What Is The Apologetic For Cognitive Dissonance?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 2039
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 784 times
Been thanked: 540 times

What Is The Apologetic For Cognitive Dissonance?

Post #1

Post by bluegreenearth »

From Wikipedia -
In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance occurs when a person holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values, or participates in an action that goes against one of these three, and experiences psychological stress because of that. According to this theory, when two actions or ideas are not psychologically consistent with each other, people do all in their power to change them until they become consistent. The discomfort is triggered by the person's belief clashing with new information perceived, wherein they try to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort.

In A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957), Leon Festinger proposed that human beings strive for internal psychological consistency to function mentally in the real world. A person who experiences internal inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable and is motivated to reduce the cognitive dissonance. They tend to make changes to justify the stressful behavior, either by adding new parts to the cognition causing the psychological dissonance or by avoiding circumstances and contradictory information likely to increase the magnitude of the cognitive dissonance.

Coping with the nuances of contradictory ideas or experiences is mentally stressful. It requires energy and effort to sit with those seemingly opposite things that all seem true. Festinger argued that some people would inevitably resolve dissonance by blindly believing whatever they wanted to believe.
According to Christian theology, God desires for people to make the freewill decision to believe he exists and be in a loving relationship with him. Once people freely choose to accept Christ as their one true Lord and savior, the Holy Spirit is claimed to descend upon them to reveal the truth of Christianity in such a way that it is undeniable. Consequently, we would expect cognitive dissonance to never occur in Christians if their sincere belief is true. Nevertheless, one of the primary functions of apologetics is help Christians suppress the cognitive dissonance they routinely experience.

Once the truth of Christianity is divinely revealed to people by the Holy Spirit, it should be impossible for these Christians to hold two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. After all, their freewill choice to trust the word of God and acknowledge Jesus's sacrifice for their sins will have satisfied God's criteria for granting them the gift of salvation. As such, we expect there should be no theological purpose for God not to insulate his true Christian followers from experiencing cognitive dissonance now that he has assured their place in his kingdom.

At the very least, if Christianity is true, any secular beliefs that would seem to contradict Biblical beliefs should not be more compelling to a true Christian. However, the fact that Christians routinely experience cognitive dissonance demonstrates that the secular beliefs are often more persuasive than the Biblical beliefs they seem to contradict. Otherwise, we would expect an inability for those secular beliefs to routinely elicit experiences of cognitive dissonance in true Christians.

So, what are the apologetic arguments for why apologetics is needed to help true Christians suppress the cognitive dissonance they routinely experience given the aforementioned considerations? Why does apologetics not become obsolete after people become true Christians, but instead, it remains an essential tool for suppressing the cognitive dissonance they routinely experience?

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: What Is The Apologetic For Cognitive Dissonance?

Post #111

Post by Zzyzx »

.
[Replying to post 110 by Don McIntosh]
Don McIntosh wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: Don't go away . . . I sure don't want 'the last word'.
Thanks for inviting me back for more ridicule, Z.
Ridicule? Perhaps those unaccustomed to encountering disbelief of their claims and stories view opposition as 'ridicule'. Many do rather poorly attempting to debate without a handicap or preferential treatment. "When accustomed to privilege, equality seems like oppression."
Don McIntosh wrote: You will recall that I accepted defeat in my attempt to convince you personally that there is any evidence – sorry, verifiable evidence – for the truth of Christian theism.
While you may focus on convincing me personally of the 'truth of Christian theism', I focus on presenting ideas for READERS to consider that cast doubt upon Christian claims of knowledge of 'gods' and of supernatural events.
Don McIntosh wrote: I then challenged you repeatedly to provide evidence for your claim that I had not provided verifiable evidence for Christian theism, and when I finally concluded that you simply had no defensible beliefs or convictions at all, you offered this "correction":
Are you referring to my statement and question – “I challenge you to do so. What verifiable evidence can you present?�
Don McIntosh wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: I state a firm conviction that the Earth was not flooded 'to the tops of mountains' based on a background in geology, hydrology, and meteorology. I also state that the Earth does not / did not stop rotating (and cite abundant verifiable evidence from physics in support). I state that upon death human bodies undergo decomposition that is not reversible (and cite verifiable evidence from forensic biology in support). I state that donkeys and snakes do not speak in human language (except in cartoons, movies, and religious tales).

Unfortunately, none of this tells us much about what your own convictions might be, in that these are little more than some negative assertions ("was not" / "does not" / "did not" / "is not") about the convictions of Christians.
How, exactly, is “ the Earth does not / did not stop rotating, upon death human bodies undergo decomposition that is not reversible, donkeys and snakes do not speak in human language� not a statement of position?

Anyone who claims that such things did happen are welcome to present readers with verifiable evidence to support their claims.
Don McIntosh wrote: But it's is a step in the right direction, I guess, and as you've said to me a few times, it's a great opportunity for you to prove me wrong. Given your implicit suggestion that evidence is required to justify a belief, it seems reasonable that you could provide evidence that Jesus did not resurrect, that Balaam's donkey did not talk, and that no flood has ever reached to the tops of the highest mountains.
Have I said that Jesus did not resurrect or that Balaam's donkey did not talk? Verbatim quote with URL.

I have repeatedly presented verifiable evidence that the Earth has not flooded 'to the tops of mountains' in numerable threads. It has been sufficient to convince Apologists to back down to claiming a 'local or regional flood' rather than worldwide (which doesn't match Genesis).

If you think you can support the tale, I am more than willing to debate the topic in a separate thread.
Don McIntosh wrote: Also it's worth noting that your position at this point appears to move well beyond "awaiting any verifiable evidence," as something more like "awaiting evidence sufficient to overcome my present set of firm convictions."
I am entitled to state my theistic position in this Forum – and NO ONE is entitled to challenge or critique my stated theistic position.
Don McIntosh wrote: Those are two different concepts. One at least sounds objective in principle; the other is overtly biased. I've mentioned before that no amount of evidence can override a strong confirmation bias,
Can you be certain that once upon a time in a land far away strong confirmation bias was not overridden by evidence? (Taken from your discussion of donkeys speaking Latin etc)
Don McIntosh wrote: and that confirmation bias has been shown in numerous studies to be prevalent among human beings generally,
Oh, do you trust scientific studies when convenient for your 'argument' but dismiss scientific studies when they contradict your position?

Is this presented to demonstrate your confirmation bias?
Don McIntosh wrote: nonbelieving scientists right along with churchgoing Christians. You may believe so strongly and firmly that every human in history upon death has undergone an irreversible decomposition process,
I consulted forensic biology concerning decomposition processes and their possible reversibility (or irreversiblity).

I consider that information far more credible than ancient tales claiming that reanimation happened 'long ago and far away'. Readers are free to decide for themselves if forensic biology is more credible than ancient tales claiming multiple 'resurrections'
Don McIntosh wrote: for example, that strictly no evidence for a resurrection could sway you even in principle.

Present the evidence. What do you have beyond unverified TALES of an empty tomb, claims that the corpus came back to life, and claims of postmortem sightings by associates?
Don McIntosh wrote: We seem to agree, at least, that there is evidence to indicate that the vast majority of human bodies undergo decomposition that is not presently reversible, that the vast majority of donkeys do not converse in human languages, and that a considerable if not vast majority of geologists share your conviction that the Earth was never flooded to the tops of the mountains.
Okay
Don McIntosh wrote: We only differ, then, in that I believe that Jesus Christ, unlike most men, resurrected, that Balaam's donkey, unlike most donkeys, spoke on a single occasion,
You are certainly entitled to believe such things. However, if you present them in debate, you will likely be asked for verifiable evidence to support that they occurred.

Don't get upset when your claims and stories are not accepted. They are likely to go over well in Holy Huddle.
Don McIntosh wrote: and that given the history of theoretical science, it’s not implausible to suspect that the majority of geologists are simply wrong about the Flood.
Of course, and scientists might be wrong about the Earth being spherical, the sun being the center of the universe, storms being normal atmospheric processes, etc.
Don McIntosh wrote: Now I don't think your task will be an easy one, as it's generally thought difficult to prove a negative. So for example, to demonstrate that no donkeys converse in human language would require observation of all donkeys at all times everywhere. Otherwise there might be a remote island somewhere on which donkeys converse fluently in Latin while sipping tea and riding in rickshaws powered by their human slaves.
Sounds as good as any other apologetic.
Don McIntosh wrote: Or it may be that donkeys are shy and clam up whenever humans come around, then resume their conversations only when they're sure no one else can hear them. The point is that any number of donkeys, even a huge number, that have never been observed to talk would not in itself be evidence sufficient to overcome good evidence for a much smaller number of their more chatty cousins. And I'm only talking about a single talking donkey! (This sort of situation, by the way, is why scientific theories are only provisionally confirmed and always subject to potential falsification: while no number of non-talking donkeys can prove the theory that donkeys never talk, just one well-documented instance of a talking donkey is enough to falsify the theory completely.)
Excellent. Provide the one well documented instance of a donkey talking.
Don McIntosh wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: The only rebuttal has been 'Well it happened once upon a time far away because this book says so' or 'You can't prove it didn't happen (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam).'
Talk about straw men. I for one don't recall arguing that something happened "because a book says so." As for the argument from ignorance, it can be employed two ways: not just, "You can't prove it didn't happen," but also "It didn't happen because you can't prove it." Thus both forms of argument below are fallacious:

There is no evidence that Jesus did not resurrect.
Therefore Jesus resurrected.

There is no evidence that Jesus resurrected.
Therefore Jesus did not resurrect.
Agree. In the absence of verifiable evidence to claim something did happen (or did not happen) is fallacious.

Therefore, a reasoning person should not claim to know that an event (or a 'resurrection') happened.
Don McIntosh wrote: While I would reject both forms of argument (even if were to agree that there is no evidence either for or against the resurrection), I would say you appear to affirm something similar to the latter form, and that without the slightest attempt to demonstrate the truth of the premise.
Notice very carefully that I do NOT say that Jesus did not resurrect. What part of that is difficult to understand?

I do not accept supernatural tales about Quetzalcoatl, Vishnu, or any of the other thousands of proposed 'gods'. Jesus is nothing special – take a number and stand in line.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

Don McIntosh
Apprentice
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:20 am

Re: What Is The Apologetic For Cognitive Dissonance?

Post #112

Post by Don McIntosh »

Zzyzx wrote: [Replying to post 110 by Don McIntosh]
Don McIntosh wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: Don't go away . . . I sure don't want 'the last word'.
Thanks for inviting me back for more ridicule, Z.
Ridicule? Perhaps those unaccustomed to encountering disbelief of their claims and stories view opposition as 'ridicule'. Many do rather poorly attempting to debate without a handicap or preferential treatment. "When accustomed to privilege, equality seems like oppression."
Perhaps. And perhaps many others do so poorly in debate that they depend heavily not only on persistent ridicule but yawningly predictable rhetorical stunts and unfounded caricatures of their opponents as privileged whiners.

How, exactly, is “ the Earth does not / did not stop rotating, upon death human bodies undergo decomposition that is not reversible, donkeys and snakes do not speak in human language� not a statement of position?

Anyone who claims that such things did happen are welcome to present readers with verifiable evidence to support their claims.
Put it in context. The whole point of asking you for a statement of your own position was to provide you an opportunity to provide evidence for that position, so I don't understand why you would again request evidence for my position. I have freely confessed at least three or four times now that I cannot provide evidence to your satisfaction, and one can only expect to get so much mileage from the same nearly empty tank of low-octane rhetoric.

Have I said that Jesus did not resurrect or that Balaam's donkey did not talk? Verbatim quote with URL.
I thought it was pretty obvious in context, specifically in your stated firm convictions that "upon death human bodies undergo decomposition that is not reversible," and "donkeys...do not speak in human language." Are you saying the purpose of those remarks was not to deny the biblical accounts of Jesus' resurrection and Balaam's talking donkey? If those remarks were instead supposed to allow for certain exceptions in the way of Jesus' resurrection and Balaam's talking donkey, then all I can say is that I haven't the slightest idea why you would make them here.

I have repeatedly presented verifiable evidence that the Earth has not flooded 'to the tops of mountains' in numerable threads. It has been sufficient to convince Apologists to back down to claiming a 'local or regional flood' rather than worldwide (which doesn't match Genesis).

If you think you can support the tale, I am more than willing to debate the topic in a separate thread.

I would be tempted to take you up on that just for grins, but unfortunately you've already lost the plot. The debate topic would not be whether I can "support the tale," as I have not once claimed to have evidence for it, but whether you can present verifiable evidence that the Earth was not flooded to the tops of the mountains. Recall that not so long ago you said this: "I have repeatedly presented verifiable evidence that the Earth has not flooded 'to the tops of mountains'…" (That last quoted bit should appear directly above, so please don't ask me to supply the URL.)

Don McIntosh wrote: Also it's worth noting that your position at this point appears to move well beyond "awaiting any verifiable evidence," as something more like "awaiting evidence sufficient to overcome my present set of firm convictions."
I am entitled to state my theistic position in this Forum – and NO ONE is entitled to challenge or critique my stated theistic position.
Fair enough. I will make the same point and leave you out of it:

Certain unnamed atheists I have encountered claim their position to be something like "awaiting verifiable evidence," but when pressed for their own beliefs, end up with a position much more like "awaiting evidence sufficient to overcome my present state of firm convictions."

Also note that my theistic position has been added to my signature: "Awaiting refutations of the overwhelming arguments and evidence for Christian theism." Please do not challenge or critique it. :P

Don McIntosh wrote: and that confirmation bias has been shown in numerous studies to be prevalent among human beings generally,
Oh, do you trust scientific studies when convenient for your 'argument' but dismiss scientific studies when they contradict your position?

Is this presented to demonstrate your confirmation bias?
Not exactly. Confirmation bias appears to span the boundaries between scientific disciples to pervade virtually very field of study, so that scientific studies from any particular field are likely to be tainted with confirmation bias. But I see a paradox lurking around in there, and I think it's a fair point. What's to prevent confirmation bias in a study confirming...confirmation bias?

I consulted forensic biology concerning decomposition processes and their possible reversibility (or irreversiblity).

I consider that information far more credible than ancient tales claiming that reanimation happened 'long ago and far away'. Readers are free to decide for themselves if forensic biology is more credible than ancient tales claiming multiple 'resurrections'
Well, until you get more specific, I consider ambiguous appeals to "information" about "forensic biology" to be rather unconvincing, to the point that I place those terms in "scare quotes."

Don McIntosh wrote: given the history of theoretical science, it’s not implausible to suspect that the majority of geologists are simply wrong about the Flood.
Of course, and scientists might be wrong about the Earth being spherical, the sun being the center of the universe, storms being normal atmospheric processes, etc.
Now that is actually a good objection, and I applaud you for raising it. In reply I would suggest that not all scientific theories are created equal. A theory that bodies with mass attract in keeping with a certain mathematical relationship, for example, is arguably more empirically grounded than a theory that objects with mass attract due to a curvature in space-time, just as a theory that genetic characteristics are inherited from parents and expressed through pairs of alleles is more empirically grounded than a theory that all of life on the planet evolved from a common ancestor. In a roughly analogous way a theory (more like an observation, really) that the Earth is spherical is more empirically grounded than a theory that the Earth was never flooded.

Don McIntosh wrote: Or it may be that donkeys are shy and clam up whenever humans come around, then resume their conversations only when they're sure no one else can hear them. The point is that any number of donkeys, even a huge number, that have never been observed to talk would not in itself be evidence sufficient to overcome good evidence for a much smaller number of their more chatty cousins. And I'm only talking about a single talking donkey! (This sort of situation, by the way, is why scientific theories are only provisionally confirmed and always subject to potential falsification: while no number of non-talking donkeys can prove the theory that donkeys never talk, just one well-documented instance of a talking donkey is enough to falsify the theory completely.)
Excellent. Provide the one well documented instance of a donkey talking.
Goodness. I'm starting to feel like I’m getting pranked by one of my Christian friends.

You've missed the point, and rather badly. Again, I am done trying to provide you evidence for anything related to Christianity whatsoever. The whole point of the bit above about "donkey island" and whatnot is not to demonstrate that a donkey talked, but to illustrate why proving the case that "donkeys do not talk" (in context and by implication meaning that no donkey has ever talked) might not be as easy as you think. But apparently we'll never know because you keep arbitrarily shifting the burden of proof as if under compulsion, and without even attempting to be subtle about it.

Agree. In the absence of verifiable evidence to claim something did happen (or did not happen) is fallacious.

Therefore, a reasoning person should not claim to know that an event (or a 'resurrection') happened.

That follows only if the event did not happen and the reasoning person has no justification for believing it did. But that's precisely the point of disagreement between us. In other words you're begging the question.

Okay, we've talked past one another enough as far as I'm concerned. Again I offer you the last word. And I'm not playing around this time. Lol
Extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary claims.
Awaiting refutations of the overwhelming arguments and evidence for Christian theism.
Transcending Proof

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: What Is The Apologetic For Cognitive Dissonance?

Post #113

Post by Zzyzx »

.
Don McIntosh wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: I consulted forensic biology concerning decomposition processes and their possible reversibility (or irreversiblity).

I consider that information far more credible than ancient tales claiming that reanimation happened 'long ago and far away'. Readers are free to decide for themselves if forensic biology is more credible than ancient tales claiming multiple 'resurrections'
Well, until you get more specific, I consider ambiguous appeals to "information" about "forensic biology" to be rather unconvincing, to the point that I place those terms in "scare quotes."
Strange, almost hypocritical, that an Apologist would be concerned about evidence. Unfamiliar though it may be . . .
Stages of Decomposition

Fresh (1-2 days)
This stage begins almost instantly from the moment of death. As the heart stops beating, the body’s cells are deprived of oxygen and pH changes occur. Cells gradually lose their structural integrity and begin to break down, releasing cellular enzymes which break down cells and tissues in a process known as autolysis, degraded by the body’s own enzymes. There will be no obvious signs of decomposition, however internally bacteria within the gastrointestinal tract begin to digest the soft tissues of the organs. Throughout this stage certain early post-mortem indicators may begin to occur, such as livor mortis (pooling of blood in the body), rigor mortis (stiffening of muscles) and algor mortis (body temperature reduction).

Bloated (2-6 days)
This stage of decomposition includes the first visible signs of decay, namely the inflation of the abdomen due to a build-up of various gases produced by bacteria inside the cadaver. This bloating is particularly visible around the tongue and eyes as the build-up of gases cause them to protrude. The skin may exhibit a certain colour change, taking on a marbled appearance due to the transformation of haemoglobin in the blood into other pigments. Blood bubbles may form at the nostrils and other orifices. At this point an odour of putrefaction may be noticeable.

Decay (5-11 days)
The previously inflated carcass now deflates and putrid internal gases are released. As the tissues break down the corpse will appear wet and strong odours are very noticeable. Various compounds contribute to the potent odour of a decomposing body, including cadaverine, putrescine, skatole, indole, and a variety of sulphur-containing compounds. Although foul-smelling to most, these putrid compounds will attract a range of insects. Fluids begin to drain from the corpse via any available orifice, particularly the nose and mouth. The internal organs typically decompose in a particular order, starting with the intestines and ending with the prostate or uterus.

Post-Decay (10-24 days)
By the time this stage is reached, decomposition slows, as most of the flesh has been stripped from the skeleton, though some may remain in denser areas such as the abdomen. The previously strong odours of decay begin to subside, though a cheese-like smell may persist caused by butyric acid. If the body has decayed on soil, the area around the cadaver may show signs of plant death.
https://aboutforensics.co.uk/decomposition/
Decomposition begins several minutes after death, with a process called autolysis, or self-digestion. Soon after the heart stops beating, cells become deprived of oxygen, and their acidity increases as the toxic by-products of chemical reactions begin to accumulate inside them. Enzymes start to digest cell membranes and then leak out as the cells break down. This usually begins in the liver, which is enriched in enzymes, and in the brain, which has high water content; eventually, though, all other tissues and organs begin to break down in this way. Damaged blood cells spill out of broken vessels and, aided by gravity, settle in the capillaries and small veins, discolouring the skin.

Body temperature also begins to drop, until it has acclimatised to its surroundings. Then, rigor mortis – the stiffness of death – sets in, starting in the eyelids, jaw and neck muscles, before working its way into the trunk and then the limbs. In life, muscle cells contracts and relax due to the actions of two filamentous proteins, called actin and myosin, which slide along each other. After death, the cells are depleted of their energy source, and the protein filaments become locked in place. This causes the muscles to become rigid, and locks the joints.

During the early stages of decomposition, the cadaveric ecosystem consists mostly of the bacteria that live in and on the human body. Our bodies host huge numbers of bacteria, with every one of its surfaces and corners providing a habitat for a specialised microbial community. By far the largest of these communities resides in the gut, which is home to trillions of bacteria of hundreds or perhaps thousands of different species.

The so-called gut microbiome is one of the hottest research topics in biology at the moment. Some researchers are convinced that gut bacteria play essential roles in human health and disease, but we still know very little about our make-up of these mysterious microbial passengers, let alone about how they might influence our bodily functions.

We know even less about what happens to the microbiome after a person dies, but pioneering research published in the past few years has provided some much needed details.

Most internal organs are devoid of microbes when we are alive. Soon after death, however, the immune system stops working, leaving them to spread throughout the body freely. This usually begins in the gut, at the junction between the small and large intestines. Left unchecked, our gut bacteria begin to digest the intestines, and then the surrounding tissues, from the inside out, using the chemical cocktail that leaks out of damaged cells as a food source. Then they invade the capillaries of the digestive system and lymph nodes, spreading first to the liver and spleen, then into the heart and brain.

Once self-digestion is under way and bacteria have started to escape from the gastrointestinal tract, putrefaction begins. This is molecular death – the break down of soft tissues even further, into gases, liquids and salts. It is already under way at the earlier stages of decomposition, but really gets going when anaerobic bacteria get in on the act.

Putrefaction is associated with a marked shift from aerobic bacterial species, which require oxygen to grow, to anaerobic ones, which do not. These then feed on the body tissues, fermenting the sugars in them to produce gaseous by-products such as methane, hydrogen sulphide and ammonia, which accumulate within the body, inflating (or ‘bloating’) the abdomen and sometimes other body parts, too.

This causes further discoloration of the body. As damaged blood cells continue to leak from disintegrating vessels, anaerobic convert haemoglobin molecules, which once carried oxygen around the body, into sulfhaemoglobin. The presence of this molecule in settled blood gives skin the marbled, greenish-black appearance characteristic of a body undergoing active decomposition.

As the gas pressure continues to build up inside the body, it causes blisters to appear all over the skin surface, and then loosening, followed by ‘slippage,’ of large sheets of skin, which remain barely attached to the deteriorating frame underneath. Eventually, the gases and liquefied tissues purge from the body, usually leaking from the anus and other orifices, and often also from ripped skin in other parts of the body. Sometimes, the pressure is so great that the abdomen bursts open.

Bloating is often used a marker for the transition between early and later stages of decomposition, and another recent study shows that this transition is characterised by a distinct shift in the composition of cadaveric bacteria.

When a decomposing body starts to purge, it becomes fully exposed to its surroundings. At this stage, microbial and insect activity reaches its peak, and the cadaveric ecosystem really comes into its own, becoming a ‘hub’ not only for insects and microbes, but also by vultures and scavengers, as well as meat-eating animals.

Two species closely linked with decomposition are blowflies, flesh flies and their larvae. Cadavers give off a foul, sickly-sweet odour, made up of a complex cocktail of volatile compounds, whose ingredients change as decomposition progresses. Blowflies detect the smell using specialised smell receptors, then land on the cadaver and lay its eggs in orifices and open wounds.

Each fly deposits around 250 eggs, that hatch within 24 hours, giving rise to small first-stage maggots. These feed on the rotting flesh and then molt into larger maggots, which feed for several hours before molting again. After feeding some more, these yet larger, and now fattened, maggots wriggle away from the body. Then they pupate and transform into adult flies, and the cycle repeats over and again, until there’s nothing left for them to feed on.

Under the right conditions, an actively decaying body will have large numbers of stage-three maggots feeding on it. This “maggot mass� generates a lot of heat, raising the inside temperature by more than 10°C. Like penguins huddling, individual maggots within the mass are constantly on the move. But whereas penguins huddle to keep warm, maggots in the mass move around to stay cool.

The presence of blowflies attracts predators such as skin beetles, mites, ants, wasps, and spiders, to the cadaver, which then feed on or parasitize their eggs and larvae. Vultures and other scavengers, as well as other, large meat-eating animals, may also descend upon the body.

In the absence of scavengers though, it is the maggots that are responsible for removal of the soft tissues. Carl Linnaeus, who devised the system by which scientists name species, noted in 1767 that “three flies could consume a horse cadaver as rapidly as a lion.� Third-stage maggots will move away from a cadaver in large numbers, often following the same route. Their activity is so rigorous that their migration paths may be seen after decomposition is finished, as deep furrows in the soil emanating from the cadaver.

Bodies are, after all, merely forms of energy, trapped in lumps of matter waiting to be released into the wider universe. In life, our bodies expend energy keeping their countless atoms locked in highly organized configurations, staying composed.

According to the laws of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another, and the amount of free energy always increases. In other words, things fall apart, converting their mass to energy while doing so. Decomposition is one final, morbid reminder that all matter in the universe must follow these fundamental laws. It breaks us down, equilibrating our bodily matter with its surroundings, and recycling it so that other living things can put it to use.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/neu ... fter-death

Also see:
https://www.science.org.au/curious/decomposition
https://www.vox.com/2014/10/28/7078151/ ... anch-decay
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6374978/
https://undark.org/2019/11/11/how-micro ... etectives/
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

Post Reply