Knowing After-death

What will happen if an individual knows what will happen after his or her death?

Usually, the whole rational human discourse is related to life of human being. I mean any rational debate, understanding, production and reproduction of knowledge is related to human life. We do not have any such debate and discourse on life after death as such debate and discourse can not belong to the realm of rational.

When we discuss about after-death, we enter into the realm of speculation, not-rational, conjectures. Here, we do not have any parameter to test our view points and speculations. So, arise all kinds of problems. Perhaps this motivated one of the noted philosophers of the 20th century, A. J. Ayer to term things not subject to verification ‘nonsense.’

Here, also we enter into the realm of religion. Religions, perhaps all religions, have dealt with this issue of life after death. They project before us lives in hell or in paradise for our works in this world. But, they do not give any evidence. I think most of the religions discuss about life after death, but those discussions pertain to the realm of not-rational. But, we do not know whether the religious view point of life after death is true. Also, it is not possible to know as they are not subject to rational interpretation and scientific investigation. As we do not have any rational means to examine the religious claims, these claims transcend the human rationality. 

It can be, hence, argued that while most of human life is based on rational construction of life and guidance of life accordingly, religions in most parts are inscrutable rationally. In this case of after-death, religions argue it is a subject matter of realization, instead of argument and debate. Here, come the matters of faith. But, faith can be based on evidence, or without evidence. The later variety we call blind faith. Religions in its construction, mostly, demand this blind, unquestionable faith, and complete surrender to its principles. That is why Karl Marx calls religion as opium. When we accept religious diktats without question, and accept them as absolute truth, and a priori, then we surrender our rationality to this demand for blind loyalty, and make ourselves as instruments of these diktats, which the religious leaders know how to explore and exploit. 

This argument is highly relevant in the context of life after-death. To reiterate, we do not know what exactly happens when an individual dies. Though the physical body decomposes, and we bury it or burn it, we do not know what happens to the thinking mind which constructs themes of rationality and chooses and develops and what happen to the aspiring heart which grieves, loves and longs. The rational mind and science have so far been unable to explain this phenomenon of after-death. But religions have jumped to fill this vacuum. Their not-rational constructions have proved highly meaningful and powerful to the persons who subscribe unquestionably to preaching of religion. 

Interesting point is that there is no unanimity among existing religions about life after-death. Perhaps there is a similar binary construction which can be visible in all religions that a person dying with good deeds in past (this is defined by religion, hence highly subjective) will go to heaven after death, and a person with bad deeds in past (defined by religion) will go to hell. This binary construction perhaps has a useful role in regulating society and in guiding human behavior to conform to social norms. But, further study reveals that religions interpret differently about the life after-death.

The construction of heaven and hell varies from religion to religion. It depends which work is given highest importance by a particular religion in comparison to others. If an adherent dies and becomes a ‘martyr’ for this highest work, then a place for him in heaven is certainly secured. Here, different religions have differently described heaven. And this is understandable. As we can not measure or examine their construction of heaven, they can stuff the heaven with most beautiful things of life, most beautiful women, with abundant means of luxury, and all comforts an individual can desire in this earthly life. The religion can make a pauper on earth a king after his death if he died following religious principle. Similarly, if he does something contrary to the dictates of religion, then he will go after death to hell, a place full of torment in its extreme. Here comes the Marxian interpretation handy. A poor, dissatisfied, disgruntled man may think in a moment of frustration to die for the religious command. If not in this life, then at least in after-life he will have the kingly life with beautiful women surrounding him as his mistresses. 

If at any point science, with its ever increasing frontiers, discovers such a phenomenon called life after-death, and develop a universal and unified theory which can be verifiable, then what will happen to these religious constructions of heaven and hell? Will a young man sacrifice his life to escape from the miseries of this life at the command of religion so that he can have a hassle free life after death? Will the relevance of religion diminish? As religions speak more about matters not confined to the domain of rational, if science brings life after-death to the domain of rational, what will happen to these religions? I think the core of the religions will certainly get weakened. 

I am not arguing that religions have no relevance in human lives. I am certainly not arguing that way. Human beings at times of discontent and frustration need soothing counsel, guidance in morality and ethics which religion can abundantly supply. Here, I appreciate Immanuel Kant who argues in the existence of god, one of the core elements of religion, from a moral point of view. He argues that at points human mind enters into Idea, which can not be explicable through rational argument. My concern is about destructive potential of a religion in using the binary of heaven and hell and alluring the adherents to heaven and claiming their lives, which may appear irrational as well as unethical. A person who becomes martyr at the behest of religion is lost from the face of this world, and we do not know whether he exactly is enjoying his life in heaven. And if science can resolve this mystery, it will not only fortify the rational world and rational mind, but also question, and rightly so, the many not-rational constructions of religions to the benefit of mankind.

I admit it is a difficult, or perhaps impossible, argument or even dream. But, I think, there is nothing wrong in thinking this way.