Customer Reviews

The Illusion of Immortality

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

"_The Illusion of Immortality_ is the only book I know of which details the often ignored scientific evidence against life after death (though a few articles can be found on the subject), but with its first edition published in 1935, the evidence cited is a bit dated. Lamont first outlines different historical views of immortality, from the ancient Greek belief that everyone enters a faded and deteroriating existence in Hades when they die, through the early Hebrew belief that death ends with the annihilation of consciousness, to modern astral body views. Lamont should be credited for pointing out that the notion of immortality does not presuppose that an existence after death will necessarily be a worthwhile immortality--an idea often not considered those who believe in an afterlife--as the ancient Greek notion of Hades illustrates. In addition to addressing different kinds of survival of bodily death and the evidence against it, Lamont considers the problem of what an afterlife environment could possibly be like and arguments that immortality must be guaranteed by the benevolence of God. There is some confusion in Lamont's argument for a kind of reductionist materialism, for in arguing that the mind is a function of the brain, he proposes the existence of "nonphysical ideas"--so it appears that he is actually arguing that the mind is a product of the brain (epiphenomenalism) as opposed to arguing that the mind is identical to the brain (reductionist materialism). Lamont concludes by considering the motivations for belief in life after death and coping with living a finite existence. As a whole, _The Illusion of Immortality_ is a very good introduction to the some of the philosophical issues and scientific evidence against life after death."

This book absolutely changed my life... for better or worse, I am still unsure... but I feel liberated nonetheless. My Father has died since and I felt the real sorrow of actually feeling like I am not to ever see him again... just because of this book. I read it a couple of years ago & I am just now starting to get over the shock and sorrow of what Corliss Lamont pointed out. I am not sorry I read it I suppose... afterall I cannot be angry at the truth. Yet on the other hand, is not the "mirage" of afterlife a false sense of happiness that we sorely need through this life? Once a believer actually comes to the end, they'll never really know if the afterlife was a big lie... because they'll be dead... and thus, unaware of their mistaken prediction. Meanwhile with blind "faith", they can at least wear a smile on their face until the end. So one might make the argument that the faithful are indeed better off... even if they are completely wrong. Afterall, they chase this "mirage" with delusional glee as I sit with the horrific realization that it isn't water at all. Sometimes I wish I were more gullible. Ignorance may very well be bliss.

Corliss Lamont
The Illusion of Immortality

(New York: Philosophical Library, 1959) 303 pages

A philosopher examines the history of belief in life after death,
the religious traditions that include various forms of after-life,
the arguments for and against all such beliefs,
and ultimately concludes that there is no life beyond the grave.
A well-reasoned and well-written book, easy to read and understand.
Lamont draws on science and reason to refute the beliefs in immortality.
This book affirms life, despite the fact that our lives must end.

If you would like to read other reviews of books on life after death,
search the Internet for the following exact expression:
"IS THERE LIFE AFTER DEATH? THE BEST BOOKS".

James Leonard Park, skeptic.

The name Lamont is in the news lately (As in Ned Lamont, running for the Senate in CT) so I decided to read one of Corliss Lamont's books. He is kind of the godfather philosopher of "Humanism".

Corliss is the great-uncle of Ned, and was a very wealthy man, inheriting a fortune from his father, Tom Lamont, who was the Chairman of JP Morgan and Co. His father used to take his yacht down the Hudson every morning and tie up near Wall Street to get to the office.

Corliss got a great education (Phillips Exeter Academy and Harvard), and then decided he was a philosophical leftist and Marxist. In fact in 1952 he wrote a book entitled "The Myth of Soviet Aggression" (this book probably didn't sell very well in places like Hungary or Poland). However, he said he wasn't a communist and never joined the communist party in the U.S. I suppose it's worth remembering that in the 30's, 40's and 50's, it was pretty trendy to be a Leftist and a Marxist.

He was also quite a philanthropist, giving away large sums of money. Lamont was also a big supporter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), serving in a variety of capacities in the ACLU.

On to his book - "The Illusion of Immortality" is an expansion of his doctoral thesis. The point of the book is that we have only one life and we are living it right now, in the flesh. Immortality is wishful thinking, "an intellectual anachronism," although he admits that it is a long-held belief in many cultures throughout history.

Here is the heart of Corliss' argument: We have a body, and we also have a personality, or what some would call a soul. However our personality is inextricably bound up with our bodies, and when our bodies are dead and rotting, well, that's got to be the end of our personality!

Unfortunately for me, since I read the whole book, Corliss stretches out this argument for 278 pages. And he never really addresses the serious arguments that can be made against this simplistic view. Rather, he simply dismisses them.

Now the book was first written in 1935, so much of it is dated - for example his arguing against "spiritualists" and asking rhetorical question like why "Immortalists neglect" answering questions like "Will negroes be black in heaven." (P. 144)

Don't get me wrong, Lamont is not nasty in his writing - in the way many avowed atheists are today - he is not an angry man. In one of the prefaces (page vii) he says "I would heartily welcome any concrete evidence... tending to establish man's immortality."

But he's not wishy-washy about his conclusions - not agnostic, saying we can't prove it one way or another. He is dogmatic: he can prove there is no immortality for humankind, in the same way he can prove there is no God.

Corliss really makes the best you can of a bad argument. He puts forth his thesis, constructs a straw man opponent, and then doesn't really answer the objections to his world view. The horror of this book is that he stretches it out for 278 pages, offering redundant arguments against his straw man.

The book should have been 40% shorter, which is why I gave it two stars instead of three. As is, it's a fine non-pharmacological substitute for Ambien. I can't believe I read the whole thing.