AfterLife - Real, Fake - Who cares?

[Dman]

In recent years I’ve begun opening my mind to the possibility of an afterlife. Previously I strongly rejected this notion, due to a.) there is no solid evidence that it exists; and b.) there is solid evidence that people who claim there is an afterlife have later been shown or admitted to be frauds.

However, I started thinking that those two reasons alone do not disprove it either. The thing is, it will not likely ever be proved. So my thoughts are leaning to believe it exists, so long as it does not cause me to behave irrationally.

It’s a win-win situation, because if indeed it does not exist, who cares? I’ll never know, and it won’t cause any harm. But if it does exist, I would possibly be more prepared for it. I will feel more comfortable in this life knowing that there is something on the other side, and the possibility that people we lose in this life will also be there. Conversely, by not believing, it makes the thought of death (my own and those of ones I care about) that much more difficult to deal with. Plus if it truly did exist, I would be unprepared/shocked.

So my logical deduction is that it is healthier and safer to believe an afterlife does exist than not, and since it can’t be proven either way, believing has more positive benefits than not believing. The only upside I can see to not believing is that you won’t be in the same category as the fanatics and frauds that give it a bad name, but that seems like a silly reason not to.

Does this logic seem flawed; did I miss something? Thoughts?

[Lee]

This post I wrote for another forum perfectly describes the unanswerable logic loops I get in when contemplating this question. It seemed quite apt.



"Pascal's Wager." (For those who may not know, Blaise Pascal was a 17th century mathematician.) Pascal argued that we have two choices: believe or not believe. He explained that there are four possible outcomes. If you believe and there turns out to be no God, you haven't lost much. If you believe and there turns out to be a God, you may have gained eternal life. If you don't believe and there turns out to be no God, you haven't lost anything, but if you don't believe and there turns out to be a God, you may suffer eternally. "If you win, you win everything, if you lose, you lose nothing. Do not hesitate then; wager he does exist."

The problem with "pascal's wager" is an unprovable assumtion as to God's decision making process, that is: You will only gain entrance heaven if you beleive in God and eternal punishment will be dealt out to those who do not beleive.
This strikes me as quite a radical presumption as to Gods methods of judgement, indeed nobody can provide any proof that God even exists never mind deciding how he formulates decisions. One may turn to the bible for guidence or indeed even proof that this is the way things are but again it must be concluded that if God can not be proven to exist how can the bible be proven to be any more than a book full of wise teachings.
I cannot beleive in God (edit: without proof), I do not think I will go to heaven when I die however much I hope it to be the case and neither do I think I will end up in hell. I have always jokingly talked about what I will say to God when I die:

God - "tut, tut you did not beleive in me Lee and we can't be having that, i'm sorry to do this but I must send you to eternal damnation, any lasts words"

Me "If you had just came down and had a talk with me or something I would have happily beleived in you, if I do not beleive in you it's you its your own bloody fault for leaving nothing but an old book and a vague idea that their might be something more, you bugger off to eternal damnation and take responsibilty for your own incompitence"

This is flippent and silly but to some extent reflects the situation quite neatly...why does a omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being need to be beleived in and why has this universe he/she created seem so ambivalent in it's design, does this mean god is unsure, undecided or maybe less than omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.
I am quietly confident and hopeful that god (if indeed he/she does exist) will be wiser and more understanding than the quite draconian rule presumed by "pascals wager".

arguments such that involve the specifics of religious teachings or evolution, astromony etc. are of little relevance because unless you take the teachings of the bible as hard facts, all lesser arguments can be rebutted with the words "because god felt like it" and these words cannot be argued with anything except "God might not exist" and so the question turns to "does God exist" which is unanswerable.


I want to beleive and hope it's true but nothing more.

[Boneca]

The problem I see with what you say is that there is no way you can prepare for an afterlife, if you don't know the specifics of it. The only way you can "know" how to prepare for an afterlife is to take up a religion, and then you get the problem of choosing the right religion.

[Pierce]

Mom was religious. Dad was atheist. I did not have a harmonious environment growing up. First, I was skeptical. Then, as a rational teen, I rejected everything "supernatural" as unfounded, and God fit right in there. In a few years time, I found myself admitting the "supernatural" (but not God). It was shortly afterward that I realized I needed to reconsider God, since my former basis for rejecting him was now itself rejected.

I already knew I could not reason my way to God. If there was a God, and reason as a way of apprehending him was disallowed, I surmized that there must be some other way of "proving" him. (A God that I could not communicate with seemed pointless). So began a, "God, if you are really there..." utterance (not that I expected to hear an audible voice speaking back to me... I did not know what to expect, but I was ready for anything... and genuinely curious). I was ernest. It was then that I discovered faith to be a form of perception, apart from the natural senses. I believed that I "sensed" God in a different way than natural senses or reason could comprehend. It was more convincing, too. Sure, my reason screamed like a spoiled child, demanding explanations; but I also realized that, if there was a God, and if there was such a thing as faith, then reason would be the servant, not the master of faith.

The real challenge comes after that, the working out of what a life based on faith in God means and how to live it.

Hebrews 11:6 - But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

[floid]

I already knew I could not reason my way to God. If there was a God, and reason as a way of apprehending him was disallowed, I surmized that there must be some other way of "proving" him. (A God that I could not communicate with seemed pointless). So began a, "God, if you are really there..." utterance (not that I expected to hear an audible voice speaking back to me... I did not know what to expect, but I was ready for anything... and genuinely curious). I was ernest. It was then that I discovered faith to be a form of perception, apart from the natural senses. I believed that I "sensed" God in a different way than natural senses or reason could comprehend. It was more convincing, too. Sure, my reason screamed like a spoiled child, demanding explanations; but I also realized that, if there was a God, and if there was such a thing as faith, then reason would be the servant, not the master of faith.


My experience is similar.
The rational mind will always object to what it cannot comprehend but the experience, the presence, and the knowing is always there.
It adds a new dimension to life to "believe" if that is the word for it.
It imbues ordinary life with a type of sacredness and enables one to experience that state which, for lack of a better word, I call joy.

It won't necessarily make sense in a customary way, but it is very transcendent.
To me it is the most important experience of my life.
The thing to remember about this sort of thing however is that the key word is "experience".
You will never deduce it from scientific data and your rational mind will tell you that you are a fool for even being curious, but seekers do find -- just not with their thinking mind.

[Garyincinci]

If the "christian" god exists, he is supposedly a loving, caring and understanding god. Therefore, whether you believe in him or not, so long as you do good things during your life and hold strong moral values, you would get into heaven. My sister (who's zealously religious) and I had this conversation recently. Here arguement became "But the bible says if you do not believe, that you will never reach heaven." I argued that man wrote the bible and then made the one point to her which completely opened her mind.

If god is caring, loving, compassionate and understanding, he would NOT require worship. Requiring worship is a sign of vanity and Ego, traits which the "christian" god does not have. What kind of loving, compassionate god would be vain and egotistical? In my opinion, a god of that nature is hardly worth worshiping and should be held in the highest regards with contempt. If however, the christian version is right, then I am guarenteed my personal "Salvation" so long as I do good in life.

[Garyincinci]

BTW...I do not believe in god, a soul or the afterlife. The only "afterlife" is effects of your life affecting the rest of humanity. Einstein has an afterlife. King Tut has an afterlife. Bob Millikin...ever heard of him? No? No afterlife for him.

The things you do in life can echo through humanities existance as positive (or negative), and this is the only true afterlife.

[CreativeChaos]

Originally posted by Dman:
It’s a win-win situation, because if indeed it does not exist, who cares? I’ll never know, and it won’t cause any harm. But if it does exist, I would possibly be more prepared for it. I will feel more comfortable in this life knowing that there is something on the other side, and the possibility that people we lose in this life will also be there. Conversely, by not believing, it makes the thought of death (my own and those of ones I care about) that much more difficult to deal with. Plus if it truly did exist, I would be unprepared/shocked.

So my logical deduction is that it is healthier and safer to believe an afterlife does exist than not, and since it can’t be proven either way, believing has more positive benefits than not believing. The only upside I can see to not believing is that you won’t be in the same category as the fanatics and frauds that give it a bad name, but that seems like a silly reason not to.

I see some flaws in the logic. "But if it does exist, I would possibly be more prepared for it." How can you be more prepared? You could imagine one kind of afterlife and the real thing could be totally different. So you're thrown for a loop after all. Which after life is the real one? There are all kinds of different versions. You cannot truly be prepared for something that you can know nothing about.

"I will feel more comforable in this life..." Ok, if you feel more comfortable imagining that people live on and are much better off in the after life, then fine. But that is just you and your ego not wanting to cease to exist. But it's not logical to believe something just because it makes you feel better. That is alogical. Logic has nothing to do with it. Do it if you want, it's your life.

"So my logical deduction is that it is healthier and safer to believe an afterlife does exist than not..." Again, it is only healthier for you, if you are too caught up with the fear of non-existance. I am Atheist, and I am perfectly comfortable imagining that when I die, that's it. Safer? How can it be safer? You could imagine and believe in the Christian afterlife, and it turns out that the god who created all could give a hoot about us, and was just experimenting, and in the afterlife, he/she continues his/her experiment that is rather more horrible than this life. You are simply imagining the Christian afterlife and the Christian form of God. But that is just imagination. It has nothing to do with logic.

Exercise your P and leave it open ended, I would advise. Keep it as a "who knows?" and leave it at that. I find the non-existant afterlife to be more soothing actually. Because if you start dreaming up scenarios, it never ends, and it could be good, bad or indifferent. When you die, what ever is after, is after. And it's going to be what it's going to be whatever you imagine it to be. So "que sera, sera, whatever will be will be. The future's not ours to see."

[Napoleon]

I have thought about this subject alot and i am still open to new information ...
There are so many people who make money with communicating with the soulls of dead people, out-of-experiences and going to other places. I experimented myself abit with these OBE but never succeeded.
Are all these people who spend there whole life digging in these subjects and claiming the can do it crazy, frauds?

There have to be some of them who realy tell the thruth and if these things can be explained sientificly is an other question.
Its a diffecult subject and i am hoping to read some good input.

GreetZ,

Napoleon

[Dman]

I knew I should have explained "more prepared for afterlife" when I posted. What I meant was that if I were to remain/regain conscious thought after death (which is what I am referring to as afterlife) I would be apt to be less confused about what was going on, from a big picture perspective, than had I never entertained the thought. This applies to other aspects of life as well, when you "prepare for the unknown". You psyche yourself out, and it has been scientifically proven that people deal with stress better when mentally preparing for something, even an unknown event, than not.

I am also not implying that it is logical to believe in something just because it makes me feel better. I’m trying to be careful here…my point was that if it does no harm in believing or disbelieving, but there is a potential upside to one and neutral on the other, the one with the upside would be the logical choice. Speaking all other things being equal. Even with no fear of non-existence, human instinct dictates that death shall be avoided. Whether it makes you feel better to believe in an afterlife or not, the concept of an afterlife is instinctively more appealing than not. Thus to follow one’s instinctive fear of death seems logical to me, otherwise we wouldn’t live very long, would we?

By the same token I would say just because one is atheist does not logically mean an afterlife must be ruled out. By logic, it is possible.

I also am not envisioning a christian heaven, actually what helped bring on these thoughts was more from a ghost/haunting type activity than a religious one - although I'm not limiting it to that.

I would agree however that if you let your belief in the afterlife begin to interfere with your actions in life, you may find yourself on a slippery slope…

[SensEye]

Dman, I can understand what you are thinking. However, I seriously doubt that if you really feel there is a lack of evidence for an afterlife, you will have much luck "brainwashing" yourself into truly believing it's probable. When the rubber hits the road, if you find yourself facing your own mortality, I doubt you'll have much confidence in your "hey, life after death is possible" conviction. You'll likely be as scared shitless as the next guy. You need something as powerful as lifelong religious faith to get past this kind of challenge.

Your preparedness theory is full of holes too. If you have conciousness after death, I'm sure your initial thoughts will be the same as mine (I don't believe in life after death). Firstly, I will think I didn't die after all. If something is obviously amiss, I will likely think I am dreaming, or possibly hallucinating. After some period of time, I assume I will come to the conclusion I am dead and that there is obviously life after death. I see no reason to believe you would come to this conclusion any quicker than I.

[CreativeChaos]

Originally posted by Dman:
What I meant was that if I were to remain/regain conscious thought after death (which is what I am referring to as afterlife) I would be apt to be less confused about what was going on, from a big picture perspective, than had I never entertained the thought. This applies to other aspects of life as well, when you "prepare for the unknown". You psyche yourself out, and it has been scientifically proven that people deal with stress better when mentally preparing for something, even an unknown event, than not.

I suppose you could brainwash yourself into "thinking" you are prepared and feel less stress going into the unknown. But you cannot prepare for the unkown simply because it is unknown. You are assuming two possibilities: 1) I will die and that will be the end of my consciousness or 2) I will die and my "conscious" being will live on in some sort of way. So? Live how? Doing what? Feeling what? Where? In what environment? Just living on is not a true comfort. Your underlying assumption is that the expereince will be positive. Well what if it's not?

I do get your idea, though. And it would possibly work for some people in lowering their stress.


my point was that if it does no harm in believing or disbelieving, but there is a potential upside to one and neutral on the other, the one with the upside would be the logical choice.

No. This is alogical. What you are believing is what makes you feel comfortable. That is alogical. What about THE TRUTH? What does happen after we die? To simply believe in a fairy tale just because it makes you feel better is not logical. Your still saying the same thing, it seems to me. What is the upside to one and harm? It's your comfort. Not truth.


Speaking all other things being equal. Even with no fear of non-existence, human instinct dictates that death shall be avoided. Whether it makes you feel better to believe in an afterlife or not, the concept of an afterlife is instinctively more appealing than not. Thus to follow one’s instinctive fear of death seems logical to me, otherwise we wouldn’t live very long, would we?

Uhhh...I could assume a meaning from this but I won't, since it's not very clear. 1) Yes, it is logical to follow one's instinctive fear of death 2) Neither believing or not believing in an afterlife would necessarily cause one to cease to care about one's life to the point of committing suicide or acting dangerously to get killed.

There are people who commit suicide precisely because they believe in an afterlife. (The Jonestown massacure) Tortures have been committed by the Catholic Church (the Spanish Inquisitions) precisely because they felt fully that a life of torture was better than an eternity in hell.

So, you see? It depends on what you think is going to happen. And horrible things have been done to people on that basis as well as that causing relief from greif of a loved one. Who is right? And when it get down to the time of death, I have read that people who believe they are going to heaven can be just as scared shitless as those who don't. Atheists can be totally calm. It's a matter of coming to terms with facing that unkown.

You know, I just love discussing this stuff Dman. :D Great topic! Hope I'm not getting to un-INTP. Trying to stick to the facts or to the logic, not intpreting by type.

[Geoff]

I've always found the Spanish Inquisition a little strange (despite the obvious comment that noone expects it ;) ).

Is the argument that they had to torture disbelievers because this would cause the disbelievers to repent and therefore go to heaven even if they were tortured to death, and that if they didnt the disbelievers would go to hell?

Or was it to protect their own (the Inquisition) souls? That to not torture disbelievers would cause their God to make them burn in hell?

It is twisted logic of the same sort as ends up in Concentration Camps.

-Geoff

[Warrior413]

I'm going to be to the point here.

1. Only dead people know if there's an afterlife.
2. Dead people can't talk.

There's no way of knowing until you're dead. So don't worry about it.

[CreativeChaos]

Heh! Yeah. I like that Warrior413.



Originally posted by Geoff:
Is the argument that they had to torture disbelievers because this would cause the disbelievers to repent and therefore go to heaven even if they were tortured to death, and that if they didnt the disbelievers would go to hell?

I've assumed it is this one Geoff. Never heard of the other one. I have seen this type of thing practiced in my life. That's what "Hell, fire and brimstone" sermons are all about. To scare the crap out of you, so you'll repent. In the past, so many were tortured during the Spanish Inquisition, I believe, because people were going against the Catholic Church. I'm not sure if this was the time of the Protestant Reformation or not. But there were a lot of people killed and tortured during that time, because if you did not believe exactly as the Catholic Church required you were "damned".

[Pierce]

If god is caring, loving, compassionate and understanding, he would NOT require worship. Requiring worship is a sign of vanity and Ego, traits which the "christian" god does not have. What kind of loving, compassionate god would be vain and egotistical? In my opinion, a god of that nature is hardly worth worshiping and should be held in the highest regards with contempt. If however, the christian version is right, then I am guarenteed my personal "Salvation" so long as I do good in life.

I don't imagine God as a meglomaniacal being demanding worship of human throngs upon threat of eternal punishment (that better fits Satan). If, on the other hand, God is the zenith of compassion, patience, mercy, kindness, truth, grace and love, then he is certainly worthy of worship (at least if one values such attributes). Further, I believe that the greater benefit of worship is conferred on the worshiper rather than on the object or person of worship. Worship invites God into one's very being; it is both cleansing and refreshing.

I'll oversimplify to make a point: Would you consider requiring a five year old to say "please" and "thank you" an oppressive act of dominance? Or does the expression of common courtesy benefit the child more than the adult? So it is with worship. Understanding the dynamics of thanksgiving, praise and worship is helpful in relating to mere mortals as well.

As to whether good behavior or morals is the admission price to "heaven," I don't believe it. Jesus made it clear that no one is "good" enough to deserve "heaven." There is no list of rules to keep, no specific criteria to fulfil, nothing that you can do to guarantee your place. It's not based on what you do, but on who you are. And your identity is apprehended by faith, not works or linage. I am much more concerned with who I am than what I do, as the former will determine the latter.

[Pierce]

I also am not envisioning a christian heaven, actually what helped bring on these thoughts was more from a ghost/haunting type activity than a religious one - although I'm not limiting it to that.

I would agree however that if you let your belief in the afterlife begin to interfere with your actions in life, you may find yourself on a slippery slope…

Dman, perhaps sharing the specifics of your ghost story would be helpful. It seems like you are trying to fit specific experiences into a theory of existence that will satisfy your mind. I'd like to hear the specifics, if you don't mind.

[Miss Anthropic]

I'm going to be to the point here.

1. Only dead people know if there's an afterlife.
2. Dead people can't talk.

Actually they can. It is called clairaudience. Most people just can't "receive".

I am an agnostic, but I believe in an afterlife. We are beings of energy. That is a fact. I believe that we have an energy that is separate from our cellular being, some people call it a soul. Energy is neither created nor destroyed it simply changes form. In fact, reincarnation could be called the ultimate recycling. I have no proof to offer anyone else, nor do I have a need to convince anyone else but I have had many experiences that make it absolute for me. (yeah, and it's not because I'm a nut-case! That is a separate issue......Lexiphanic!)

[ApeTheDog]

About Pascal's Wager, this page has good arguments against it. The entire site is recommended reading, really.

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html

I especially like the 'can god create a rock he can't lift' page, and the one that shows step-by-step examples of evolution.

[Dman]

You guys rock. Thanks for bringing me back down to earth (heh-heh).

I’m not exactly sure why I have been leaning this way the last couple years; my “Thinking” trait was far and away my strongest suit so this stuff is kind of awkward for me. It may have something to do with becoming a father, perhaps I’ve subconsciously become more fixated on my own mortality than I used to be. Plus throw in that damn “supernatural” experience, another thing I’m very uncomfortable with. I feel silly mentioning it even on an anonymous forum. Maybe it’s just that my Feeling function is so suppressed/underdeveloped that when it does manage to seep through, I don’t know how to understand it or reconcile it with my Thinking function.


Pierce: I started a thread on that topic a while back called “Can INTPs believe in ghosts”, I’ll post my experience in there. I’ll warn it’s kind of long since I try to put all the details in, but feel free to attack it and pick it apart (as if anyone needs permission). I’ve tried to come at it from all angles, but maybe y’all can help me “see the light” on that one too.

BTW – I’m an atheist turned agnostic. I decided a long time ago that rejecting God outright (atheist) seemed too extreme in light of the lack of hard evidence one way or the other, so agnostic seemed more appropriate from an objective POV.

[Miss Anthropic]

About Pascal's Wager, this page has good arguments against it. The entire site is recommended reading, really.

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html

I especially like the 'can god create a rock he can't lift' page, and the one that shows step-by-step examples of evolution.
Are you implying that if there is an afterlife there is a God and he created the heavens and earth in 7 days, but if there is no afterlife evolution reigns? Can evolution AND an afterlife be possible with or without some sort of 'supreme being'? Or do the believers and/or naysayers see some sort of irrevocable connection...

[Warrior413]

Actually they can. It is called clairaudience. Most people just can't "receive".
I had a suspicion this would be brought up... :ph34r: But whether or not people actually communicate with the dead, and I'm apathetically doubtful about that, we still don't know if there's an after-life. And personally I wouldn't trust a ghost on what religion is right. Unless it had a damn good argument.

[greenintp]

I thought I was getting answers from God, then I learned I was hallucinating. :angry:

[ApeTheDog]

Are you implying that if there is an afterlife there is a God and he created the heavens and earth in 7 days, but if there is no afterlife evolution reigns? Can evolution AND an afterlife be possible with or without some sort of 'supreme being'? Or do the believers and/or naysayers see some sort of irrevocable connection...

Hmm. Interesting. I suppose it would be quite possible for evolution and an afterlife to both be possible. All it would require is for there to be a God, and for Him to not be covered by any of the existing religions out there. He could for example be a guy who invented evolution and plays the violin in a room at the end of the universe.

But I wasn't implying anything like that at all. I wanted to recommend the page I linked to, and another page, on that same site concerning evolution, as a good read. This is the one about the evolution: http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html