The Problem Of Death's Door

I don’t know about you, but I didn’t ask to be born. Maybe you did, but I certainly didn’t. I’ve had a couple of years now in this type of existence, and it’s interesting to note that many of us get to be here for quite a while. Granted, it’s not “forever,” but it’s longer than a few minutes or even a few hours. A lot of us get to be here for decades. What should we make of it, this march that we’re on, this march towards death?

Death looms before us, like a door at the end of a long hallway. A door that we can’t avoid. We can look away and ignore it, but that’s a good way for it to come upon us unawares. Everyone opens it eventually. And what happens to them? None of us on this side know for sure.

Some say nothing happens. Others say that it’s just a door to another hallway like the one we’re currently in. Still more say that it’s only the beginning; the beginning of either eternal conscious torment or eternal conscious bliss. One thing’s for sure, though: there are no passive observers here. Sure, some people might not care. But everyone will have to open that door and see what waits for them, even those who don’t care.

What should we make of this, my fellow marchers? My fellow door openers, who are just as surprised to find themselves in this place as I am? What do we do?

My time here has taught me a couple of lessons. One lesson, that my dad taught me growing up, is that I should avoid actions that might cause an increase in the misery that I experience. That lesson was taught with a belt. Sometimes, on the side of the road right after church. Granted, it took a while for that lesson to really sink in, but I eventually got it. Some other lessons have convinced me that to live in a state of existential fear or anxiety simply doesn’t help. We can’t let the fear of death paralyze us, but we shouldn’t live in a state of indifference or apathy either.

As a matter of fact, I think we can use death in two ways:

1. As incentive for investigating worldviews.

2. As a guide on how to go about doing our investigation.

Incentive

Let’s talk about incentive first. It’s important to find the motivation for why we ought to investigate what’s beyond the door. At church, I was taught that if we failed to meet certain criteria, then what met us on the other side of the door was eternal torment. And that is exactly the type of thing I would like to avoid, if possible. But, of course, that is just one theory among some competing theories. Maybe it’s true that we won’t know for sure until we cross over, but we can still come up with a list of what possibly lies beyond Death’s Door. The following is list of possibilities:

1. Eternal Conscious Torment

2. An existence similar to this one (whether it’s a new one or the same one on loop doesn’t matter here)

3. Annihilation

4. Eternal Conscious Bliss

This list is not exhaustive, and anyone is free to add to it, but what’s more important is recognizing that these possibilities are embedded in major worldviews globally available today.

For most people, the best motivation is the threat of pain, anguish, or loneliness. Even mild discomfort is enough to motivate us to investigate something. Like, “What is poking my foot as I walk?” for example. If such small suffering is sufficient motivation to initiate an investigation, then what could possibly be more motivating than the threat of eternal suffering?

While truth-seeking is important, it would be irrational to ignore potential eternal consequences, given that humans instinctively avoid suffering. Since avoiding immense suffering is a universally compelling motivator, it makes sense to prioritize investigating claims that involve eternal stakes. Truth is certainly the highest good, but when certainty is unavailable, prudential justification takes precedence over mere plausibility. So, even if we are of the opinion that one worldview is more plausible but another carries catastrophic risks for rejecting it, it is irrational to take that risk when we have skin in the decision.

Analyzing Extremes

Since we don’t have forever to look into this matter, I recommend starting by analyzing worldviews that say the choices we make in this life impact the one beyond the door of death.

Why? Because if I can’t change what happens, then it will happen no matter what I do. If nothing happens after I die, then nothing happens. If my beliefs or actions have no impact on what happens after I die, then, even if that worldview is true, then there’s no need to consider it immediately since there’s nothing I can do to alter what happens anyway.

Here’s the criteria that I suggest we use to start our worldview investigations:

1. Any worldview that doesn’t have eternal consequences we’d rather avoid should not be investigated until later.

2. Any worldview in which our choices in this life don’t change our eternal state after death should not be investigated until later.

3. Any worldview in which our choices could result in eternal suffering should be treated as true unless/until it’s outperformed by a competing worldview during our investigation or proven false beyond any doubt.

4. Any worldview in which our choices in this life bear negative eternal consequences that are avoidable should be investigated first.

Applying these criteria, the worldviews most relevant for immediate investigation appear to be:

• Christianity

• Islam

• Zoroastrianism

• Some forms of Wicca

Now, it’s true that people are able to invent an infinite number of worldviews that threaten eternal conscious torment. But since we are trying to undergo a serious worldview investigation, intellectual honesty demands that we limit our investigation to worldviews that are taken seriously in our global community. Among these serious worldviews, Christianity stands due to its broad global reach and geographical diversity. However, this is only a starting point, not an endpoint. There is nothing wrong with investigating multiple worldviews at once, as the process is meant to guide exploration rather than prematurely close it off.

Investigating Christianity

At this stage, we need to treat Christianity as true and our goal is to determine whether Christianity is false beyond any doubt. This is not about proving Christianity true, but rather testing its claims to see if they hold up. It is important to clarify here that treating something as true is not the same as believing it is true. This is how falsification work. If P is true, then Q. If not Q, then not P. For example, when I was in nuclear power operations, if we detected indications of a seawater leak in the system, we treated the proposition “there is a seawater leak” as true and took immediate actions to verify and manage the system accordingly; even if we thought an actual seawater leak was unlikely. We did this because of the potential damage seawater could cause. Only after ruling it out through investigation would we treat it as false. Similarly, in the case of worldview analysis, given the potential consequences at stake, it is rational to treat Christianity as true until adequately falsified, rather than dismissing it outright.

Two key questions guide this investigation:

1. What is Christianity? Christianity, in broad strokes, is best understood through its most trusted source: the Bible. While different sects debate the inclusion of certain texts, all major Christian traditions hold the Bible as foundational.

2. Does Christianity Make Any Falsifiable Claims? A claim is falsifiable if it can be proven false. From Christianity’s core tenets, the most falsifiable claims seems to be:

   • Jesus existed (historically verifiable)

   • Jesus rose from the dead (historically investigable but more complex)

While Jesus’ resurrection alone does not prove the entire theological framework, His extraordinary life and teachings in combination with His resurrection do contribute significantly to Christianity’s credibility. However, that discussion is beyond the scope of this paper.

Conclusion

The inevitability of death forces us to consider what, if anything, lies beyond it. Since humans naturally seek to avoid suffering, it is rational to prioritize investigating worldviews that warn of eternal consequences. Christianity, due to its claims and global reach, provides a reasonable starting point for this investigation. Given the stakes, it is wiser to assume its claims are true until proven false rather than risk being wrong about eternal torment.

That said, God values relationship over mere intellectual assent. The purpose of this process is not to simply choose the safest option but to begin an honest investigation. With that in mind, the next step is to investigate the historical evidence for Christianity’s falsifiable claims, a task that should not be delayed as Death’s Door is always approaching.