Belief in the Afterlife

[iknownothing]

So one could argue, and I do, that not to believe in Life-After-Death is a form of wishful thinking, for the prestige and exclusivity you get from it. This means that if the Afterlife was ever proved to exist that privileged position would all be gone. I'd be interested to know your thoughts.

The bolded seems to be all you're basing this on. What prestige and exclusivity is that? With whom?

BUT… I can face it! I know I’m going to cease to exist when I die and I can face up to it! The 'ordinary inferior people' need this comfort-blanket myth of an Afterlife, but I have the strength, the courage, the manliness and general superiority to get through my day without that crutch!”

Any time that people come to a hard-won understanding of something, they feel a sense of personal pride. The same is true of any life lessons learned, and any philisophical/religious position taken (right or wrong). Your "perjorative phrasing" doesn't change that or prove it wrong (or right).

And, let's take this up a level: one could say that you are showing some pride in how you've figured out those atheists. "BUT... I have it all figured out! The 'ordinary inferior people' are just going for all that atheist prestige. But I have the insight, the humbleness, and the general superiority to know the truth!"

Silly, huh?

 

[RobDegraves]

@Eric D

The position of atheists is that there is not enough data to suggest God or an afterlife exists. That's not really answering a question without all the data, that's acknowledging there is not sufficient data. By default, they don't believe in God or an afterlife. It's not the same as declaring God does not exist, as that would be as useless as declaring unicorns don't exist.

There has already been a lot of debate as far as what is atheist and what is agnostic. Your definition, in my opinion, fits closer to agnostic. However, it is a narrow gap in either direction.

From Dictionary.com for example...

An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

It helps to define what we say, when such definitions are unclear, so that communication actually occurs. In this case, I feel the definition is often very vague.


@Paul2

OK, I'll bite, and in two different ways:

1. What the dictionary says.

2. "Define 'define'."

It's funny, but not useful.

For example... is God sentient, current, Omniscient or just really smart, defined as the Christian God, Thor, Pan, an idea, a really shiny rock, etc?

Those have all been Gods... which one are we talking about?



@MRC_Hans

Already answered, but when did that stop me?

I think you have it upside down.

Why should we bother with the little questions of the big one does not appear to have merit?

Q: Can pigs fly?

A: No.

Do you really think we should start by asking, "would their wings be pink?",
or "define 'fly'"?

Till such time as there is some even remotely credible evidence that an afterlife exists, why should we speculate about the logistics of one?

Good question.

Why should we speculate about the logistics of an afterlife before any evidence of one exists?


Answer...

We should not.

But we do.



Ergo, if you are going to speculate, one way or the other (by affirming or denying), you do need to define your subject matter, don't you think?

Or you could do what I do... which is to wait until something is provable before you bother making a choice. However, in order to prove something, you do need to be specific about what it is you are proving. That is something seriously lacking in Theological debates.


Overall, I just tend to say... "I don't know"... when I don't know.






Edited to add...


Oooh... I just thought about your flying pig comment.


Yes, pigs can fly. You just have to buy them a plane ticket.

 

[Hokulele]

Hi Rob, welcome to ignosticism!

 

[SusanB-M1]

I don't find the thought of a world without me in it disturbing either. After all, I don't find history disturbing.

I agree! but it's really difficult to imagine the world without me in it!! the older one gets though, the more obvious it is that the end, sooner or later, is unavoidable, and it's certainly a waste of precious time brooding about it..

Although I sort of believed in an after-life when I was young, my common sense was constantly telling me that this was a daft idea really. Acgtually, I resent the pervading acceptance that there was life after death, but the most important thing is to have become quite clear about things with stil plenty of years to appreciate this.

#42 half-centaur
Well put, as always.

Re Mr Skinny: I only noticed a reference to this the other day. Could someone please link me to the thread about it? A much-respected poster.

 

[Paul2]

Apart from my personal observations and commentary on what people have said? No. If by evidence you mean we do a controlled psychological study where we profile Skeptics and Materialists, that's not been done so the data is not available. I did suggest it once at a Skeptics conference and the lady on the panel I was speaking to agreed with me that it would be a good idea.

My thoughts come very much from reading between the lines of what Atheo-Skeptics and Materialists say. I reckon that their own judgement of Woo's underlying reasons for believing in an Afterlife is arrived at in a similar way.

I getcha. So what I think you have here is a full-fledged, honest-to-goodness, good-ole-fashioned hypothesis. Agreed?

 

[Paul2]

It's funny, but not useful.

I know I was a bit snarky, I apologize, but I have a point in there. Why not assume, or, even better, lay out a dictionary definition of "God" yourself and continue the conversation that way?

I have often had to ask people what their definition of a certain word is in arguments, it can be a crucial, useful step. But I didn't get that sense from your request for a definition, just due to where the conversation was at that point. Yours came from out of nowhere, so to speak.

What was the compelling reason why you couldn't just take the dictionary definition of "god" and use that? Where was the conversation up to that point that compelled getting into the definition of "god?"

Was there a compelling reason I asked for the definition of "define?"

 

[dafydd]

There is the example I gave above of Richard Dawkins in the TV show Secular Believers. There was a bloke at work, a Porter like me who was also a Theology student (an Atheist one) who said: "We're the only animal species that knows it's going to die, this is why this belief in the Afterlife has arisen!" Another example is a friend of my dad's called Steve who said effectively the same thing, but I can't recall the exact words. However Steve expressed open contempt for those who believe in the Afterlife.

Bascially the reason I've had these thoughts is reading between the lines of what Skeptics and Materialists say. And this "MBA" as I've termed it- "Materialist Bravery Award", has equivalents in other subjects: Like people who boast about the hard life they have to lead etc.

Unlike most of my fellow Woo's I spend a lot of time talking to Skeptics; I go to Skeptic events and conferences etc. I also have a lot of experience of Skeptic forums... perhaps you've already guessed that.

No wishful thinking involved in your examples.

 

[Mashuna]

Hi Rob, welcome to ignosticism!

It's a lovely warm place, where one can shut out the irritating noise of argument from outside (or join in, if that's your preference).

 

[Eric D]

I agree. If there is an afterlife, I have no reliable information as to what it might be like. Yes, eternal bliss sounds nice, but what about eternal torment? Or maybe just eternal boredom?

Even eternal bliss scares me. How good can the afterlife be, and is it so good that you want to spend eternity in it? I don't see how anything can not get boring and tedious after say 1000 years or so.

I'm going to use a silly example, but in the game Saints Row the Third there is downloadable content where you get infinite life, infinite ammo, infinite money, etc,etc. I thought "Who in the hell would want this?" What fun is the game if there's no risk and nothing bad can happen to you at all? There's no pay-off because there are no obstacles to overcome. Boring.

When instant and total gratification becomes the norm, then what's there to look forward to? You're just stuck in the norm forever.

 

[George 152]

Death is the price we pay for this life.
There is no 'eternal life', that's a religion hook.
be a good person and give the church your money and time..
And they'll promise you the earth, all six feet of it and a nonexistent 'paradise' because religions know they're never going to have to deliver

 

[Paul2]

I don't see how anything can not get boring and tedious after say 1000 years or so.

Re-runs of "Happy Days" surely prove this beyond a doubt.

 

[Eric D]

Re-runs of "Happy Days" surely prove this beyond a doubt.

That sounds like it could be my version of hell.

 

[Complexity]

I'd be interested to know your thoughts.

I think you're wrong.

 

[dafydd]

Spending thousands of years around god's throne, singing his praises? No thanks, give me oblivion.

 

[dafydd]

''I'm a Hospital Porter... have I mentioned that before?''

Why should we care about that? You could be a Covent Garden porter for all I care.

 

[Halfcentaur]

I think an eternity of bliss could actually work, provided there are some radical changes to the current model of sentience we make use of, though these changes may offer some disturbing questions about free will.

But what is it one fears about an eternity of anything?

Developing a tolerance for what excites you, leading to boredom and nothing but an infinite void of time to look forward to?

Removing boredom from the equation isn't that difficult. There are times when a mind is surrounded by the familiar, but has an inexplicable sense of contentedness, a contentedness owed to nothing more than mood.

If a mood can be suspended indefinitly, problem solved. The issue here seems to be nothing more than mood. But what does one sacrifice with this restriction over mood?

Perhaps complete and total control and customization over the mood of one's self is the reward in this theoretical heaven.

Is there a reasonably plausible model for a heaven that does not cause us discomfort when we really examine it closely?

It's that pesky idea of the self that get's tangled up in my mind.

If we have a soul, do souls come out of existence from nothing? How can something come from nothing?

If we existed before we were born, why do we not remember it? Does existing still matter if we have no continued sense of self or memory?

If it does still matter, even though the current sense of self is not a factor and you're no longer "you", what's the difference between an afterlife where you're not your current self, and an afterlife where there is no more self and your cells and matter simply breaks down to be recycled in whatever material processes one would expect?

If you have some proto soul identity you only remember in between lives, that seems just as disturbing to me as complete annihilation of the self, outside of an irrational and emotional sense of satisfaction I derive that is seeded in my drive to keep on going in any way I possibly can.

 

[Stomatopoda]

I don't see how eternal bliss or eternal torment could be compatible with any concept of free will.

 

[AdMan]

''I'm a Hospital Porter... have I mentioned that before?''

Why should we care about that? You could be a Covent Garden porter for all I care.

Also this:

Unlike most of my fellow Woo's I spend a lot of time talking to Skeptics; I go to Skeptic events and conferences etc. I also have a lot of experience of Skeptic forums... perhaps you've already guessed that.

Why exactly should we care, or even bother with "guessing"? Your arguments need to stand on their own.

 

[lionking]

Spending thousands of years around god's throne, singing his praises? No thanks, give me oblivion.

Julian Barnes dealt with an eternal afterlife in his collection "a history of the world in ten and a half chapters". After he was able to shoot 18 for a round of golf, nothing much was left to do.

 

[RobDegraves]

Just to get myself roasted, I will interject a moment.

I think an eternity of bliss could actually work, provided there are some radical changes to the current model of sentience we make use of, though these changes may offer some disturbing questions about free will.

Here is the thing... despite being an agnostic, particularly on this subject, there are a few conclusions I think can be drawn safely about the afterlife. However, the final conclusion has yet to be written in my opinion.

1. Heaven as depicted in traditional Christianity, be it on a cloud or in eternal bliss, is not only unlikely but also really not an attractive concept when looked at closely.

2. Most of the religious concepts of eternal life are basically like this life, just a lot better. However that does not get rid of some of the intrinsic problems that are basic to human nature.

3. If you have to change our personality completely in order to get into eternal life, that is the same as killing us... which contradicts the whole point.


However...


One of my favorite stories is "Flat Land" by Edwin A Abott. One of things that struck me about the story is how difficult, if not impossible, it is for us to imagine a reality that is not based on concepts that we already know. For a two dimensional "Flatlander", the concept of up simply could not be imagined because it had no counterpart in his reality.

If an eternal life was possible (not just in the religious sense but also in the science fiction sort of sense), I don't know that it would be in a form that we could currently imagine.

If it was, I don't know how we would manage.