Book review: Did Jesus Exist?

There aren't too many areas where some New Agers and some dedicated atheists find common ground, but one of them is the question of the historical reality – or unreality – of Jesus Christ. If you Google Jesus + myth, you'll come up with thousands of websites arguing that Jesus never lived – that he was invented by his earliest followers, who were influenced by astrology, numerology, pagan myths, and even Hinduism.*

Enter Bart D. Ehrman. Ehrman is a professor of New Testament studies at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. He is not a Christian; he describes himself as an agnostic inclined toward atheism. So we’re not dealing here with a conservative or fundamentalist Christian committed at the outset to the accuracy of biblical accounts. Quite the contrary; Ehrman is very skeptical of much of the material reported about Jesus in the Gospels, and believes that what we can know about him with any high degree of certainty is limited to only a few core statements.

Nevertheless, he is convinced that Jesus was a real historical figure. And in this he is far from alone. As Ehrman takes pains to point out in Did Jesus Exist?, virtually all of his colleagues in academia agree with this basic proposition. He writes:

I should say at the outset that none of this [Jesus-as-myth] literature is written by scholars trained in New Testament or early Christian studies teaching at the major, or even the minor, accredited theological seminaries, divinity schools, universities, or colleges of North America or Europe (or anywhere else in the world)….

But a couple of bona fide scholars – not professors teaching religious studies in universities but scholars nonetheless, and at least one of them with a Ph.D. in the field of New Testament – have taken this position and written about it. Their books may not be known to most of the general public interested in questions relating to Jesus, the Gospels, or the early Christian church, but they do occupy a noteworthy niche as a (very) small but (often) loud minority voice….

The authors of this skeptical literature understand themselves to be "mythicists" – that is, those who believe that Jesus is a myth…. His life and teachings were invented by early storytellers. He never really lived….

The reality is that whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist.

Much of the book is devoted to backing up this claim with an extensive and highly interesting discussion of ancient literary sources. I won't attempt to summarize this presentation, which is both readable and concise (though sometimes a bit repetitive). I think any open-minded person – anyone not already committed to the mythicist perspective – would find it convincing.

Having established with a very high degree of probability that there was a real person named Jesus operating in first century Palestine as a prophet and wonderworker, and that he was crucified by the Romans around the year 30 A.D., Ehrman goes on to critique the more serious proponents of the Christ-myth hypothesis. But early on, before he deals with the scholars who need to be taken seriously, he has a little fun with the non-scholars who've tackled this subject in popular books and on innumerable websites.

Since these are the authors who seem to have the most influence in both New Age and materialist circles, it's worth quoting some of what Ehrman has to say. In what is quoted below, the material in square brackets is Ehrman's, not mine. 

In 1999, under the nom de plume Acharya S, D. M. Murdock published the breathless conspirator's dream: The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold….

The book is filled with so many factual errors and outlandish assertions that it is hard to believe that the author is serious. If she is serious, it is hard to believe that she has ever encountered anything resembling historical scholarship. Her "research" appears to have involved reading a number of nonscholarly books that say the same thing she is about to say and then quoting them. One looks in vain for the citation of a primary ancient source, and quotations from real experts (Elaine Pagels, chiefly) are ripped from their context and misconstrued....

The basic argument of the book is that Jesus is the son-god: “Thus the son of God is the sun of God."...

Just to give a sense of the level of scholarship in this sensationalist tome, I list a few of the howlers one encounters en route, in the order in which I found them....

The "true meaning of the word gospel is 'God's Spell,' as in magic hypnosis and delusion" (45). [No, the word gospel comes to us from the old English term god spel, which means "good news" – a fairly precise translation of the Greek word euaggelion. It has nothing to do with magic.]....

The church father “Irenaeus was a Gnostic" (60). [In fact, he was one of the most virulent opponents of Gnostics in the early church.]

Augustine was "originally a Mandaean, i.e., a Gnostic, until after the Council of Nicaea" (60). [Augustine was not even born until 19 years after the Council of Nicaea, and he certainly was no Gnostic.]

Ehrman has even more to say about the hapless Acharya, with whom I had a brief contretemps online way back in 2007 (see the comments thread of this post). Even in that discussion, Acharya managed to produce another "howler," when she misidentified the author of Revelation as James (it was someone named John; he identifies himself in the text.) 

My impression, however, is that the sun-god theory takes a backseat in popularity to the evergreen notion that Jesus was just another instance of a dying-and-rising pagan god, a view that enjoyed considerable popularity in the early 20th century after the publication of James Frazer’s famous work The Golden Bough. The trouble is that Frazer's understanding of pagan mythology was deeply flawed, and the gods he described as being resurrected were not actually seen that way in the ancient world.

As one example, it is sometimes said that the Egyptian god Osiris was resurrected after his dismembered body was reassembled by his sister Isis. This is incorrect. Osiris did not come back to earthly life. The ancient Egyptians believed that the body had to be intact in order for the soul to survive, which is why they placed so much emphasis on mummification and preservation of the corpse. The point of reassembling Osiris’s violated corpse was to allow his soul to journey to the afterlife, which (we are told) it did.

As Ehrman notes, today's main popularizers of the dying-and-rising God theory as applied to Jesus are Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, authors of the 1999 book The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? Ehrman writes:

In [Freke and Gandy’s] view, … Jesus was not a sun-god. He was a creation based on the widespread mythologies of dying and rising gods known throughout the pagan world....

This divine figure was called by various names in the pagan mysteries: Osiris, Dionysus, Attis, Adonis, Bacchus, Mithras. But "fundamentally all these God men are the same mythical being" (4). The reason that Freke and Gandy think so is that supposedly all these figures share the same mythology: their father was God; their mother was a mortal virgin; each was born in a cave on December 25 before three shepherds and wise men; among their miracles they turned water to wine; they all rode into town on a donkey; they all were crucified at Eastertime as a sacrifice for the sins of the world; they descended to hell; and on the third day they rose again....

What, for example is the proof that Osiris was born on December 25 before three shepherds? Or that he was crucified? And that his death brought atonement for sin? Or that he returned to life on earth by being raised from the dead? In fact, no ancient source says any such thing about Osiris (or about the other gods).

As he did with Acharya, Ehrman lists a series of blunders committed by Freke and Gandy in their magnum opus. Again, words in brackets are Ehrman's.

A sampling:

Constantine made Christianity the state religion of the Empire (11). [No, he did not. He made it a legal religion. It was not made the state religion until the end of the fourth century under Theodosius.]

Eleusinian mysteries focused on the godman Dionysus (18, 22). [Not true. These mysteries were not about Dionysus but about the goddess Demeter.]

"Descriptions by Christian authorities of Christian baptism are indistinguishable from pagan descriptions of Mystery baptism" (36). [How could we possibly know this? We don't have a single description in any source of any kind of baptism in the mystery religions.]

The Romans "completely destroyed the state of Judaica in 112 CE" (178). [This is a bizarre claim. There was not even a war between Rome and Judea in 112 CE; there were wars in 66–70 and in 132–35 CE.]

After having disposed of both the popular and the more scholarly mythicists, Ehrman devotes the last portion of his book to a discussion of what we can really know about the historical Jesus besides the mere fact of his existence. This is basically a recapitulation of his earlier book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, arguing that Jesus foretold the imminent end of the world and sought to bring it about by his own self-sacrifice.

Here I'm not so sure I agree with Ehrman; I'm more inclined to the view proposed by N.T. Wright in Jesus and the Victory of God. In brief, Wright believes that Jesus was not prophesying the end of the world but the destruction of Jerusalem – a prophecy that came true in 70 A.D. when the Romans crushed a Jewish uprising and destroyed the Temple, which was the focal point of Jewish religious observance at the time. Though Jesus is reported as using eschatological language – the sun and moon will go dark, etc. – Wright shows clearly that this type of language was used by Hebrew prophets throughout history in a poetical and metaphorical way to highlight predictions of political and military catastrophe.

If this is true, where did we get the idea of the Second Coming, which is so central to later Christian thought? One possibility is that reports of Jesus' resurrection led to the conviction that the end of the world was nigh, inasmuch as some first century Jews believed that the End Times would be accompanied by a general resurrection. Jesus, then, was seen as the "first fruits" (Paul's phrase) of the coming resurrection of all humanity. This could be why Paul and other early Christians expected the end to come soon, even if Jesus himself had not made any such prediction, at least during his earthly ministry.

I find Wright's thesis pretty convincing, though Ehrman's viewpoint is more in line with the scholarly consensus today.

In any case, regardless of what Jesus may have taught about the end of the world, he certainly did exist; he was not invented out of whole cloth as a sun-god, a dying-and-rising god, or any other mythic pagan archetype. This is the main point of Ehrman’s book. For those who may have been tempted to think otherwise by the trendiness of the mythicist position, Did Jesus Exist? is most highly recommended.

~~~~~

*… and even Hinduism. Ehrman tells us of a 1791 essay by Francois Volney, who claimed that the early Christians “derived Jesus's most common epithet, ‘Christ’ from the similar sounding name of the Indian God Krishna." This, of course, is ridiculous; the word Christ, or Christos in ancient Greek, means “the anointed,” and as such is a straightforward translation of the Hebrew word messiah, which also means "the anointed." Needless to say, it is exceedingly unlikely that any first century Palestinian Jews had the slightest knowledge of the Hindu pantheon. And Christos doesn't sound all that much like Krishna anyway.

Comments

[Simon]

Re: Fairies
Or, indeed, Has the Google camera captured a Dimensional Bubble? SC

[Simon]

Michael, you state:
'The multiverse need not consist of an infinite number of universes, only a very large number.'

And then, what?
If you accept that God is real, then He could create an entire universe for each person on this planet.
Maybe, and with respect, would it be acceptable to say: A large number of universes with infinite possibilities? SC

[kris]

Bill

Again who should we listen to about R-101, an expert on aviation or well someone who is not an expert on aviation who is desperately trying to get his view of the hook? Seeing this is an aviation question I think I will go with the expert in aviation.

I am more or less willing to let the fairies issue go, it seems like an odd fad in England during the mid 20th century so I am will to say it is reasonable Dowding was interested in it. I do not think the wikipedia article sourced it well though. Somewhat comparable to the Bigfoot Society in the US. Strange but where would we be if we declared every strange view to automatically be wrong. Would we consider them credulous if they brought in a dead fairy or bigfoot? ( perhaps we would consider them immoral though). I hardly think being curious about bigfoot now or its mid 20th century equivalent in England is evidence of being credulous.

I want to make an observation Bill. You were completely wrong about me being Fred and you came to that conclusion with no evidence based on the very sloppy logic of because I disagreed with you on the same issue Fred did we had to be the same person. If you make such elementary errors of logic and reasoning you might want to reevaluate your rational skills just a bit and realize why people take your pronouncements from on high with a grain of salt. Not trying to be mean, just making an observation.

[Michael Prescott]

Simon wrote, "There, at the rear of the verge and against the foot of a small wall, can clearly be seen 3 (three) Fairies!"

Just for fun, I had to try this. I located the spot in question, but the "fairies" are just a pattern of light and shadow, possibly made by the stones in the wall or by some grasses or other plants growing along the wall.

I hope you were kidding about this. Somehow I have the disquieting feeling that you weren't ...

:-\

[Simon]

Michael wrote, in response;
"Just for fun, I had to try this. I located the spot in question, but the "fairies" are just a pattern of light and shadow, possibly made by the stones in the wall or by some grasses or other plants growing along the wall.
I hope you were kidding about this."

Michael; I KID YOU NOT!
What is disquieting to me is that you have, apparently, revealed yourself to be an agent of Disenchantment!
Are you sure that you have the correct spot?
Proceeding along the road, more sunbeams can be seen and there is a distinct possibility that more fairies may be found, hiding amongst the foilage. After all, Fairies and Pixies are notoriously difficult to spot, being masters of camouflage. They can often leave one doubting ones own senses. I believe (with respect) that this is what has happened to yourself.
Don't be fooled; fairies and pixies are extremely clever. SC

[Bill]

Kris you have told me from a multiverse "In such an existence exist anything that is logically possible exists." I dispute this but you believe it. So therefore from your own logic, I am actually not wrong because you could actually be Fred Bloggs?

[kris]

I got the distinct feeling the words " I was wrong" have never once passed from Bill's lips or keyboard. Just a hunch.

[Michael Prescott]

"What is disquieting to me is that you have, apparently, revealed yourself to be an agent of Disenchantment!"

Agents of Disenchantment would be a cool name for a comic book. I see it as a foursome: Aura Atomizer, Sasquatch Stomper, Wicca Whacker, and Faerie Flattener.

On a more serious note, this blog strives to promote critical thinking about paranormal topics. Uncritical belief is not what we're after.

Seeing patterns in random shapes is the basis of the Rorschach test. It's a well-known psychological phenomenon called pareidolia. More here:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22686500

[Julie Baxter]

Michael writes: "On a more serious note, this blog strives to promote critical thinking about paranormal topics. Uncritical belief is not what we're after."

Yes, that's one of the reasons why it's a good blog. But people like Bill taint the atmosphere in a very unpleasant way. His contributions, in general, introduce a cynical, sneering tone. Bill is not a truth seeker, he's a games player who appears to believe that anyone who entertains the notion that psi phenomena might be genuine is either a complete fool or living in some kind of mental squalor.

Fortunately, I no longer read any of his postings, but I get the gist of them second hand from the replies of others here. The result is a script that reads like kitchen bickering.

Perhaps we could introduce a caveat system along the lines of: 'WARNING! This posting contains some Bill content', written at the head of the relevant contributions? :)

[Simon]

Michael, you wrote;
"On a more serious note, this blog strives to promote critical thinking about paranormal topics. Uncritical belief is not what we're after."

I assume that most (if not all) contributers to your blog, have already been self- critical; before they write in. From then; it is up to others to offer their criticisms.
I am, indeed, critical of myself and, moreover, welcome criticism. Hopefully, that is how we can approach and get to something like the truth.
The subject of Disenchantment and Re-enchantment is, I believe, an issue worthy of investigation, holding, as it does (my belief) the answer to much of what can be termed Paranormal Activity. This goes far beyond the issue of whether fairies exist or not. In that respect, I also believe that any one of us can, and for the most part, unknowingly, be an Agent for or against Enchantment. SC

[Sleepers]

Bill:

It's true that he "could" be (even with our blog host's indications that it is unlikely due to the differing IP addresses). But you said it with such certainty, leaving no room for doubt, no room for the possibility that a different explanation may be in order. You could've easily either asked if "kris" was really "Fred" or stated that it "appears" Fred has taken on the name kris. You didn't.

This is "blind belief" and, in my humble opinion, puts your reasoning and credibility about other matters in which you were so certain in serious doubt. Like Michael, I really appreciate the back and forth discussion and critical analysis of the claims you were making and bringing to the table (even without directly participating); I'm truly glad that you have brought yourself into this discussion. I'm simply disappointed you go to such great lengths to denigrate the persuasive force of your analysis.

[Michael Prescott]

Julie wrote, "But people like Bill taint the atmosphere in a very unpleasant way."

To be honest, I find Bill more civil and much better informed than most of the skeptics I've dealt with online. I think he is a little too sure of himself sometimes, but as Joe E. Brown said in Some Like It Hot: "Well ... nobody's perfect."

[Julie Baxter]

Michael writes: "To be honest, I find Bill more civil and much better informed than most of the skeptics I've dealt with online."

I don't. But then I suspect you have more patience than me, Michael.

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

I just wanted to say that I appreciate Bill's challenge to my 'beliefs'. I think he is an easy opponent however. When I have purchased or otherwise looked-at some of his recommended resources I have to say that I find them very superficial and based upon second, third or forth-hand information. I purchased Investigating the Unexplained by Melvin Harris which he recommended and I found it very weak in factual information. There is no index and no references. There are a few 'notes' in the back but they do not cover all of the chapters. I think it reads like a fictionalized account of easily criticized stories which the author categorized as paranormal. That is not to say that it doesn't hold my attention but I don't think I will purchase anything else Bill recommends as a reliable source of factual information. - AOD

[Simon]

Michael, you say of Bill;
"I think he is a little too sure of himself sometimes, but as Joe E. Brown said in Some Like It Hot: "Well ... nobody's perfect."

How patronising is that!
I am a recent contributor to your blog and have noticed this ganging-up on Bill.
Pray tell; how long this has been going on?
Personally, I feel that a little gentle 'ribbing' is fine. However; some of the responses to Bill, seem to me to be bordering upon nasty.
Is it time to introduce a cooling-off period? SC

[david r]

Sir Doyle, lest we forget, he did cite Skeptoid!!

[Julie Baxter]

"bordering upon nasty." ??

Then I simply haven't tried hard enough. :)

[Saj Patel]

Bill is great in that he shows why legitimate skepticism has to abandon the anti-paranormal cults like JREF and Psi-Cop.

[Simon]

"bordering upon nasty." ??

Then I simply haven't tried hard enough. :)

Michael,
Julie's in the Sin-Bin, has a certain ring to it. SC

[Bill]

Amos,

"Unexplained" by Melvin Harris is not the best book out there, but the reason I mentioned it is because it is the only skeptical book to discuss the R101 case. The book suffered from lack of references I agree on that, but I think this is because Harris as he admits in the book is going straight back to the primary sources themselves (some of these are rare - I cannot even find some of them). He then sees that the second hand authors have often become "duped" by paranormal claims by misreading these sources or some cases making things up.

When he examined the primary sources he found the errors. I don't have the book on me now so this is from the top of my head but some paranormal writers such as Maurice Barbanell were promoting the view that from his psychic visions the medium Robert James Lees had identified Jack the Ripper but it turned out all these authors were mistaken because looking back at the primary sources themselves it was a hoax from a newspaper and they were mislead.

Nobody apart from Harris had bothered to check Lees own notes from his diary which contradicts the later claims about him leading the police to the Ripper. There are many other examples like this in the book.

Now if you go onto Google Books and look up Lees and psychic claims about Jack the Ripper there are still spiritualist books promoting the myth that he identified the Ripper. They do not cite Melvin Harris and they have been mislead.

As Michael said though, nobody is perfect. Harris did make mistakes like everyone does. He thought the Ripper was an occultist called Roslyn D'Onston, (this has since been refuted).

[Bill]

By the way I see Michael is actually interested in the Whitechapel murders from a few old blog posts.

For my own opinion, I think that James Kelly was most probably the Ripper but all the suspects have flaws. I have held this view for the last six years and have no interest in changing it after the many books I have read, unless of course new evidence comes in. The recent DNA claims from Kosminski were nonsensical for me.

[Bill]

Touching on what I got at earlier with psychic believers ignoring skeptic literature or only reading what they want to see, this has actually been shown scientifically.

Here is a recent scientific paper "Individuals Who Believe in the Paranormal Expose Themselves to Biased Information and Develop More Causal Illusions than Nonbelievers in the Laboratory."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4503786/

Here is also an unpublished paper, that will probably be out in 2016 in a medical journal:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26503412

Paranormal believers have greater life satisfaction but the skeptics have better analytical and logical thinking skills.

[Michael Prescott]

"Paranormal believers have greater life satisfaction but the skeptics have better analytical and logical thinking skills."

Assuming this is true, wouldn't you rather have greater life satisfaction?

P.S. I don't think it's necessarily true. I have not seen great analytical and logical skills on the part of Randi, Shermer, and other top Skeptics. Mostly they jump to preconceived conclusions on the basis of flimsy ad hoc explanations.

On the other hand, I've always acknowledged that there's a lot of poor reasoning and poor judgment among the New Age types who are often attracted to the paranormal, and who may fail to discriminate between, say, the ganzfeld tests and Edgar Cayce's mumblings about Atlantis.

It's a question of separating the wheat from the chaff, in terms of general topics, specific cases, and individual researchers and reporters.

But again, if I really had to choose between analytical skills and life satisfaction, I think I'd go for life satisfaction.

[Bruce Siegel]

Michael said:

"But again, if I really had to choose between analytical skills and life satisfaction, I think I'd go for life satisfaction."

Yes, but have you given the question the analysis it deserves?

[Bruce Siegel]

Bill said:

"Paranormal believers have greater life satisfaction but the skeptics have better analytical and logical thinking skills."

This is such a strange statement to make. What good are logic and analysis if you don't use them to make life more satisfying?

[Julie Baxter]

Excuse me, Bill, but as a former lady chairman of British Mensa, with an IQ in the top 1% of the population, I resent the suggestion that my analytical skills are in some way inferior to the greatness of my life satisfaction.

For what it's worth, I think you have the intellect of a lug worm, but I'm far too polite to say so. :)

[Juan]

"Touching on what I got at earlier with psychic believers ignoring skeptic literature or only reading what they want to see, this has actually been shown scientifically."

But it also happens the other way around.

[Saj Patel]

Personally I find the biased studies people use to bolster their own in-group to be rather tiresome.

I've found pseudoskeptics + New Atheists don't always have adequate understanding of the methodology used in such studies and thus cannot really assess why we should have confidence in it.

Not saying Bill lacks that knowledge - perhaps he can give us his scientific creds - but it seems to me anyone with a cursory knowledge of research can tell w/ a quick glance the study's title is hyperbole.

[Simon]

Bill:
"Paranormal believers have greater life satisfaction -

Why? Surely the opposite could be true.

- but the skeptics have better analytical and logical thinking skills."

That is an illusion. Skeptics have the advantage because their thinking is rooted within this dimension. In that respect and until hard evidence emerges, believers will be at a disadvantage. SC

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

Hi Bill,
I happen to think that a lack of references in a book such as 'Unexplained' by Harris is a pretty important failure. I am not going to waste my time reading something by someone who just spouts off his opinions from the top of his head in a fictionalized way believing that it is a serious work. I would never use such a book as a basis for my beliefs nor would I recommend it to anyone else. That kind of recommendation would just make me appear to be very naïve and not too smart.

(And Bill, we are talking about Harris here, not Barbanell.) - AOD

[Sleepers]

"Here is a recent scientific paper 'Individuals Who Believe in the Paranormal Expose Themselves to Biased Information and Develop More Causal Illusions than Nonbelievers in the Laboratory.'
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4503786/"

That's a brave conclusion to draw based on an analysis from only 64 college students aged 18-26. Lol, speaking of relying on biased information to develop more causal illusions...

[Simon]

Michael, I have to say that I'm a bit concerned as to the welfare of hardened skeptics, such as Bill. If certifiable proof of Paranormal Activity does emerge, then I think that the shock to the system for such skeptics, would be profound.
Do you think that there's money to be made over this?
I'm thinking along the lines of; a convalescent-home for ex-skeptics. SC

[Michael Prescott]

On Dec. 6, Simon wrote, "I am a recent contributor to your blog and have noticed this ganging-up on Bill. Pray tell; how long this has been going on?"

On Dec 8, Simon wrote, "I have to say that I'm a bit concerned as to the welfare of hardened skeptics, such as Bill. If certifiable proof of Paranormal Activity does emerge, then I think that the shock to the system for such skeptics, would be profound."

Methinks I smell a troll.

[Kris]

I look at it this way.

I am working on my first retirement in a year. I will be 38 then. Not too bad.

I am a science teacher and finishing my masters in a few months.

I OWN two homes.

I think my critical thinking skills are decent as I tend to be doing a lot better than a lot of people my age and I enjoy parapsycology.

A lot of these Skeptics tend to be little egotists who are incapable of admitting to mistake and this causes them to make error after error. My past interactions with Gerry Woerlee have strongly convinced me of this.

I could be wrong. These Skeptics could be the brilliant ones to see the truth of reality and after we are dead they can...err do nothing we will be equally dead together. So even if they are right there is no prize.

[Bill]

"This is such a strange statement to make. What good are logic and analysis if you don't use them to make life more satisfying?"

I am a manic depressive Bruce, I also suffer from a body dysmorphic disorder. Everyone has their own problems.

I used to believe in the paranormal. I am not just saying this (I know some skeptics have used this ploy) but I was a believer and much happier with life. I have accepted the reality that all that exists is nature about 8 years ago. I realised there is no Gods and no afterlife, no over-all meaning to life, no values. I accept nature as it is. I am not going to fool myself to make myself feel better by inventing entities that do not exist.

I am pretty much close to a nihilist. There are other studies showing that paranormal believers have better life satisfaction, are far as I know this is not disputed (even James Alcock covers this in one of his books). Paranormal belief boosts people up with positive and wishful thinking, also acts as a psychological coping mechanism (again studies show this).

So to answer Michael's question I would prefer better life satisfaction, but I will not lie to myself with wishful thinking. I accept we are alone, when we are dead that is it, there is no happy afterlife or magical God to help us. Right now there is little happiness in my life.

Obviously a part of me would like an afterlife to be true, as I would like to end myself right now like I am sure many other sufferers would, if there was a guaranteed afterlife, because this world right here is real pain. That is why I still look over some of them in detail but I can't fool myself I am afraid into believing it anymore but I don't personally attack people who do believe in it because I would very much like to. Regards.

[Kris]

Bill

Then you have my pity. There is plenty of evidence for life after death including NDEs, death bed visions, visits from departed loved ones, reincarnation cases mediumship and more. There is no need to be nihilistic when the evidence suggest we do survive our deaths and do not receive a theology quiz.

[Saj Patel]

Sorry to hear that Bill, I hope you are getting help. Maybe try 7CupsOfTea if you don't have a therapist, I know in the US some therapists work on a sliding scale.

There's also various things like local community meetings, prescription assistance, etc.

I'd be wary of ending one's life because it seems if there is an afterlife there are potential consequences. Not because God will judge or some silly religious nuttery like that but more so the action seems to lead to potentially unpleasant post-mortem existence.

I think people are thinking narrowly when then assume the afterlife is in any way just or removed from pain. It's possible we're actually in more, not less, danger.

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

Bill,
I know that you are a very intelligent young man but I want you to listen to a not-so-smart old man ---me!

Now that you have extensive knowledge about what other people think about the meaning of existence, it's time for you to start thinking about what YOU think is the meaning of it all. I suspect that you think you have done this and perhaps you have, much as a trusting child believes his parents, you have just accepted what other people managed to get published in books believing that what they said was factual. As you get older you will come to understand that there are no such things as 'facts' and that anyone can get a book published if they have enough money and motivation and that current knowledge has been channeled through the minds of fallible human beings and presented in a way biased to support a cherished belief system and in a way that fits their reality of what the universe is like.

But, not all of the information has been collected yet. The complete story has not been told. That is why Michael talks of ambiguity and developing the ability to tolerate not knowing all of the answers. None of us knows all of the answers yet.

It is time for you to start listening to your own feelings for a change. The meaning of life and death is not something one can diagram out or prove mathematically. It is not an intellectual exercise. Each person during his or her lifetime has an opportunity to experience life and develop his own feeling about what it all means. Those who develop some innate understanding that there is purpose in life will survive longer; those who find no purpose in life will die sooner and sometimes they will destroy the lives of others around them before they go. If you are not happy now, go out and do things that make you happy. There are no rules. Get a life!

When I was younger and struggling with a body that didn't support the kind of man I wanted to be, (still doesn't) I would imagine that I had been dead for some time, (in oblivion), and that by some magic, God or circumstance granted me one day to return to life and this day was that one day that I had been granted. What would I do with that one day out of all of eternity that I was alive. Billions upon billions of potential people never get a chance to experience even one day of life as gazillions of human sperm and eggs never meet and a human body is never formed. I, on the other hand, was lucky, I was a winner from the get go as the sperm that formed me won the race, found his intended lover and consummated their love in me.

You are a winner too!

I used to think if I just dropped into this life from nothing and at some point I will drop out back into nothing---so what? At least I had that period of time to be alive. If there was nothing before and nothing after then my life was golden, never to happen again and that I wanted to make the most of it.

It's not wishful thinking to think that there might be an afterlife; it is possibility thinking. Who is to say that life after death is not possible. I can't and neither can anyone else. -AOD

[Bruce Siegel]

Bill said:

"I am not going to fool myself to make myself feel better by inventing entities that do not exist."

Thanks for your heartfelt response to my question. I’m impressed by your honesty and vulnerability.

I spent much of my adult life as an atheist who was 100% certain that my worldview was the correct one, so I do have some idea where you're coming from.

I’m writing a book that explains my shift in perspective, and some of the evidence that led to it. Hearing from people like you makes me realize the importance of doing that job well. I hope you’re still around here when it’s done!

[Bruce Siegel]

A transformative experience, beautifully told.

http://reset.me/personal-story/personal-story-what-psilocybin-mushrooms-taught-me-about-death-and-rebirth/

[Roger Knights]

AOD, that is worth repeating. It's "far out"--the sort of thing visible from the beyond.

I would imagine that I had been dead for some time, (in oblivion), and that by some magic, God or circumstance granted me one day to return to life and this day was that one day that I had been granted. What would I do with that one day out of all of eternity that I was alive. Billions upon billions of potential people never get a chance to experience even one day of life ......

I used to think if I just dropped into this life from nothing and at some point I will drop out back into nothing---so what? At least I had that period of time to be alive. If there was nothing before and nothing after then my life was golden, never to happen again and that I wanted to make the most of it.

[Kris]

I love that post Amos!! It took me years to realize that

[Michael Prescott]

Bill, you wrote, "I would like to end myself right now like I am sure many other sufferers would, if there was a guaranteed afterlife."

I suspect this is one reason we don't have a guaranteed afterlife - i.e., absolute certainty about it. More to the point, it may be why you are not meant to believe in an afterlife at this time.

Victor Frankl's book "Man's Search for Meaning" offers an interesting perspective from a non-religious, non-"spiritual" standpoint. Frankl wrote it to describe how he found meaning and purpose even while interred in a Nazi death camp.

FWIW, I would recommend finding a good therapist who specializes in your issues. And I would suggest being open to taking medication, which can be remarkably effective these days. I suffered from chronic panic attacks for a long time before finally finding a psychiatrist who treated panic disorder almost exclusively. Today, with the help of Effexor, I am basically panic free! (LIke a recovering alcoholic, I can never say I'm totally cured, but the problem has been handled.)

I agree that it's no good to lie to yourself, but I'd also say that the ego is a liar who often goes out of his way to make you feel bad. Not all the lies we tell ourselves are the wishful thinking kind.

Another book that I've found useful in this regard is "You Can Be Happy No Matter What," by Richard Carlson. His main point is that our thoughts can make us miserable, yet they are only thoughts and we don't have to be controlled by them. We can observe them with detachment and then let them go. This is a learned skill - tricky at first. I've gotten to the point where I can say, "Uh-oh, I'm having a thought attack," and release those negative thoughts. (I don't always do this as quickly as I should, but at least I can do it.)

[Juan]

"I have accepted the reality that all that exists is nature about 8 years ago."

The afterlife is also nature.

"I realised there is no Gods and no afterlife, no over-all meaning to life, no values."

I do not see how. One can realise that one has the laces untied, or is cold, but not that the afterlife not exists as one can not realise that there are no aliens, for example. Besides the question of the afterlife is independent of the questions of God and meaning of life.

In addition you still do not recognize some of your arguments are fallacious and I do not care all that rhetoric without examined the empirical evidence on an afterlife.

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

Bill,
Prescription medications can be a life-saving adjunct treatment for unrelenting physical and mental symptoms of bipolar depression and anxiety. Something simple like lithium, an SSRI or an anxiolytic like Xanax can achieve relief in some people from debilitating behaviors caused by anxiety and/or depression. And although I have not tried them, some people believe that psychedelic compounds may open one to an understanding of the universe and the meaning of life and thereby eliminate feelings of ennui and unhappiness.

But before you decide to go down the drug path, why not take action to improve your health through things like vigorously exercising 30 to 60 minutes or more every day, eating a diet free from processed foods especially those containing refined sugar and white flour, getting 8 hours of sleep each night, drinking an amount of water to completely hydrate all of your cells, and learning to breathe deeply and slowly establishing a healthy balance between of carbon dioxide and oxygen in your blood. If you smoke, drink alcohol or do street drugs---stop!

It probably would help to practice some meditation or positive creative imagery every day for 30 minutes or so.

If after you have maintained a healthy life style for a while and you are still symptomatic then perhaps making an appointment with a physician specializing in bipolar depression would help you to determine what other remedies you would want to try. - AOD

[Julie Baxter]

Michael writes: " Today, with the help of Effexor, I am basically panic free!"

I had panic attacks in my youth. At that time I was going through an existential crisis. I too was given medication. But I quickly put the medication aside and, instead, adopted a simple breathing exercise that my dentist had advised when I was nervous of the drill. He said breathe in through the nose, slowly, counting to ten, then breathe out deeply through the mouth.

I followed that advice whenever I felt a panic attack coming on, all the while thinking of the panic attack as a bully that was trying to intimidate me.

Very soon my panic attacks subsided and I haven't had one in over forty years. The problem with taking pills is that it leads the subconscious mind to believe that the pills are all powerful and in control. They're not. YOU are - just as soon as you come to understand that.

What's more medication of that kind will almost certainly prevent you from having spiritual experiences of the type discussed here. And, long term, those experiences will be of far greater benefit to you.

[Michael Prescott]

Breathing exercises apparently work for some people. I learned "conscious breathing" before I tried a pharmaceutical approach. It was a little helpful, but it didn't solve my problem. Everybody is different, of course.

[Michael Prescott]

"What's more medication of that kind will almost certainly prevent you from having spiritual experiences of the type discussed here."

Effexor hasn't prevented me from having meaningful spiritual experiences. Chronic panic, OTOH, did prevent me from having a normal life.

I would encourage anyone with serious ongoing emotional problems to talk to a therapist, preferably a psychiatrist (MD, not PhD), and to be open to meds if they are indicated. There's no need to suffer in silence.

[Bruce Siegel]

Bill said:

“Right now there is little happiness in my life.”

Bill, truly, I want to thank you for your presence here. In sharing your feelings so openly, you speak for all of us, because we’re all sad in some way, to some extent. Whatever our differences, we come to this forum, in part, because we’re looking for ways to deal with our pain.

Please forgive me for bringing up my book again (about precognitive dreams), but as I write, you’re reminding me what’s at stake, and who I’m addressing. Like all authors, I write not just for others, but for those parts of myself that hurt and need healing. And one aspect of my growth has been related to your comment that:

"I am not going to fool myself to make myself feel better by inventing entities that do not exist."

At a key moment in my life, I was astounded to discover that these two things are not incompatible: a sincere quest for truth, and spirituality.

You see, I always thought of myself as really smart. And in my denial of all things metaphysical, the possibility never occurred to me that there might come a time when I might train the entire force of my reasoning on the spiritual realm and come up with the conclusion that it was real.

But that’s exactly what happened in the 1990’s.

And it came about, in large part, because I began to realize that intelligence does not reside only in my intellect. For as smart as I thought I was, in my attempts to see the Big Picture, I had been relying exclusively on limited portions of myself.

In the 90’s I began to realize that genius is to be found also in the part of me that dreams. How could I not come to that conclusion when my dreams were revealing to me an aspect of reality—precognition—that science itself doesn’t recognize? Doesn’t that make dreaming a pretty insightful activity?

Likewise, other experiences I was having were teaching me that smarts reside in the parts of us that come to the forefront in meditation, when we’re close to death, and when we ingest what I've come to think of as certain sacred medicines.

Those states of awareness, too, are—or should be—what we consider our brilliance. Despite mainstream science’s indifference, they are tools that can aid us enormously in probing reality to find out what makes it tick.

But Bill—these are *my* revelations. As AOD said, you need to discover what’s important to you.

Thanks again for being here. It should be obvious to all of us by now that your participation has injected a new burst of energy into the discussion.

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

Yes Bill,
There is no need to suffer in silence. If you believe that your symptoms are unbearable, then it might be best to seek out a psychiatrist now who understands treatments for bipolar depression. Medications may be appropriate for you, perhaps only for a short time until you get yourself stabilized. Medications are usually only part of the treatment plan for depression however and along with a healthy life style and cognitive behavioral therapy or perhaps group therapy you will feel better rather quickly. - AOD