Eternal life: bad idea?

Steve Cave thinks immortality is a bad idea. Ronald Bailey, reviewing Cave's new book Immortality for Reason magazine writes:

Imagine you are offered a trustworthy opportunity for immortality in which your mind (perhaps also your body) will persist eternally. Let’s further stipulate that the offer includes perpetual youthful health and the ability to upgrade to any cognitive and physical technologies that become available in the future. There is one more stipulation: You could never decide later to die. Would you take it? Metaphysician and former British diplomat Stephen Cave thinks accepting such an offer would be a bad idea.

Cave’s fascinating new book, Immortality, posits that civilization is a major side effect of humanity's attempts to live forever. He argues that our sophisticated minds inexorably recognize that, like all other living things, we will one day die. Simultaneously, Cave asserts, “The one thing that these minds cannot imagine is that very state of nonexistence; it is literally inconceivable. Death therefore presents itself as both inevitable and impossible. This is what I will call the Mortality Paradox, and its resolution is what gives shape to the immortality narratives, and therefore to civilization.”

Of Cave's view of the soul, Bailey writes:

The most popular immortality narrative is Soul. Most Christians now believe that their souls, which persist after death, will be reunited with their resurrected bodies. Souls thus solve a lot of the identity problems associated with the earlier Resurrection narrative. Cave argues that Soul narrative resolves the Mortality Paradox by denying “that the failing body is the true self, identifying the person instead with exactly that mental life that seems so inextinguishable.” In Christianity all souls are equal before God, so if the omnipotent and omniscient Creator of the universe is interested in your life then who are your politicians to ignore your desires?

What about the afterlife? Cave cites American evangelist James L. Garlow who says that in Heaven “your every desire is satisfied more abundantly than you’ve ever dreamed.” But what if your desire is to be reunited with your wife who instead desires to spend her eternity with her childhood sweetheart? A more sophisticated theocentric view of the soul’s afterlife is that Heaven is the eternal exaltation of God. But what can this mean? Cave points out that an afterlife without time is not really a life at all. “Everything that makes up a human life—experience, learning, growth, communication, even singing hosannas—requires the passage of time. Without time, nothing can happen; it is a state of stasis, a cessation of thought and action,” he argues. “The attraction of the soul view was the unique aura it gave to every individual life, but its logical conclusion is an eternity of nothing, with life negated altogether.”

Comments (9)

I wonder if Cave grapples with the mystical understanding of eternity as connected with the present, the holy NOW, in which deep prayer and meditation often lead to a sense of blissful union with the divine, or at least extraordinary peace which seems beyond death’s ability to shake.

Cave, not surprisingly, seems to critique the oft-articulated view of much institutional Christianity that has pervaded Western doctrine: that eternal life is always “out there,” “up there,” or “beyond death” (and, by the way, we’ll tell you how to get there...for a fee).

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but I think the former falls closer to Jesus’ experience and teachings in the gospels than the latter, which is often fraught with fear and power rather than peace and surrender.

So much of this sort of discussion runs into the problem of understaning eternity as a very long time. Eternity isn't about time; time is a creature, A good many earthly religions would say that an infinite life-span would be hell! I think my brother Richard is right -- the mystics point us to an eternity that is a still point of blissful being, not an earthly paradise of interminable doings.

Tobias, I like your definition of eternity. Thank you for engaging this post. But I'd like to stir the pot, hoping you'll reply.

I don't believe that that is the common understanding of eternity. Your "good many earthly religions" (you're including Christianity?) might say infinite life-span is hell, but if I'm right by religions you mean the theologians of those religions not the representative member of those religions. I don't recall being taught eternity is a still point of blissful being. And I suspect even your average Episcopal priest would parse in a sermon the definition of the promise of eternal life as a still point. Though I wish they would.

My questions other readers: Is living forever your deepest craving? What is the promise of eternal life? Why did Jesus offer eternal life, as opposed to other alternatives?

For me personally, when I'm dead I hope I'm dead dead. The promise of eternal life I do believe the promise of eternal life is the satisfaction of a deep mutual craving between person and God, and if it exists it is achieved while you're alive.

Heretically yours, etc.

What I think is here on Daily Episcopalian. "Life is changed not ended"

I was part of a discussion about this topic last night following our monthly Parish Requiem. One person affirmed the idea that Heaven exists outside time and was not subject to sequentiality, while another person, in Holy Orders, advanced the idea that it is subject to time and sequentiality.

I'd always been taught something like Tobias' version - that Christianity does not view eternity as the same thing as an endless stretch of time. I disagree with the author's assertion that an afterlife without time is not life at all. I suggest that since we lack experience with existence outside of time we are ill-prepared to make judgments about what it would be like.

I believe in eternal life, because that's part of the Catholic Faith as received by the Episcopal Church - something I'm reminded of twice a day in the Apostle's Creed and once every Sunday and Holy Day in the Nicene Creed, and any time I look at the BCP's Catechism ("Q. What do we mean by everlasting life?
A. By everlasting life, we mean a new existence, in which we are united with all the people of God, in the joy of fully knowing and loving God and each other.") It seems to me that our hope of that eternal life is not so much concerning our continued survival - although that's part of it - as it is a loving union with God. And yeah, John, I want that very much. I think we get a foretaste of it here, but if this life is all there is the Episcopal Church owes me a refund...;-)

I had to accept that our brains are hard wired to only understand "eternal life" as "Us, like we are, only in another locale," and we just don't have the brainpower to understand this any more than a chicken embryo has an understanding of what it's like to be a chicken.

That chicken embryo has everything it needs to understand it when the time comes, though, through its DNA.

I figure my job is to work on growing and thriving in this life as best I can, trusting that God has provided everything in my spiritual DNA to understand it at the moment of my death (which I actually see like that little chick, busting out of my shell.) I guess I'll worry about my chicken-ness when I stop being an embryo and become a full fledged chicken in the Henhouse of God!

JOhn, I was thinking of strands of Hinduism and Buddhism, which together account for a goodly proportion of the human population!

Come Christians definitely do view "the afterlife" as a sort of interminable paradise, or punishment. But I think this is the popular religion analogue to the understanding of God as an immensely powerful super-being in the sky. These are both popular and common notions, but theologians in general would find them not really very satisfactory for a number of reasons.

But being creatures in time it is very difficult for us to imagine (since imagination is a time-dependent act) timelessness. I think the mystics -- even the embryo mystics! -- get glimpses of this. Buddhists do so in meditation, and so do Christians deep in centering prayer. But as the saying goes, "Just a dip. No why!"

But what if your desire is to be reunited with your wife who instead desires to spend her eternity with her childhood sweetheart?"

Seriously?

Heaven is that place where "x = not x" . . . or else it isn't heaven! (Holy Paradox, Batman!)

JC Fisher

Well I have made my afterlife preference known to God- I would like to return in some way to Earth Process until all I have to give is exhausted, and we have civilizations of love and justice, and then I would like to go home- get lost in the temple and stay lost- the Beatific vision.

Here's one liberal who hopes that the traditional view, with universalist provisos, is accurate.

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Advertising Space