Book Review: Life after Death: The Evidence

In my New York debate on “Is Christianity the Problem?” with Christopher Hitchens, a lively affair, against a resourceful opponent—one of the most interesting questions came from a man from the island nation on Tonga. For centuries, the man said, Tonga suffered terrible vendettas, tribal wars, and even cannibalism. Then the missionaries came with their doctrines of God, universal brotherhood, and the afterlife. Today, the man said, Tonga is a much more peaceful and happy place. Then, turning to Hitchens he said, “You have given us some interesting theories, but what do you have to offer us?” Hitchens was momentarily speechless. (185)

This, of course, raises two questions: “Does atheism have anything to offer?” and “Is there life after atheism?” Well, both of those questions are rendered meaningless by this book as it details comprehensively and then rebuts all the depressing offerings of one atheist after another. Life After Death: The Evidence by Dinesh D'Souza details, by Thomistic erudition, how the empirical rationalism of atheists is wrong and intellectually embarrassing. The scientism of atheists is shown to subvert truth and tradition as reasoned arguments are censored and distorted. It is noted that the science of atheists does not ennoble mankind, nor does it improve our understanding of ourselves even if it superficially improves satisfaction in this earthly life. Without transcendent interpretation, science, with the arrogant pretentious satisfaction of anti-transcendent “creation,” creates non-being (which is a valid definition of “evil” in which atheists cannot believe without becoming spiritual). D'Souza makes us realize that it is more rational to act believing and knowing that there is life after death.

D'Souza's review of near-death experiences proves a fascinating topic deserving continued attention. The chapters on the laws of physics, the Big Bang Theory, and the anthropic principle (which asserts that observations of the physical universe must be compatible with the life observed in it) provide an understandable scientific basis for belief, while the description of the wild, bizarre, zero-probability theories of a multiverse (86) demonstrate to this reader the laughable God-phobic trivialities to which atheists flee.

Chapter six, “Undeniable Teleology: The Plot of Evolution,” is great fun, especially for those of us who are agnostics about evolution after having been “believers” of evolution for most of our lives. Consistent with D'Souza, we will not deny the teleology, but we will deny Darwinian evolution—based on 1) the “pheromone problem” in that sub-human animals with biochemical certitude effectively only mate with their own kind, and thus there are no hybrids in nature; and 2) the “sterile hybrid problem” in that animal hybrids, when forcefully created by humans, cannot reproduce. Both facts would seem to prevent the major genetic transfers required by evolution as currently advertised.

Chapter seven, “The Spiritual Brain—Finding the Soul within the Body,” analyzes the neurological, psychophysiological, electrophysiological, and computational aspects of mind-material-brain. This chapter is worth the price of the whole book, and it renders at least “plausible” that there is life after death.

The best evidence of contemporary neuroscience is that the mind cannot be equated with the brain, and while the deterioration of the brain might impede the operation of the mind, the two are separate, which makes it possible that our immaterial minds and consciousness might survive the termination of our physical frames. (125)

D'Souza's analysis of consciousness, free will, and immaterial self are adequate. His chapter on philosophy of reason, phenomena, subjectivity/objectivity (ch. 9) is transcendent. He quotes the atheist Schopenhauer: “Your real being knows neither time, nor beginning, nor end…. Your immortal part is indestructible” (162). Thus, the first modern atheist proves his theophobia as he proclaims immortality—Schopenhauer, like them all, cannot bring himself to say “God”; and the psychology of unbelief can be seen as a mental disorder more delusional than any accusations or book by Richard Dawkins.

The significance of the book is that only those who act will win. Believers cannot sit on their hands. One must provoke in order to gain respect and receptivity from the man from Tonga and all others. One would be deaf, dumb, and blind not to see the nothingness of what atheists believe and the contrary transcendental cornucopia of a life after death. This book made me reread the book (which I recommend to all) by Anthony Rizzi, The Science Before Science.¹

Atheism is the prevention of evolution—it is the stagnating prevention of the human spirit. It is a polluting regression into non-being. It is soviet. D'Souza has defeated them all. One must read the book and embrace the exhaustive, deep case D'Souza makes for Life after Death.