Why do people assume that if you don't believe in God, you also

[Th1onein]

don't believe in an afterlife? You don't have to believe in one to believe in the other.

I've also met many people who think that if you don't believe in Jesus, then you must not believe in God. Amazing.

[noahmijo]

1. Well we live in a country that the powers that be say that a talking snake

and a forbidden apple are more important to the teachings of science than the proven theory of evolution or mutation.

So you should just shut up and obey and do whatever the preacher on tv tells you to do.

::sarcasm::

[sirjohn]

2. I quit worrying about what people say a long time ago

There are intolerant and uninformed people everywhere. You are objecting to generalizations made by other people but....(look in mirror).

Choosing friends wisely is the best solution. No need to burden strangers with your opinions if they don't understand you. That's just asking for an argument. (Maybe that's what you're looking for?)

[Th1onein]

10. I take offense at YOUR generalizations about me.

And about why I asked the questions that I asked.

In case you haven't noticed, common courtesy is a rule here on DU.

[LearnedHand]

3. It's the absolute unshakeable belief by the fundies

that EVERYONE is wrong who believes something different from their narrow received version of what gawd really said/did. This inludes (depending on where you live in the U.S.) everyone but Baptists, everyone but Catholics, everyone but Mormons, etc. And forget about them acknowledging spiritual beliefs that don't subscribe to any x-ian roots.

[sirjohn]

7. xx

ooops

[eallen]

4. A god provides a causal explanation for afterlife.

Depending on the god, he either recreates your physical being, using knowledge beyond the worldly, or more directly, he preserves "you" as an immortal soul he created prior to your first embodiment. These supernatural interventions are incongruous with what we perceive, but they still attempt to be explanatory.

In contrast, our best natural theories leave no room for an afterlife. "You" are a collection of cognitive faculties, an epiphenomenon of brain function. The brain is the substrate, and when it stops, you stop.

Yes, of course, there can be notions of afterlife (and of the supernatural) that don't involve gods. Most do. Perhaps anthropomorphizing is the naturally dominant form of fantasazing.

:hippie:

[thinkingwoman]

6. The 1st law of thermodynamics

The 1st law of thermodynamics led to my belief in an afterlife...

"Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed."

The essence of "me" even as you describe it, is energy. It cannot be destroyed. It does not "stop."

It changes. To what? Hmmm. Don't know. But it goes on, hence, an afterlife--one based on natural theory, no less, with no god needed.

[eallen]

11. I know exactly where that energy goes...

It drives the chemical and biological processes of decay, with heat and terminal products entering to the atmosphere and the ground. Worms, bugs, and putrefication. If that is what you mean by an afterlife, then yep, science says you have one. There are books that describe it in some detail:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1883620074/qid=1132153122/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/102-8524904-6040122?v=glance&s=books

But please, do not confuse energy in the thermodynamic sense with some sort of spirit or consciousness. When you make the leap from joules to spiritual meaning, you have left natural theory far behind.

:hippie:

[thinkingwoman]

12. uh sorry

you don't speak for all scientists.

[Goblinmonger]

13. I might have missed something in class

but where/who does the 1st law of thermodynamics indicate it is talking about a "soul." From a scientific point of view, that ain't even in the discussion.

From a logic stand point, all I can say is thank you for a great example of begging the question that I can now use in class.

[thinkingwoman]

15. I might have missed something too

where did I mention a soul in my previous post?

Soul is a very loaded term. Afterlife doesn't have to be so limiting in my view.

That being said, I wonder why the idea of spirit is so threatening to some in the scientific community, and why they are so quick to say that such things don't exist because they haven't proven them.

Science isn't religion either, but it is treated as such by some people, especially many who call themselves atheists. I find that amusing, personally.

If science has not proven the existance of something, it does not mean that thing does not exist. Lack of proof is simply lack of proof. Lack of proof can never be proof against.

Good scientists know that.

[Goblinmonger]

21. There are 4 things I would like to respond to

1. "where did I mention a soul in my previous post? Soul is a very loaded term. Afterlife doesn't have to be so limiting in my view."

That is why I put soul in quotation marks.

2. "I wonder why the idea of spirit is so threatening to some in the scientific community, and why they are so quick to say that such things don't exist because they haven't proven them."

Well, let me say first off that I am not a member of the scientific community; I am a high school English/Communication teacher. But I think I know enough about science to say that if they haven't proven it yet, they are going to resist it because that is the nature of science. Proof. You seem to be chasing your tail in this circular argument.

3. "Science isn't religion either, but it is treated as such by some people, especially many who call themselves atheists. I find that amusing, personally."

"Hello, kettle? This is pot. You're black." I mean, seriously. You start off your post chastising me for using the term soul (which I, kindly if you ask me, put in quotation marks to indicate it wasn't the absolute perfect word) and then you start tossing out the term religion in a discussion of atheists. The first definition of religion at Dictionary.com (which meshes with the three dictionaries I have by my desk) is "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe." Please explain how you think science is that for an atheist. I mean it. Seriously; explain your statement. Stop throwing around words for effect. I think my use of soul was distinctly different from what you were doing with religion.

4. "Lack of proof can never be proof against."

Granted. But guess what? It also isn't proof FOR. Which brings me back to the scientific method. You can believe whatever you want about our "non-physical energy" (is that a better term?), but stop trying to apply scientific, proven theories that have nothing to do with your beliefs to your beliefs like it is a logical step when it is not.

[thinkingwoman]

25. When you resort to a dictionary

you've lost the argument.

Funny you should mention circular arguments and pot-kettle-black. You just did both yourself.

[Goblinmonger]

26. What?

How else do we find what the words we are using actually mean? Granted, Dictionary.com may not be the BEST dictionary out there, but I am limited on time and travel at the moment.

Perchance where did I use a circular argument and call the kettle black? I took the time, when making such claims about you, to use quotations from your post and explain myself. You seem to be using the Bush approach of saying something is true and going no further.

[thinkingwoman]

32. How you spend your time

is your business. I prefer not to waste mine. What I said was simple and clear. Right or wrong, there was nothing complicated about it. You have twisted my words and introduced multiple meanings and then demand that I defend myself against things I didn't say or mean. Sorry, I've got better things to do today.

You have resorted to name calling because I don't want to play a game of semantics about basic science with a high school english teacher. Regardless of how much you push, I just don't feel the need to respond to such nonsense any further.

Have a nice day.

[Goblinmonger]

35. Sounds like the responses I

get from my repug siblings when I present them with the arguments that Bush lied and is ruining the country. Is that an ad hom argument? Maybe, but what a chickenshit way out of this you just took. I have been dealing with specific statements by you and explaining the problems I have with your responses in a relatively neutral manner. Then you just come out with some unsupported claim that I have circular reasoning. Just because you can't win the argument, you "take your ball and leave." Whatever. I have better things to do than to have a conversation with someone that I thought wanted to engage in an intelligent discussion but obviously had not such intent.

And as to the "basic science with a high school english teacher." Nice dismissive attitude.

[thinkingwoman]

38. I got the dismissive attitude

from copying you. If you don't think accusing somebody who doesn't want to play your game of being a repug is dismissive, those dictionaries on your desk aren't worth crap.

You've got issues.

[Goblinmonger]

42. I don't know what you mean by "my game"

You made a statement. If you look back over the thread, you will see that the second you get challenged, by myself or others, all you do is drag the argument into something else. Notice you have never answered my original problems/questions/demands. You have not shown why science is a religion to atheists--you just say that dictionaries are argument losers. You have not addressed how science can be applied to beliefs that were not tested in the scientific method--you just say we are silly for thinking lack of proof means proof against. You don't address how lack of proof also means lack of proof for--you just say it is funny why science does that. You don't respond to my supported claim that you are engaging in circular logic--you just come back with the stunningly brilliant, yet woefully supported, argument of "oh, yeah, so are you."

My "game" is to talk about the issue that was raised and engage in a dialogue. I thought that is why we are here. You cut bait the minute you are challenged.

[thinkingwoman]

43. I'm sure you don't.

Cut bait? Oh sorry...I had to do some work. Needed to pay some bills. Now I'm going to spend some time with my kids. If that's cutting bait to you, so be it.

[Goblinmonger]

48. You had enough time to make this post

Why couldn't you take the time to answer the questions? Don't bother to answer because I'm pretty sure I know.

You wouldn't respond to my post about the electromagnetic field, and when "he" finally did respond, your answer was "whatever." Stunning. Thank you for letting my understand your worldview more fully. I hope you go that far into depth about all of your beliefs and understandings. I, on the other hand, like to see my beliefs and understandings challenged in order to clarify what I know about the universe around me. And FYI, "I'm sure you don't" is not a challenge. It is a desperate response by someone in over their head.

[thinkingwoman]

49. Because I think your questions are stupid

and argumentative.

I think you've been belittling to people who disagree with you on this thread and, finally, I just don't give a flying fuck what you think about me.

Oh, and because I was just passing through after a bathroom break on my way back to the souped up computer that runs the Sid Miers Pirates game, where I am attacking Spanish trade ships right and left.

I do find it very amusing that my reluctance to get sucked into a stupid conversation where I am expected to defend points I never made somehow translates (in your world) to me not ever having challenged my beliefs or throught things through in depth. That's fucking hilarious. Really. :rofl:

I put in my time 20 years ago having deep philosophical discussions and soul searching and all that other crap. My beliefs (which have not been discussed in this thread by me or anyone else) have formed during the past 40 years of my life and I simply don't require validation from strangers on an internet board.

Far from being in over my head, I am merely bored out of my mind by this collection of blathering nonsense that some people are trying to pass off as deep thought.

I'm done jabbering with you now. You can feel free to have the last word before you grade papers or think up stupid homework assignments for you students.

[Goblinmonger]

52. Oh, I get it

I'm a bad English teacher. Nice one.

[eallen]

14. What you're trying to do has nothing to do with science.

I know it's very popular to take scientific notions and extrapolate them in some metaphorical sense to prop up philosophical or religious ideas that have nothing to do with the original science. Philosophers have tried to read ethical consequences into general relativity. Preachers try to make theological arguments from the undecidability of arithmetic. Jeremy Rifkin, who wouldn't know the Gibbs-Helmholtz equation if he stumbled across it in his morning cereal, wrote a political treatise on entropy that deserves nothing but laughter. And every aspect of QM, from the uncertainty principle to decoherence, has been fodder for all sorts of nonsense.

It's very easy to write "the first law of thermodynamics says.." But do you know what it means? Do you have any idea what kind of experiments were done that led to its conclusion? Do you understand the difference between energy, power, and force? Can you describe how to measure these? Do you know what a calorimeter is? Have you ever practiced experiments in any kind of science lab?

A thermodynamics test at Harvard has the same answers as one given at the University of Michigan. Or the Indian Institute of Technology. Physical chemistry is a fairly standard technical subject, like calculus or organic chemistry. If you can begin with thermodynamics and proceed from its basis to make an argument for life-after-death, by all means, do so. My bet, though, judging from the posts above, is that you have never taken a course on thermodynamics, that you wouldn't know how to use a PDE (which is where you would need to begin your argument), and that when you talk about "the first law of thermodynamics," you don't understand that in a technical sense, but in some metaphorical sense. It is only in the technical sense that it has any relation to science or natural law.

[thinkingwoman]

16. What is it I'm trying to do exactly?

Do tell.

It is very easy to do lots of things. It is very easy, for example, to extrapolate from the fact that science has not yielded any evidence of an afterlife to say that science has "proven" there is no such thing. But that is not a scientifically sound conclusion. Failing to prove something doesn't disprove it.

BTW, the 1st law of thermodynamics can be used as the basis for some very complicated stuff, but it isn't that complicated itself. It's basic biology, taught to high school freshman. I don't recreate gravity in a lab either but I can discuss it in day-to-day settings fairly well.

Finally, have I ever practiced experiments in any kind of science lab?

Uh, yeah? I took basic biology in college. I got an A in lab. That being said, I would NEVER present myself as any type of expert or anything, and in fact made no such claims in any of my posts on this thread. Both of my husbands have biology degrees (one a micro, one just a basic) and believe me I am well aware of what I do NOT know. ;-)

This forum is a religion/theology forum, however, and I was unaware that a biology degree was required to post on this topic.

[eallen]

18. Two posts up, you were trying to reason from thermodynamics to afterlife.

Let me quote:

"Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed." The essence of "me" even as you describe it, is energy. It cannot be destroyed. It does not "stop."

All I'm pointing out is that as far as thermodynamics is concerned, any afterlife is nothing more than the biological and chemical decomposition we observe of corpses. If you want to reason to some more substantial kind of afterlife, you need a different starting point.

Now, I understand that many people have religious and other views that have nothing to do with science. I understand that science often cannot disprove such views, and that such views can be hedged in such a fashion as to avoid scientific scrutiny entirely. All I'm saying is: where you want to get, science isn't taking you.

[thinkingwoman]

20. I don't "want to get" anywhere

I simply responded to a statement of yours.

Let me quote:

"In contrast, our best natural theories leave no room for an afterlife. 'You' are a collection of cognitive faculties, an epiphenomenon of brain function. The brain is the substrate, and when it stops, you stop."

All I'm saying (by bringing up the 1st law of thermodynamics) is: "where you want to get, science is taking you" either. "Our best natural theories" don't disprove or prove anything about an afterlife one way or the other. They just are.

It is your conclusion that thermodynamics "reduce" the afterlife to decomposition. Many share your opinion, but not all.

It would do many scientists good to remember two things:

1. science does not and can not explain everything at this time. Will it ever? Possibly yes. I have a lot of "faith" in science actually. But it doesn't now. Whether that is because we (humanity) lack the technology to accurately record and measure things we suspect but cannot yet observe, or whether it is because many scientists have developed a tendency to conclude first and gather evidence later remains to be seen.

2. "things" exist before science proves them. Some flippant examples include the fact that the Earth was round before science proved it and gravity worked before science proved it and the numerous deep sea species that have been "newly discovered" in those deep sea vents were always there, even though science claimed nothing could live in those conditions.

Science does not have all the answers. Claiming that science, therefore leaves no room for an afterlife is silly at best, and, frankly, something approaching a religion of its own.

Finally, I brought up the first law of thermodynamics as a flippant answer to your proclamation that natural theories leave NO room for an afterlife. I never made any claim that thermodynamics proved anything. I made a claim that they leave room for it, which I stand by. You, of course, are free to disagree, but you have to do it based on opinion.

[eallen]

28. It deserves repeating: our best theories leave no room for afterlife.

Tell me, would you object as strenuously if I said, "our best theories leave no room for a hollow earth"? And if not, why does one statement cause so much more heartburn than the other?

When I said our best natural theories leave no room for an afterlife, I meant specifically the best theories we have of cognitition and consciousness. While these are still relatively young fields, all the evidence points to the nervous system as the substrate for cognitive faculties. Some of the best evidence for this is the loss of these faculties when specific parts of the nervous system or brain are damaged. One light but insightful book on that subject was written by Oliver Sachs:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684853949/qid=1132170402

Now, yeah, these are just the best theories we have so far. New data and future science might cause us to revisit the notion of ghosts. Or of a hollow earth. But as things stand now, the best theories we have leave no room for either.

[thinkingwoman]

41. I beg your pardon

for assuming that "natural" theories refered to basic science. My apologies.

I don't have heartburn, btw, but thanks for the concern. I do however have aching sides from laughing so much on this thread.

P.S. Do you really buy your books from Amazon? Aren't they a red company? I buy all my books from Barnes & Noble. They donate heavily to Democrats.

[eallen]

44. Biology and neurology are no less natural than thermodynamics....

The laws of thermodynamics are postulated to have greater scope. Biology and neurology study life only as we see it in this particular corner of the universe.

But scope should not be confused with certainty or other epistemological status. If anything, their greater scope puts the laws of thermodynamics at greater risk. I wouldn't be surprised when quantum or cosmological processes are discovered that bend some of the thermodynamic laws. I would be stunned if biologists discover a mammal whose genetic code involves unknown bases.

[thinkingwoman]

46. Whatever. nt.

[Goblinmonger]

22. The laws of gravity

prove that I am god to all things smaller than I. They have an attraction to me.

Sound silly? Sounds just as silly to me as your extrapolation of thermodynamics to the afterlife.

[thinkingwoman]

24. Well my lord

I disagree. :evilgrin:

[Goblinmonger]

29. Too bad you don't have any proof against it.

In your world, it is just as valid as any other "theory" that has not proof against it.

[thinkingwoman]

30. In my world?

So let me get this straight. Your interpretation is the only valid one?

Good for you.

[Goblinmonger]

31. No

My statement is that the world you create for proof does not allow you to deny my interpretation of myself as god. There is not proof against it so it is just as valid as an argument that my pet chinchilla is the physical embodiment of the earth's creator.

[thinkingwoman]

33. does your world include humor?

Because calling you lord was a joke.

If I had played by the rules in "my world" however, I would have simply ignored you. In "my world" people who condescend to those they disagree with aren't worth any effort to communicate further with.

[Goblinmonger]

36. Yeah, I got it the first time

I just thought you were ignoring the argument, much like you claimed eallen was doing.

Condescending? Like saying you have better things to do than have a discussion of basic science with an english teacher? Kinda like that? Huh? Yeah. Because we all know that English teachers know nothing about science.

[thinkingwoman]

39. and neither do we lay people. nt.

[Bill McBlueState]

54. damn

This is good. You've written a fine defense of the scientific method. I really think it demeans the work of great scientists of the past when people use precise mathematical statements to prop up their personal philosophies.

A lot of careful work went into the law of energy conservation for it to get twisted into some kind of argument for life after death.

[Th1onein]

17. I disagree with you.

There is a lot of research showing that there is some sort of electromagnetic field around our bodies and that field leaves our bodies when we die. Where does it go? It is not used to fuel our decay. It must go somewhere, because the Fourth Law (not the first) of Thermodynamics says that energy can be neither created nor destroyed.

[eallen]

19. The first law is the conservation of energy.

Traditionally, there are three laws of thermodynamics: the first is the conservation of energy, the second is the increase of entropy in closed systems, and the third is Nernst's law, that entropy at absolute zero is zero. The first two are special cases of the Gibbs-Helmholtz equations. I've heard of two things that are sometimes called the "fourth" law. (1) Georgescu-Roetgen proposed a fourth law that, as far as I can tell, lacks operational meaning. (2) The Onsager relations are sometimes called the fourth law.

[thinkingwoman]

23. notice he ignored the electromagnetic field

stuff when he responded to your post.

Thank you for being more specific than I was. I should have included the electromagnetic info instead of lumping into the energy/essence stuff.

The question really is what is consciousness and is there a conscious afterlife. If consciousness is contained in that electromagnetic energy that envelopes us, does consciousness continue with that field when it leaves the body and where oh where does it go?

:hi:

[Goblinmonger]

27. OK, I'll tackle it

until "he" can get around to it. Realize I am not a "scientist."

I will slip into the belief that there is an electromagnetic field around humans. I don't know that is true or false (is it also there for non-human animals?). But I bet something in the body is creating that field. It doesn't just exist. Energy is being used by the body to create it. It is not there when we die because the engine for the production of that energy is not running anymore.

[thinkingwoman]

34. I'll wait for "him"

There's no "belief" to "slip into." The electromagnetic field has been observed.

And you "bet" something in the body is creating it? Wow, that's scientific.

[Goblinmonger]

37. I can't wait for "his" description either

because he seems much more well read in this area than either of us put together.

For someone who says that resorting to a dictionary is bad, you are pretty quick to jump on the exact usage of words (read: bet). But I thought that was a pretty good usage of the word given that I have read nothing about this but feel my explanation is in line with the laws of thermodynamics as I understand them.

[thinkingwoman]

40. again, sense of humor, get one. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

45. Describe this highly researched electromagnetic field to us

Do you refer to what an EEG or ECG detect? If so, then it 'leaves' in the sense that the cells in our bodies stop producing electric currents when they die - and so they stop producing an electromagnetic field close to our body. Just as the electromagnetic fields around a computer monitor 'leave' when you switch it off. It takes energy to produce those fields. A dead cell is one that is no longer turning chemical energy into electrical energy. That chemical energy is the food we eat.

If you think there's something else with 'a lot of research', then tell us what it is.

I'd also like to see your 1st 3 laws of thermodynamics, if you say the 4th is that energy can neither be created or destroyed.

[Bill McBlueState]

56. em field

There's an electromagnetic field any time a net charge is present. When you touch a metal surface and get shocked, you're seeing the effects of such a field. When you die, the field doesn't "notice." Electrons don't care whether you're dead or alive.

on edit: A type of field that Muriel describes would be dependent on your cells doing what they do when they're alive, so it would dissipate when your cells stop doing those things. But it would dissipate as heat energy. There's no need to postulate any magic at work.

[Bill McBlueState]

53. I've tried to make this point before

"When you make the leap from joules to spiritual meaning, you have left natural theory far behind."

That's a great way of saying it. Newton's Laws, the Laws of Thermodynamics, the General Theory of Relativity -- these are precise mathematical statements, not magical catchphrases.

Sure, people can use them for their own purposes, but to say that science supports your pet philosophy is just twisting the meaning of the words.

[sirjohn]

9. Hey, that was pretty good

Much better than the other hostile stuff that was posted. It's all about peace. Begins with oneself. Complaining about what other people believe is a road to nowhere. The only way to change people is to show by example. "Before you remove the speck from your neighbor's eye, take the log out of your own." Am I allowed to say that here?

[DemInDistress]

5. Here's how I feel..Is/was Jesus a "Deity" ?

from outer space/heavens? How do virgins have babies? The God I'll accept came before the Big Bang..All other gods were humans who rose to be god like people,even Jim Jones was a god to some and look where it got them.Some Americans dim-son is a god !! I was rolling on the floor..then he talks about speaking to god.wow.maybe from the bottom of bottle he spoke to god.
Its a tough call b/c I don't knock believers..

[Aimah]

8. Some people live in a small box.

I've learned not to pay attention to them.

[thinkingwoman]

47. For the same reason

that people assume that if you do believe in an afterlife, that you MUST believe in some diety and you MUST reject science and that afterlife MUST conform to their definition of afterlife: because they have trouble with anything that doesn't fit their rigid paradigm. :eyes:

[Maat]

50. I'm with you, Thinkingwoman.

That's why I'm a Religious Scientist (Church of Religious Science); science and evolution ARE compatible with my spiritual belief system.

[thinkingwoman]

51. Hey Maat

Yours is a belief system I don't know anything about. Where is a good source of information?

I've been slowly studying other systems for a long time now. I find them fascinating. Sometimes what I encounter makes me question mine and change it. Other times what I encounter strengthens my beliefs. But I always find elements of truth and commonality. I think that means something.

I really love learning about other systems but I insist on learning about them from sources within rather than critics.

P.S. Science and evolution are not only compatible with my spiritual belief system, they are vital. We're here to learn.

edited for the correct "here"...bad migraine is making me stupid. :eyes:

[Maat]

59. Funny you should say that .. my sinuses are killing me out here in Calif..

www.rsintl.org is the place to go (see Frequently-asked questions).

Thanks for asking, by the way.

I LOVE studying different spiritualities; I've been into Native-American -style drumming and meditative techniques the last few months.

Take care!

:hug:

[beam me up scottie]

55. My goodness.

How did I miss this little beauty of a thread?

I think I'll make a cup of joe and take my time reading all of the posts.

I have a feeling it will be very educational.

[Bill McBlueState]

57. educational?

Is that what you call it? :rofl:

I look at it more as a "net negative change in intellect," sort of like what you get from binge drinking.

Be careful!

[beam me up scottie]

58. Yes indeed.

It explains a lot of what I've seen and experienced elsewhere in this forum.

I thought I went through the rabbit hole, but now I see it's not me that has a problem with reality.

Excellent work, all of you "science worshipers" on this thread. :applause:

[Goblinmonger]

60. I did my best

as a lowly English teacher.

Don't forget our service at the First Church of the Method this sabbath.

[beam me up scottie]

61. I'll say a prayer to the Big Guy for you tonight.