose for most of human existence, instead it was interwoven with culture. Changing cultures mid-life was rare. It’s too much for this short format, but I think there were positive aspects of this, giving the culture a way to pass on memes about compassion or nurturing the environment or just when to plant and harvest. It can be hard to separate these from the controlling and other negative aspects.
Religion appears to be more of an ala carte choice in the modern world, but most people stay pretty close to what they were born into, even if the dress or music is different. We’re just starting to understand why we are attached to these ideas.
I became Catholic rather late in life. Lutheran by birth but after that had little use for religion. Other forms of spirituality I came to love, learn and teach. Yoga, meditation, Tai Chi etc. To me it is natural to see and feel elves and trolls. Nature is alive. Call me a nutcase or whatever.
What bothers me about my fellow Christians is they get stuck in this Hell or Heaven business. It’s all about reward and/or punishment. What kind of freak is this God we worship that his creation is about reward or punishment? Our bishop asked me about my thought’s on hell and the devil and I asked him for an address and phone number. I want to go there and check it out myself.
So I ask myself, “why in the world did I become a Catholic?”. Well, it made me happy. Besides the music is good. As much as I disagree with the Church on many issues and think the theology is ridiculous and self centered I have come to love some of these crazy Catholic people and something about Catholicism just works for me. If there’s no afterlife or God? I should worry about not existing? Why?
If the religion in question is otherwise “true” (its claims about reality, nature of humanity, metaphysics, etc. are true) or arguably so, then of course it’s at least potentially a reason to be religious. The truth is always worth knowing.
Religion has traditionally been more of a dividing force than a uniting force, a way to control members of society. Though I have fallen from my Roman Catholic upbringing, I did carry away those beliefs that transcend religion. Do unto others as you would have done unto you is the best example. We do need basic ideas of love, generosity, and compassion to have a worthwhile society. Christianity, absent Jesus’ divinity and resurrection, supplies that. There is no tally being kept on each of us so that our behavior determines whether we go to Heaven or Hell, or how long we stay in Purgatory. Goodness is its own reward and too many think of God as they do Santa, keeping a list of who’s been bad and good. I would like there to be an afterlife so I can look in on my surviving family, but my mind tells me otherwise.
”It really wasn’t until Christianity came along 2000 years ago that religion had a strong afterlife focus.”
Based on Egyptian archaeological finds and pyramid texts that are thousands of years older than Christianity, I find this claim strange. However, myths about afterlife have alway been used to control people in this life – like in Platonism. Hence, it is questionble where the real focus is. Likely always in this life – in the reality.
Sorry, I mean in the Greco-Roman environment that Xty appeared and grew in.
I believe there are one or more “spiritual beings” who guide(s) us us to understand that the way to live a worthwhile and satisfying life is to help others. After our bodies die, there is strong evidence that our consciousness — what is truly us — moves out of the portion of the universe that we now inhabit and into another portion. I believe those who focused most of their lives on helping others, in some way become integrated with this spiritual being or beings. Those who died young of illness or violence before they developed the maturity to know the many joys of that result from helping others are reincarnated. Those who lived a full life but chose to be selfish and/or to hurt others, experience some period of discomfort, but then are also reincarnated. In both cases, reincarnation means “given another chance.” I urge everyone to learn about the scientific research into reincarnation that has been underway at the U of VA Medical School’s Division of Perceptual Studies and to read “Before,” by DOPS director, Jim B. Tucker, MD. DOPS just reports research results; conclusions are left to the reader.
Bill Steigelmann
I believe there are one or more “spiritual beings” who guide(s) us us to understand that the way to live a worthwhile and satisfying life is to help others. After our bodies die, there is strong evidence that our consciousness — what is truly us — moves out of the portion of the universe that we now inhabit and into another portion. I believe those who focused most of their lives on helping others, in some way become integrated with this spiritual being or beings. Those who died young of illness or violence before they developed the maturity to know the many joys of that result from helping others are reincarnated. Those who lived a full life but chose to be selfish and/or to hurt others, experience some period of discomfort, but then are also reincarnated. In both cases, reincarnation means “given another chance.” I urge everyone to learn about the scientific research into reincarnation that has been underway at the U of VA Medical School’s Division of Perceptual Studies and to read “Before,” by DOPS director, Jim B. Tucker, MD. DOPS just reports research results; conclusions are left to the reader.
Bill Steigelmann
How can any religion need the belief of an afterlife when no one knows with absolute certainty that there is an afterlife? Religions are far more than just a belief in an afterlife.
What intrigues me however is whether there is a before life? If there is an afterlife why wouldn’t there also be a before life? Both a preface and a postscript to each book that is a life?