The Scientific Method is the best approach we have in using reason and observation.  Under this method knowledge is held tentatively in proportion to the preponderance of evidence supporting it.  If there is a great deal of evidence supporting it, we believe it.  For example it is virtually unquestioned that water boils at 100° C or 212° F.  We have measured it thousands of times and intimately know the physics involved in the process.  On the other hand ideas with less evidence supporting them are readily questioned.  A soft diet used to be the best treatment for ulcers.  A few years ago it was discovered that a bacterium was involved and that antibiotics were a far better treatment.  We were ready to abandon the old idea and embrace the new.  If better evidence is discovered we will readily abandon an outmoded idea.  Finally if there is little or no evidence to support a view we tend to be from Missouri: "Show me."  There are many beliefs that people accept uncritically that fall into this category.  Astrology, alien abductions, extrasensory perception, recovered memory syndrome, creationism.  Also a life after death.

    Life itself is a natural process.  Humans and other living things are formed from compounds of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, chlorine and a few other elements.  The biochemical processes involved are well studied and well understood.  Things that used to seem mysterious have come under the scrutiny of our microscopes, laboratories and methods.  We understand how an impulse is propagated down a nerve; how the food we eat and the air we breathe are converted by enzymes, themselves biological compounds, to other biological compounds and energy to move a muscle, replicate a protein, see the face of a friend and carry out the other metabolic processes of a living organism; we know how a cell recognizes a foreign intruder and acts to eliminate it; we know how organisms replicate themselves.  Even those functions that still seem mysterious such as consciousness, thought and memory are losing ground to the light of investigation and no doubt we will fully understand them in the future.  Death too is a natural process.  All the biological processes shut down, cease functioning.  Never, never has any function, any cell, any part, any substance survived as living tissue or has a living process been found in a dead organism or cell.  Only the contributions a person has made, the person's impact on the lives of others and the memories in the minds of loved ones can be demonstrated to remain.

    That is not to say that there might not be some things we might enjoy about an afterlife.  I certainly would like to see family and friends who have died and even some figures from history who lived before my time.  However, I have mixed feelings about what it would be like to sit someplace and watch earth to find out how things turned out.  There is always the risk that things wouldn't turn out well and we would be tempted to jump in and do something and that would be prohibited.  We would be powerless to change the things we care about and would have been able to do something about as our living selves.  Could you perhaps watch a granddaughter begin to smoke without trying to persuade her not to?

    Humans solve problems.  They get things done.  They feel good about accomplishments.  They accept challenges.  That is what our life is about.  Living, loving, laughing, working, making things better for ourselves and others.  Those are the goals of a good life and that is where Rationalists focus their energies.  Can anyone seriously imagine any kind of a life where everything goes perfectly smoothly with never a challenge, never a problem to solve, even one so simple as what to have for dinner.  Could you turn over all your skills and abilities to a higher power and settle for having no part in what happens?  Especially for eternity.

    Some say that life has no meaning without belief in an afterlife.  I am truly baffled by this idea.  How could meaning in this life be determined by one's belief in an afterlife? We Rationalists and Humanists believe that our lives have meaning here and now on this earth--a meaning that we ourselves determine.  We assign our own meaning to our own lives and live accordingly.  One person finds meaning as a teacher, another caring for the sick, another creating music.  Many raise children and make better lives for their own families.  We need to achieve our goals here and now--we are not living for a better life later.  On this score, I believe that belief in an afterlife actually demeans this life, makes this life less desirable if you look at it as a vale of tears to be passed through or as merely a proving ground or prelude for a later life.  What is the motive for full enjoyment of this life, here and now, if a person is always looking forward to a better one to follow?

    Others argue that belief in immortality is necessary as a foundation for morality.  Without the reward of heaven or the fear of hell, they argue, what possible motive could the Humanist have to behave morally?  I am actually embarrassed for those who believe this.  Do they really believe that humans are like laboratory rats seeking food or other reward for the right behavior and avoiding electric shock or punishment for the wrong behavior?  Nothing supports this view.  People are capable of moral and ethical behavior without such a carrot and stick.  I believe altruistic motivation or simply a sense of doing right are actually a higher level of motivationthan seeking rewards or avoiding punishment.  Evidence bears this out.  Believers in immortality are no more moral than those who believe that life is finite.