The Afterlife

[Chad]

One thing to me sticks out in many religions: A supposed afterlife. However, how exactly is this afterlife supposed to work? Are people thinking that they will be judged by a supreme being that will have final say over if they were good or bad? Upon judgment is your “soul” thrown in an infinitely large room or something, free to roam and do what you wish for all eternity? I guess all of this is rather dependent on your chosen religion. Doesn't this seem rather needlessly complicated, selfish (In a certain respect) and very wishful?

It would seem much more logical for me to think that when we die we just plain cease to exist. Why do many feel that other animals just die while we ascend to some afterlife? When I read about other animals, I'm often amazed at some of their abilities. Granted, humans do have some unique features, but does this really make us so much more deserving of an eternal life? Why is there a need for an eternal life? Is there a reason why we should have a “soul” that lives on?

[Random Thought]

The more I read and think about it, the more I think this is a great trick that the religion memeplex pulls. Nearly every religion proposes an afterlife. This afterlife guarantees a great existence after death. The afterlife is not able to be proven, so it remains in question, untestable for the most part. The positive side effect to believing in this afterlife I guess would be people obeying set rules and guidelines, according to the religion in question. While it may not seem like an obvious positive side effect, many religions seem to promote some common good ideas. Such as not lying, stealing and murdering. There's much more, but I don't feel like digging around for more specific examples at the moment Of course, those who follow these practices will be at a slightly better advantage for survival, which in turn will pass on their religious ideas to their children or others who think highly of them. Not to mention the fear of an bad afterlife to keep people in line and make them strive to follow the rules and guidelines that much closer. Ok, I trailed off a little...there's much more I would like to relate, but I'll try to get to my point! I just felt like I would share where I stand on the issue.

[/Random Thought]

I guess my main questions would be this: How do you suppose an afterlife to actually work (Supposing you believe in an afterlife to begin with)? Do you feel at all like the idea of an afterlife is wishful thinking from a fear of one day your existence might come to a complete end? Or does the belief in an afterlife come solely from the teachings of the religion that you learned?

For those that don't believe in an afterlife: What do you think drives the need for people to suppose an afterlife, along with what do you think continues to propagate it?

These are all genuine questions, I don't mean to sound rude if any of my post came off that way...I have a bad tendency make that happen...lol.

(Btw - I was unsure what sub-forum to put this under...so feel free to move it if you think it's better off in a different sub-forum )

[MagusYanam]

Moved to Philosophy sub-forum.

[Being1]

Nice angle Chad!

I see it this way...

Just as an afterlife cannot be proved, so too it cannot be proved that life is not everpresent or eternal. For instance, can you ever remember being dead?

The answer of course is no. Life is all around you all the time. You may see dead bodies, but this is not proof that Life ends. It only proves that bodies die!

On the contrary, no matter how many dead bodies we see, we are always still alive and there is plenty of life continuing on around us. Even when our bodies do die, there will still be plenty of life continuing on. So there is actually more evidence to suggest that life is indeed eternal.

I agree totaly with what you are saying about the way religion uses the idea of an afterlife to manipulate situations to what is in the end, only selfish needs. However - and this is the big thing for me with religion - the initiating master of what becomes a religion to people is in most cases a very wise person who has experienced, knows about and can maintain and communicate about a transcendental state, a place where there is no doubt about the reality of eternal life. They of course express from this place, and the wisdom in their words echoes within an audience as true and potent, and inspiring.

It is my view, however, that no true master ever wants anyone to believe anything s/he says really. S/He only ever wants them to come and see. 'Seeing is believing' so to speak, and then there can be no doubt anymore about the fact that life is eternal....

[QED]

On the contrary, no matter how many dead bodies we see, we are always still alive and there is plenty of life continuing on around us. Even when our bodies do die, there will still be plenty of life continuing on. So there is actually more evidence to suggest that life is indeed eternal.

This can't be evidence for a personal afterlife. That life goes on in others is obviously a separate matter. We must ask ourselves if the 'life experience' is dependent on the material brain. The evidence for this is very strong. When we sleep our brains can be in one of two different states of which one (dreamless sleep) makes us oblivious of our existence. Brain activity scans reveal the connection between different states of consciousness and as stated, the physical maps directly to the mental.

Given then that the operation of the material brain is responsible for the sensation of being alive it is clear that the destruction of the brain would be the end of that sensation. If it is suggested that consciousness operates on some other level (to get around this dead-end for the afterlife) it has to be explained why we can map one-to-one mental to physical states and why the many cases of accidental (non fatal) physical brain damage result in corresponding mental disruption. Mind altering drugs operate in a similar fashion.

- the initiating master of what becomes a religion to people is in most cases a very wise person who has experienced, knows about and can maintain and communicate about a transcendental state, a place where there is no doubt about the reality of eternal life. They of course express from this place, and the wisdom in their words echoes within an audience as true and potent, and inspiring.

The audience is primed and ready to hear the message. No wonder it resonates so well. But is this a good indication that the message is correct? Or is it the fact that it is so appealing to the audience? An awful lot of mis-selling goes on in the commercial world along the same lines. We should also bear in mind that this message was first broadcast by, and to, people who knew nothing of the scientific underpinnings of mind and matter. This is why science gets a bad press among so many religious fundamentalists, it can cast an unwelcome spotlight on problem areas like this.

It is my view, however, that no true master ever wants anyone to believe anything s/he says really. S/He only ever wants them to come and see. 'Seeing is believing' so to speak, and then there can be no doubt anymore about the fact that life is eternal....

How have you seen this? All I've seen is things that die stay dead and are never heard from again. If you reject the material interpretation of all this then you are proposing some parallel plane on which is maintained a duplicate mind to the physical one (remember thoughts can be 'seen' in MRI scans) then when your entire body is vaporized at ground zero of an H-bomb explosion the link is broken and you somehow continue to run form your backup image. Is this a reasonable view for anyone to take? Is there an alternative explanation to this?

[harvey1]

One thing to me sticks out in many religions: A supposed afterlife. However, how exactly is this afterlife supposed to work? Are people thinking that they will be judged by a supreme being that will have final say over if they were good or bad? Upon judgment is your “soul” thrown in an infinitely large room or something, free to roam and do what you wish for all eternity? I guess all of this is rather dependent on your chosen religion. Doesn't this seem rather needlessly complicated, selfish (In a certain respect) and very wishful?

As I've said to QED and Spetey on numerous occasions, the atheistic viewpoint taints your perspective on what the world is. When you view the world from a certain angle, then yes, I think it all would appear absurd that there's a group of people who believe in life after death. I'm a great George Carlin fan, so I know how funny all of this can appear:

When it comes to bulls..t, big-time, major league bulls..t, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bulls..t story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bulls..t story. Holy S..t!... Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of sh.t you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would've been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago.

So, when you see the world from this perspective, of course religion looks absurd and stupid. The afterlife concept, from this perspective, is just another con by big ole' bad (and stupid) religion having its way on the gullible folks of the world.

However, the argument for atheism, and ultimately the argument against religious belief and afterlife beliefs is all based on a deck of stacked cards. We check into the whole philosophy of material causation, and we find that it generates entirely absurd conclusions, yet atheists won't change their minds from this real logical absuridy. We find that there's tremendous coincidences in the physical constants in order for there to be a universe, and atheists won't be the least bit open-minded that some kind of intelligence is responsible. We then probe the fundamental complexity needed to program a universe such as ours which can bring so many advanced structures into existence, and we see that our best minds and most sophisticated cellular automata comes nowhere close in evolving structures that could in principle match the level of complexity seen in our universe. So, what's up with all of this? Why does atheism persist when it is obviously false? Well, I think because there exists a few percentile of the population that simply cannot believe in anything which they cannot see and cannot grasp. Why that is, I don't know (a particular configuration of brain chemistry? I don't know).

Now, in answer to your question of the afterlife, it should be clear to anyone that if there is a God that sought to bring about intelligent life, then it is within the power of this God to bring an afterlife to those whomever God elects to give that afterlife to. That's logical, right? So, what is all the hoopla about?

[ST88]

Why does atheism persist when it is obviously false? Well, I think because there exists a few percentile of the population that simply cannot believe in anything which they cannot see and cannot grasp. Why that is, I don't know (a particular configuration of brain chemistry? I don't know).

I would have to concur with the brain chemistry hypothesis. Logic and reason just seem to be two different things when you experience them from either side.

For those that don't believe in an afterlife: What do you think drives the need for people to suppose an afterlife, along with what do you think continues to propagate it?

I'm not sure. I'm not sure if the belief in an afterlife is what drives people to believe in God. It would seem that most people believe in a God that is concerned with the here and now -- how can/does God help me and how can I best serve him. I think that the afterlife aspect of belief is kind of a supporting structure rather than the main building. I believe in God, therefore there must be an afterlife, instead of the other way around. There are different kinds of afterlives(?) in other religions, but they appear to be extensions of the central tenets of belief rather than the primary focus.

[Chad]

As I've said to QED and Spetey on numerous occasions, the atheistic viewpoint taints your perspective on what the world is. When you view the world from a certain angle, then yes, I think it all would appear absurd that there's a group of people who believe in life after death.

How does not holding religious faith or not believing in a God(s) taint my perspective on the world? I would think that it’s the other way around. A theistic viewpoint taints your perspective on what the world is. Why postulate a God when there is no reasonable evidence for it’s existence? I know I hear many that shout, “What about the laws of physics and nature, surely they couldn’t have developed by themselves.” A conclusion like that seems to come from a lack of evidence to show how it could have came about, rather than evidence of God’s existence. This seems to happen quite often when something is hard to grasp, a quick “God did it” answer seems to be a far too easy route.

However, the argument for atheism, and ultimately the argument against religious belief and afterlife beliefs is all based on a deck of stacked cards. We check into the whole philosophy of material causation, and we find that it generates entirely absurd conclusions, yet atheists won't change their minds from this real logical absuridy. We find that there's tremendous coincidences in the physical constants in order for there to be a universe, and atheists won't be the least bit open-minded that some kind of intelligence is responsible. We then probe the fundamental complexity needed to program a universe such as ours which can bring so many advanced structures into existence, and we see that our best minds and most sophisticated cellular automata comes nowhere close in evolving structures that could in principle match the level of complexity seen in our universe. So, what's up with all of this? Why does atheism persist when it is obviously false? Well, I think because there exists a few percentile of the population that simply cannot believe in anything which they cannot see and cannot grasp. Why that is, I don't know (a particular configuration of brain chemistry? I don't know).

While, there’s also a tremendous flaw in logic in believing in a creator. If you suppose there was a being that created our Universe and the physical constants which we observe, you would probably assume he was intelligent? Yet, how do you suppose that this intelligent being came to be? Do you suppose that a higher, more intelligent God “created” the God that made our Universe? If so, where did that God come from? If you assume that a God just existed, then why not assume that matter just existed, along with the physical constants that you mentioned? I’m sure it would make more sense for something less “complex” to just exist in the first place, or at least come about through a logical means of progression.

I just realized how sidetracked this has become. How did this get into a discussion over a logical absurdity of atheism? Lol, oh well. On with the next…

Now, in answer to your question of the afterlife, it should be clear to anyone that if there is a God that sought to bring about intelligent life, then it is within the power of this God to bring an afterlife to those whomever God elects to give that afterlife to. That's logical, right? So, what is all the hoopla about?

I think it’s far from logical. How can one begin to fathom who deserves a good or bad afterlife? Why is it logical that one should live on after death? I think with all the evidence concerning much of human origins our progression (I mean progression in a sense of adaptation and change, not assuming that we are heading in any chosen direction) along with the Theory of Evolution, why even assume that there was a God that sought to bring about intelligent life? I noticed you did say “if there is a God”, in which case it might not sound as illogical if you believe that notion in the first place.

[Being1]

On the contrary, no matter how many dead bodies we see, we are always still alive and there is plenty of life continuing on around us. Even when our bodies do die, there will still be plenty of life continuing on. So there is actually more evidence to suggest that life is indeed eternal.

This can't be evidence for a personal afterlife. That life goes on in others is obviously a separate matter. We must ask ourselves if the 'life experience' is dependent on the material brain. The evidence for this is very strong. When we sleep our brains can be in one of two different states of which one (dreamless sleep) makes us oblivious of our existence. Brain activity scans reveal the connection between different states of consciousness and as stated, the physical maps directly to the mental.

Given then that the operation of the material brain is responsible for the sensation of being alive it is clear that the destruction of the brain would be the end of that sensation. If it is suggested that consciousness operates on some other level (to get around this dead-end for the afterlife) it has to be explained why we can map one-to-one mental to physical states and why the many cases of accidental (non fatal) physical brain damage result in corresponding mental disruption. Mind altering drugs operate in a similar fashion.

Yes, I agree with what you are saying. There can only be awareness of life wherever there is a human body and brain, and I do not support the concept of the afterlife in the way that it is commonly understood to be. For me there is no afterlife, or before life, there is only Life.

In communicating about this matter (or any matter), words and the interpretations of them can become clumsy and lead to confusion. And yet I have got to use them or we cannot continue our conversation. When I use the word Life in this context, what this means for me, is that Life is Intelligence, and Intelligence is not something unique to humans alone. It is not mass or energy, space or time, and yet all these things emerge as a result of the workings of this Intelligence. For example, the human mind displays certain and varying degrees of intelligence, but Intelligence itself exists independently of the human brain.

So when it comes to the concept of an afterlife, it is exactly that, a concept arising from the human mind or human condition. The personal afterlife is solely a function of the human condition.

To explain this further, can I say that in the first place Life Is Intelligence, in the second place it is Psychic, and in the third place, it is Physical. This is a natural, logical order. You cannot have a Physical world without the Psychic world, and the Psychic cannot be without Intelligence.

The Physical world exists only for Man, in the sense that it is only Man that can reflect upon it and label it as such. What we call the Physical world is only really a reflection of the Psychic world through the senses of Man’s body. In this way, everything that exists is, in reality, the brain of Intelligence itself, and the Psyche (or Mind) is the workings of that arrangement.

Anyway, because of our ability, as Man, to project out through the senses and reflect upon creation, we have developed (over time, or more correctly, as Time) a kind of pseudo reality in the Psychic world, and it is thick and sticky with the substance of Past. When our bodies die, there is a sense of living on because of the reality of this world. The situation in ‘near death experiences’ reported by thousands of people confirm the existence of such a place, and it is from here that the idea, and reality, of an afterlife occur.

- the initiating master of what becomes a religion to people is in most cases a very wise person who has experienced, knows about and can maintain and communicate about a transcendental state, a place where there is no doubt about the reality of eternal life. They of course express from this place, and the wisdom in their words echoes within an audience as true and potent, and inspiring.

The audience is primed and ready to hear the message. No wonder it resonates so well. But is this a good indication that the message is correct? Or is it the fact that it is so appealing to the audience? An awful lot of mis-selling goes on in the commercial world along the same lines. We should also bear in mind that this message was first broadcast by, and to, people who knew nothing of the scientific underpinnings of mind and matter. This is why science gets a bad press among so many religious fundamentalists, it can cast an unwelcome spotlight on problem areas like this.

It is interesting that yes, the audience is eager to hear, and this allows the speaker to speak. One cannot exist without the other, and the game cannot be played.

But what is it that they are eager to hear? Why are they there? If the master did not make some kind of sense, surely they would walk away? I mean, who is interested in nonsense? Although having just said that, most of us give our attention to the politicians, who as far as I am concerned, don’t make much sense at all!

It is my view, however, that no true master ever wants anyone to believe anything s/he says really. S/He only ever wants them to come and see. 'Seeing is believing' so to speak, and then there can be no doubt anymore about the fact that life is eternal....

How have you seen this?

By being very still

All I've seen is things that die stay dead and are never heard from again. If you reject the material interpretation of all this then you are proposing some parallel plane on which is maintained a duplicate mind to the physical one (remember thoughts can be 'seen' in MRI scans) then when your entire body is vaporized at ground zero of an H-bomb explosion the link is broken and you somehow continue to run form your backup image.

Yes that is, in a sense, what I am proposing, depending on the degree of one’s alignment with the Psychic world.

Is this a reasonable view for anyone to take?

I don’t know if it is reasonable, but is certainly the way it works.

Is there an alternative explanation to this?

There is no end to the explanations we can come up with, but for me there can be no alternative.

[harvey1]

How does not holding religious faith or not believing in a God(s) taint my perspective on the world? I would think that it’s the other way around. A theistic viewpoint taints your perspective on what the world is. Why postulate a God when there is no reasonable evidence for it’s existence? I know I hear many that shout, “What about the laws of physics and nature, surely they couldn’t have developed by themselves.” A conclusion like that seems to come from a lack of evidence to show how it could have came about, rather than evidence of God’s existence. This seems to happen quite often when something is hard to grasp, a quick “God did it” answer seems to be a far too easy route.

But a "multiverse did it" is a reasonable response? Your answer just strikes me as, "we certainly don't want to believe in God, so let's just say God doesn't exist and say that the evidence is not evidence since we a priori already believe God doesn't exist."

While, there’s also a tremendous flaw in logic in believing in a creator. If you suppose there was a being that created our Universe and the physical constants which we observe, you would probably assume he was intelligent? Yet, how do you suppose that this intelligent being came to be? Do you suppose that a higher, more intelligent God “created” the God that made our Universe?

No. Every scientific explanation is based on there being a logico-causal construction to the world. This must be assumed for any scientific explanation to make sense. So, where did logic originate? Why is there causality in the world? When I say God exists, I'm saying that God, truth, causality, logic exist and causes the universe to exist. All facts in our universe are a result of this brute fact world.

Notice, though, that a brute fact multiverse conception (or brute fact universe conception) cannot just repeat this by saying "ditto." The reason is that there is only a few axioms that must be true for a principle of causality (e.g., identity) whereas there must be hundreds, thousands, or millions of brute facts needed for a multiverse (e.g., space, time, energy- matter conversion, quantum-mechanical behavior, etc., etc.). So, parsimony requires us to eliminate the option that has way too many brute facts. As I've said before, why not just assume the brute fact is a universe having stocked memories up to 5 minutes ago? There's really little reason, I think, for the atheist to refute this if they accept a brute fact multiverse of such sufficient complexity to bring about a universe such as our own.

If so, where did that God come from?

Where did logic come from? Why is there causality in the world? The answer is that if there wasn't logic, or if there wasn't causality, then this world would just be a different kind of logical world, or a different kind of causality. As it is, there appears to be only one kind of logico-causal world possible, and that's the one that actually exists. This kind of world requires for there to be a God by the intrinsic nature of causality and logic.

If you assume that a God just existed, then why not assume that matter just existed, along with the physical constants that you mentioned?

Because of Occam's razor. The world existing with the many variables needed to account for the complexity of our world is way too complex to account for by brute fact. If you want to use brute fact, then you should use it sparingly, not to postulate something complex (e.g., a Looney Tune universe). If we compare the complexity of a material universe (with singularity theorems threatening it along with material causation paradoxes that appear to forbid it), then it just makes no sense to give this possibility any real consideration.

I’m sure it would make more sense for something less “complex” to just exist in the first place, or at least come about through a logical means of progression.

Yes, very important key phrase: "logical means of progression." It is very important to base the universe on some logical basis (i.e., God basis) versus some willy nilly material basis.

I just realized how sidetracked this has become. How did this get into a discussion over a logical absurdity of atheism? Lol, oh well. On with the next…

It's not sidetracked since it must be pointed out the fallacy of atheism before looking at the universe through the eyes of religion makes any sense. Religion has long known about these issues, but somewhere around the Cartesian period these issues were mainly sidelined for a mechanical understanding of the world. As mechanism progressed, the paradoxes of a material world have largely been neglected. So, today, you have many smart people who have a very incomplete understanding of how material ideas leads to an invalid understanding of the world.

I think it’s far from logical. How can one begin to fathom who deserves a good or bad afterlife?

Well, this is not for us to know anymore than it is for us to know about the nature of an afterlife. We can certainly provide schemes which might give reasons to an afterlife and the judgements that must be made, but that doesn't mean that we know. We don't know, and our lack of knowledge doesn't mean it is illogical.

Why is it logical that one should live on after death? I think with all the evidence concerning much of human origins our progression (I mean progression in a sense of adaptation and change, not assuming that we are heading in any chosen direction) along with the Theory of Evolution, why even assume that there was a God that sought to bring about intelligent life? I noticed you did say “if there is a God”, in which case it might not sound as illogical if you believe that notion in the first place.

Again, we don't know. Our knowledge of anything about the real nature of reality is unverifiable in principle. All we can do is work with the information available to our senses, and this information should lead us to believe that there is a God and that the world before us is overall an illusion.

[QED]

Now, in answer to your question of the afterlife, it should be clear to anyone that if there is a God that sought to bring about intelligent life, then it is within the power of this God to bring an afterlife to those whomever God elects to give that afterlife to. That's logical, right? So, what is all the hoopla about?

I see. Having defined the emergence of frail, organic, life as being the deliberate product of an all-powerful God, we then go on to assume that he'll also make arrangements for an afterlife for us when our material form fails us. Logical? I don't think so.

We pinch ourselves and see that we're living in the here and now, enjoying the land air and sea. That's what life's about. It's fragile and highly dependent on all the chemistry around us. Given the finite amount of time (determined by the rules of evolution -- anyone wanting an explanation of why evolution makes us mortal please ask) we have to enjoy here, it's just plain potty to assume that God has some sort of plan B for when it all goes pear-shaped. A dreadful bit of logic. That's what the hoopla's all about.