Why dualism?

[Minoosh]

I wonder if anyone here has researched how man developed into a creature that believes in an afterlife, that feels it has a "soul" apart from its body. I suggest dualism came about because of a need to believe in an afterlife, which reveals a fear of the end of one's own existence. Animals have survival instincts; they pine; they grieve. But do they actually fear death? Is it an accident that humans developed rituals and taboos around the subject, or did* it serve some adaptive purpose? Did shamanistic con men use it to increase their own power and importance?

It seems to be almost a defining factor in the development of modern man. This isn't even just about religion - many us intuitively separate body and mind. Language reinforces the idea of separation, with concepts such as "willpower" and "mind over matter."

Why did humans develop this way?

 

[Loss Leader]

Is it an accident that humans developed rituals and taboos around the subject, or did* it serve some adaptive purpose?

I think it was an accident that served an adaptive purpose. We know that many animals older than humans can recognize death and even mourn (elephants, lemurs, etc.). As large as it is, the prefrontal cortex of the human gives us a far greater degree of concept manipulation and planning.

I suspect that rituals and beliefs in an immaterial world for the soul developed to help people deal with death and loss. Otherwise, we'd all just sit in the rain, watching the campfire go out and saying, "None of this matters. We're all going to die anyway."

The last thing proto-humans needed was an existential crisis.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The last thing proto-humans needed was an existential crisis.

It ain't exactly high on the list of things modern humans need either.

 

[theprestige]

We know that many animals older than humans can recognize death and even mourn (elephants, lemurs, etc.).

We do? Mourning is a subjective experience. The only reason we hold it in common with other humans because we have a common language with which to share our experiences. What common language do we share with elephants, which gives us confidence that their outward behavior indicates the subjective experience we collectively term "mourning"?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Because it's illogical the think that the human concept of "mourning" exists fully and wholly in humans but doesn't exist, perhaps in simpler and less complex forms to account for less neurological complexity, in other social animals.

The idea that the lack of a shared language prevents us from making reasonable hypothesis about the neurological, which includes emotional, state of other animals is not true.

Again as with anything and everything all we're gonna do is split hairs and argue semantics and categorization and throw dictionary definitions around but if humans mourn other animals mourn. There's nothing unique about the human neurological condition.

 

[Minoosh]

Otherwise, we'd all just sit in the rain, watching the campfire go out and saying, "None of this matters. We're all going to die anyway."

See, that's the kind of cavewoman I'd probably be. Useless.

 

[Magrat]

I read somewhere, and I can't remember where exactly, that the idea most likely sprang from the experience of watching someone die. I don't know if you have ever done so. I worked as a nurses' aide for several years and sat by dying patient's bedsides.

If you can picture this analogy, death (a peaceful death) is like a house being shut down. You can see the "person" exiting the body.

So, you and I might know this is neurons ceasing to fire etc... But without any scientific knowledge, it looks like something left. There's "nobody home" anymore.

It isn't a great leap to witness a body shut down, "see" the person "leave" the body, and then wonder where the "spirit" went.

The idea of afterlife varies substantially by culture, and people tend to build god(s) in their own image...and heaven in the image of their wishes. Desert cultures tended to envision a land "flowing in milk and honey", in other words, fertile and irrigated. Jungle cultures pictured an afterlife without the dangers of the jungle. Etc.

Eta it also would give comfort to mourners to believe their loved one is somewhere nice, and possibly can communicate or interceded on their behalf, leading to ancestor worship, "mediums", etc...

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

There are quite a few popular science books that address the subject of what is known about superstition from the scientific perspective. I started to read one (Supersense by Bruce Hood), but didn't get very far with it because, unlike many popular science books, I found it to be written in a very boring, ponderous way, with the author taking several pages to iterate and re-iterate something he could (and did) convey in a single paragraph.

As I'm interested in the subject and I've paid money for the book, I keep thinking I ought to give it another go, but haven't got round to it yet.

If you're genuinely interested, I'd suggest trying one of the other books on the subject.

 

[Fudbucker]

I can think of several reasons:

1. Certain drugs (e.g., ketamine) can induce an altered mind state where your "soul" leaves your body.

2. NDE's have been reported for thousands of years. Hearing about an NDE in acnient times from someone you trust would certainly give you pause to think.

3. I've heard from hospice workers that dying people often act as if they're reading themselves for a "journey" (and this was the case with my aunt when she was dying- she kept wanting to pack her suitcase. The hospice worker at the house said it was normal behavior).

4. Making up stories about the world makes things like earthquakes and volcanoes less frightening. Just toss some virgins in there and you're covered for the next ten years!

 

[Minoosh]

There's nothing unique about the human neurological condition.

Not qualitative, maybe, but a big enough quantitative leap to make it seem qualitative. More processing power.

I don't know if you have ever done so. I worked as a nurses' aide for several years and sat by dying patient's bedsides.

The only time was with my dad, and I didn't actually observe it - I don't think he wanted to be observed. I dozed off and Mom found him. Lights out, no one home.

There apparently are some cultures where you're not really dead for a year.

If you're genuinely interested, I'd suggest trying one of the other books on the subject.

Definitely.

I can think of several reasons:

1. Certain drugs (e.g., ketamine) can induce an altered mind state where your "soul" leaves your body.

Datura would be one substance abundantly found during the rainy season in my area - I have heard horror stories about the scary nature of the effects. It sounded too much like PCP which I took thinking it was something else. Many years ago.

4. Making up stories about the world makes things like earthquakes and volcanoes less frightening. Just toss some virgins in there and you're covered for the next ten years!

Maybe it does, but that seems kind of circular ... you have to be somewhat advanced to hold that kind of fear in "mind" and plan for it.

 

[Thor 2]

Just to put another slant on this I think the idea of living after death is horrific.

My departed mother suggested this to me when I was a child. Just imagine living in the knowledge that it will never end, just keep going on and on, for eternity. Isn't it a maddening thought!

 

[Magrat]

Just to put another slant on this I think the idea of living after death is horrific.

My departed mother suggested this to me when I was a child. Just imagine living in the knowledge that it will never end, just keep going on and on, for eternity. Isn't it a maddening thought!

My church teaches that heaven is the "real life" and this is "practice". (So does CS Lewis). Of course only those who are saved get to heaven. So I would be looking at literal eternity without my parents, without my son, either of my siblings, the love of my life...and of course no pets. I think I'd rather be damned actually.

 

[Minoosh]

We do? Mourning is a subjective experience. The only reason we hold it in common with other humans because we have a common language with which to share our experiences. What common language do we share with elephants, which gives us confidence that their outward behavior indicates the subjective experience we collectively term "mourning"?

This has been answered in one way, with the response that humans are on a continuum with other animals and that we are bound to share some emotions (whatever emotions are) with other advanced animals. But now I'm wondering about the "common language" thing. Do you mean this literally? That only through verbal communication can we communicate how it feels to mourn?

If a child is suddenly torn away from its mother and harmed, and I observe its parent wailing, tearing her own flesh, banging on her chest etc., do I really have to talk with her in her own language to have some idea of the agony she is feeling? Wouldn't the sudden ripping away of a child be similarly distressing from culture to culture, and perhaps even from species to species?

It's interesting to wonder about pre-verbal humans and whether they shared mutually recognizable emotions before they had the tool of language to compare experiences. In fact comparing experiences may be a relatively new function of language. Human beings would have practical problems to solve before they got down to rap sessions and epic poetry. I can't be sure a spontaneous smile is anything like a universal expression of happiness, but it does seem to be a shared trait across many cultures. Did cavemen smile? Did tears of grief only ever emerge after we had learned how to talk about grief?

 

[Minoosh]

My church teaches that heaven is the "real life" and this is "practice". (So does CS Lewis). Of course only those who are saved get to heaven. So I would be looking at literal eternity without my parents, without my son, either of my siblings, the love of my life...and of course no pets. I think I'd rather be damned actually.

Then what makes it "your" church? If your parents, siblings and child don't share that faith I'm wondering why you identify with the church at all. Are you cursed with faith you'd rather not have?

Lounging around on clouds doesn't seem all that fun ... but the sky is a metaphor and signifier of transcendence, infinity and eternity. It's something all humans share as opposed to local landmarks, caves, fields etc.

 

[Thor 2]

My church teaches that heaven is the "real life" and this is "practice". (So does CS Lewis). Of course only those who are saved get to heaven. So I would be looking at literal eternity without my parents, without my son, either of my siblings, the love of my life...and of course no pets. I think I'd rather be damned actually.

By referring to "my church" you run the risk of being taken for a theist RogueKitten.

I just think the idea of eternity in whatever company is insanity inducing. Even trying to contemplate infinity of distance can drive you nuts.

 

[Fudbucker]

Not qualitative, maybe, but a big enough quantitative leap to make it seem qualitative. More processing power.

The only time was with my dad, and I didn't actually observe it - I don't think he wanted to be observed. I dozed off and Mom found him. Lights out, no one home.

There apparently are some cultures where you're not really dead for a year.

Definitely.



Datura would be one substance abundantly found during the rainy season in my area - I have heard horror stories about the scary nature of the effects. It sounded too much like PCP which I took thinking it was something else. Many years ago.

Maybe it does, but that seems kind of circular ... you have to be somewhat advanced to hold that kind of fear in "mind" and plan for it.

Well, you have to be able to articulate your feelings, which assumes a certain level of cognitive development. When did humans develop speech?

 

[Fudbucker]

Just to put another slant on this I think the idea of living after death is horrific.

My departed mother suggested this to me when I was a child. Just imagine living in the knowledge that it will never end, just keep going on and on, for eternity. Isn't it a maddening thought!

It is, and I still can't decide which is worse: non-existence or perpetual existence? I comfort myself by telling myself my conception of time (eternity) is probably all messed up. That, and drinking, lol!

 

[fuelair]

See, that's the kind of cavewoman I'd probably be. Useless.

Nope - you would be teaching them how to tell time/use the stars to move from place to place and generally math their butts up for them!!!!!

 

[fuelair]

My church teaches that heaven is the "real life" and this is "practice". (So does CS Lewis). Of course only those who are saved get to heaven. So I would be looking at literal eternity without my parents, without my son, either of my siblings, the love of my life...and of course no pets. I think I'd rather be damned actually.

Don't forget your daughter!!!!! I prefer those who are invested (As they say: Jesus saves, but Moses invests!!!)!!!!!!

 

[marplots]

Every night when I dream I experience an alternate reality.

 

[Navigator]

Just to put another slant on this I think the idea of living after death is horrific.

I get the impression that this is why some atheists don't think there is an afterlife...or rather ...chose to believe there is nothing to experience after the body dies.

I wouldn't have a clue either way if there is or isn't more to one's existence although I do find it interesting checking out the various beliefs about it.

Some people are really keen on living forever in this universe and hope that science will eventually be able to solve the problem of dying. If that ever happens, then the question of afterlife would become redundant...at least for those who can afford whatever price-tag is on that...assuming of course that money and everything which goes along with that system is still the going concern...

 

[Navigator]

By referring to "my church" you run the risk of being taken for a theist RogueKitten.

Yes RogueKitten - and that is a risk which will earn you some grief from the hardliners... tsk...

 

[Navigator]

It is, and I still can't decide which is worse: non-existence or perpetual existence?

Of course, it would have to be perpetual existence. If you simply cease to exist, then there will be no sense of existing, end of story, lights out...you might as well not have existed really. You'd be nothing special, even for an ape...

 

[Navigator]

Then what makes it "your" church? If your parents, siblings and child don't share that faith I'm wondering why you identify with the church at all. Are you cursed with faith you'd rather not have?

Yeah...careful what you say there! Eyes be watching and lips a-trembling ready for accusation that you are not one of the *group*... it sure sounds kinda cultist...the brethren are gentling warning you to 'watch your words'. Chose your words wisely or look out!

 

[Navigator]

This has been answered in one way, with the response that humans are on a continuum with other animals and that we are bound to share some emotions (whatever emotions are) with other advanced animals. But now I'm wondering about the "common language" thing. Do you mean this literally? That only through verbal communication can we communicate how it feels to mourn?

If a child is suddenly torn away from its mother and harmed, and I observe its parent wailing, tearing her own flesh, banging on her chest etc., do I really have to talk with her in her own language to have some idea of the agony she is feeling? Wouldn't the sudden ripping away of a child be similarly distressing from culture to culture, and perhaps even from species to species?

It's interesting to wonder about pre-verbal humans and whether they shared mutually recognizable emotions before they had the tool of language to compare experiences. In fact comparing experiences may be a relatively new function of language. Human beings would have practical problems to solve before they got down to rap sessions and epic poetry. I can't be sure a spontaneous smile is anything like a universal expression of happiness, but it does seem to be a shared trait across many cultures. Did cavemen smile? Did tears of grief only ever emerge after we had learned how to talk about grief?

grief is an interesting thing...even with those who believe in afterlife and that they will get to see their loved ones again...I think perhaps doubt about it being the case has something to do with it...sure their company will be missed but maybe mourning is more about the mourner than the departed....

 

[Thor 2]

I get the impression that this is why some atheists don't think there is an afterlife...or rather ...chose to believe there is nothing to experience after the body dies.

There we go again - different thread, same bull.

All the atheists I speak to do not "choose to believe" anything. We are compelled to reject belief in woo because of lack of evidence in support of it - got it!

 

[Thor 2]

Yes RogueKitten - and that is a risk which will earn you some grief from the hardliners... tsk...

No not hardliners but non soft headers.

 

[Navigator]

No not hardliners but non soft headers.

Hard headed then...whatever...cultish...

 

[Navigator]

There we go again - different thread, same bull.

All the atheists I speak to do not "choose to believe" anything. We are compelled to reject belief in woo because of lack of evidence in support of it - got it!

(drony monotone) * We are compelled *

I have spoken with atheists who have no problem with afterlife ideas...nothing to do with belief in god(s) - got it?

 

[Pup]

There we go again - different thread, same bull.

All the atheists I speak to do not "choose to believe" anything. We are compelled to reject belief in woo because of lack of evidence in support of it - got it!

Yes, sigh. I conclude there is no afterlife because the evidence indicates there is none, even though I personally would like to go on living after death. But there are a lot of things that I'd like to be able to do which the evidence is against, like being able to fly like a bird.

Wishing something was true or not true, should be a bias one tries to overcome when learning about the world, not something to embrace like theists do.

ETA: That's actually more a skeptic thing than necessarily an atheist thing.

I've also heard theists say atheists don't want to believe in an afterlife because they know they'd go to hell, or because they want to be able to sin without fear of hell. It's really sad how wrong people can be, and how caught up in their own worldview they are, so they assume everyone else is too.

 

[Navigator]

*sigh*

There is no evidence that there is no afterlife.

 

[Pup]

*sigh*

There is no evidence that there is no afterlife.

There is enough to convince me. And no, I'm not going to go to all the trouble of looking it up and pasting/linking it here just for you to say that's not good enough. I already know you think it's not good enough.

Doesn't matter to me if you or a billion theists disagree with me and try to pressure me to change, based on old ideas that never convinced me before. I want to follow my own conclusions. I'd rather be wrong because I was wrong, than because somebody talked me into being wrong.

 

[vridar]

Why did humans develop this way? Pascal Boyer answers that in Religion Explained. Our brains see and sense conscious forces behind everything, like otherwise unexplained rustling in the grass. If our ancestors all stayed put to be devoured by predators instead of making this assumption we wouldn't be here to ask about dualism. And many times those unexplained sounds and movements had no visible animal to account for them. So unseen conscious entities were responsible. And then there were dreams ....

 

[marplots]

*sigh*

There is no evidence that there is no afterlife.

Evidence?





ETA: Evidence there is no evidence that there is no afterlife.

 

[Navigator]

There is enough to convince me.

Well that is different. You are convinced by what evidence there is and form your beliefs on those convictions. You also have other reason for not staying neutral on the question...but not staying neutral because of what evidence there is, is still an act of belief.

And no, I'm not going to go to all the trouble of looking it up and pasting/linking it here just for you to say that's not good enough. I already know you think it's not good enough.

Yes. It is not good enough not because I think so either. It is not good enough because the evidence you are speaking about is not evidence of ther being no afterlife. That is the fact Jack.

Doesn't matter to me if you or a billion theists disagree with me and try to pressure me to change, based on old ideas that never convinced me before. I want to follow my own conclusions. I'd rather be wrong because I was wrong, than because somebody talked me into being wrong.

*Chuckles* It isn't about 'being wrong' or 'being right'. No one knows, get it? I know you want to be right because that is part of the belief you have about your position Pup. That is why you can argue against anything opposing your beliefs. But there is no evidence, and without that, there is no need to establish any beliefs, but you do anyway...

I don't oppose your belief against nor do I support others beliefs for...because the evidence doesn't allow me to make such assumptions.

Way I see it, you are free to believe whatever you want to on the subject...but I don't accept that it is because of any 'evidence'.

Your argument that you wish there was something else but 'have to be realistic' is besides the point. There either is or there isn't and no one knows either way. You might as well just have no opinion either way.

 

[Thor 2]

(drony monotone) * We are compelled *

I have spoken with atheists who have no problem with afterlife ideas...nothing to do with belief in god(s) - got it?

Oh, so these atheists you refer to, do they have the same vague idea of what atheism means, that you have regarding the nature of agnosticism?

 

[JoeMorgue]

*Chuckles* It isn't about 'being wrong' or 'being right'.

No because as long as "Wrong and Right" exist, there exists the possibility of you being wrong and we just can't have that can we?

No one knows, get it?

Anti-intellectualism distilled down to it's purest and most condensed form. Any unknown = a blank slate to claim whatever I want.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I can't be sure a spontaneous smile is anything like a universal expression of happiness, but it does seem to be a shared trait across many cultures. Did cavemen smile?

People who have been completely blind since birth smile. So I'm pretty sure it's hard-wired and not learnt.

 

[Navigator]

No because as long as "Wrong and Right" exist, there exists the possibility of you being wrong and we just can't have that can we?

The impression I get is that 'we' can't have me being 'right' but whatever! It wasn't the point I was making.

Anti-intellectualism distilled down to it's purest and most condensed form. Any unknown = a blank slate to claim whatever I want.

The claim made was that there is no evidence. If you have evidence provide it. Otherwise at the very least, argue against what I have said rather than make stupid snide comments about me. Okay?

Good.

 

[Thor 2]

People who have been completely blind since birth smile. So I'm pretty sure it's hard-wired and not learnt.

A point well made Squeegee.