Moments when faith can seem more reasonable than reason

[smartcooky]

There is no possible way you can "know" that, certainly not "beyond a doubt".

Science has no place commenting on the metaphysical. It's not a proper subject for science.

"Science" wasn't commenting on the metaphysical, the OP was commenting on his personal experience.

This is all we need, more bloody woo peddling? Don''t insult the intelligence of people here by posting your inappropriate crap.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

"Science" wasn't commenting on the metaphysical, the OP was commenting on his personal experience.

This is all we need, more bloody woo peddling? Don''t insult the intelligence of people here by posting your inappropriate crap.

It is entirely appropriate to point out that there is so possible way to "know beyond doubt" that an afterlife does not exist. It is not scientifically testable. Therefore the OP still has room and reason to hope, which should be encouraged.

 

[Dr. Keith]

simonxlong: Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. Please accept my sincere condolences on the loss of your wife.

I can't imagine the pain of losing your spouse but can see the comfort that would come from having dreams of your spouse. Just reading your post has had an impact on my emotions, the depths you must have ventured to are not even in my understanding. I'm glad to hear that your brain is working hard to help you out. That is very hopeful.

 

[smartcooky]

Moved my post to here so as not to disrupt or infect this thread with religious woo

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12077353&postcount=1

 

[simonxlong]

It is entirely appropriate to point out that there is so possible way to "know beyond doubt" that an afterlife does not exist. It is not scientifically testable. Therefore the OP still has room and reason to hope, which should be encouraged.

I wasn't saying that I knew beyond a doubt that the afterlife doesn't exist. What I was referring to is that I knew it was a dream and nothing more. It doesn't matter how badly I wanted it to be more at the moment, it wasn't.

 

[jenski]

Sorry to hear of your loss.
You might consider attending a spiritualist church service, and if you go regularly for a period of time you might find you will get evidential messages from your wife.

Unless she's already reincarnated.

 

[ShamelessGit]

Faith is life

It is impossible to derive any ought statement from a purely rational or material basis. This follows pretty clearly from the is-ought logical fallacy. But what is a living creature, if not a sum of value judgement? If you didn't believe that there were things that you ought to do, then you would allow yourself to die in apathy. So life is impossible for a thinking organism without faith. Even if you are an atheist, you have faith in the value of your sensory perceptions, such as pain and pleasure. Therefore, from a strictly logical perspective, the only two options are nihilism (it is not possible to prove any kind of morality or purpose), or a worldview built on rationally unjustifiable faith in a set of values. There is no other logically consistent alternative. Unfortunately, most people don't think it through. The atheists and skeptics still argue that such a thing as morality exists, and the theists try to prove their faith by reason. Both are wrong.

 

[bluesjnr]

Unless she's already reincarnated.

Steady on.

 

[smartcooky]

It is impossible to derive any ought statement from a purely rational or material basis. This follows pretty clearly from the is-ought logical fallacy. But what is a living creature, if not a sum of value judgement? If you didn't believe that there were things that you ought to do, then you would allow yourself to die in apathy. So life is impossible for a thinking organism without faith. Even if you are an atheist, you have faith in the value of your sensory perceptions, such as pain and pleasure. Therefore, from a strictly logical perspective, the only two options are nihilism (it is not possible to prove any kind of morality or purpose), or a worldview built on rationally unjustifiable faith in a set of values. There is no other logically consistent alternative. Unfortunately, most people don't think it through. The atheists and skeptics still argue that such a thing as morality exists, and the theists try to prove their faith by reason. Both are wrong.

Word Salad or Gobbledeygook.... its one of them but I can't work out which.

 

[MikeG]

It is impossible to derive any ought statement from a purely rational or material basis. This follows pretty clearly from the is-ought logical fallacy. But what is a living creature, if not a sum of value judgement? If you didn't believe that there were things that you ought to do, then you would allow yourself to die in apathy. So life is impossible for a thinking organism without faith. Even if you are an atheist, you have faith in the value of your sensory perceptions, such as pain and pleasure. Therefore, from a strictly logical perspective, the only two options are nihilism (it is not possible to prove any kind of morality or purpose), or a worldview built on rationally unjustifiable faith in a set of values. There is no other logically consistent alternative. Unfortunately, most people don't think it through. The atheists and skeptics still argue that such a thing as morality exists, and the theists try to prove their faith by reason. Both are wrong.

Someone go through this drivel line-by-line, please. We've seen it so many times before that I just can't summon up the enthusiasm.

Actually, on second thoughts..........it's miles off topic, and utterly inappropriate in this thread. Let's not feed the attention seeker any attention here.

 

[Peregrinus]

It is entirely appropriate to point out that there is so possible way to "know beyond doubt" that an afterlife does not exist. It is not scientifically testable. Therefore the OP still has room and reason to hope, which should be encouraged.

Pascal's Wager for Masochists, eh?

 

[Dr. Keith]

It is impossible to derive any ought statement from a purely rational or material basis. This follows pretty clearly from the is-ought logical fallacy. But what is a living creature, if not a sum of value judgement? If you didn't believe that there were things that you ought to do, then you would allow yourself to die in apathy. So life is impossible for a thinking organism without faith. Even if you are an atheist, you have faith in the value of your sensory perceptions, such as pain and pleasure. Therefore, from a strictly logical perspective, the only two options are nihilism (it is not possible to prove any kind of morality or purpose), or a worldview built on rationally unjustifiable faith in a set of values. There is no other logically consistent alternative. Unfortunately, most people don't think it through. The atheists and skeptics still argue that such a thing as morality exists, and the theists try to prove their faith by reason. Both are wrong.

User name checks out.

 

[Thermal]

simonxlong, please accept my condolences. I cannot imagine the depth of your loss.

Regarding your experience: I tend to cut mystic-enthusiasts a lot of slack for their beliefs. That feeling you describe can be so powerful that it can consume you (I've had different experiences but with similar feelings). Not all of those people are stupid or charlatans. For a lot of woosters, those feelings are the most real thing in the world to them.

 

[Peregrinus]

There is no possible way you can "know" that, certainly not "beyond a doubt".

Science has no place commenting on the metaphysical. It's not a proper subject for science.

We are not talking about science here but about a deeply personal moment shared with us by a thoughtful person. There is no possible way you can know what he does not know. And his offering of his own thoughts on the matter cannot be discounted merely because they do not seem to reflect your own.

 

[Peregrinus]

On this forum they keep talking to me about evidence, but you say you don't believe in an afterlife. I would ask you what evidence you have for that view.

Despite the deeply personal nature of Simon's experience and his discussion of it, evidence is not part of the matter. In judging a matter, any applicable evidence would be the same regardless of the person viewing/considering it. None of us, however interested, talented or determined, can enter Simon's life & his events much less his evaluations of them. Simon described the event and his feelings about it. Respect the man's feeling for what they are and quit trying to put inappropriate science or even problematic spirituality on it.

 

[Resume]

Condolences to simonxlong.

 

[Thor 2]

It is entirely appropriate to point out that there is so possible way to "know beyond doubt" that an afterlife does not exist. It is not scientifically testable. Therefore the OP still has room and reason to hope, which should be encouraged.

What we know is that no evidence of non physical life has been found. What we know is if the physical brain of a person is damaged, the ability of the brain to function is compromised. The conclusion that conscious life cannot exist outside a physical brain is a logical next step.

The OP can gain encouragement from knowing, with significant certainty, his partner is not writhing in agony in some place of eternal punishment, where Christians would most likely put her.

 

[Sparhafoc]

On this forum they keep talking to me about evidence, but you say you don't believe in an afterlife. I would ask you what evidence you have for that view.

How do you expect evidence for someone not believing?

It's this easy - do you believe in Thor? No? Then give me evidence for that view.

See? Not believing something is based on there NOT being evidence for it.

So when someone proposes that X quantity is real, the onus is wholly on them to establish it by furnishing evidence, and for the sane of mind, it is more than rigorous to not accept such a claim until evidence is provided.

However, when it comes to after-deaths, there are a host of problems, from the way the universe works, down to the fact that humans only really seem to 'see' human ghosts, but somehow there aren't squillions of ant ghosts viewed daily.

We know human psychology produces illusions, but we assuredly do not know how magically mini-me's can survive death.

If there is a spirit world then your wife is in a beautiful realm beyond your imagining, and she no longer has any pain. Don't you think that she would be bursting with the desire to tell you this, but if you don't go to a spiritualist church you will not give her the opportunity to do so.

If there was such a place and people lived after they died, and there was a way in which they could communicate with the living... why would they need a bunch of snake-oil salesmen to facilitate that?

Spiritualist churches do not charge fees they send round a voluntary collection plate. If you go for a few weeks you might get an evidential message.

You misunderstand the concept of evidence, and your sentence is talking out of both sides of your mouth - a 'voluntary collection plate' is a fee.

Why not take the chance.

The chance of what? The illegible set of assertions underpinning your belief?

 

[Kumar]

My wife died of cervical cancer at the end of August after fighting it for three years, and it’s been rough. Last night, I woke up in bed and knew someone was there in the room with me. I sat up and my wife was standing there in the middle of the room looking at me and smiling. I was seeing ghost, but for just a few moments, an overwhelming feeling of peace and contentment hit me. Suddenly, everything was okay in the world again. Then I came fully awake, the room was dark, and no one was there. It was one of those dreams you have when you’re neither awake nor asleep, but somewhere in between.

Nonetheless, the experience was perhaps one of the most powerful emotional occurrences I’ve ever had. Months of restless sleep and nightmares have taken their toll, and this was the first time I’ve really felt okay in a while, even if it only lasted a few moments. It felt so real, and the idea that my wife was communicating from the other side, so to speak, to tell me she was okay felt very compelling. Of course, it was just a dream and I know that beyond a doubt, but for a little while I just let myself believe. I understand now, in a way I couldn’t before, why someone is willing to sacrifice reason for faith. At this time, believing she is waiting in the afterlife is appealing, even if irrational.

Sorry if this is so analytical. It’s the only way I could bring myself to write it.

Sorry for the loss. I condole. Wife was wife. Nearest to you. Since recent & most emotional, relevant dreams can also be felt as more realistic. Some Biochemical imbalance may also be a probable reason as indicated in one system. I tried that and that discontinue such dreams. Do not know about supernatural-possibility so can not comment on it on either side.

 

[simonxlong]

I would just like to say thank you to everyone for their support.