There is no evidence of Sagan’s theory though, that in death we will be in a long dreamless sleep. In fact, I would argue that the beauties of this life (suggested in his quote) point to an afterlife. To say that our experience here has much love and moral depth, leads one to ponder, why is there anything at all? And on top of that, why do morals and love exist? And why are these things good? The Christian perspective is that “the heavens declare the glory of God”, extrapolated to this discussion, the very things we marvel at in this life should lead to pondering what lies beyond.
Actually I think we have evidence there isn't any existence after death. Many religions claims various different things. Does everyone just get their own wish fulfillment? Probably not.
There are various random claims of proof of something happening after death, contradictory and with no real evidence. When there's no evidence, and people make very contradictory claims while claiming absolute evidence but having now, .... it's probable that there's nothing happening. I'd like to imagine my deceased loved ones are still around somewhere, but I don't think they are.
I agree with you on the point that the different world religions make mutually exclusive claims about the afterlife. Ultimately the only way to know what happens after death is to have an authoritative eyewitness. I personally don’t count NDE’s because we have to get into the question of what is truly “dead” (and also gauge the truthfulness of the individuals spiritual experience — that is if they are more than hallucinations)
I take the position that Jesus is that authoritative eye witness — the whole Christian religion hinges on that. I find his claims, the historical documents, and eye witness testimony that’s been preserved from the 1st century too compelling.
We simply don't know anything about what occurs after death.
It's possible that there is nothing (the dreamless sleep was just Sagan being poetic I would guess). It's also possible one or more of the many religions are correct.
But it seems to be more an observation of the world rather than a human construct. When we look out at the world we see causes and effects. The “why” in this case is asking what is the cause(s) of a subset of effects
cause and effect still doesn’t necessitate a “why”, just a cause. once you start leaving a realm where empirical evidence is not possible, I think you’re more into philosophy which…is a world of its own. in any case, I appreciate the discussion. have a good one!
