The Question of Life After Death: Exploring Rational Standpoints and Faith

The question of life after death whether there is another life beyond it and what that life might be is indeed beyond the reach of our knowledge. We lack the vision to peer beyond the boundary of death to see what lies on the other side. We cannot hear any voice from that realm. Thus, from a scientific perspective, this question lies outside the scope of what we can empirically know.
Anyone who confidently claims that there is no life after death is making a statement that is, in fact, unscientific.From a scientific standpoint, it cannot be said with certainty that there is life after death, nor can it be dismissed. Until we discover a definitive source of knowledge, the appropriate scientific stance might be neither to affirm nor deny the existence of an afterlife. However, can we realistically adopt this neutral position in our daily lives? Probably not, and certainly not completely.
Rationally, when we lack the means to fully understand something, it might be wise to withhold both acceptance and rejection. But when that issue directly impacts our lives, we are often compelled to take a stance either in favor of belief or denial. 

The Nature of Belief in Daily Life

With a bit of reflection, we can see that the question of life after death is not merely philosophical it has profound implications for our daily lives. In fact, our entire moral outlook is deeply influenced by this question.
If I believe that this worldly life is all there is, with nothing beyond it, my moral approach will take a particular form. However, if I believe there is another life beyond this one, where I will be accountable for my present actions and where my future, for better or worse, depends on what I do now, my moral outlook will be entirely different.
Imagine a person traveling, thinking he only needs to get to Mumbai, and that once there, his journey will be over. He believes he will be beyond the reach of police, courts, and any other authority. Now consider another traveler who believes that Mumbai is only one destination in a longer journey, with more to follow. These two mindsets would lead to vastly different attitudes toward their journey and their actions along the way.
Afterward, he believes he will continue on to a distant land across the sea, where the customs are the same as those in India. There, a confidential record of all his actions completed here in India is kept in an office, awaiting review. This record will be thoroughly examined, and a decision will be made regarding his worthiness based on his conduct.
It’s easy to see how the perspectives of these two travelers would differ. The first person is only preparing for the journey to Mumbai, while the second is also preparing for the journey beyond it. The first person assumes that any profit or loss will end at Mumbai, with nothing to consider beyond it. The second person, however, believes that the true profit and loss will be determined not in this initial part of the journey, but in its final stages.
The first person will only focus on the immediate outcomes of his actions that can impact his journey to Mumbai. The second, on the other hand, will be concerned with the outcomes that will unfold once he reaches the distant land across the sea. Clearly, this difference in attitude stems directly from each traveler’s view of the journey’s nature and purpose.
Similarly, in our moral life, our beliefs about life after death have a profound impact. Every action we take is influenced by whether we see this life as our only existence or believe in an afterlife with its own consequences. In the first case, our actions will follow one path; in the second, a completely different one.
This demonstrates that the question of life after death is not merely a rational or philosophical one, but a deeply practical concern. When such is the case, doubt and hesitation are no longer options. Acting with uncertainty would, in effect, be akin to rejecting the idea of an afterlife.

The Universe and the Need for Moral Justice

We are therefore compelled to consider whether life after death exists. If science cannot answer this question, we should turn to rational arguments instead. What, then, do we have to support such reasoning? Firstly, we have human nature before us. Secondly, we have the broader system of the universe. By examining humans within this universal system, we can assess whether all of our needs are met here or if there is something lacking that calls for a different type of existence.
Consider that a human being has a body made up of various minerals, salts, water, and gasses.
In response to these needs, the universe provides soil, stones, metals, salts, gasses, rivers, and similar resources. The laws governing these elements operate seamlessly throughout the cosmos. Just as mountains, rivers, and air are given space to function according to natural laws, so too is the human body granted the opportunity to operate within these same laws.
Furthermore, humans are beings who consume resources from their surroundings, enabling growth and fertility. This parallels the presence of trees, plants, and grasses in the universe, which also rely on natural laws that support their ability to grow and flourish.
Beyond this, humans are living beings capable of acting according to their own will. They obtain food through their efforts, protect themselves, and make provisions to sustain their bodies.
In addition to humans, countless other life forms inhabit dry land and air, with natural laws that effectively govern the vast diversity of these living creatures. But beyond all of this, humanity possesses yet another dimension one we refer to as moral existence.
Humans possess a consciousness of good and evil, an awareness of right and wrong, the power to choose between them, and a nature that calls for the consequences of these choices to be revealed. They discern between justice and injustice, truth and falsehood, honesty and deceit, mercy and cruelty, kindness and apathy, generosity and greed, trust and betrayal, and a range of other moral attributes. These qualities are genuinely present in human life; they are not merely figments of imagination. In fact, human civilization is built on the impact of these moral qualities.
The nature of human beings strongly demands that, just as the natural outcomes of their actions are evident, so too should be the moral outcomes.
But when we examine the structure of the universe, can the moral consequences of human actions truly unfold in this world? I assure you they cannot. Here, at least to our knowledge, there is no other creature with a moral existence like ours. The entire system of the universe operates under natural laws alone.
There are no moral laws governing this system. Money, for example, has weight and value, but truth has neither weight nor material value. In nature, a mango seed always grows into a mango tree, but for those who sow truth, sometimes they are rewarded, yet more often they are met with scorn and rejection.
In this world, fixed laws govern material elements, producing predictable outcomes. However, for moral actions, there is no set law ensuring consistent outcomes. Due to the unchanging laws of nature, the moral consequences of actions are not guaranteed. At times, moral outcomes align with nature’s laws, but often, they diverge.
Humanity has attempted, through civil and political systems, to ensure that actions have predictable moral consequences. Yet, this effort is both limited and inadequate. On one hand, nature’s laws constrain these systems, and on the other, human flaws further weaken their effectiveness.
Examples of Limited Justice