Why Can’t We Have a Rational Discussion About the Afterlife?

[BridgeTheGap]

Let’s put our ideological and spiritual differences aside for just a moment and, through reasoned argumentation, decide what happens to human beings after they die. Easier said than done. Should we approach the mystery from a high philosophical horse, or whittle it down with the empirical edge of the scientific method? And don’t forget: the cozy theologian will have something to add to the discussion as well. Even if we strip passion from our assumptions about the afterlife, we come no closer to understanding its feasibility.

After reading four recently published books regarding life after death, Jacques Berlinerblau is as clueless as he ever was. But what appears at first to be a run-of-the-mill book roundup in The Chronicle Review becomes a careful examination of the difficulties of talking about the afterlife in a useful, scholarly manner.

Berlinerblau first tackles books that try to prove the existence of an afterlife through modern science. One such book, Life After Death: the Evidence by Dinesh D'Souza, is a spirited read, Berlinerblau writes, but the alleged scientific accuracy of D’Souza’s claims is questionable, and far outside the realm of a lay-person’s ability to second-guess. “ devotes great energy and imagination to popularizing complex scientific ideas for his readers,” says Berlinerblau. “Whether his distillation of those ideas is accurate is something that only physicists, neuroscientists, astronomers, and biochemists, among others, can answer.” Looking to the humanities is just as unsatisfying.

Theological and philosophical writing is infamous for its convoluted complexity. Berlinerblau tried, with marginal success, to unpack the metaphysical arguments for an afterlife in Princeton professor Mark Johnston’s Surviving Death. Things don’t start well: “From the outset, let me confess that Professor Johnston's argument went so far above my head that it jettisoned booster rockets into the poppling ocean of my incomprehension.” After numerous dense, jargon-y chapters, Berlinerblau concludes that “It would be pointless to try to summarize hypotheses.”

http://www.utne.com/spirituality/is-ther-an-afterlife.aspx?utm_content=08.17.10+Spirituality&utm_campaign=Emerging+Ideas-Every+Day&utm_source=iPost&utm_medium=email

[Warpy]

1. There can be no rational discussion of something that remains unknown

and the only thing anyone knows for certain is that it's a one way trip.

Whether we float into nothingness on a tide of happy hormones or we're welcomed into a religiously determined paradise is moot. No one of us knows and so no one of us can possibly make any sort of argument for any of it.

[DrDan]

6. or against any of it

[cleanhippie]

11. Sure there can be.

If you claim something is there but cannot submit data, facts or evidence to support it, then a reasonable argument can be made that it does not exist.

In fact, I just gave you a reasonable argument, proving your assertion that no reasonable argument can be had against it is wrong.

[DrDan]

18. I think it is more like a court of law

Defendants not found guilty are proclaimed "not guilty" - not "innocent".

Same here imo. If I claim something is there - you cannot claim that it is not, only that it has not been proven that it is not.

I don't see a lot of difference between those that believe and those that claim to be atheists. Neither can prove their beliefs.

[humblebum]

21. Agreed. Go Big Red NT

[DrDan]

25. 16 days . . . . GBR

[cleanhippie]

22. You don't see the difference because you ignore the difference.

Theists HAVE a belief, a-theists DO NOT have a belief. Thats the difference.

And if you claim something is there, but offer no proof of your claim, I am certainly within reasonable behavior to claim that you are incorrect and that said thing is not there.

[DrDan]

24. and there is the position that an atheist is one that denies the

existence of god.

And according to that, you are correct. There is not a difference. You cannot know what cannot be known.

[cleanhippie]

26. Then provide a logical argument to support that view.

I just provided a logical argument above as to why that view is flawed. Feel free to produce a logical argument that says I am wrong and we can debate that, logically, with facts and evidence.


If I claim unicorns exist yet provide no logical argument or evidence to support that and you claim they do not, does my argument hold equal weight against yours? DO I get to claim that just because you cannot prove me wrong that I may be right?

[DrDan]

30. I cannot prove it does not exist. I have no problem admitting that.

And I suppose the introduction of "equal weight" is in the context of one person believing in a unicorn and millions that don't. So in that shallow respect, I guess the "weight" of the beliefs would favor non-existence. HOWEVER - not as a "fact" - only as a "claim" of non-existence.

Again, one cannot know what cannot be known.

[cleanhippie]

44. Argumentum ad populum

Thats what you are trying to say here, and that is a flawed argument. You imply that the number of people that believe or do not believe in unicorns somehow gives additional weight to one side of the argument and that is just plain wrong. Look that up, argumentum ad populum, and you will get a better explanation as to why you are incorrect.

[humblebum]

64. Argumentum ad populum is not always fallacious, nor does does it

constitute proof. Here it merely declares a consensus of opinion - nothing more, nothing less.

[darkstar3]

65. Yes. Yes it IS always fallacious, that's why the fallacy has a name.

:wow:

[cleanhippie]

81. You should use teh google and look it up.

I feel you are mistaken.

[humblebum]

83. Argumentum ad Populum is usually BUT not always a fallacy. Notice:

First the Fallacy of Argumentum ad Populum, then plain Argumentum ad Populum



1. Argumentum ad Populum (popular appeal or appeal to the majority): The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude. There are several variations of this fallacy, but we will emphasize two forms....



2.(There are many non-fallacious appeals in style, fashion, and politics--since in these areas the appeal is not irrelevant.)

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html

[skepticscott]

85. Nice try, except that this post directly contradicts

what you posted just above about Argumentum ad populum.

In #64 above, you stated that Argumentum ad populum "merely declares a consensus of opinion - nothing more, nothing less." Not only is that wrong all by itself (it is not simply a statement, but an argument-duh-that something is true because of that consensus), but it's in disagreement with the declaration here that Argumentum ad Populum involves "attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion". Declaring that a consensus already exists is NOT the same as attempting to create one. And what argument doesn't attempt to win increased support for a conclusion?

You would have done better to quote the "Bandwagon" version of the fallacy at the link, since that is the correct one. The author's "Snob Appeal" version is contradictory on its face.

[cleanhippie]

86. What he said, humblebum

No need for me to repeat it.

[humblebum]

89. This has nothing to do with being a fallacy, given the stated reasons

(or exemptions if you prefer) and I think you need to read the original argumentum ad populum by Dr. Dan:"the context of one person believing in a unicorn and millions that don't". It's not a majority believing in unicorns, but one against the many. There is absolutely no argumentum ad populum fallacy here.

[cleanhippie]

94. Yes, it is.

Its the argument that because a particular number pf people do or do not believe it must mean that the majority is correct.

[DrDan]

79. nooooo - I thought that was where you were going with that example

I cannot PROVE the non-existence of that unicorn. I can CLAIM it does not exist, but cannot PROVE it.

[Angry Dragon]

108. That is so wrong

Atheists do have a belief. Their belief is that god does not exist and there is no heaven.
That is a belief.

[lazarus]

109. that is completely wrong

This has been pointed out frequently. Atheism is the absence of belief in a god or gods.

Really, there's no reason for atheism as a concept to exist. Do we have a carved out segment of society for people who don't believe in unicorns or Santa Claus? But that's what people want, so here we are.

The quick rundown of terminology:

1. Agnostic atheist: doesn't believe, doesn't know if there is a god or not.
2. Gnostic atheist: doesn't believe, claims to know there isn't a god.
3. Agnostic theist: believes, doesn't know for sure if there's a god.
4. Gnostic theist: believes, claims to know there is a god.

Atheists simply don't believe. Try seeing the difference in these two sentences, this should help:

1. I do not believe there is a god.
2. I believe there is not a god.

These match 1 and 2 above. The vast majority of atheists fall into category 1, just as the vast majority of theists fall into category 4.

[humblebum]

110. Yeh. Many times atheists say that the word is supposed to be

used in lower case. And then they come out with a big red capital A as their symbol. Go figure.

[lazarus]

111. "they" did no such thing

some atheists did it. We're not all voting on this stuff, you know.

[humblebum]

113. My post was filled with ambiguities just like yours preceding it. nt

[lazarus]

114. wrong

your post contained one misstatement. If you feel my post had ambiguities that need to be corrected, feel free to quote them.

[humblebum]

115. Well for starters, you failed to reference sources, so it appears

that you are making things up as you go along. And secondly the very concept of atheism itself is filled with ambiguities for the simple reason that "they" do not all have identical opinions. Finally, belief is a noun and believe is a verb, so one can NOT have a belief in something, but can still believe it not to be true. But then, that whole idea is rather ambiguous, isn't it?

[lazarus]

116. Oh, I see

you want to play semantic games. Good day to you, sir.

[humblebum]

112. deleted

[ironbark]

39. True…..but only one of the two beliefs/options can potentially ever be proven.

If atheists/materialists/non believers are right and there is no afterlife…they and we will never know and no one will get to say “I told you so”.

If, on the other hand…………..

;-)

[DrDan]

40. that's only if one accepts the man-made belief that

only through belief does one get to heaven.

What if we had a rational God that actually "rewarded" us based on actions, not an egoistic need to be worshiped.?

[ironbark]

41. Nope. The possibility of an afterlife is not dependent on such a belief.

“that's only if one accepts the man-made belief that only through belief does one get to heaven.”

It may be true that ‘heaven’ exists and is dependent on belief.
It may also be true that an afterlife exists (is not a ‘heavenly reward’) and does not require belief.

“What if we had a rational God that actually "rewarded" us based on actions, not an egoistic need to be worshiped.?”

That could indeed be the case….if there is any kind of afterlife we may find out…if there is no afterlife we will never know.

I see no need to make the possibility of an afterlife dependent on any notion of heavenly reward.

[DrDan]

42. my point was (sorry I phrased it so poorly) that even atheists

may find out that an afterlife exists. That knowledge is perhaps not reserved for believers as they believe.

If there is not an afterlife, then obviously, that fact is lost on all of us.

[GliderGuider]

43. There doesn't even need to be a god for there to be an afterlife

If an afterlife were to exist I'd be very surprised to find a god supervising it and acting as a gatekeeper and toilet-cleaner. It would make much more sense to me for it to be organized much like this life, with no single point of directorial influence.

The only concept of an afterlife that ever appealed to me was the one described in the "Seth" books by Jane Roberts back in the '70s. No need to do anything to ensure entrance, no need to worship anything. It seemed more like going to a really good dinner party.

[ironbark]

72. Last night I dreamed of heaven.

I dreamt I stood within the great golden gates before a vast flight of marble stairs.
There at the base of the stairs stood row after row of huge sticks of chalk, thick as your arm and 4ft tall.
The Gatekeeper explained that I must take a piece of chalk, think of a sin I had committed, mark a step with an ‘x’ and move up and on repeating the process.
When I ran out of sins, the Gatekeeper advised, the door to heaven would appear open before me.
So I set out, thinking of my sins and marking the stairs….I seemed to go on and up forever, day after day….then…having not seen or heard another soul….footsteps coming down the stairs.

I looked up and Lo! It was GliderGuider!

“What are you doing here” ? I cried.

“I’m going back to get more chalk” came the reply.

;-)

[GliderGuider]

76. ROFLMAO

Nice image! That sounds about right! :rofl:

[cleanhippie]

56. But you seem to misrepresent what non-believers think.

Very few honest non-believers will say that they are 100% certain that there is no afterlife. Most, including me, say that there is no supporting evidence of an afterlife and that without that evidence it is logical to conclude that an afterlife does not exist.

You would be hard pressed to find a non-believer that continued to hold that conviction in the face of empirical evidence supporting the idea of an afterlife........


And your last snark... If, on the other hand………….. is true, you may find that the afterlife YOU thought existed may not be what you thought. Pascal's wager is flawed in that sense, so I would toss that back to you,

If, on the other hand.......

[ironbark]

70. Please, spare me the “seem to”…..Just gimmie the facts Mam.

“Very few honest non-believers will say that they are 100% certain that there is no afterlife”

I have no stats or survey on that claim and it seems to strongly contradict the experience of the board. Most non believers (even in this thread so far) seem to conflate and confuse afterlife/ heaven/ god all into one bundle. Even rejecting the possibility of an ‘afterlife’ on the basis of scriptural requirements for entering ‘heaven’….go figure.

“…say that there is no supporting evidence of an afterlife and that without that evidence it is logical to conclude that an afterlife does not exist.”

Once more there needs to be a distinction made between “supporting evidence” and conclusive objective verifiable proof.
We do have the former (“supporting evidence”) and certainly enough to warrant further investigation…
What we don’t have (and may never have) is objective proof.

“And your last snark... “If, on the other hand…”

Feeling a bit oversensitive?....What “snark”?

The statement was devoid of barb or snark and so clear and unambiguous it should not need completing- “If, on the other hand…when your dead your dead and no one experiencing that condition will ever >know< that they are dead”

What’s your problem with that?

“… you may find that the afterlife YOU thought existed may not be what you thought.”

Not an issue if >all I though< was an afterlife may exists.

[cleanhippie]

87. Ok, facts you get.

You stated...If atheists/materialists/non believers are right and there is no afterlife...


I stated that I feel you are mistaken on what atheists are.....


My "snark" comment may have been a poor word choice, maybe "tongue in cheek" would have been better? My apologies for poor vocabulary choices.

[Deep13]

107. No. Lack of evidence presumes nonexistence.

And I think the circumstantial case for atheism is pretty conclusive.

[humblebum]

8. There can certainly be rational discussion about it as there has been for centuries, but

any evidence for or against will be subjective - subject to interpretation.

[cleanhippie]

12. There is no evidence, none at all.

Therefore it is logical to conclude that in the absence of evidence, it does not exist.

[humblebum]

19. That would solely depend on what one considers as evidence and

whether evidence is only empirical or objective.

[cleanhippie]

27. Considering there is an accepted definition of evidence already, we can use that.

From Websters...

–noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Thats the definition of evidence. Show me something that meets the definition.

[humblebum]

33. "Testimony of witnesses" by itself is subjective at times, not always objective evidence.

It can be considered hearsay, can be tainted with prejudice, or can be subject to interpretation by a jury or judge(circumstantial evidence). Records are used as historical evidence, but can also be subject to interpretation and reinterpretation upon submission of contrary records. Same for documents and even objects. Happens all the time.

[cleanhippie]

45. Agreed.

And that type of evidence requires additional scrutiny. Eyewitness' are notoriously unreliable, especially after the fact.

[humblebum]

59. Virtually any type of "evidence" is subject to additional scrutiny

unless it meets the standard of absolute objectivity, which is extremely unlikely.

[Warpy]

15. There has been a lot of discussion

but dreams, wishful thinking, and plain guesswork are hardly rational.

[humblebum]

20. Who defines what is or is not rational?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

[GliderGuider]

2. As far as I can tell

the rules for living a successful life are the same whether there is an afterlife or not. I'm content to to find out the answer to the question later. Preferably much later. I'm having too much fun right here.

[damntexdem]

3. Maybe in the next life.

;-)

OK, we could discuss concepts. But what basis would there be to come to any conclusions?

Personally, I would like the afterlife depicted in the move 'What Dreams May Come'.

And I might as well just give my druthers, because as an agnostic I see no other way of talking about it.

[GliderGuider]

5. "What Dreams May Come"

is one of my favourite movies (OK, it's no Citizen Kane, but it's still all warm and squishy...) My new partner and I feel like that couple.

[ironbark]

35. Loved the first 1/3-1/2….hated the rest.

The potential for the exploration of a realm in which thought/imagination/creativity/emotion is the
>instant< wellspring of existence/environment (every artists dream)-

“‘With our thoughts we make the world.” (Buddha) Instant Environmental Pudding would be Heaven for some and Hell for others.

But to take this magical theme with so much promise and potential and piss it away with Robin Williams (as always playing Robin Williams) wandering endlessly and eternally in the depths of hell looking for the partner who is locked there because of suicide (No one ever escapes/returns from >that<)….

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Boooooooooooooooring!

Criminal waste of plot potential, obscene tease of digitally enhanced heaven…all squandered on a crappy/vacant moral premise.

Sorry. I was a little bit disappointed by it ;-)

[Dogmudgeon]

4. It's not really a testable proposition at this point

In Popperian jargon, it's not falsifiable.

Right now, scientific activity concerning survival of death should concern itself with how to test the idea that it even exists. So it's still on a philosophical-discussion level. And we have to be ready to give up in defeat, or find out definitively that there is no survival.

However, every petty religionizer will seize upon the idea that consciousness continues after bodily death to promote their favorite brand of crazy -- like Dinesh D’Souza.

It's not a productive pursuit right now. It's good for a few hours of discussion every so often, but it's nothing we can approach except by faith. And faith is not popular here.

--d!

[dmallind]

7. Because it is impossible to rationally discuss claims with no evidence

either deductive or inductive. There is absolutely nothing known about any putative afterlife. Only imagination based mostly on received imaginations of others.

[zipplewrath]

9. And then about the civilization on plant Xenioz

No body knows anything about anything that happens after death. Your very question presumes some variation of a "soul" or "spirit", we don't even know THAT to be "true". It's like having a rational discussion about the civilization on a planet we don't even know exists.

[skepticscott]

10. For the same reason

that we can't have a rational discussion about the care and feeding of unicorns.

[cleanhippie]

13. exactly.

But we could have a rational discussion about how it is impossible to care and feed unicorns.

[dmallind]

14. Well not known to be possible sure, but impossible is an absolute term

So I would not say it's impossible to feed and care for unicorns. I would say nobody knows how it may or may not be possible, or if they do they are either unable or unwilling to demonstrate it to the rest of us. For all any of us knows unicorns could exist in some deep reaches of Mongolia perhaps (or even another planet). Maybe somebody is feeding one right now. Buggered if I know or care how they do it. There is nothing inherently contradictory about the idea of a horse like creature with a single horn. Both horses and single horned creatures exist, and there could doubtless be some use for a horse like creature to have a horn for mating displays or self defense etc. It's not like unicorns are something impossible such as omnibenevolent omnipotent and omniscient all at the same time.

And, with rather less of a chance at inductive probability of existence, it's certainly possible that there is some form of afterlife. There may be bands of radiation which we cannot detect. There may be another vehicle for thouhts and sensations beyond biochemistry, that we have not discovered. It's exceptionally unlikely that there can be some continuation of sentient thought without a brain that certainly appears to contain all the prerequisites for it and certainly appears to end sentience when it ceases to function, but no proof either way really. Just ideas, which is why the afterlife is a subject for speculative fiction and other idle musings rather than rational discussion at this time - just like unicorns.

[cleanhippie]

28. I disagree wholeheartedly.

I can say for sure that it is impossible to care and feed a unicorn, for there is no unicorn to care and feed for. Until someone produces a unicorn, it IS impossible to care and feed one.

[dmallind]

31. Well look at it this way

Until 1997 would it have been impossible to travel 750mph in a wheeled vehicle on land? Nobody had done so, but they have now. It's a bit of a semantic niggle I know but impossible contains the meaning that something cannot be done or cannot be at all. Simple absence of something being done or existing to this point does not make that action or entity impossible now.

Is everything that has not been done impossible? Remember in this case we are talking about something that has not been demonstrated as opposed to definitively never been done (technically the same could be said about the land speed record but since the technology to achieve near to these speeds is very expensive and very public it's much less likely to have happened without being demonstrated).

[ironbark]

37. How one “looks” (perspective) may well be the key.

To run a mile in under four minutes was once deemed “impossible” and extensive Medical/Scientific argument laid out as to how/why it was physically not achievable.

One man ran the mile in under four minutes and in a short space of time (the impossible having been made psychologically possible) others followed.
(“For many years, scientists and athletes thought that it was impossible to run a four-minute mile. It was first achieved in 1954 by Roger Bannister in 3' 59.4".) Wiki

Unicorns?
A two horned animal seen in profile to only have one horn. To ancients lacking ‘perspective’(either physiologically or conceptually) the one horned animal is what was seen.

Is it ‘possible’ to feed a two horned auroch that has been perceived as a one horned unicorn?

Sure it is.

Only very very carefully.

[cleanhippie]

47. Thats a flawed argument

for in the end, regardless of the perception, it was NOT a unicorn, it was something else.

[cleanhippie]

46. Wrong again.

Even before the speed record was set, testing and experiments were leading up to it. Mathematical research and improvements in technology made it possible to theorize that faster then sound speeds were possible. It was nearly a certainty that it would happen.

When as much research, data, and evidence is put forward and tested repeatedly for unicorns or any other hypothesis (as was done in setting the land speed record) then and only then will that hypothesis be given any credibility. Thats how the scientific method works and thats WHY it works.

It boils down to this: produce evidence of a claim or else the claim is considered false. Thats not MY rules, thats the rules of the scientific method.

[GliderGuider]

48. Popper, falsifiability and the scientific method

Falsifiability

Popper concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is "scientific" only if it is, among other things, falsifiable. That is, falsfiability is a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for scientific ideas. Popper asserted that unfalsifiable statements are non-scientific, although not without relevance. For example, meta-physical or religious propositions have cultural or spiritual meaning, and the ancient metaphysical and unfalsifiable idea of the existence of atoms has led to corresponding falsifiable modern theories. A falsifiable theory that has withstood severe scientific testing is said to be corroborated by past experience, though in Popper's view this is not equivalent with confirmation and does not lead to the conclusion that the theory is true or even partially true.

So, it's not exactly true that if no evidence is produced "the claim is considered false". The claim could be declared non-scientific (if it is non-falsifiable), or could be declared an untested conjecture if it is falsifiable but has not yet been tested. Under the scientific method a conjecture is only declared false if a) it is falsifiable and b) experimental evidence of its falsity has been generated.

[cleanhippie]

52. You may have misinterpreted what you found.

From your source...
Still, he admitted that tests and refutation is one of the most effective methods by which theories can be criticized.

From another source....

The good Popperian scientist somehow comes up with a hypothesis that fits all or most of the known facts, then proceeds to attack that hypothesis at its weakest point by extracting from it predictions that can be shown to be false. This process is known as falsification.

http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/sciman0d.pdf/$file/sciman0d.pdf




And in the case we are talking about now, there are no facts to even begin with. I see what you are getting at, but there has to be a starting point. I could easily say that the hypothesis that unicorns exists is falsifiable because no unicorn has ever been produced and that there are no facts to even begin looking for a way to falsify the hypothesis. As a scientific principle, I can see how this could be incorporated into the scientific method, however, one must first have some kind of facts to go along with the hypothesis, and in the case of unicorns or an afterlife, there are no facts to even begin a hypothesis in the first place.

[GliderGuider]

53. I'd say that the concept of unicorns is non-scientific in the Popperian sense.

I see no way of testing for the existence of unicorns, so the question of their existence (like the existence of God or square circles) is non-scientific. If there was a test one could apply, then it would be falsifiable. As it is, we are left with trying to prove a negative, which is not a scientific possibility. The only "evidence" we have for the non-existence of such things is pure logic, which is close enough for horseshoes, hand grenades and government work. And for me.

I was just taking issue with your one statement that claims without evidence were considered false. That's simply not true. Or false, if you prefer... :evilgrin:

[cleanhippie]

54. You are right.

And I thank you for giving me something new to chew on.

I would agree that the idea of the un-provable or the un-unprovable is a non-scientific idea, and as such has no business inserting itself into the scientific arena. Ahh, what a better world that would be..........

[skepticscott]

80. Mathematics is a different story, however

There it can be possible to prove that something cannot be proved or that it cannot be disproved, or both.

[skepticscott]

66. The term "falsifiable" is rather misapplied here

"Testable" is a more useful and appropriate term, Popper notwithstanding. Scientists generally do not try to "falsify" a hypothesis in the strictest sense (i.e. prove it false). "Testing" a hypothesis involves conducting some type of observation or experiment that will allow you to improve your knowledge of how likely or unlikely it is to be true. But you never get to 100% certainty of either truth or falsity.

For unicorns, substitute Loch Ness Monster. The question of its existence is certainly within the realm of science even if it's non-existence can't be demonstrated with absolute certainty. We can conduct observations of the Loch above and below water, and the more we look and fail to see it, the more confident we can be that it doesn't exist.

[dmallind]

101. Wrong? Again?

First of all when was I wrong to begin with that would make this an "again"? Then let's consider the "wrongness here...

You seemingly say I am wrong because there were components of the land speed record in place before it happened. There are components of unicorns in place - many of them. All we need is a horse with a horn right? We have horses. We have horns. We have creatures of very similar "design" to horses that have horns.

All the "data" you need for a living species is a living species. There is no "hypothesis" here either - that's a completely different construct. Living things do not have hypotheses of existence like laws of physics. They either exist or they don't.

You are seemingly confused in that you then go on to talk about claims and evidence. I made none and need produce none. You'll look long and in vain for any claim I made that unicorns exist, only that they are not impossible. You understand the difference I hope.

[rrneck]

16. We can have a rational discussion

about what we may imagine an afterlife to be or not to be. We can certainly have a rational discussion about our actions based on our beliefs.

[frebrd]

17. Rational? The concept of an afterlife........

isn't rational.

:shrug:

[planetc]

23. What Paul McCartney thought

When the Beatles were very young, so young Ringo wasn't in the band yet, they made a promise to each other: the first one to die would try to get word back to the others about whether you were still alive somewhere. Stu Sutcliff was the first to die, and John Lennon was second. Paul reported that he had not heard from either Stu or John, then he mused: "maybe you live but there's no post office."

And I vote for some discussion of theological matters that allows for a little humor. Some tiny jokes about how little we really know.

[Axle_techie]

32. awesome

[ironbark]

38. Harry Houdini had the same arrangement with his mother.

Spiritualists and Mediums spent decades trying to pass on the pre determined message from Mrs Houdini to Harry.

None ever got it right or came close.

[DeSwiss]

29. Here is a rational statement concerning the afterlife:

To the extent that we can even say that we know what life is, the only thing was can say is: After life, is death -- and this is all that we know for certain. Any further discussion beyond this point of understanding is no longer within the realm of "rationality."

Now, having said this let me add: in life we live in the midst of death. The cells of our body are constantly dying upon us and within us. Just as new ones are being born to take their places. And the only cells that make up our bodies today that we had on the day we were born, are those brain cells that have not yet themselves succumb to death. Does this mean we are today, more dead than we are alive? Hmmmm.

Another point: when we consider the actual "framework of our existence" -- that is, the body which we refer to as "me" -- that "me" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw2os1s0Hjw">only represents about a trillion cells or 10% of the mass that makes us who we are. The remaining 90% (or 9 trillion cells) that make up our bodies are "other organisms." So from this perspective, one could argue that we are only 10% "alive" at any given moment.

Further, even those cells that are specifically "cells that we originated" are themselves made up of the various "nonliving" chemical and mineral elements which are found everywhere in the cosmos. And upon our deaths they are released from our hold and returned back to their natural state. So from this perspective one could argue that we don't die so much as "return to an alternate state of being."

Therefore in my view, any rational discussion of what an afterlife is, must logically be able to define what life is -- first.

"If you lived two or three millennia ago, there was no shame in holding that the universe was made for us. It was an appealing thesis consistent with everything we knew. It was what the most learned among us taught without qualification. But we found out much since then. Defending such a position today, amounts to willful disregard for the evidence and a flight from self-knowledge. We long to be here for a purpose. Even though despite much self-deception, none is evident. Our time is burdened under the cumulative weight of successive debunkings of our conceits.

The cosmos is full beyond measure of eloquent truths, of exquisite interrelationships, of the awesome machinery of nature. The surface of the earth is the shore of the cosmic ocean. On this shore we've learned most of what we know. Recently we've waded a little way out, maybe ankle-deep -- and the water seems inviting. Some part of our being knows this is where we came from. We long to return. And we can, because the cosmos is also within us. We are made of star stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."
~ Carl Sagan

[ironbark]

34. Thanatology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanatology

Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross was the Swiss-born psychiatrist and author who gained international fame for her landmark work on death and dying.

Having Counselled and supported thousands of terminally ill patients and their families Kubler-Ross was well aware of Near Death Experiences and, as a professional and academic of objective/scientific bent….she dismissed such experiences as phantoms of the closing down mind.

Exhausted by an unusual period in which three patients died in close succession Kubler-Ross went home, collapsed, and experienced her own NDE.

First she saw her life, through the eyes of others, all the hurt, pain, anguish (both intentional and inadvertent) that she had caused others. This experience took her to the depths of despair.
Mercifully this was immediately followed by- her life, through the eyes of others, all the love, joy, support (both intentional and inadvertent) that she had brought to others. This experience took her to the heights of ecstasy .

On recovering her immediate response was to seek out those friends/family/peers that the experience indicated she had inadvertently (unknowingly) hurt.
In all instances they responded along the lines of- “Yes Elizabeth, I was hurt/anguished by…..but I never spoke of it to you or anyone else…how did you know”?

When Kubler Ross could find no rational/scientific explanation for her experience and the subsequent validation of what she perceived through interviews with those concerned….she concluded there was an ‘afterlife’.

Having previously established an impeccable academic record and reputation, a high profile and a landmark book….her conclusion, based on experience and investigation…brought howls of derision from the academic community.

[onager]

68. Kubler-Ross was a krackpot

You should have hit the Wikipedia article about her life. TIME article from 1979:

Her growing conviction that the living could communicate with the dead led her to dabble in spiritualism at her retreat north of San Diego.

Now Kübler-Ross, who refers to herself as an "immortal visionary and modern cartographer of the River Styx," has apparently lost any remaining credibility with her professional colleagues. The reason: her close association with Jay Barham, who claims to be a psychic and conducts séances that include sexual intercourse between participants and "entities" from the spirit world.

Participants in the sessions, many well-educated, if gullible, middle-class professionals, have had occasional doubts about the entities.

One woman says her entity burped during sex, raising the question of whether spirits can have stomach gas. Four women in the group developed the same vaginal infection after visiting an entity on the same night...

Barham also taught participants that they had all lived during the time of Jesus and had been among his disciples. Says one woman, recruited as a channel: "He appealed to my ego and really hooked me..."

Kübler-Ross's faith in Barham is unshaken. A friend, Deanna Edwards, says she attended two darkroom sessions in hopes of changing the psychiatrist's mind about Barham. In both sessions, her entity-guide "Pico" tried to solicit sex.

Edwards...flipped on the lights, revealing Jay Barham wearing only a turban. "I never heard such screaming," says Edwards, who hastens to explain that it was not the sight of Barham that caused the alarm; the other participants believed that light destroyed an entity.

Edwards was sure the demonstration would convince Kübler-Ross that Barham was a fraud. No such luck.

"This man has more gifts than you have ever seen," says Kübler-Ross. "He is probably the greatest healer that this country has."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,946362-1,00.html

[charlie]

71. This Barham was as clumsy as Jon Lovitz's Lying Guy

Barham had a wonderful explanation for his resemblance to the turbaned apparition. He denied engaging in sexual activities with any of the women but said that in order to materialize, certain entities might have cloned themselves from Barham's cells which would explain how they might resemble him in materialized form.

Believe it or not, Kubler-Ross seems to have bought that too. For a year after the "entities" conned and abused her acolytes, she defended Barham and continued to work with him, franchised death, dying, and entity-encounter sessions throughout the country. She nows insists however, that she was no fool, that nobody had pulled the wool over her eyes, that unbeknownst to everyone, "I have been conducting my own first-person investigation of... Barham." This investigation, which she must have pursued with the stealth of Richard Nixon's personal "investigation" of the Watergate cover-up, finally uncovered unspecified conduct by Barham that, "did not meet the standards... of Shanti Nilaya."

http://books.google.com/books?id=YikLNbwN6LoC&pg=PA266

Chutzpah has its rewards.

EKR was finally rid of him when she hired a doctor to "measure" his faith-healing abilities and found they had diminished through misuse.

Her attitude about the whole comedy was an eyebrow-lifter:

"There are those who might say this has damaged my credibility," she conceded. "But it's not important whether people believe what I say... I'm a doctor and a scientist, who simply reports what she sees, hears, and experiences."

[laconicsax]

36. Umm...there's nothing rational about the belief in an afterlife. Start from there.

With no rational basis for any positive claims said about an afterlife, anything discussed outsidelist comparative list of other people's speculation. Stating that 'Person A says A and Person B says B,' isn't a discussion, and the only rational thing that could be said is that there's no evidence to support either position

You might as well have a rational discussion about minotaur genetics.

[humblebum]

58. You may be right when you say,"there's nothing rational about the belief in an afterlife."

because that is a purely empirical (vs. rational) evaluation based on what is observed physically. It becomes rational when a person begins to think and to ask questions about the subject. So if you are one who tends to think and evaluate and question, you are being rational. Therefore, any belief in an afterlife is quite rational. To be rational is to be human.

[laconicsax]

73. I love how you pull a 180 and contradict your premise.

"You may be right when you say,"there's nothing rational about the belief in an afterlife.""

Therefore, any belief in an afterlife is quite rational.

Do you want to try again? Maybe you could explain how a belief in that for which there is no evidence is rational. Questioning isn't in itself enough to make it rational, it's just a good place to start.

Suppose you see a rainbow and wonder, "why are the colors always in the same order?" if you're being rational, you might investigate and, like Newton, uncover certain properties of light and wavelengths for the visible spectrum.

If you're being irrational, you might conclude in the absence of evidence that a supernatural being is creating the rainbow to convey a message, and the order of colors is fundamental to that message.

As you can see, asking the question itself isn't rational, since a ridiculous and irrational conclusion can be drawn from it. The process of investigating the subject and evaluating the evidence to arrive at a reasoned conclusion is rational. Idle speculation is not rational, nor are conclusions drawn solely from such speculation.

Any random belief in an afterlife, necessarily made in an absence of evidence, is not rational as it is a conclusion drawn from idle speculation.

[humblebum]

74. Not at all. The statement was made as an evaluative one, not as an

agreement with you. I said you "may" be right, not you "are" right. Also you obviously haven't read the entire thread. I gave my opinion on "evidence". See #12 and the responses.

[laconicsax]

75. Seeing how nothing in your comment #58 refutes what I said...

You basically went directly from my premise to your conclusion with nothing in between.

Asking a question does not make one rational.

[humblebum]

77. When relying on empirical evidence as the basis for determining

the existence of an afterlife, questioning that evidence is the very definition of rationalism.

[laconicsax]

78. What evidence?

There's empirical evidence for the existence of an afterlife?

[humblebum]

84. That would be a purely subjective opinion. nt

[laconicsax]

90. Thank you for further demonstrating your profound ignorance of the matter at hand.

You: There's empirical evidence of an afterlife.
Me: Well, what is that evidence?
You: It's purely a subjective opinion.

Subjective opinions are not empirical evidence. Therefore, your claim of empirical evidence is false. Relying on admittedly false claims is about as irrational as you can get. I'm not sure if it's funnier that you don't understand this, or that you don't understand why subjective opinions are not facts.

I freely admit I had never expected to be confronted with the claim that opinions are facts. Even Creationists understand the difference between fact and opinion. They may be confused by which is which, but at least they know that the two are not equivalent.

Honestly, I think you did better back when you had Stalin Tourette's. At least then you didn't openly admit that you can't tell the difference between opinion and fact.

[humblebum]

91. You demonstrate a profound ability to evade any meaningful discussion

by your answers and your constant reliance on ad hominems. Where did I ever say empirical evidence was evidence of an afterlife? The simple fact is that empirical evidence can be used subjectively. To a believer, certain empirical evidence is evidence of an afterlife, therefore subjective to the believer. However, an atheist can look at that same empirical evidence and attribute nothing beyond what is experienced. It is subjective to the nonbeliever in this case. An object can be empirical and still be interpreted or evaluated in different ways. The interpretation is subject. Observation of the object with your senses is objective.

[laconicsax]

92. Again, what empirical evidence?

"Where did I ever say empirical evidence was evidence of an afterlife?"

"To a believer, certain empirical evidence is evidence of an afterlife...an atheist can look at that same empirical evidence and attribute nothing beyond what is experienced."

What evidence?

Your subjective opinions relate to conclusions drawn from the evidence and may be rational or not, but the evidence itself must exist to be evaluated. You have now twice claimed that empirical evidence of an afterlife exists. If this is true, then show it. If the evidence is simply an opinion, then it is an opinion and not evidence.

Again, what is this evidence.

[skepticscott]

93. Observation with your senses is objective?

Dude, you need to be fitted for a new thinking cap. No one could possibly be as wrong as you are as often as you are by accident.

[humblebum]

95. So now you are telling me that something perceived by the senses

is not objective?

[skepticscott]

96. Not only me

but every perceptive and cognitive scientist out there. Do you really need a rundown of the voluminous research showing how easily people can be fooled by their senses and misperceive what is really there? It's something that every single human is subject to.

Try using your googly skills and learn a few things before you unleash more nonsense.

[humblebum]

97. This from the person who denies the existence of deductive inference?

"The terms “objectivity” and “subjectivity,” in their modern usage, generally relate to a perceiving subject (normally a person) and a perceived or unperceived object. The object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it. In other words, the object would “be there,” as it is, even if no subject perceived it. Hence, objectivity is typically associated with ideas such as reality, truth and reliability."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/

Oh yes, and I realize you don't consider empiricism as a process of using the physical senses to evaluate.

[BridgeTheGap]

49. The complex questions of energy, consciousness and dimensions. We know that energy can not

be destroyed. Is consciousness energy or does it take an energetic form? Is it possible that "consciousness" exists in one of the other theoretical dimensions (10 or 11) proposed by string theory physics?

The term "after life" may not represent reality at all.

Did the infrared and ultraviolet wavelengths of light exist before we theorized that they existed, eventually inventing instruments to record light wavelengths that proved they existed? We know they must have. As we discover more and more about how the universe works, outmoded explanations of observed phenomenon go by the way side. And yet, we know so little.

[GliderGuider]

50. If the definition of an afterlife involves the survival of consciousness after death

That leads straight to the fundamental question "What the heck IS consciousness, anyway?"

I have yet to see a decent answer to that one, and without it all discussion of afterlives is moot as far as I'm concerned.

[DeSwiss]

60. You make a very good point.....

...and I like this insight as well:

"From our present knowledge, the most complex things we know about our ourselves. In particular our brains. What's remarkable is that atoms have assembled into entities that are somehow able (my emphasis) to ponder their origins." Sir Martin Rees, Cosmologist (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7044753105944203252#">What We Still Don't Know)

[Jim__]

51. The key to such a rational discussion is that we understand how ignorant we are.

How much do we actually know about the universe? Would serious cosmologists consider the idea of an afterlife? We don't know as much about the actual nature of the universe as some people assume. If we recognize our own ignorance, we know there is an abundance of possibilities.

This is a somewhat old (2008) article from the Science section of the New York Times. This article made it into the Best American Science Writing 2009.

A brief excerpt:

...

This bizarre picture is the outcome of a recent series of calculations that take some of the bedrock theories and discoveries of modern cosmology to the limit. Nobody in the field believes that this is the way things really work, however. And so in the last couple of years there has been a growing stream of debate and dueling papers, replete with references to such esoteric subjects as reincarnation, multiple universes and even the death of spacetime, as cosmologists try to square the predictions of their cherished theories with their convictions that we and the universe are real. The basic problem is that across the eons of time, the standard theories suggest, the universe can recur over and over again in an endless cycle of big bangs, but it’s hard for nature to make a whole universe. It’s much easier to make fragments of one, like planets, yourself maybe in a spacesuit or even — in the most absurd and troubling example — a naked brain floating in space. Nature tends to do what is easiest, from the standpoint of energy and probability. And so these fragments — in particular the brains — would appear far more frequently than real full-fledged universes, or than us. Or they might be us.

Alan Guth, a cosmologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who agrees this overabundance is absurd, pointed out that some calculations result in an infinite number of free-floating brains for every normal brain, making it “infinitely unlikely for us to be normal brains.” Welcome to what physicists call the Boltzmann brain problem, named after the 19th-century Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann, who suggested the mechanism by which such fluctuations could happen in a gas or in the universe. Cosmologists also refer to them as “freaky observers,” in contrast to regular or “ordered” observers of the cosmos like ourselves. Cosmologists are desperate to eliminate these freaks from their theories, but so far they can’t even agree on how or even on whether they are making any progress.

If you are inclined to skepticism this debate might seem like further evidence that cosmologists, who gave us dark matter, dark energy and speak with apparent aplomb about gazillions of parallel universes, have finally lost their minds. But the cosmologists say the brain problem serves as a valuable reality check as they contemplate the far, far future and zillions of bubble universes popping off from one another in an ever-increasing rush through eternity. What, for example is a “typical” observer in such a setup? If some atoms in another universe stick together briefly to look, talk and think exactly like you, is it really you?

“It is part of a much bigger set of questions about how to think about probabilities in an infinite universe in which everything that can occur, does occur, infinitely many times,” said Leonard Susskind of Stanford, a co-author of a paper in 2002 that helped set off the debate. Or as Andrei Linde, another Stanford theorist given to colorful language, loosely characterized the possibility of a replica of your own brain forming out in space sometime, “How do you compute the probability to be reincarnated to the probability of being born?”

more ...

[cleanhippie]

55. Thats right!

And if we could accept that being as ignorant as we are, perpetuating ideas that have no rational basis or supporting facts as true and correct, we could save ourselves a whole lot of heartache, don't you think?

[Jim__]

57. It depends on what you mean by rational basis or supporting facts.

The Boltzmann Brain is a theoretical implication of the theories we use to construct our understanding of the universe. Those same theories lead to inferences of an "afterlife". To ignore the inferences of our theories is to willfully wallow in ignorance.

[cleanhippie]

62. I mean the common definition of rational basis and supporting facts.

Just what it says. Nothing more than is required for any other hypothesis to be proven correct.

As to your assertion that some inferences lead to an afterlife, I say prove it. Until then, it doesnt exist.

[Jim__]

63. It's not my assertion - the assertion is in the cited article.

Your choice to ignore that is exactly what I mean by willfully wallowing in ignorace.

[cleanhippie]

82. Maybe I am failing to understand what you wrote.....

Those same theories lead to inferences of an "afterlife". To ignore the inferences of our theories is to willfully wallow in ignorance.


I infer from your words that you accept the existence of an afterlife based on the "inferences of our theories..."

If I misunderstood you, my bad.

[Jim__]

98. What I meant is that cosmologists accept an "afterlife" as a possibility inferred by our theories.

It is a possibility because our theories leave many questions about the nature of existence open. We don't know enough to draw certain conclusions. Given that cosmologists can rationally discuss the possibility of an afterlife, it seems that DU should be able to rationally discuss the same topic.

[Taverner]

61. OK - Here's reason's take on it:

When you die, if your brain is still alive, it stays alive for a few minutes. During this time, you enter a dream state. That dream state may seem like a thousand years, or a day - but there's your afterlife.

[struggle4progress]

67. I don't think there's widespread agreement about what "the after life" could possibly mean

I'm inclined to take the view that a concept is appropriately judged by the uses to which it can be put -- and that always means that a concept is not considered alone but as part of a large complex of ideas

A typical complex of ideas, often associated with notions of an afterlife, lies in the realm of ethical metaphysics

So, for example, in the ancient Babylonian tale, Gilgamesh visits the proto-Noah who has be granted "eternal life" as reward for saving humanity from utter destruction by a great floor

Similarly, karmic reincarnation ideas teach the idea that one's actions have enduring consequences

[dimbear]

69. We can speak a little more 'rationally' about the cause of the belief

Why, for instance, is the belief that there is an afterlife so widespread? So widespread, in fact, that it not only was pretty evident in the Neanderthals, but that also there is some evidence it is shared by at least some of the other great apes?

Now that you can sit down and talk about. Probably want to start with the innate fear of (shudder).........death.

[cleanhippie]

88. Why can't an OP respond to their own posts?

You make a reasonable question with Why Can’t We Have a Rational Discussion About the Afterlife?

and there are piles of responses and SEVERAL rational discussions going on about the afterlife, and not a peep from you.


WHAT GIVES?

[BridgeTheGap]

100. See response #49. Is that peep enough? n.t

[cleanhippie]

102. My apologies. I missed that.

I'm an ass.

[groovedaddy]

103. To one extent or another, we all are! ;-) n.t

[TreasonousBastard]

99. This thread illustrates why not.

[Iggo]

104. And since that's what was asked in the first place...

...I proclaim this thread a resounding success.

Huzzah! Huzzah!

[GoneOffShore]

105. Perhaps because there is no evidence for one.

And I would refer to two recent pieces.

One in Huff Po (argh) by Victor Stenger http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/the-evidence-against-god_b_682169.html -

Absence of Evidence Is Evidence of Absence


And another - http://crommunist.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/why-everyones-entitled-to-their-opinion-is-a-lie/ Why “everyone’s entitled to their opinion” is a lie

[dimbear]

106. Mathematicians have long sought an odd perfect number

there is no evidence that one exists. They have nice calm discussions about the issue.

[RagAss]

117. Let's talk about your experience before you were born...ok.