To Believe, Or Not To Believe?: The Practical Value Of Belief In The Afterlife

      Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta is universally known as a great advocate for peace. She is one of the most admired women in the world due to her charity work.  There are many accounts of her walking into the homes of those plagued by HIV/AIDS. News reporters took pictures of her cradling leprous children in her arms. Whether it was a little girl with Malaria, or an old man with Tuberculosis, Mother Teresa was unfazed; she consistently treated and comforted those with fatal and infectious diseases. The question is, why would Mother Teresa knowingly expose herself to countless contagious and deadly diseases?  Why would she risk her life to complete her work? The answer is this: Because of her belief in the afterlife.

    Throughout the course of this paper, I will endeavor to prove that a firm belief in an afterlife (regardless of personal variations and religious affiliations) causes a person to be a more ethical and courageous individual, in order to address the opinion that there may be a practical, daily, value for all humans to hold such a belief.  I will do so by looking through a Platonic lens at issues of courage, immortality, the severity of death, and the influence of religious institutions.

Plato is a strong believer in, if not and advocate for, the possibility of the immortal existence of the human soul. This point of view bleeds into many of the Platonic dialogues. However, none are as straightforward in regards to the afterlife as is The Phaedo. Here, Plato explains to his friends, students, and fellow philosophers that there is something better, which awaits men beyond the curtain of death. He states, “…after death he (man) may hope to receive the greatest good in the other world”. (Phaedo p.6)  He continues to say that not only should one refuse to fear death, but that one should be cheerful in the face of his demise. His reasoning here, is that while a philosopher lives, he endeavors to move away from physical pleasures of the body and toward the intellectual wisdom of the soul.  Plato argues that because physical pleasures restrict the attainment of wisdom, one should welcome the opportunity to separate the two in order to aid the soul in it’s inherent pursuit of knowledge. That is all well and good for the philosophers, but what about the rest of us? If you do not hold wisdom as the ultimate goal, and death as the means to grasp it, chances are, one will fear death. What could possibly be worse than dying?

To answer that question, one must turn to Plato’s Apology.  In this dialogue, Plato concludes that leading a life void of reflection, is far more frightening than death. That is to say, it is better to die than to live an unreflective life.  Plato alludes that if you neglect to reflect upon your life, it cannot possibly be governed by your personal opinion, attitude, and most importantly, purpose.

Whether or not one agrees that lack of reflection specifically, is worse than death, Plato has opened an important door. He has presented the possibility that something on earth, some manner of living, is more terrible than dying.

Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, and Princess Diana are all further examples of deeply devout figures that now embody justice and courage. This is so, because just as Socrates refused to yield his life’s mission in the face of execution, these individuals refused to allow fear of death to prevent them from accomplishing great goals.  Belief in the afterlife afforded these individuals a unique kind of courage, which enabled each of them to complete their life’s purpose. They were not afraid of the physical repercussions of fighting for the good, because they believe not only, in the existence of the afterlife, but in it’s divine goodness.  This effectively removes death as the worst-case scenario in life, and presents courage as a prominent virtue encouraged by afterlife belief.

While the afterlife gives meaning and direction to the lives of ancient philosophers and historical figureheads, how is that applicable to less-grand individuals? In other words, what is the practical, daily value of a belief in the afterlife for average citizens?  Formal religious institutions constantly address the answer to this question, and it is this: Good behavior.

While belief in some form of life after death seems to be inherent and universal, religious institutions vary in their interpretations of this divine concept. Many religions have harnessed this instinctive human belief and embedded it into their doctrines in order to control the daily behaviors of the masses.  In this way, the institutional view of the afterlife is often wielded as a power tool. While certainly not all religious institutions are guilty of this, I will cleave to that of which I am most educated, and use Catholicism as my example.  By preaching the concept of a dualistic afterlife (i.e. Heaven vs. Hell) Catholicism has introduced a reward-and-punishment incentive to behave ethically.  Just as a mother awards her child a cookie for cleaning his room, and a ‘time-out’ for hitting his brother, the Church declares one may eternally exist in heaven as a result of moral behavior, and condemns one to burn endlessly in the pits of hell for the lack there of. While this is an admittedly crude over-simplification, the effect remains the same: Followers abide by the Church’s requirements for fear of divine retribution. The concept of ‘judgment’ by a higher authority forces individuals to lead constantly reflective lives (Plato would be so pleased) in order to ensure they have not strayed from the path of morality.  While this allows the Catholic church the frightening power to decide which behaviors warrant heavenly admission, It also encourages love between neighbors, and morality within all actions; Making ethics a behavior bolstered by a belief in the afterlife, and therefore a practical value.

While many might agree with these assertions, the existentialists would have a hissy fit. They may rebut, that life is better served without a divine plane looming.  An existentialist may be motivated to live an ethical and courageous life because he understands this state of being to be his only chance to do so.  The lack of any spiritual after-party may compel him to be ethical in each moment he exists. While the lack of belief in a higher authority, may increase the weight of moral responsibility upon each individual. These incentives would theoretically compound and propel the existentialist to complete feats of great good. 

However, I would disagree. I believe that because humanity is flawed by nature, personal and institutional concepts of the afterlife serve as necessary guidelines on how to live. While an exceptional being may succeed in accomplishing great good while holding an existentialist point of view, I believe this point of view would be more likely to usher in unethical actions. For example, individuals may be more readily encouraged to pursue personal gain because they believe they could be wiped from all existence at any point, and therefore have nothing to lose. Furthermore, once released from the confines of spiritual repercussions, one might behave more recklessly due to a lack of authority that may prevent such behavior.

In conclusion, regardless of the existence of the afterlife, it is best for humans to believe in one. This is so because it helps guide humans to carry out ethical and courageous lives.  The institutional view of a heavenly reward/punishment system succeeds in fostering prudent behavior and close personal reflection. Without the wide spread belief in afterlife, society would likely descend into barbaric chaos and humanity would lose it’s drive for higher purpose.

If these postulates have failed to convince you, consider this as an after note:  It is wise for all humans to believe in an afterlife because we have no definitive means of proving this one way or another. This means that in reality, the afterlife is a toss-up.  Therefore, if one was to believe in the afterlife and behaves morally through out physical life, that individual would be set up for a win-win outcome. If A), death is annihilation, one would not have the capacity for any perception or thought, let alone the capacity to lament earthly behavior. And if B), afterlife exists, “…he may hope to receive the greatest good in the other world”.  (Phaedo p.6) However, if one does not believe in the afterlife, and therefore lives their physical life immorally, that individual is taking a great risk. If A), death is annihilation, then the immoral individual receives the same fate as the moral individual, and anything from either life is not of further consequence. But if B), the afterlife does exist, the immoral individual runs the risk of being in some pretty hot water with the Big Guy upstairs.