The Atheist’s Afterlife: What Do Atheists Really Believe Happens After Death?
By: Theodore Bolha
Tags: Naturalism, Atheism, Death, Existentialism, Philosophy

In praise of Katie Engelhart’s book, "The Inevitable: Dispatches On The Right To Die", where Engelhart makes a case for people to decide when their lives should end (2021), Richard Dawkins said, "If your much-loved dog is suffering and incurable, you ask a vet to end her life peacefully and painlessly. It is the moral thing to do. But for you and me it is different. In the transition to our peaceful oblivion, we are condemned to endure a purgatorial interlude of more or less protracted dying. There is a legal double standard. Katie Engelhart ably sets out the case for the right to choose when to die. I find it hard to imagine how a decent and rational person could resist it." Let me repeat, "In the transition to our peaceful oblivion". Richard Dawkins is implying here that death will be "peaceful". Now you may say that I am being obtuse, and that Dawkins is clearly being poetic with his use of the word "peaceful". And that he doesn’t actually mean that after death will come a peaceful experience. If that is what you’re thinking, then I’d have to ask: what exactly does the word peaceful mean when used in a poetic sense that it doesn’t mean when used ordinarily? Dawkins is known for being poetic, but he is also a scientist and someone who also concerns himself with the things we say to children in regards to religious indoctrination. Would he be okay with a parent telling their child that "you’ll go to Hell after you die if you’re not good."- in a poetic sense? I’m only trying to point out the absurdity of brushing off his use of the word peaceful here because using such words does nothing to further our understanding of what happens after we die. Saying such things only confuses us and allows for too much interpretation. Sure, "peaceful oblivion" could mean many things - we cannot be sure what Dawkins actually means by it. But when such vague statements are made by a famous leading biologist, and naturalistic atheist, in regards to a serious conversation about death - which Engelhart’s book is - his words matter. He is a leader.

Most (not all of course) atheists, like Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Michael Shermer and others, are, for good reason, naturalists (physicalists or materialists). Naturalists are convinced that the brain does or causes consciousness. We have plenty of good reasons to believe that this is the case, considering that brain damage can dramatically alter a person's personality, behavior, ability to put one's thoughts into words (aphasia), and many other aspects of the brain's performance.

No matter what is actually true about the relationship between consciousness and the brain - Dawkins and other well known atheists have made their stance on the matter clear. In response to being asked what he thought happens after death on Twitter in 2015, Dawkins said, "Consciousness is an emergent consequence of brain activity. When [the] brain dies, so does consciousness. All else is wishful thinking." - This is a naturalistic, non-dualist view of the relationship of consciousness and the brain. There are however many philosophers and, believe it or not, some neuroscientists that disagree; but I am not going to delve into that here. So why did Dawkins recently say that no longer existing will be peaceful?

I am not attacking Dawkins for saying this- I am just interested in pointing out that such phrases and sentiments can be misleading or even potentially dangerous, for followers of popular atheists. They can, and have led many to imagine that death will lead to something that it won’t. For someone who is dealing with a load of stress in life - hearing and believing that death will lead to peace may just make suicide much more appealing. My goal is to point out how saying such things is inconsistent with a naturalistic (physicalist or materialist) worldview, and why popular naturalistic atheists need to remain consistent with their naturalistic worldview to it’s logical ends.

We need to think about what it will truly mean to no longer exist — while the world and life continue to be what does exist; and what we should say when asked, "what happens after we die?" For you to be gone, while what exists is still here; still what exists - what is still going on when you’re no longer included. And then we need to replace "peaceful oblivion" and the all-too-confusing "nothingness" with what we arrive at - what I and others have arrived at by using methodologies consistent with naturalism; if that is the worldview we’re going to assert as naturalistic atheists. Then we need to popularize it as the naturalistic atheist’s answer to what happens after we die.

We’re all familiar with the popular idea of there being "a black void of nothingness after we die". This, or some variation of it is often repeated by many atheists on Twitter, Reddit, and other popular places atheists hang out online. Do a quick search on Twitter by typing in, "black void after death" or "black void after we die", or some other variation of that sentiment, and you’ll find many examples.

Near the end of his life, Stephen Hawking also implied a similar sentiment: "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark."

I am sure that all of these people could easily be persuaded to agree that death will not actually be followed by an eternal black void experience, or “the dark". I believe that most of them really do mean it in a poetic sense, but I have met quite a few that truly do believe it and fear it, and I’ve made it clear that I have a problem with serious naturalists perpetuating the sentiment of such things, as they only lead to more questions rather than simply answering the question.

There are also many atheists that know that there will not be a "positive nothingness" after death. Many have made this clear. They say, "it won't even be a black void. It won't even be silence, or emptiness-", but that's when they stop, and usually admit to an inability to imagine what it will be like to be completely gone.

In a clip titled "Crippling fear of death" from an episode of The Atheist Experience (on YouTube) a caller expressed an "irrational fear" of an eternal "nothing", that he believes will occur after death.

Matt Dillahunty, one of the show's hosts, attempted to explain why this fear is irrational, but the caller does not get over this intense and sometimes debilitating fear by the end of the conversation. Millions, perhaps billions of non-religious people suffer from this fear throughout their lives. The atheist community is not yet equipped with a good explanation that will replace "nothingness".

The sentiment persists - and begs the question: If there will not be blackness, or a black void after we die, then what should we (atheists and naturalists) tell people?

…

Sometime shortly after a close family member of mine died, it occurred to me that he was not anywhere. He was no longer a part of what exists: what is - take a look at the room you’re sitting in, or the world around you right now as you read this sentence. This is what I’m referring to when I say "what is" or "what exists". This is it… Anyways, that brain that caused that particular "Self" (my family member that passed away) ceased to cause that Self anymore. The Self is what we all refer to as "I" or "me", when we think of our identity. Who "we" are. Brains do or cause Selfs. Right now a brain is doing, or causing the Self that’s reading this sentence. That is the naturalistic view of consciousness.

Then it occured to me that, because all the other consciousnesses that still exist in the world (all the living sentient organisms) were still happening or occuring, via all the living brains all around the world - then my family member’s death was followed by one of the consciousnesses that does exist.

When I say "followed" in this context, I mean that one of the other consciousnesses (via one of the brains that are still alive and causing a consciousness, somewhere in the universe, after he died) is what came after his death in the same way that your birth followed (came after) your non-existence before birth, even though billions of other conscious organisms came to exist at the same time you came to exist.

If you do not exist, then the only experiences that will be going on are the conscious experiences caused by other (living) brains. Therefore death will be followed by one of those consciousnesses — in the very same way that “non-existence before birth” was followed by a single consciousness. Brains cause consciousnesses, and therefore, as long as there’s brains causing consciousnesses, then your death (non-existence) will be followed by one of those consciousnesses.

My family member wasn’t in a black void of nothingness after he died, no - he was completely and utterly gone: Non-existent. Nowhere. His consciousness was no longer one of the ones that exist. It was no longer being caused, in the same way you (a Self) is being caused right now as you read this (and everyone else that’s alive and conscious right now). Therefore, because those are the only experiences (consciousnesses) that exist, then death (the end of you), can only be followed by one of the consciousnesses that are.

Here's something to consider: If you were never born, then instead of the current experience being your consciousness right now, then the current experience would be the consciousness of one of the people or animals that was born at that moment in time.

You didn’t exist, but then a baby was born. Just another random baby. So if you don’t exist after death, and the last time you didn’t exist was followed by (a) birth, then it makes sense (in keeping with the naturalistic worldview) to conclude that, because we know that babies will be born after you die - that death too will be followed by the very same thing that followed the last time you didn’t: the birth of a completely new sentient organism somewhere in the world/universe. As we know sentient organisms will continue to be born after you die.

…

Here's a thought experiment that should help convey this conclusion a bit more:

Imagine that you and another conscious being are the only two beings in the entire universe- period. There's only your's and that other being's conscious experiences.

Imagine that you're here on Earth, and the other being is in some other galaxy light-years away from Earth.

Then you die. You cease to exist. Your consciousness ends.

Now, the only experience there is (period) is the one that's still being caused by the brain that's still alive. That's the only experience there is.

So that consciousness is the only experience that could follow your end, because it is the only experience there is.

(End of thought experiment)

…

So now you can see that even though that other consciousness was already "in progress" before you died (in the thought experiment), it's still what came after your death.

This is because there's nothing of you that goes into that other being - no, it's simply a matter of consciousness being caused (by a brain). In the very same way "you" are being caused by a brain right now.

So now imagine that instead of you being the one that died in the thought experiment, that it was the other being that died. You wouldn't feel any sensation when that other being died, but your consciousness, memories and all, would be the experience that followed, or came after it's death. Someone or some animal somewhere could have just died right now and your current conscious state (your earliest memories, and everything that composes your identity right now) is what followed their death.

…

This conclusion makes sense when you consistently view the world through the eyes of a naturalist. It was realized by many before me. Tom Clark, of The Center For Naturalism (naturalism.org) wrote a brilliant essay on it called "Death, Nothingness, and Subjectivity" where he called it Generic Subjective Continuity. ("Generic" in this sense communicates that there is no connection between you and whichever brain is causes the consciousness that follows your end). A few months after I arrived at this conclusion for myself I took to the internet and made it my mission to share it with as many atheists, and nonreligious people as I could. Eventually someone on Twitter referred me to Tom's essay, and while reading it I was overwhelmed with a sense of confirmation - that another naturalist/atheist came to the exact conclusion as me by naturalistic methodologies.

On naturalism.org there's a page called "A notable theoretical convergence" where Tom brings attention to Wayne Stewart's "Existential Passage", which comes to the same conclusion. I've also come across a few others who said that they too have arrived at this conclusion when they applied naturalistic methodologies.

So, beyond providing us with an answer to "what will happen after I die?" There is the lingering realization that life involves a lot of suffering. What if the consciousness that comes after this one is one riddled with psychosis? - what if it's the consciousness of a chicken confined to a small cage in a factory farm? What if it's the consciousness of a worm, a roach, or a fly? Or perhaps an eagle, or a wild horse, or a lion? Or an alien living in an advanced civilization with technology eons ahead of the human race's?

There are many great reasons to be a good person. You’ve already had many before you just read that last paragraph - but now you have yet another. Generic Subjective Continuity is a great motivator for us to pause and think about how we treat the beings we share this planet (and perhaps the universe) with. If empathy wasn’t enough, then believing that your death might be followed by the experience of being a baby cow trapped in a cage too small to move around in might do the trick. Perhaps this would give even sociopaths and totalitarian regimes pause. This is a big reason why I am so persistent at making others aware of GSC. However, I do realize that it would be impossible to communicate GSC to all sentient beings, and so suffering is inevitable - at some point, there will come a conscious experience that is immeasurably painful — and it is so wrong to remember that most organisms on Earth do not have access to painkillers.

…

Even when taken a step further - if we were to entertain the idea of supernatural beings, such as gods or angels, existing; Generic Subjective Continuity would still occur as long as said beings ceased to exist at death. So as long as a being ceases to exist, then GSC would occur.

Then it occured to me; that no matter what actually happens after death (if it turns out that we don’t cease to exist) - whether we have souls, or our brains are actually like radio receivers receiving consciousness from some other "cosmic source", as some people I have spoken to online do believe. No matter what, only experience can come after death. Whether it is the continuation of consciousness via a soul that departs from the body after death, or a waking up from "the matrix" (simulation theory) occurs, or we do in-fact "go into" a black void, and experience being in said void… or perhaps Heaven or Hell, or some other supernatural afterlife. The one thing that will not follow death is an experience of no experience.

…

I’ve been putting off something that may have occured to you as you’ve been reading all of this. You’re probably wondering, "But what about the heat death of the universe - when there’s definitely no more life after the very last consciousness ends?" Then what indeed. I contemplate this question often. Although it is important to keep in mind that that event will not occur for an incomprehensible amount of time - we should concern ourselves with the more immediate future - but still, we want to know.

My thoughts are only speculative. I think that the heat death of the universe would eventually - given enough time, be followed by yet another cosmic event that will lead to something like another Big Bang. Of course I cannot confirm this. As I’ve said, it is speculation (as most things are). And we have no idea just how big the universe is and what is beyond our range of sight. I am inclined to believe that what we call "the universe", is infinite, and so maybe what is in our observable section is expanding into other sections that are not expanding, or perhaps are expanding as well — and things may just continue to get mixed up forever. I don’t know.

Contemplating such things makes me wonder what caused subjective experience in the first place. We cannot imagine there being no experience forever. We cannot imagine it at all. Not even for a second. This makes me wonder if it is even possible for there to be a universe where consciousness doesn't eventually occur. But of course there could be such a place! We're living in it - because there wasn't any subjective experience in the universe for billions and billions of years… that we know of. And so, the question of what happens after the last consciousness ends, is one I am incapable of pondering. But until then; if we do indeed cease to exist in a universe that will have subjective experience in it after you've ceased to exist, then yes, GSC is what will, as a matter of fact, happen after you die. And all moments of unconsciousness (any period of time in the universe when there's no sentient life - or whatever else may cause consciousness) are simply skipped over (from the point of view of conscious experience) until consciousness resumes (when abiogenesis occurs once again - somewhere) - unconsciousness is a proverbial time machine.