What would have to be true for the God of classical theism to be real?
5) Life after death – is this possible; is it essential?
If God is a spiritual reality apart from the material universe, then it would be entirely possible for there to be life after death. In fact, it would be strange if there was not. If it’s possible for human beings to exist in a spiritual form, then why on earth would a loving God not enable that option to be followed?
It’s important for there to be life after death. It answers a lot of problems, notably evil and suffering. If, in the life of heaven, “every tear is to be wiped from our eyes except for tears of joy”, then I think it’s possible for ALL the heartache of the world “to be put right”.
For life after death to exist, it would mean either that there is an integral spiritual reality to our persons already, or that, at death, God imparts a new sort of spiritual life to us. There are many problems to solve. HOW do you exist without a body? However, this is the same problem that we have about God: if he can exist, then we would be able to as well. I think for me to be satisfied with life after death, I would require that my personality, memories and relationships remained intact – otherwise, I see no point in having a life after death if this life doesn’t seem to mean anything. However, I am fully aware that to be “fitted for the life of heaven” I would need to be utterly radically transformed. So, there would need to be a “perfect version” of me that was perfect, but somehow still recognisably me. This is a tall order, but not, I think, intrinsically impossible. Surely many of the problems in this life, and our moral defects, are caused by having physical bodies, and without them, we will live much more happily. There is still the potential problem of evil and suffering raising its ugly head in heaven: if God had to allow it in this life because he has to give us freedom, then what is to stop us misusing our freedom in heaven? However, if we are free of physical bodies, and if we are now living in union with the God of love, perhaps it will be possible for us to live a perfect life.
There remains a problem about God’s intention: if what he ultimately wants is to live in relationship with eternal, spiritual beings who are perfectly loving, why did he not just create us as such in the first place? There are good arguments to justify physical creation. It’s popular with religious people to think that this life is somehow an essential test, or essential training and spiritual formation to get us ready for the life of heaven. This raises several problems, but is not an unreasonable position to hold. Do we really think our feeble efforts justify – even with God’s transforming help – that we should now enjoy a life of eternal bliss? If God allows everyone (or nearly everyone) into heaven, then what’s the point of this life? How does God disentangle the myriad “issues” that we get ourselves into in this life so that they do not cause problems in heaven? Nevertheless, if we can let go of the problems caused by our physical creatureliness, then perhaps a spiritual life of bliss does come within reach.
It’s also a possibility that it is just “a spiritual law of the universe” that even God – without impinging on his omnipotence – has to work through a physical stage before reaching the goal of a fully spiritual life. It certainly enhances the importance of this life, and living it correctly – which is what religions have always said. Perhaps a physical stage of existence is essential if we are to truly have freedom, and perhaps God’s greatest desire is to share life with other beings who are free.
I don’t think the problem of hell is a particularly difficult philosophical problem (!). There are certainly problems IF God sentenced people to eternal suffering for the “trivial” misdemeanours of humanity or for harm caused in response to pressure they faced, then that seems very unjust. However, a God who simply allowed some people to cease existence if they had not “qualified” for eternal life, while immensely rewarding anyone he could possibly justify giving it to (in his great love) then that seems perfectly moral. And if God can transform even wicked people into their “perfect version” of themselves, then perhaps everyone qualifies for heaven.
We have considered already that life after death is not essential for believing in God, but it is a central plank of traditional belief. If our faith is good for this life only, then we wonder how the God of love can merrily sail on without us – he cherished us while we were alive, but now that we’re dead, although he continues to cherish our memory, we are only memories, while he alone continues to live forever.
People have often said to me, “Oh it must be really boring, living forever in heaven”, but I think this is a failure of imagination. Modern philosophers have put forward strong arguments as to how death is essential for “real” or truly valuable life as, if we lived forever, or even for, say, 10,000 years, life would become meaningless and dull because we would have the opportunity to live multiple lives, eventually becoming utterly bored with its repetitiveness, whereas it is the temporary nature of life that gives it its value. However, if we take the concept of eternal life seriously – a life that is lived overtly in the presence of God – then why should our faculties be limited as they are now? If the value of this life depends on its finality, then God – who is eternal – must be the most bored being ever! However, in heaven, our delight in life and in each other can expand infinitely, to match God’s own.
Spiritual Devotion 