I am all for the process of rigorous scientific proof, but harsh criticism of Mr. Chopra’s article seems out of whack considering he doesn’t claim to provide scientific proof of EVERYONE’S definition of an afterlife. If one has a strict definition of the phrase “eternity of life” it only seems fair that it should be outlined when criticizing this article; instead of just dismissing anyone or any point of view that does not adhere to one’s definition with ad hominem attacks.
I read this article as simply suggesting in a very easy going way that if we don’t limit our definition of what life is to the ego, then a universe imbued with life has life which is just as eternal as the universe itself. This is a simple observation, admittedly based upon the premise that the universe is indeed imbued with life. One may not agree with that premise, but then there are plenty of very rigorous scientists who do; and so therefore, ad hominem attacks on this point of view would seem crass to me.