To those who believe in after-life

[Werg22]

Religion is founded on the idea of giving one a purpose to his/her existence. It gives an ultimate goal, an ultimate truth; an end to the otherwise infinite chain of existential questions. This premise, in many religions, is incarnated by the notion of an after-life. This said, I find this whole conception to be self-defeating. Religion solves a problem with another; all the existential questions that apply to earthly life also apply to heavenly life. Worse still, an eternal life is even more devoid of meaning than an ending one. Like in the present life, to an even higher degree one could say, there would be no ultimate goal, no ultimate meaning to our existence. I find that all that religion does is to add a layer to ultimately unanswerable questions. To those who defend the existence of after-life, by all means please tell me your opinions.

 

[mjsd]

a question with no answers should remain as that. trying to force an answer only make the answer looks silly. even if the question does have an answer, it may not always be as palatable as one may wish and hence it is better not to answer.

and oh, after-life is not important for me right now.

 

[JoeDawg]

To those who defend the existence of after-life, by all means please tell me your opinions.

I'd say 'fear of death' pretty much sums up why some believe in an after-life, I certainly haven't seen any solid scientific basis for it.

 

[DaveC426913]

Religion is founded on the idea of giving one a purpose to his/her existence. It gives an ultimate goal, an ultimate truth; an end to the otherwise infinite chain of existential questions. This premise, in many religions, is incarnated by the notion of an after-life. This said, I find this whole conception to be self-defeating. Religion solves a problem with another; all the existential questions that apply to earthly life also apply to heavenly life. Worse still, an eternal life is even more devoid of meaning than an ending one. Like in the present life, to an even higher degree one could say, there would be no ultimate goal, no ultimate meaning to our existence. I find that all that religion does is to add a layer to ultimately unanswerable questions. To those who defend the existence of after-life, by all means please tell me your opinions.

I personally don't ascribe to the afterlife gambit either, but for the sake of argument:

There's a flaw in your logic. You presume you have all the information necessary to make a judgement call you are making. One of the premises that goes along with these beliefs is that you'll need a lifetime of wisdom to be able to address the issue.

I'm not just being fluffy. The need to acquire that wisdom is not a factor that can be ommitted.

 

[DaveC426913]

...I certainly haven't seen any solid scientific basis for it.

Keep in mind when you say that, that lack of solid scientific evidence is not license to dismiss something outright; more accurately, it means science is inadequate to address it.

Science also cannot address what happened before the Big Bang, or what lies outside the visible universe, but that doesn't mean we lump them with elves and unicorns.

 

[SpitfireAce]

http://www.detailshere.com/breathoflife.htm

there's your evidence =)

 

[Werg22]

I personally don't ascribe to the afterlife gambit either, but for the sake of argument:

There's a flaw in your logic. You presume you have all the information necessary to make a judgement call you are making. One of the premises that goes along with these beliefs is that you'll need a lifetime of wisdom to be able to address the issue.

I'm not just being fluffy. The need to acquire that wisdom is not a factor that can be ommitted.

Then why does religion expect one to adhere to it if only a "lifetime of wisdom" can render religion unambiguous? Here again I find the whole matter to be self-defeating.

 

[AsianSensationK]

Are you sure that religion is founded on the notion of giving a purpose to people? That's a really strong assumption that isn't explicitly justified.

Maybe you should expound upon this point if you want a debate to get started.

 

[Evo]

Are you sure that religion is founded on the notion of giving a purpose to people? That's a really strong assumption that isn't explicitly justified.

Maybe you should expound upon this point if you want a debate to get started.

We don't debate religion here, sorry.

 

[AsianSensationK]

Of course. Debate was probably the wrong word to use. This is one of the few forums I've seen that doesn't entertain the overly speculative posts. That being said, this thread seems to mix together quite a few different questions and a couple of questionable leaps in logic.

Is it correct to implicitly assume that the point or ultimate goal of life, according to religion, must be to achieve eternal bliss in some afterlife somewhere? I don't believe that question has been given proper treatment here, and it seems highly subjective.

I see one terrific question in here. If the point of living a good or moral life now is to assure us entry into heaven, then what would be our purpose in the "after-life"? Do those questions of why we must try to do what's good or moral actually go away or are they still legitimate questions anywhere?

I agree with the OP on the answer to this question. I'm of the intuition that they are important anywhere. I am not sure if there is an afterlife, and not really willing to sway either way.

Worse still, an eternal life is even more devoid of meaning than an ending one. Like in the present life, to an even higher degree one could say, there would be no ultimate goal, no ultimate meaning to our existence.

Do you mean to say that if life is pointless, then an afterlife would be even more pointless. Does that make sense?

 

[Werg22]

AsianSensationK, I am more than willing to question my own logic, but I fail to see the "questionable leap of logic" you speak of. I addressed this thread to those who believe in an after life, and as most of the belief in after-life stems from organized faith, the word religion was the best I could use. This is not to say that the employment of the word is not without flaws; certainly, not all religions per se have for purpose to give a meaning to one's life, nor does one need a religion to believe in after-life and nor do all forms of after-life need to imply eternity. Those nuances having been pointed out, my question is intended to those who believe in an eternal after-life, whatever the form.

Addressing your question, I don't see why it does not make sense. I understand you see a paradox; reminding you that I do not speak in the name of all religions there are, speaking of the pointlessness of earthly life implies the nonexistence of heavenly life, making the discussion of the pointlessness of the latter void of relevance. However, you interpreted the message too concretely. What I mean to say is that in a scenario in which after-life exists and one enters it, the existential questions that this person may be subject to asking himself would be even more complicated to answer.

 

[AsianSensationK]

speaking of the pointlessness of earthly life implies the nonexistence of heavenly life

Really? Since when? I was looking for this argument earlier, but couldn't find it anywhere. Let's hear it.

I will admit, I like your point about existential questions not disappearing even if there were an afterlife, but I fail to see how it implies a heavenly life must not exist.

 

[Werg22]

Really? Since when? I was looking for this argument earlier, but couldn't find it anywhere. Let's hear it.

I will admit, I like your point about existential questions not disappearing even if there were an afterlife, but I fail to see how it implies a heavenly life must not exist.

Excuse my confusion, I thought you were thinking along those lines hence me saying that I understand why you see a paradox (or do you?). I do not actually support this view. I quote you:

Do you mean to say that if life is pointless, then an afterlife would be even more pointless. Does that make sense?

Apparently, I did not quite understand what you are implying, please elaborate.

Edit: my last post was quite sloppy, I have now edited to make it a sensible read. Maybe some confusion stems from this.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It has been suggested that "information is the primary physical entity possessing objective meaning",
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v63/i2/e022310

If anything, I am information. So if we take the suggestion above, I have objective meaning, and perhaps I am also conserved.

 

[AsianSensationK]

Apparently, I did not quite understand what you are implying, please elaborate

Really, I was just trying to probe your thoughts here in the thread.

With the point about an afterlife being more meaningless, I was wondering if you really believed that if one thing was already meaningless, then another thing could have even less meaning. Although looking at it, I believe you meant to say something about the potential sources for objective meaning.

In regards to the "leaps of logic" objection, I fail to see how it follows that if religion is meant to give people some sort of ultimate meaning to existence then belief in an afterlife makes religion self defeating. Is it really the case that religion teaches the ultimate meaning of existence is to achieve eternal bliss in the afterlife? I doubt any organized religion entertains that proposition.

If you're just asking a general question about the meaning people would find if they existed is some sort of heavenly after-life, then I suppose I don't have an objection.

 

[Werg22]

I doubt any organized religion entertains that proposition.

You do? I don't see it that way, maybe we could debate it. Perhaps if I had used the word "goal" rather than "meaning you would have agreed; certainly, they are not the same, as goal here would imply something one pursues for himself whereas "meaning" is not necessarily relevant.

 

[AsianSensationK]

You do? I don't see it that way, maybe we could debate it. Perhaps if I had used the word "goal" rather than "meaning you would have agreed; certainly, they are not the same, as goal here would imply something one pursues for himself whereas "meaning" is not necessarily relevant.

True. I was thinking in terms of the question "why do we exist at all?" Certainly most of the western religions we're familiar with aim at getting people to live their life in anticipation of some kind of afterlife.

 

[JoeDawg]

Keep in mind when you say that, that lack of solid scientific evidence is not license to dismiss something outright; more accurately, it means science is inadequate to address it.

It is in my book. Science is the best, really the only, reliable tool we have.
Until it has some scientific basis, I think we have an obligation to dismiss it.

Science also cannot address what happened before the Big Bang, or what lies outside the visible universe, but that doesn't mean we lump them with elves and unicorns.

Its my understanding that 'what happened before the big bang' is a contradiction in terms, since time as we know it, did not exist then. So the idea, within the context of the 'big bang' theory is nonsensical.

As to the 'invisible', we have scientific ways of quantifying things we can't physically see.

But if it can't be addressed rationally, empirically, it very much is in the land of elves, until we find a way to frame it scientifically.

 

[DaveC426913]

It is in my book. Science is the best, really the only, reliable tool we have.
Until it has some scientific basis, I think we have an obligation to dismiss it.



Its my understanding that 'what happened before the big bang' is a contradiction in terms, since time as we know it, did not exist then. So the idea, within the context of the 'big bang' theory is nonsensical.

As to the 'invisible', we have scientific ways of quantifying things we can't physically see.

But if it can't be addressed rationally, empirically, it very much is in the land of elves, until we find a way to frame it scientifically.

Science is a tool; it is not life. Outright dismissing all that is not scientific is willingly cutting off a part of you.


Besides, if you feel this way, why on Earth are you bothering with the philosophy forum?

 

[DaveC426913]

Then why does religion expect one to adhere to it if only a "lifetime of wisdom" can render religion unambiguous? Here again I find the whole matter to be self-defeating.

I don't follow your logic.

How can you expect to know at the beginning of a learning experience what you can only know once its completed?

I could come up with a zillion analogies wherein the destination is not known when the journey is begun:
- reading a book
- getting directions when you're lost
- painting a picture
- learning a new program

 

[Werg22]

I don't follow your logic.

How can you expect to know at the beginning of a learning experience what you can only know once its completed?

I could come up with a zillion analogies wherein the destination is not known when the journey is begun:
- reading a book
- getting directions when you're lost
- painting a picture
- learning a new program

I don't follow your logic either. All that I am asking is why do some religions (those that promote after-life) ask that everyone becomes a believer if, as you said, only those with a lifetime worth of wisdom may actually make sense of questions that otherwise render religion ambiguous. Why would a heretic, religiously speaking, be considered in the wrong if he is not yet capable of seeing the "truth"? Are you going along the lines of a Pascal's wager sort of thing?

 

[JoeDawg]

Science is a tool; it is not life. Outright dismissing all that is not scientific is willingly cutting off a part of you.


Besides, if you feel this way, why on Earth are you bothering with the philosophy forum?

Because I think empirical observation, and rational discussion is necessary to good philosophy.

Theology is another matter entirely.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Religion is founded on the idea of giving one a purpose to his/her existence. It gives an ultimate goal, an ultimate truth; an end to the otherwise infinite chain of existential questions. This premise, in many religions, is incarnated by the notion of an after-life. This said, I find this whole conception to be self-defeating. Religion solves a problem with another; all the existential questions that apply to earthly life also apply to heavenly life. Worse still, an eternal life is even more devoid of meaning than an ending one. Like in the present life, to an even higher degree one could say, there would be no ultimate goal, no ultimate meaning to our existence. I find that all that religion does is to add a layer to ultimately unanswerable questions. To those who defend the existence of after-life, by all means please tell me your opinions.

Most religions that I know of state precisely the meaning of life, and the meaning of an afterlife. So you should start by saying that since you reject all religious interpretations of the meaning of an afterlife [or do you even know], you can find no meaning in an afterlife.

 

[Werg22]

Here again I will say that "meaning" may not be the appropriate word. I'd rather use "goal". Most religions I know of put after-life as the goal of earthly life, without much emphasizing on the goal of after-life itself.

 

[DaveC426913]

Because I think empirical observation, and rational discussion is necessary to good philosophy.

Theology is another matter entirely.

Which is why I listed examples that are not theological.

 

[JoeDawg]

Which is why I listed examples that are not theological.

Which is why I disputed the relevancy of your examples.

Afterlife discussions are theology. There is no solid rational basis for such a discussion. The big bang is a scientific theory based on observable facts. It may not be correct, but its not a fantasy. The afterlife is, just like elves. Conflating the two is dishonest, both scientifically and metaphysically.

Philosophy encompasses questions of what exists, but addresses them with logic and rationality, this is why it lead to the development of the sciences.

If you want to discuss afterlife and gods and goddesses, go ahead, but please don't try and equate them with actually physical theories. Thats laughable.

 

[DaveC426913]

The big bang is a scientific theory based on observable facts.

Please reread.

My example was not 'The Big Bang', it was 'what was before the Big Bang'.

Science has nothing to say about what went on before the Big Bang; it does not have the tools to do so. But we, as humans, do - usually in the form of philosophy. Same thing applies to my other example - what is outside the observable universe.


Don't misunderstand; I too am an aetheist; But I believe the beauty that is Science is weakened when people use its good name to outright dismiss things.

And just for the record, I did not not ever "equate" afterlife, gods and goddesses with actual physical theories. The words you are laughing at are of your own creation, not mine.

 

[JoeDawg]

Please reread.

Ditto.

My example was not 'The Big Bang', it was 'what was before the Big Bang'.

Nothing happened before the big bang, according to the the big bang theory.
Time did not exist before time/space was created in the big bang.
So you are indeed talking about the big bang theory.

If you want to discuss the existence of things external to the universe, its pure speculation, pure fantasy, its all about elves and gods and such. That's not what philosophy is. Philosophy deals with ethics and metaphysics and such, but at its core is logic and rational discourse. Fantasy is not part of that. If you want to give your theory, go ahead, but compare it to other fantastical things, not things that have a basis in reality.

Science has nothing to say about what went on before the Big Bang;

Because 'before the big bang' is essentially nonsensical, according to the Big bang theory. Its a divide by zero type thing.

Don't misunderstand; I too am an aetheist; But I believe the beauty that is Science is weakened when people use its good name to outright dismiss things.

We are in a philosophy forum, dismissing that sort of thing is entirely appropriate in this context. If I wanted to talk about the nature of beauty, that would be a fine philosophical discussion, but it would be rooted in human experience. We could compare notes. Afterlife is the realm of theology, it has no real relation to actual human experience, unless you throw in this or that religious tradition.

And just for the record, I did not not ever "equate" afterlife, gods and goddesses with actual physical theories. The words you are laughing at are of your own creation, not mine.

Like I said, you did when you brought up the big bang, whether you intended to or not. You also implied it when you talked about the visible universe. We can detect all kinds of things outside what is 'visible', if by nothing more than its affect on what we can see... eg dark matter

 

[DaveC426913]

Look, we don't need all this emotion do we? Surely if is a rational discussion, nobody should be laughing at anybody else's words - whether they spoke them or not.

Ditto.

For example, are you just tit-for-tatting me here, or could you expound upon what you think I misread?

Nothing happened before the big bang, according to the the big bang theory.

This is not true. The Big Bang theory has nothing to say about what was before, including whether there was anything or not.


I'm talking about speculation about what was before the Big Bang. While we cannot examine it scientifically, we can speculate about it philosphically.

But by your logic, it is not worth speculating about at all.

... its pure speculation, pure fantasy, its all about elves and gods and such.

You see no shades of grey between intelligent, rational speculation and elves? More's the pity. Will you at least sit quietly while the rest of us who do see shades of grey have some discussion?

 

[Werg22]

JoeDawg, I find your approach to be erroneous in essence. Philosophy is allowed to detach itself from science; we are still at the stage at which they are two different endeavors. Maybe in the future, but certainly not now as you seem assert, will we be able to give a scientific answer to all questions; even this I doubt. Science is confined to our experience of reality, philosophy quite often tries to detach itself from this limit.

 

[JoeDawg]

JoeDawg, I find your approach to be erroneous in essence. Philosophy is allowed to detach itself from science; we are still at the stage at which they are two different endeavors.

Sorry, but you've really got it backwards. Philosophy came first. The scientific method is an extension...both historically and fundamentally... of philosophy, which uses logic, observation and rational discourse to examine 'the world'. There is no detaching going on.

Maybe in the future, but certainly not now as you seem assert, will we be able to give a scientific answer to all questions; even this I doubt. Science is confined to our experience of reality, philosophy quite often tries to detach itself from this limit.

Its true, as science has discovered more and more, philosophy has changed focus, but its not about random speculation either.

Like I said with regards to beauty, which is still not really scientifically quantifiable... we can also discuss justice and honour, what is ethically right and wrong, and what is the nature of existence, what knowledge is...

Philosophy however is not about unsupported speculation or religious claims. Its about using human logic and rational discourse to examine the world and the nature of the world. If the science is available then philosophy relies on it, because our understanding of the physical world informs our philosophy.

In order to even get to the point where one can discuss elves or an afterlife, one has to move beyond rational discourse into the supernatural.

Reincarnation would be no more appropriate. You either believe it or you don't because it relies on logical premises that one gets from religion.

 

[DaveC426913]

Sorry, but you've really got it backwards. Philosophy came first. The scientific method is an extension...both historically and fundamentally... of philosophy, which uses logic, observation and rational discourse to examine 'the world'. There is no detaching going on.

Another straw man. You are either accidentally or deliberately corrupting what is being said to you, substituting your own words and then arguing against them. This is the same complaint I had.

werg22 said nothing about which one came first. The point he is making (if I may, werg22) is that science confines itself to verifiable, evidential observations, whereas philosphy does not confine itself so.

Its true, as science has discovered more and more, philosophy has changed focus, but its not about random speculation either.

We agree; it's NOT abot random speculation. Who said random? You!

Philosophy however is not about unsupported speculation or religious claims. Its about using human logic and rational discourse to examine the world and the nature of the world. If the science is available then philosophy relies on it, because our understanding of the physical world informs our philosophy.

I think you are making up your own definition of philosophy.

 

[Werg22]

We've been going off a tangent for quite a bit now, maybe we should report this discussion within a discussion. DaveC426913, I'm interested in your answer to post #21, if you deem it answerable.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't follow your logic either. All that I am asking is why do some religions (those that promote after-life) ask that everyone becomes a believer if, as you said, only those with a lifetime worth of wisdom may actually make sense of questions that otherwise render religion ambiguous. Why would a heretic, religiously speaking, be considered in the wrong if he is not yet capable of seeing the "truth"? Are you going along the lines of a Pascal's wager sort of thing?

Ah well. When you talk about heretics i..e those who do not believe in the same religion as you, I'm afraid I'm with you.

Any religion I might give consideration to is going to have to be tolerant of others' beliefs. In fact, more so - it would have to acknowledge that truths are personal.

 

[JoeDawg]

We agree; it's NOT abot random speculation. Who said random? You!

Absolutely. Whether elves exist, life after death, gods and godesses, there is no scientific basis for any of it. It is not similar in any way to a discussion of the Big Bang. The basis you keep denying is religion, which makes it little more than a random claim.

So what is there to discuss? I say its religion. I called it theology. You say its not. So what are you talking about? What are you investigating? And with what tools? Because science is one of the tools of a philosopher.

Philosophy doesn't 'detach' itself from science. The scientific method is one method of investigation that comes from the tradition of philosophical inquiry. Empirical Analysis is not the only one. Deductive reasoning, Inductive reasoning are two other examples.

But there is no reason, other than religion and its system of revelation to even entertain the idea of a life after death.

 

[JoeDawg]

Look, we don't need all this emotion do we? Surely if is a rational discussion, nobody should be laughing at anybody else's words - whether they spoke them or not.

Sorry, if I find your arguments humorous, but its an honest reaction.

For example, are you just tit-for-tatting me here, or could you expound upon what you think I misread?

I think I've explained my position well. I don't think your arguments are sound. I honestly don't see how someone could misunderstand the issue. It happens. But accusing me of not reading your posts. Thats also funny.

This is not true. The Big Bang theory has nothing to say about what was before, including whether there was anything or not.

Time is an aspect of the universe, even discussing what happened 'before' ignores the essential nature of what one describes when one is talking about a big bang. If nothing else, it was a bad analogy.

I'm talking about speculation about what was before the Big Bang. While we cannot examine it scientifically, we can speculate about it philosphically.

But by your logic, it is not worth speculating about at all.

Sure you can speculate, but you have no philosophical leg to stand on. No foundation to lay an argument on, so you might as well be discussing elves. If that's what you like to do, enjoy, but that's not philosophy. In order to discuss the nature of elves you have go on the assumption they exist first. Why make that assumption? What lead you there?

You see no shades of grey between intelligent, rational speculation and elves? More's the pity. Will you at least sit quietly while the rest of us who do see shades of grey have some discussion?

So, so rational.

I've never sat quietly in my life, but if that's your 'polite' way of telling me to shut my damn mouth... well... sorry, you're making me laugh again.

 

[Gliese_581c]

I'm going to have to agree with you but i owuld like to point out htat not even all of the earth-life qustions are answered by most relgions

 

[Gliese_581c]

one last thing 42

 

[JoeDawg]

one last thing 42

Ah yes, of course.

 

[DaveC426913]

But accusing me of not reading your posts. Thats also funny.

You created a straw man. I was talking about one thing (what was before the BB), you either deliberately or accidentally converted that into a discussion about the BB.

I asked you to reread so that you addressed what I said, not what you thought I said. What is funny about calling you out on a fallacious argument?

And laughing is a form of ad hominem. If you won't or can't have a rational discussion without it, then why don't you step back so the rest of us can?

Time is an aspect of the universe, even discussing what happened 'before' ignores the essential nature of what one describes when one is talking about a big bang.

Now you are having a philosophical discussion - without elves, without straw men and without ad hominems.

I've never sat quietly in my life, but if that's your 'polite' way of telling me to shut my damn mouth... well... sorry, you're making me laugh again.

I'm not telling you to shut your mouth, I'm telling you that if you've made your point, and that this is not worthy of discussion, then why are you still discussing it? This side thread is hijacking the OP's question.

And I guess if I'm going to stand by that, I'll stop too.

Let's get back to to OP's question shall we?

 

[X-43D]

Ponder this (to OP): In retrosepect of the theories that claim how the universe originated, what could possibly be the ultimate origin of the aforementioned? To go even further, what is the ultimate origin of anything? (i.e. what caused whatever cause the "big bang" and the like)

You can clearly see that the belief in higher entities may simply be result of humans searching for quick answers to the most important question we can only inquire with no prevail: Why and how did i come to existence?

Of all the matter this so called "universe" holds, i became a human being...whether it was a curse or honor is beyond my limited comprehension..

 

[JoeDawg]

You created a straw man. I was talking about one thing (what was before the BB), you either deliberately or accidentally converted that into a discussion about the BB.

And I stand by what I said, it is not a strawman. Implicit in the big bang theory is the idea that there is no space/time as we know it 'before' the big bang, since the big bang created space/time as we know it. So using the phrase 'before the big bang' is nonsensical. If you were saying that the idea of an afterlife was 'nonsensical' because of the implicit contradiction in life 'after' life has ended, then the big bang would have been a good example of that contradiction.

You are using self-contradicting language. That is not a strawman. You either don't understand the implications of a big bang theory, or you are ignoring them, which makes for a bad analogy.

And laughing is a form of ad hominem.

An ad hominem attack is when someone says you're stupid so you're wrong.
I'm laughing AT the things you are saying. Finding someone's argument faulty to the point of humor, is not ad hominem. I've said why I think you're wrong and that its funny. I've attacked your arguments, not you, so no ad hominem.

I'm not telling you to shut your mouth, I'm telling you that if you've made your point, and that this is not worthy of discussion, then why are you still discussing it?

Because you keep asking me questions?... and falsely accusing me of misrepresenting you. You're damn right I'm going to respond.

If you really want to get back to the original discussion, I couldn't stop you if I tried. But I've made the point I think this is a religious discussion. If/when the moderators agree they can lock the thread. I don't have nor want that power. But I have just as much right to post here as you do, whether you agree with me or not. And, polite or not, telling me to shut up, and come on, that is what you did, is generally not the way to get me to do so.

 

[Moonbear]

This thread has strayed far from the topic onto an argument over debate styles. It is closed.