Abstract
This paper examines beliefs and experiential claims concerning life after death provided by some 5,000 people in Canada, the United States, and Britain in the spring of 2014. The surveys show that large numbers of people continue to believe life continues after death. Beyond belief, many maintain that individuals who have died are following what is taking place in their lives and continuing to be in contact. Such claims raise important questions as to why these beliefs and claims are so pervasive, and the appropriate responses of academics.
Introduction
Since the mid-1970s, I have been tracking social trends in Canada through a series of well-known national surveys known as the “Project Canada Series” (PCS). The surveys have been carried out every five years from 1975 through 2005. No survey was conducted in 2010, but a new complementary national survey involving some 3,000 Canadians was completed in March of 2015 in association with prominent Canadian pollster and sociologist Angus Reid.
One of the topics that I have pursued is life after death. The trend data show that, despite a significant decline in regular religious service attendance over time, interest in the topic of what happens when we die has remained fairly constant, as has actual belief in life after death. Similar patterns of stability of interest and belief have been noted elsewhere, including the United States (see, for example, Harley and Firebaugh, 1993; Gallup, 2015).
Yet, in Canada at least, there has been very little research into beliefs and behaviour about life after death, beyond some of my own broad explorations of beliefs concerning topics like communication with the dead and contact with the spirit world (Bibby, 2011: 170ff.).
In early 2014, I had the opportunity to explore in more detail the extent to which Canadians, Americans, and the British hold a number of beliefs concerning what happens after death, including beliefs about the interaction they think they have been having with people who have died. Through the generosity of the research arm of a prominent global research and software development company, I was able to include a number of items in three omnibus online surveys that were conducted in March in the United States, Britain, and Canada. The three samples included more than 4,000 people who were part of panels in the three settings, comprised of 1,013 people in Canada, 1,018 in the US, and 2,010 individuals in Britain. The latter included England (1,888), Scotland (176), and Wales (106).
The samples, with appropriate weighting, were highly representative of the populations in the three settings. The results provide invaluable data concerning the pervasiveness of beliefs about life after death – and much more.
Belief in Life after Death
Raising of the Question
Data from an array of global sources, including the World Values Survey, Gallup, and the Pew Research Center, along with my own trend surveys in Canada, show that interest in the question of life after death persists pretty much everywhere. The age-old question posed by the writer of the book of Job (14:14) continues to be asked: “If a man dies, shall he live again?”
In Canada, for example, a new national survey of 3,041 people that I carried out with Angus Reid in mid-March of 2015 found 74% of Canadians reporting that they “often” or “sometimes” think about what happens after death. Another 17% no longer are raising the question, and just 9% say that they “never have” asked it. These figures are virtually the same as those for the same item forty years ago in 1975.
The persistence of the life after death question is not in doubt.
Raising of the Life After Death Question: Canada, 1975 and 2015 (%).
Answers to the Question
We asked survey participants in the US, Canada, and Britain, “Do you believe that there is life after death?” using the three response options of “Yes,” “Uncertain,” and “No.” We found the belief levels to vary considerably from a high of 66% among Americans, to about 50% for Canadians, to a low of 35% in the case of the British. In all three settings, the second most common response was “uncertain.” Only about 1 in 10 Americans, 2 in 10 Canadians, and 3 in 10 Britons are inclined to rule out the possibility of life after death altogether.
I am trying to track down good comparable trend data in all three settings – ideally items that include “uncertain” or “unsure.” But the available data suggest that, since survey tracking began around 1940, decreases in belief have occurred. The declines seem to have plateaued in the US and Canada in the mid-1970s. In Britain, people are now almost evenly divided between believing, not believing, and being uncertain.
That said, clearly large numbers in all three places have not given up on the possibility that there is life after death.
Seeing People Again
Over the years, I often have had a sense that many people who attend funerals don’t really think “this is it” – be they religious or not. The question was put to our survey participants.
Close to 60% of Americans say they “definitely” or “possibly” will see people again who have died. The levels for Canada and Britain are about 40% and 30% respectively. In all three settings, some 30% say they don’t know.
Obviously there is no concrete empirical evidence to support such expectations. And about 1 in 2 people in Britain, 1 in 3 in Canada, and 1 in 5 in the US don’t have them. Nonetheless, somewhat remarkably, in the case of the two North American countries in particular, such people are in the numerical minority.
Belief in Life after Death, 2014 vs. Earlier: United States, Canada, and Britain (%).
Sources: Earlier years: Canada 1945 and 1960: Gallup (1975); Bibby, 1975 Project Canada National Survey; US: Gallup; Britain 1939 and 1961: Gallup (1975); Brown (2006: 29).
Britain: Brown (2006: 29); 1939–1961: Gallup (2015).
Canada: Gallup (2015); Bibby PC (1975).
Believe Will See People Again Who Have Died: United States, Canada, and Britain (%).
Source: Angus Reid Omnibus Surveys, the United States, Canada, and Britain: March 2014.
Belief in Contact with the Deceased: Canada, United States, and Britain (%).
Source: Angus Reid Omnibus Surveys, the United States, Canada, and Britain: March 2014.
Contact with Those who have Died
Statements that people make about individuals who have died are frequently characterized by a tendency to speak as if the deceased are aware of what’s taking place. Such comments are common at funerals, but also at family events and times of celebration, where the deceased are presumed to be “proud” or “happy” or “concerned” or “humoured.”
Primary Reponses to the Idea of Death: United States, Canada, and Britain (%).
Source: Angus Reid Omnibus Surveys, the United States, Canada, and Britain: March 2014.
Such an impression was put to our survey participants, by way of exploring the extent to which people think that interaction continues to take place between those who are alive and people who have died. They were asked three questions: Do you think that people who have died could be aware of what is taking place in our lives? Do you think it’s possible to communicate with people who are no longer alive? Have you ever felt that you were in touch with someone who has died?
The extent to which people in Canada, the United States, and Britain offered affirmative responses to each item exceeded anything that was expected. More than 6 in 10 Americans and some 5 in 10 Canadians and British residents said they “definitely do” believe or “think” that the deceased are aware of what is going on in our lives. But people are not just playing a passive role in all this. Some 5 in 10 Americans and 4 in 10 Britons maintain that it is possible to communicate with the dead. Of considerable importance, many are speaking from experience: no less than 44% of Americans, 37% of Canadians, and 33% of people in Britain feel that they themselves have been “in touch with someone who has died.” Each of those three levels of “have been in touch” are up by about 25% compared with what they were in 1980 (Bibby, 2011: 182). I underline “up” not down.
These hefty numbers are coming from a lot of seemingly average people who we see and talk to every day. Contrary to common stereotypes, they are hardly an eccentric minority.
What Will Happen to You After You Die? (%).
Beliefs about Death by Service Attendance: United States, Canada, and Britain (%).
Source: Angus Reid Omnibus Surveys, the United States, Canada, and Britain: March 2014.
Responses to Death
Emotionally
In surveys dating back to 1975, we have asked Canadians, “What would you say is your primary response to the idea of death?” The response options provided have been “Fear,” “Sorrow,” “Mystery,” “Hope,” and “No particular feeling.” In that first, mid-70s survey, both mystery and no particular feeling were cited by 24% each, while both sorrow and fear were selected by 18% each; the remaining 16% said their primary response to death was hope. In our 2014 survey, those levels were virtually the same for Canadians – despite the fact that religious involvement had dropped significantly in the four decades between the two surveys. What stands out in the case of Americans is the greater inclination to cite hope. People from Britain are somewhat more likely than North Americans to mention no particular feeling, sorrow, or fear.
What’s Going to Happen
The survey participants were further asked bluntly, “What do you think will happen to you after you die?” Here the response differences between the three settings are striking. Americans – by a wide margin – believe that they “will go to heaven or another good place.” While 1 in 3 Canadians and 1 in 3 British are equally likely to say they “really don’t know,” those living in Britain are much more inclined than others – 1 in 3, in fact – to indicate that they “will simply stop existing.” Smaller numbers in all three settings say they “will be reincarnated” or “will go somewhere else.”
Variations in Beliefs and Responses
As we have seen, there are striking differences between the three settings in a number of instances. The general pattern is that Americans – followed by Canadians – are more likely than the British (1) to maintain that they will see people again who have died, (2) to claim to be interacting with them, (3) to respond to death with hope, and (4) to believe they will go to heaven or another good place when they die. These results point to obvious differences in religious commitment. Still, while relatively lower, the British belief levels are noteworthy. In the words of Grace Davie (1994: 76), “Christian nominalism remains a more prevalent phenomenon than secularism.”
Knowing that Americans are more religiously active than Canadians, and Canadians in turn more involved than the British, we would expect those differences in “religiosity” in large part to account for differences in ideas about death.
In addition, we also know that the groups with which Americans are most involved tend to be heavily evangelical, in contrast to those in Canada and Britain. Some 1 in 3 Americans identify with evangelical or “Conservative Protestant” groups, compared with just 1 in 10 Canadians and perhaps 1 in 25 people who are British. Given that the evangelicals give a fair amount of attention to “the afterlife,” we would expect that to be a factor that helps to account for differences between the three settings, although controlling for attendance.
While a detailed analysis of such variations is beyond the scope of this short paper, a preliminary peek at beliefs relating to life after death as measured by religious service attendance is consistent with such hypotheses. In all three cases, people who are active attenders are more likely to endorse positive views about the life-after issues we have posed. But American levels typically exceed those of people in Canada and Britain. And Canada’s levels tend to exceed those of the British.
Discussion
These findings document the fact that the reality of death is very much on the minds of individuals in settings like the US, Canada, and Britain. What’s intriguing is the extent to which people haven’t given up on the possibility that life continues after death. What’s startling is the extent to which they believe that people who have died are continuing to follow what is taking place in their lives and – even more startling – continuing to be in contact. Surprising though these findings may be, they are not unique either to current times or to these three settings. One observer of such phenomena reminds us that “people in nearly every culture have long believed that communication with the dead is possible, and throughout the ages many people have claimed to be able to speak with the dearly departed” (Radford, 2010a).
So what does it all mean?
The various academic interpretations of the findings are, I think, fairly predictable. They can be expected to fall into three main categories.
The first is
Apart from religious beliefs, mass media and social media inform people about individuals who, as mediums and channelers – and even average people – allegedly are able to communicate with the dead. Programs such as Medium, The Dead Files, and Long Island Medium, along with films like Ghost (1990), Sixth Sense (1999), and Clint Eastwood’s Hereafter (2010), function to instill beliefs about our ability to relate to people who are no longer with us.
In short, according to this perspective, the prevalence of beliefs and experiential claims surrounding death are due in large part to social sources.
A second explanation of the findings takes the form of
Typically, many experts have viewed such “interaction” as an unhealthy stage in the grieving process that eventually needs to be abandoned (Wortman, 2015). One classic expression of such a view, of course, is that of Freud (1957), who argued that immortality is “the universal wish of mankind,” which, unfortunately, is an illusion. Similarly, Marx – as we all know – saw religion more generally as a response to disadvantage and deprivation. People believe these things because they need to. But a better way is to confront reality.
A third response is one that I would maintain needs to be included, and that’s what we might call an
For example, in the case of claims of contact with people who have died, researchers would presumably begin by obtaining details about the claims that people are making, and – like the good empirical detective – proceed to gather information on the context and circumstances surrounding the claims. That would include being on the lookout for any possible corroborative information from others who may have “witnessed” or can speak to what the claimant allegedly has experienced. In short, an empirical response involves taking the claim seriously, and proceeding to clarify what took place with the help of any others who were present. Such clear descriptive data would make it possible to move to the second stage of explanation.
Such an inductive approach may well lead an observer to conclude that a learning and/or a clinical interpretation can provide sound and satisfactory explanations for what is taking place.
However, one also may find that the evidence calls for further explorations. That possibility would be expected to arise with some frequency, given that claims related to life after death are so extensive, and involve a wide range of people and circumstances.
We all know that when one person says something is happening, we may or may not take it seriously. When five people say it’s happening, we find the claim a bit more credible. When one hundred say it’s happening, it’s hard to ignore. And if several thousand people say it’s happening, well, the claim warrants a serious look. Such is the case these days with respect to many claims surrounding death.
Currently, the questions of life after death and interaction with people who have died are largely ignored or explained away by many people, including – I think it’s safe to say – most academics and health field professionals. Even religious groups often have little to offer in response to the widespread fascination and urgency for answers surrounding life after death – let alone questions about interaction with those who have died. In his book Life after Death, respected religion writer Tom Harpur (1991: 15) has written that “while more people than ever are concerned about dying and what may lie beyond, fewer and fewer turn to traditional religion to find the answers they seek.” Many churches have little to say, he maintains, or “avoid the topic completely.”
The sizable “market” for meaning and explanations continues to be left largely to channelers and charlatans, with the predictable result that claims are trivialized and claimants stigmatized. There is an incredible lack of credible entries. Similarly, virtually by default, research is left to the self-appointed and self-credentialed, with popular mass market books like Hello from Heaven! (Guggenheim and Guggenheim, 1997) standing virtually alone in providing data and interpretations of so-called “after death communication.”
As a result, most people remain largely in the dark when it comes to questions and experiences relating to life after death.
Obviously, clear-cut answers to all this are extremely elusive. As Harpur (1991: 16) puts it, this is not an area where categorical finality of thought will ever be possible. “Nevertheless,” he reminds us, “there is an extraordinary need for some clear thinking and analysis.”
The starting point would seem to be far more open discussions about what people are claiming. It also would be helpful to have more exploratory research carried out into what these beliefs and experiential claims are all about.
More than fifty years ago, American sociologist Glenn Vernon (1962: 123) wrote that private concerns about death are extensive, but the topic was largely taboo. “Discussions about death,” he wrote, “are in somewhat the same category as were discussions about sex several generations ago.” Today, the topic is far too important to be treated as taboo, and the claims far too common to be ignored. It’s time for academics to take a closer look.
Two highly respected sociologists – one from the past, one from the present – have maintained that religion finds a special explanatory niche, precisely because there are some questions, led by life after death, which science cannot address. Renowned American sociologist Rodney Stark sees the death issue as one of life’s primary questions “that only the gods can answer.” Similarly, Emile Durkheim (1965: 479) conceded that the capacity of religion to address some questions in advance of science not only provided it with a role alongside science, but also guaranteed its existence into the distant future. “Science is fragmentary and incomplete,” he wrote; “it advances but slowly and is never finished; but life cannot wait. The theories which are destined to make men live and act are therefore obliged to pass science and complete it prematurely.”
But, ironically, in acknowledging religion’s distinct role, Stark and Durkheim may have underestimated the ability of science to address some important questions about both life after death and claims that people are interacting with people who have died.
In this unprecedented age of information, when the explosion of information and technologies for obtaining more and more information appear to have no limits, the death question needs to be revisited.
What is within the grasp of scientists is the ability to gather good and detailed descriptive data concerning contact with people who have died. What obviously are far more elusive are creative research designs that make it possible to build on those claims to further examine the nature and empirical legitimacy of what people are saying. Still, good science nonetheless starts with sound description and then proceeds to explore explanations that can account for the descriptive data. That’s all that is being called for in the case of these widespread claims about interaction with people who have died. Such scientific procedures may lead to a debunking of many claims; then again, maybe not.
When it comes to life after death, it is not at all clear that science – due to its empirical methodological limits – has very much to say. It also is not at all clear that science will ever have very much to say.
But that does not mean that science shouldn’t try.
Footnotes
Author’s Note
This is a revision of a paper presented at the annual meeting of the Pacific Sociological Association, Long Beach, April 2015.
Acknowledgments
I wish to express my deep appreciation to Angus Reid and Andrew Grenville for the assistance they provided in producing much of the data used in this paper.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.