How did the idea of an afterlife originate?

[b33fj3rky]

Many, many disparate cultures throughout history have had some idea of an afterlife; each person having an immortal soul which "moves on" after death.

Where did this idea come from?

Why would it ever occur to people that ANYTHING happens to us after death, or that there's some non-physical part of us?

* * *

My own personal theory involves sleep--sleep is similar enough to death that the word "sleep" is used even by Jesus as a metaphor for death. I can see primitive folks believing that, when they are dreaming, their minds are actually fleeing their bodies, and traveling to a different world. In death, their minds permanently travel to that "other world."

* * *

Anybody with an anthropology background have any input on this?

 

[stamenflicker]

The best book I ever read on this was "Origins of the Sacred" by Dudley Young. He basically traces the development of the sacred from chimp-life through today... this is one of my MUST HAVE books, I can't say enough about it, even I didn't particularly agree with it.

His theory is too long for me to spell out here, plus its been a few years since I re-read the book (I've read it maybe four times).

Basically though, he reasons that in intelligent beings who reproduce for pleasure (not just because they are in heat) allow the ability for the body to produce nostalgic feelings... ie. man and woman lay together, triggers the memory of laying in mother's arms. Once an animal is capable of nostalgia, it has feelings associated with death or absence of what produces the source of those feelings. As that portion of the chimp brain developed into the early human brain over the 6,000 years (HAHA-- joke) it enabled people to develop memories of the dead, which in a sense allows them to live on.

Also developing during this time is the recognition that death brings life... i.e. I kill and I eat; or I kill and I live. This life from death motif is sort of hardwired in and gave rise to the rituals revolving around sacrifice, and later to burial.

Gross simplification, my apologies to Dr. Young. It is a great book though.

Flick

 

[b33fj3rky]

Thanks! I'd never heard of it; I want to read it now.

 

[Beerina]

The best book I ever read on this was "Origins of the Sacred" by Dudley Young. He basically traces the development of the sacred from chimp-life through today... this is one of my MUST HAVE books, I can't say enough about it, even I didn't particularly agree with it.

His theory is too long for me to spell out here, plus its been a few years since I re-read the book (I've read it maybe four times).

Basically though, he reasons that in intelligent beings who reproduce for pleasure (not just because they are in heat) allow the ability for the body to produce nostalgic feelings... ie. man and woman lay together, triggers the memory of laying in mother's arms. Once an animal is capable of nostalgia, it has feelings associated with death or absence of what produces the source of those feelings. As that portion of the chimp brain developed into the early human brain over the 6,000 years (HAHA-- joke) it enabled people to develop memories of the dead, which in a sense allows them to live on.

Also developing during this time is the recognition that death brings life... i.e. I kill and I eat; or I kill and I live. This life from death motif is sort of hardwired in and gave rise to the rituals revolving around sacrifice, and later to burial.

Gross simplification, my apologies to Dr. Young. It is a great book though.

Flick

Either that, or they just don't wanna die so they whipped something up!

 

[Bikewer]

I think it stems from Animism. Essentially all primitive cultures have had some sort of animistic belief system, which is quite logical for primitive man. The idea that some sort of "spirit" animates the living being would have been reinforced by witnessing death by natural causes. Easy enough to figure that trauma would cause death, that was a daily experience. But when granny or gramps just didn't wake up one morning in the cave, it would have been apparent that whatever spirit "animated" her was now gone.

Since other spirits were around and doing things invisibly (the nature of animism), it would have been logical to figure that granny's spirit would have joined them in some way. From there, imagination takes over.

 

[ceo_esq]

I have in mind Maritain's quotation of a poignant passage from the biophysicist Lecomte du Noüy:

Primitive men did not philosophize; but, for all that, they had their own way, an instinctive, non-conceptual way, of believing in the soul's immortality. It was a belief rooted in an obscure experience of the self, and in the natural aspirations of the spirit in us to overcome death. We need not embark on an analysis of this natural and instinctive, non-philosophical belief in immortality. I should like merely to quote a passage from a book by the late scientist Pierre Lecomte du Noüy. Speaking of prehistoric man, he said: "Not only did the Neanderthal Man, who lived in Paleolithic times, bury his dead, but sometimes he buried them in a common ground. An example of this is the Grotte des Enfants near Mentone. Because of this respect he had for his dead, we have reached an anatomical knowledge of the Neanderthal Man that is more perfect than that which we have of certain races which have recently become extinct, or which still exist, such as the Tasmanians. This is no longer a question of instinct. We are dealing already with the dawn of human thought, which reveals itself in a kind of revolt against death. And revolt against death implies love for those who have gone as well as the hope that their disappearance is not final. We see these ideas, the first perhaps, develop progressively alongside the first artistic feelings. Flat rocks in the shape of dolmens are placed so as to protect the faces and heads of those who are buried. Later, ornaments, weapons, food, and the colors which serve to adorn the body, are placed in the tombs. The idea of finality is unbearable. The dead man will awaken, he will be hungry, he will have to defend himself, he will want to adorn himself."

 

[Iacchus]

Many, many disparate cultures throughout history have had some idea of an afterlife; each person having an immortal soul which "moves on" after death.

Where did this idea come from?

Swedenborg?

 

[Kotatsu]

Swedenborg?

Who then projected this idea backwards in time several thousand years?

 

[Iacchus]

Who then projected this idea backwards in time several thousand years?

Some of the angels that Swedenborg spoke to?

 

[ChristineR]

If you can get your hands on a December 2005 issue of The Atlantic there is a long article called "Is God an Accident?" that argues that it is a quirk of our brain development, that what we call our "soul" or "mind" is governed by a largely separate part of the brain. We don't accept that our "mind" is related to our "brain."

 

[kedo1981]

Dreams

 

[Meadmaker]

Anybody with an anthropology background have any input on this?

Ceremonial burials with household objects data back long before recorded history. This is generally accepted as belief in an afterlife. You won't find any "origins" of ths belief. It seems to have been in place as long as humans.

 

[Kotatsu]

Some of the angels that Swedenborg spoke to?

They went backwards in time to tell people in ancient eras about the afterlife? And these people then, supposedly, spread the idea down through the subsequent generations up until Swedenborg came around again?

That seems to be quite roundabout.

 

[Iacchus]

They went backwards in time to tell people in ancient eras about the afterlife? And these people then, supposedly, spread the idea down through the subsequent generations up until Swedenborg came around again?

That seems to be quite roundabout.

Well, who came up with the idea of the Big Bang? Does that mean the Big Bang didn't happen until someone came up with the idea? Which, is my whole point. If someone can affirm that the afterlife does exist, then it isn't simply a matter of coming up with the idea about it is it?

 

[Kotatsu]

Well, who came up with the idea of the Big Bang?

I have absolutely no idea. Is it pertinent enough that I will want to look it up?

Does that mean the Big Bang didn't happen until someone came up with the idea? Which, is my whole point.?

It may very well be a good point if used in a context where it is applicable as the parallel (or whatever) you intended it to be. However, people before Swedenborg certianly believed there was such a thing as an afterlife. Why rob them of the originality of that belief and pin the glory on Swedenborg alone?

If someone can affirm that the afterlife does exist, then it isn't simply a matter of coming up with the idea about it is it?

Until that happens, however, maybe you could clear up the issue at hand. B33fj3erky asks where the idea of the afterlife came from, and you say it comes from Swedenborg. That would necessarily mean that the idea was subsequently transferred backwards in time, as people in previous ages have also had this idea, allegedly by angels. Is this not a quite roundabout way of doing things?

 

[Iacchus]

It may very well be a good point if used in a context where it is applicable as the parallel (or whatever) you intended it to be. However, people before Swedenborg certianly believed there was such a thing as an afterlife. Why rob them of the originality of that belief and pin the glory on Swedenborg alone?

No, I'm not suggesting that Swedenborg came up with the idea, just that he had the means to confirm it which, is more important in my opinion. In which case it's not relegated to just an idea.

 

[Kotatsu]

No, I'm not suggesting that Swedenborg came up with the idea, just that he had the means to confirm it which, is more important in my opinion. In which case it's not relegated to just an idea.

Then I seem to have entirely misunderstood your posts, for which I apologise. I took your first post to mean that you suggested that Swedenborg was the person from whom the idea of the afterlife stemmed. I thus withdraw all my objections, but thank you for giving me a reason to approach more closely the magical 50-posts-line.

 

[LW]

Essentially all primitive cultures have had some sort of animistic belief system, which is quite logical for primitive man. The idea that some sort of "spirit" animates the living being would have been reinforced by witnessing death by natural causes.

It is quite common that so-called "primitive" men actually have quite complex beliefs about the nature of man.

For example, among the Finno-Ugrig tribes of Northern Russia a person is composed of:

• body;
• breath. This is the thing that separates a living thing from a non-living.
  It is often confused with "spirit" but strictly speaking those two are different concepts;
• soul. This is the personality. Diseases are thought to occur when the soul of a person gets trapped in the underworld and then it is the job of a shaman to retrieve it back to the body; and
• shadow. Shadow is the place where a man's spirit lives. Spirit is a separate but connected entity that guards a man from supernatural threats. During day time the shadow has to stay with the person all times but at night it is free to roam around. One thing that characterizes shamans is that they hold a conscious command over their spirit and can see what it sees and also use its powers to do magic.

This basic view of the nature of a person was held by also by ancient Finns (or rather, the people whose descendants became Finns) but connections with Germanic tribes and finally the coming of Christianity eroded it away so that nowadays there's only a couple of old forms of speech that carry on remnants of it. For example, one Finnish expression for dying is "breath left him (or her)".

 

[Iacchus]

Then I seem to have entirely misunderstood your posts ...

That wouldn't be the first time. I'm more like the joker in the deck around here, and it's good to keep em' guessing.

... for which I apologise.

No problem.

I took your first post to mean that you suggested that Swedenborg was the person from whom the idea of the afterlife stemmed. I thus withdraw all my objections, but thank you for giving me a reason to approach more closely the magical 50-posts-line.

I think the problem is that people don't realize how entrenched they are in their views, and it comes accross when they try to pass off something like this as merely an idea. Which, of course helps confirm their notions that God is the creation of man, as opposed to the other way around.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Where did this idea come from?

People are completely unable to comprehend death. We've never been dead, we can't imagine what it would be like, therefore we have a hard time believing in it. Before we became intelligent, that wasn't an issue, we didn't have the ability to deduce that we would someday die. Once we saw grampa die and realized that we would die, it was like trying to think of a one sided wall, we just assumed there had to be something on the other side.