Dawkins and Death

nyarlothothep

While I agree with Richard Dawkins that there almost certainly isnt a god in the personalized I am your god sense, I have a problem with his argument on this basis

death

death sucks, and most if not all arguments, I would argue, for the existence of an afterlife derive from trying to justify to ourselves that we wont die even though we know, or think, that we will, hence trying to justify it to ourselves by argument.

That is why I think Dawkins overstates the case on religion. While he is right that religion has caused a lot of suffering and isnt necessarily a source of consolement I think he overlooks or fails to give enough acknowledgement to cases where it does offer such consolement. (even if it is false make believe its still valid in human terms).

In my opinion I think the induction of a completely atheistic culture should not be undertaken to be completed until we find cures for terminal illnesses and find a way of greatly, or indefinately, extending human life spans.

Although Ill acknowledge that you can have a spiritual side to life while being an atheist I dont think it would be of much use to someone who is born with a terminal illness and lives most of their short life in pain. Im not saying they have to be religious, far from it in fact, but what I am saying is that myths of an afterlife/ghosts etc that circulate around in culture can be good to cling to in times of desperation.

Also, (as I recall, because its been 5 months since I read the God Delusion) Dawkins cites one of his colleagues as saying "Im going to enjoy this lunch right now" in response to a question on how you can derive joy from life, knowing that its going to end. Well just in relation to that, I find such an answer to be very insubstantial. How can one fully, truly enjoy life when you know its going to end. Its like trying to enjoy a party with the knowledge that youre going to be killed afterwards. One might argue it gives more reason to enjoy things as they are, but ultimately its going to be at the back of everyones heads that they are going to die and so the enjoyment they are getting from living is dampened a bit.

Ultimately I think we shouldnt accept death but defy it and everything (by everything, I mean heirarchies, the universe, physical laws, this is a bit jokey but mastering conditions rather than being a slave to them is a noble pursuit).

Goodshape

I disagree entirely.

I have a very hard time getting my head around the idea that this life can only be 'worth anything', or enjoyed to its fullest, when it's seen as only a stepping stone to something else.

nyarlothothep

Goodshape wrote:

I disagree entirely.

I have a very hard time getting my head around the idea that this life can only be 'worth anything', or enjoyed to its fullest, when it's seen as only a stepping stone to something else.

I never meant that at all. I was saying that the complete abolishment of religion in society might have negative effects. When someone is dying religion, or the belief in the afterlife, whatever you want to call it, mystical make believe etc, is a powerful pyschological drug for resolving oneself to death. The answer of "just accept life as it is and go with it" doesnt quite cut it.

I never said life would be better if it was a stepping stone to something else. I meant that it would be better if it was a phase of existence, aka, something that has a beginning and an end as is valid inside its boundaries, before you start anew in another plane of existence. It would be like finishing a really good piece of sculpture and starting a new one. It wouldnt be a stepping stone then. Thats what I said would be better.

Everything we do is going to amount to nothing in the end. All our values and ideals are the products of mute natural selection, how can they have integrity when our own subjective interpretation of their integrity is derived from the same mechanical semi random/environmentally determined processes? So you could say life is like building up a really nice sand castle before its washed away in an instant by an incoming tide no?

Im advocating for not accepting life or death as the way they are

Demetrius

nyarlothothep wrote:

I never meant that at all. I was saying that the complete abolishment of religion in society might have negative effects. When someone is dying religion, or the belief in the afterlife, whatever you want to call it, mystical make believe etc, is a powerful pyschological drug for resolving oneself to death. The answer of "just accept life as it is and go with it" doesnt quite cut it.

I never said life would be better if it was a stepping stone to something else. I meant that it would be better if it was a phase of existence, aka, something that has a beginning and an end as is valid inside its boundaries, before you start anew in another plane of existence. It would be like finishing a really good piece of sculpture and starting a new one. It wouldnt be a stepping stone then. Thats what I said would be better.

Everything we do is going to amount to nothing in the end. All our values and ideals are the products of mute natural selection, how can they have integrity when our own subjective interpretation of their integrity is derived from the same mechanical semi random/environmentally determined processes? So you could say life is like building up a really nice sand castle before its washed away in an instant by an incoming tide no?

Im advocating for not accepting life or death as the way they are

Most of the time, people do that anyway, whether they believe in an afterlife or not. They put death out of their minds and focus on something other than death, or make themselves believe that they have a good few years of life left.

johnnyskeleton

nyarlothothep wrote:

In my opinion I think the induction of a completely atheistic culture should not be undertaken

Does Dawkins argue for a completely atheistic culture and the abolition of religion in society? I knew he was a shine box scientist, but if this is so he may also be a little hitler.

Crucifix

When Dawkins was on the late late show a girl in the audience talked about how religion had helped her and he replied something along the lines of "But that doesn't make it true". I don't argee with Dawkins on lots of things, but I think this is a fair position. If my wife was cheating on me I'd rather know it, even though it wouldn't make me happier. I prefer to depend on quantum mechanics, even though it's crazy nature upsets me. And yes, I'd prefer to accept that I'm going to die and that'll be it, than to try and assuage my fear of death with some belief in something more.

Well just in relation to that, I find such an answer to be very insubstantial. How can one fully, truly enjoy life when you know its going to end.

I don't know how, but I am doing it right now.

Goodshape

nyarlothothep wrote:

I meant that it would be better if it was a phase of existence, aka, something that has a beginning and an end as is valid inside its boundaries, before you start anew in another plane of existence. It would be like finishing a really good piece of sculpture and starting a new one.

It sounds like you're trying to justify a belief in an afterlife by just changing a few words and phrases (either heaven/'another plane of existence' or reincarnation/'starting a new one').

Everything we do is going to amount to nothing in the end. All our values and ideals are the products of mute natural selection

But that's not true. While I do think that this life, my consciousness and being, will cease to be when I die, that doesn't mean it will be the end of my influence on the human race. Even 'natural selection' is not mute, it's survival of the fittest. The best ideas, the biggest influences, the strongest and most vocal go on to be remembered and shape the world that comes after.

Some peoples influences will be less than others of course (although I believe everyone makes a difference), but to take some famous examples, I don't think you can look at people such as Buddha, Ghandi, Hitler, Albert Einstein, Michael Collins, (list could go on), and say that everything they've done amounted to nothing in the end [of their lives].

Bottom line is that this is the only time you will ever exist. I don't really see any way around that. But the influence of your existence will go on long after you've gone.

After life? Yes, there is life after yours. But in terms of individual existence, this is the only one you get. The opportunity you have now is to make this a better (or worse) place for the life that does comes after you. Personally, I think that's motivation enough to want and try to be the best individual you can be.

The human race has such amazing, almost infinite, potential. Why be so selfish in your one tiny instance of life to squander that potential, simply because you, the individual, won't be around to wittiness it personally?

nyarlothothep

Goodshape wrote:

It sounds like you're trying to justify a belief in an afterlife by just changing a few words and phrases (either heaven/'another plane of existence' or reincarnation/'starting a new one').


But that's not true. While I do think that this life, my consciousness and being, will cease to be when I die, that doesn't mean it will be the end of my influence on the human race. Even 'natural selection' is not mute, it's survival of the fittest. The best ideas, the biggest influences, the strongest and most vocal go on to be remembered and shape the world that comes after.

Some peoples influences will be less than others of course (although I believe everyone makes a difference), but to take some famous examples, I don't think you can look at people such as Buddha, Ghandi, Hitler, Albert Einstein, Michael Collins, (list could go on), and say that everything they've done amounted to nothing in the end [of their lives].

Bottom line is that this is the only time you will ever exist. I don't really see any way around that. But the influence of your existence will go on long after you've gone.

After life? Yes, there is life after yours. But in terms of individual existence, this is the only one you get. The opportunity you have now is to make this a better (or worse) place for the life that does comes after you. Personally, I think that's motivation enough to want and try to be the best individual you can be.

The human race has such amazing, almost infinite, potential. Why be so selfish in your one tiny instance of life to squander that potential, simply because you, the individual, won't be around to wittiness it personally?

I was trying to justify the existence of an afterlife only in the hypothetical sense, and in response to your stepping stone comment about my original post which I wanted to clarify.

But heres a self conscious justification attempt Ill throw in for some fun. Every human being is unique even if they belong to specific genotype. This uniqueness is absolute. That gives some thought as to the imprint a person leaves on reality and whether this absolutism affects their existence.

I would disagree to some extent with survival of the fittest in relation to the human race. A poor man might have 6 babies while a rich man might have 2. Survival of the fittest is negotiated for humans, it applies but not in the way it does for lower life forms.

You also mention the best ideas continue to exist due to natural selection. What makes them the best? Theyre just selected because they are most beneficial to their surrounding environment and because they prosper within it. It has nothing to do with actually being good. For example Van Gogh was ignored for ages because his surround "meme pool" couldnt appreciate his artistry. In terms of evolution creatures evolve to become more adapted to their environment as opposed to being better in a qualitative/ontological sense. In terms of culture, well I dont think we should apply natural selection here because then you end up with conclusions like Westlife are amazing.

Imo the human race has potential but not anything near almost infinite potential. We're good but not great. And we squander our potential most of the time. We probably more than likely will never be able to comprehend the totality of existence, because we're not smart enough. And as a species we can be so incredibly dumb. The kind of people that get elected etc, the fact that so many things are divisible to the market economy rhethoric of "will this make money," the insane idiocy of wars and foreign adventures, it really makes you wonder whether the human race was dropped on its collective head when it was born into existence. Sure we've done some great things and we're definately progressing, two thumbs up for that, but we've got a long way to go before we acheive almost infinite potential.

I am human, not super human, so if resenting the reality of death makes me selfish, then yes I am selfish. But at least through resenting it we can make efforts to eradicate it and consequently through our selfishness make the world a better place for those who come after us. In addition, I never said that one should just do nothing with the time theyve got just because they will die, quite the opposite in fact but I did say that death is a problem which should be resolved rather than just accepting it (ie developing anti ageing drugs, computer networks to store minds in etc).

Now what I was really taking issue with is Dawkins saying that religion should be removed from society. Just to answer a question on this thread, he does basically say that he would prefer if religion didnt exist because even if its benign it always fosters the potential for fanaticism and hes quite right on that. But I dont agree that simply removing it in its entirety is the solution yet. If you solve death then probably yes, but not now in our current state of advancement.

Lastly, everything is subject to entropy. A persons legacy might last thousands of years. That doesnt change the fact that ultimately it will die out when this universe dies, (if it managed to survive that long which would be improbable).

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

solve death?

solve.... death?

it's not a math problem, it's death. There's no solving it.

nyarlothothep

Mordeth wrote:

solve death?

solve.... death?

it's not a math problem, it's death. There's no solving it.

we can extend life potentially for thousands of years, once we understand how the mind works and how we can manipulate physical matter. Like it should be possible to transfer a persons mind into a distributed network or something like that. And they could inhabit artificial or grown bodies or a combination of both (cyborgs!). It may even be possible for minds to float around freely through the universe if they can retain their coherence through some device, (it doesnt even need to an object, it can be made from energy). At that stage they could leave the universe if they wished. I know its very sci fi but imo its not completely 100% impossible.

Besides which I definately think its possible to extend life to at least 250 years if not a 1000, beyond the measly amount we're born with.

Zillah

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Does Dawkins argue for a completely atheistic culture and the abolition of religion in society? I knew he was a shine box scientist, but if this is so he may also be a little hitler.

He would like if religion would go away. He does not propose we use violence and secret police to make it go away.

Fairly obvious, and important distinction.

bonkey

nyarlothothep wrote:

How can one fully, truly enjoy life when you know its going to end.

How can one fully, truly enjoy something when you believe that its merely a transitory stage you have to pass through to get to something better?

Additionally, your question appears to be predicated on the idea that life is meant to be enjoyed and enjoyed as fully as possible at that.

Are you doing something wrong if you don't enjoy your life as fully as you could?

Are you doing something right if you enjoy your life as fully as you can even to the point of your enjoyment being detrimental to others?

Ultimately I think we shouldnt accept death but defy it

Even if that defiance is to the detriment of others?

nyarlothothep

bonkey wrote:

How can one fully, truly enjoy something when you believe that its merely a transitory stage you have to pass through to get to something better?

Additionally, your question appears to be predicated on the idea that life is meant to be enjoyed and enjoyed as fully as possible at that.

Are you doing something wrong if you don't enjoy your life as fully as you could?

Are you doing something right if you enjoy your life as fully as you can even to the point of your enjoyment being detrimental to others?



Even if that defiance is to the detriment of others?

Ive already made it explicitly clear that I was never talking about life being better if it was a stepping stone to something better, please read my previous posts on that matter.

I also never stated or suggested that life should just be enjoyed. Imo enjoyment is one part of the experience. One always bought at the expense of suffering afterwards or through effort, no matter how minimal.

If you talk about defiance to the detriment of sentient beings then, I believe alternate solutions would have to be found to solve death. Same for enjoyment.

Imo life is tragedy in way. Every moment dies and is lost forever, it can never be reclaimed. You could argue thats what makes every moment precious. I would argue that in a better universe every moment would have that same quality without non existence.

Overall Im making a fairly reasonable case

1. lets cure death, or at least greatly extend life- theres a theory that if you live say to 250 with advancements in medical tech in the next century, by the time your 220, another wave of advancements will be achieved which will enable you to live to say double that and so on until you no longer need a physical body to live, with technology being so advanced at that stage. Its very idealistic Ill grant, but its also very appealing.

2. Dawkins would like if religion would just go away. I think it should be handled with care instead. Im in agreement with his points on religion. However, in a completely materialistic culture it would conceivably leave a lot of people irritated about their lot. As I said Im not saying they would have to religious themselves. But if the concept of gods/afterlife blah blah blah, were still circulating they could grab onto that as a source of consolement instead of being faced with the stark reality. I dont think humanity is ready for the complete dissapearance of superstition yet. Until we can remove incurable illnesses from the gene pool and improve on poverty and other unjustified social injustices etc its too soon. Truth is important but not of paramount importance. The value assigned to it is the product imo of the Enlightenment. In fact I wonder sometimes what truth even means. There are different types of truth, this is dodgy territory because it leads to relativism, but I think you can see where Im coming from if I say the truth attained through artistic creation is just as valid in its own way as a mathematical truth.

da_deadman

nyarlothothep wrote:

Every moment dies and is lost forever, it can never be reclaimed. You could argue thats what makes every moment precious. I would argue that in a better universe every moment would have that same quality without non existence.

But we are not in a “better universe” we are in this universe, as good and bad as it is. Therefore the best we can do, in our (relatively) short lives, is to enjoy the good moments, suffer through the bad moments and generally try to make the best of our time.

nyarlothothep wrote:

Overall Im making a fairly reasonable case

1. lets cure death, or at least greatly extend life- theres a theory that if you live say to 250 with advancements in medical tech in the next century, by the time your 220, another wave of advancements will be achieved which will enable you to live to say double that and so on until you no longer need a physical body to live, with technology being so advanced at that stage. Its very idealistic Ill grant, but its also very appealing.

I do realise that you don’t think it would be so easy to cure death but it’s amusing to read a post saying “lets cure death”. It might just be me but I think I would prefer to see some really big global efforts to reduce human waste and carbon emissions. Let’s try to conserve and save all the endangered species in the world. We could make efforts for a fairer distribution of food and money throughout the world. Maybe after all that we could devote some energy to trying to “solve death”.

Also, the idea of living to 250, or more, might be very appealing to you but I can’t see the appeal of it.

nyarlothothep wrote:

2. Dawkins would like if religion would just go away. I think it should be handled with care instead. Im in agreement with his points on religion. However, in a completely materialistic culture it would conceivably leave a lot of people irritated about their lot. As I said Im not saying they would have to religious themselves. But if the concept of gods/afterlife blah blah blah, were still circulating they could grab onto that as a source of consolement instead of being faced with the stark reality. I dont think humanity is ready for the complete dissapearance of superstition yet. Until we can remove incurable illnesses from the gene pool and improve on poverty and other unjustified social injustices etc its too soon.

Something that has just occurred to me though, would religions not be against this idea of ‘playing God’ by trying to live forever? For the religions that believe in an afterlife I think they would be completely opposed to this whole idea. Therefore the only way to really try and achieve what you want would be in a society without religion.

Also, to work towards the goal of achieving eternal life people would have to have disregarded the whole concept of Gods /afterlife. They would need to have faced up to the stark reality of life & death, and to be very irritated about their lot, before making efforts to achieve such a difficult goal. So perhaps the two points in your reasonable case don’t correlate?

bonkey

nyarlothothep wrote:

Ive already made it explicitly clear that I was never talking about life being better if it was a stepping stone to something better, please read my previous posts on that matter.

Then look at the question differently. How can you really, really enjoy life if you know its not going to end.

If there is no impetus to do it while you still have time, then don't you lose a certain amount of pleasure, of drive, of enjoyment?

I also never stated or suggested that life should just be enjoyed

I never said just enjoyed either. You asked how you can fully enjoy something given certain conditions. I pointed out that this is predicted on a premise that enjoyment is somehow meant to be had.

If you want to shift the question to mean something else, then changing the conditions ('you will die' to 'you may not die') changes the capacity for enjoyment. At this point, you're not asking "how can you fully enjoy", but rather "can you gain more enjoyment by changing the conditions", which still implicitly suggests that enjoyment is somehow a goal of the system.

Imo enjoyment is one part of the experience.

I agree that it can be. I also believe suffering is one part of the experience, but I don't see you making a case that living without end would give us the cpacity for endless suffering.

One always bought at the expense of suffering afterwards or through effort, no matter how minimal.

You seem to accept that adding enjoyment can lead to added suffering...but are still arguing for it?

Overall Im making a fairly reasonable case

I don't believe you are.

1. lets cure death, or at least greatly extend life-

The inequality already prevalent and growing in our society suggests that the logical result of this would be even greater disparity, resulting "greater enjoyment" for the lucky few, and "greater suffering" for the unlucky many.

I don't see this as a worthwhile goal.

Its very idealistic Ill grant, but its also very appealing.

Sure it is...if you ignore the costs.

What if the cost for all of this is that to pay to live to be 250 you have to work till your 220. Once you get there, and dscover you can live for another two centuries, you still need to be able to pay for living another two centuries, probably by working for another two centuries.

Now, if you work in a reasonably well-paying job thats not too strenuous and that you enjoy and see possibilities for improvement over the years that mightn't seem like such a bad deal to you...especially if you haven't already been doing it for 2o or 30 years.

But I challenge you to find people in their 50s and 60s who've been working in dead-end jobs for the previous two decades who would welcome the possibility to continue doing that for centuries.

Then consider...if you stop death, you explode population. Where will they all live? How will they be fed? We have enough problems maintaining the population we have on the planet at the moment. If we simply brought them all up to the standard of livnig enjoyed in (say) the US, we'd need several planets worth of resources. If we also gave them all the ability to live 3 times longer, we'd see further population explosions, requring even more.

Or we can accept that "live longer" implicitly invovles exclusion...that we'll create an even-more divided society, where only the lucky few will be allowed access to this great future, and the rest will be kept from it - oppressed if necessary.

A brighter future? A worthy goal? No thanks. Not today. Probably not in my lifetime.

I'd rather see us spend our energy in finding a solution to problems which benefit as much of society as possible, rather than something which would implicitly drive us even greater apart.

Ask yourself this - would you want this goal persued if you knew you'd be one of the ones who lost out by it being achieved, rather than one who gained?

nyarlothothep

bonkey wrote:

Then look at the question differently. How can you really, really enjoy life if you know its not going to end.

If there is no impetus to do it while you still have time, then don't you lose a certain amount of pleasure, of drive, of enjoyment?



I never said just enjoyed either. You asked how you can fully enjoy something given certain conditions. I pointed out that this is predicted on a premise that enjoyment is somehow meant to be had.

If you want to shift the question to mean something else, then changing the conditions ('you will die' to 'you may not die') changes the capacity for enjoyment. At this point, you're not asking "how can you fully enjoy", but rather "can you gain more enjoyment by changing the conditions", which still implicitly suggests that enjoyment is somehow a goal of the system.


I agree that it can be. I also believe suffering is one part of the experience, but I don't see you making a case that living without end would give us the cpacity for endless suffering.


You seem to accept that adding enjoyment can lead to added suffering...but are still arguing for it?


I don't believe you are.


The inequality already prevalent and growing in our society suggests that the logical result of this would be even greater disparity, resulting "greater enjoyment" for the lucky few, and "greater suffering" for the unlucky many.

I don't see this as a worthwhile goal.


Sure it is...if you ignore the costs.

What if the cost for all of this is that to pay to live to be 250 you have to work till your 220. Once you get there, and dscover you can live for another two centuries, you still need to be able to pay for living another two centuries, probably by working for another two centuries.

Now, if you work in a reasonably well-paying job thats not too strenuous and that you enjoy and see possibilities for improvement over the years that mightn't seem like such a bad deal to you...especially if you haven't already been doing it for 2o or 30 years.

But I challenge you to find people in their 50s and 60s who've been working in dead-end jobs for the previous two decades who would welcome the possibility to continue doing that for centuries.

Then consider...if you stop death, you explode population. Where will they all live? How will they be fed? We have enough problems maintaining the population we have on the planet at the moment. If we simply brought them all up to the standard of livnig enjoyed in (say) the US, we'd need several planets worth of resources. If we also gave them all the ability to live 3 times longer, we'd see further population explosions, requring even more.

Or we can accept that "live longer" implicitly invovles exclusion...that we'll create an even-more divided society, where only the lucky few will be allowed access to this great future, and the rest will be kept from it - oppressed if necessary.

A brighter future? A worthy goal? No thanks. Not today. Probably not in my lifetime.

I'd rather see us spend our energy in finding a solution to problems which benefit as much of society as possible, rather than something which would implicitly drive us even greater apart.

Ask yourself this - would you want this goal persued if you knew you'd be one of the ones who lost out by it being achieved, rather than one who gained?

just as a pointer, could you stop multi quoting and instead address my argument as a whole.

1. Speaking for myself my enjoyment of life is predicated on the continual experience, irrespective of it ending. Therefore, I would not enjoy life to any lesser extent if I knew it wasnt going to end, I would only enjoy it more.

2. Your picking at my words and taking them out of context. Obviously total enjoyment is impossible and Im talking about increasing enjoyment, I expect people to be able to see the word fully just as an expressive use of language, not as an actual statement about full enjoyment. Debating over words is just going to divert the argument into needless semantics.

Secondly I wouldnt see increased suffering, if not infinite suffering as a bad thing, as it would be tempered by increased/infinite enjoment. While I resent suffering, and ideally could envision another universe where suffering was replaced by something positive to counter enjoyment as another positive (such a universe wouldnt operate according to the logic of this universe where countering involves opposites), I accept that its here and that its part of the experience. It doesnt bother me as a result, suffering makes life interesting.

Yes the introduction of anti ageing drugs would potentially introduce even greater social equality. But I believe that people would find reasonable solutions to reduce any potential population explosions in developed countries. How, I dont know but the prospect of living longer should compel people not to act rashly. Also people are living longer now than they have been for centuries in developed countries and there arent any imminent threatening imbalances. Populations in Europe are stable (where people live much longer than those in 3rd world countries where the explosions are happening )

With regards to people having to work for 250 years or whatever, thats up to them. You make choices in life and thats it, its down to the people themselves what they want to do with their time, some work in dead end jobs, there might be a lot of factors dissuading them from taking up another occupation but nobody is stopping them from doing so.

3rd world countries are probably going to lose out in light of many reasons, no family planning, lack of education, poor industry,etc in addition to the trade practices and debt which hold them in servitude. So instead of using several planets worth of resources to improve living standards globally a better solution is just to reform trade practices and bring corporations and goverments to account (easier said than done but this is how you could allow such nations to truly develop and hence have a strong enough social infrastructure to allow for the extension of lives, I would envision it being a mess otherwise in terms of population sizes, economies etc).

I dont see why such drugs need to be highly expensive, I dont think it would be tenable in any case here as there would be a lot of civil unrest probably, which would topple the status quo (survival is powerful force).

These are all assumptions.

However

We've always been trying to extend life. No one wants to die. I think many here would take the opportunity to extend their own lives. Would you? I know I would. Its survivalism. And personally I would take the risk of being among those who lose out. I think that is being reasonable.

With regards to religions/eternal life, yep there certainly is a contradiction but Im not interested in the logicalism of it, its pragmatism. Im talking really hypothetically in putting on the ruler of the world hat, so what I would be saying is to constrain religion for the moment by disseminating scientific fact in an impartial manner which contradicts religious assumptions, but not in an antagonistic way. Then once you cure death unleash a whole barrage of media dissemination (above the current levels) ultimately giving people a choice, a weighted choice. Its impossible and unfair to force people that would always believe in supernatural beings to give up those beliefs but you could make religion "go away" in a sense from the process Ive described, although if there are better ways to do it so be it. Its not like religious people are innocent lambs either, theyre trying spread "the word of God"

skeptic griggsy

I never have given thought to a future state!Demetrius,right. It is purely "mustabatory" to want a future state. We cannot have all we want and a future state is not a must,but a want:eek: .We don't need that no more than we need another life beforehand as in reincarnation.We can find solace in other ways- having friends and family around.:cool:

Offalycool

nyarlothothep wrote:

1. lets cure death, or at least greatly extend life- theres a theory that if you live say to 250 with advancements in medical tech in the next century, by the time your 220, another wave of advancements will be achieved which will enable you to live to say double that and so on until you no longer need a physical body to live, with technology being so advanced at that stage. Its very idealistic Ill grant, but its also very appealing.

2. Dawkins would like if religion would just go away. I think it should be handled with care instead. Im in agreement with his points on religion. However, in a completely materialistic culture it would conceivably leave a lot of people irritated about their lot. As I said Im not saying they would have to religious themselves. But if the concept of gods/afterlife blah blah blah, were still circulating they could grab onto that as a source of consolement instead of being faced with the stark reality. I dont think humanity is ready for the complete dissapearance of superstition yet. Until we can remove incurable illnesses from the gene pool and improve on poverty and other unjustified social injustices etc its too soon. Truth is important but not of paramount importance. The value assigned to it is the product imo of the Enlightenment. In fact I wonder sometimes what truth even means. There are different types of truth, this is dodgy territory because it leads to relativism, but I think you can see where Im coming from if I say the truth attained through artistic creation is just as valid in its own way as a mathematical truth.

Maby you should read this: 2 B R 0 2 B by Kurt Vonnegut

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/21279/21279.txt

skeptic griggsy

As we do not bemoan the lack of the future state,why should others?

Offalycool

I guess it’s just interesting to speculate. All the same, here and now is what matters, it's got us this far.

JoeB-

Hi
I've just finished The God Delusion and I don't think Dawkins is suggesting anything more than, as a society, we should not allow our youth to be indoctrinated with religious hocus pocus as it can have serious consequenses. To this end we should not label children as 'Catholic children' etc, they are clearly the 'children of Catholic parents'.

It's all quite clear about religion, we as humans have a capacity when we're young to be indoctrinated or brainwashed into believing anything and then, as adults, we can't let go. And this allows people to embark on ruthless holy wars in many guises, this is why religion can't be tolerated in the long term...

Religious belief can only give solace to a religious person, an athesist may well find solace in something else... Dawkins mentions how religious believers are often the most fearful of death, this is a strange position given that they are going to heaven... why aren't the religious congragulated when they are dying... 'Paddy, that great news'

Cheers

shatners basoon

OP wrote:

"Its like trying to enjoy a party with the knowledge that youre going to be killed afterwards."

In terms of your arguement against atheism, what you said should have been "its like trying to enjoy a party with the knowledge that the party is going to end"

nyarlothothep

shatners basoon wrote:

In terms of your arguement against atheism, what you said should have been "its like trying to enjoy a party with the knowledge that the party is going to end"

I wasn't arguing against atheism at all. My only only digression with Dawkins is that I think society isnt yet ready for a full scale atheist revolution because our lives are pathetically short and some people need the crutch of religion to deal with the crappy reality that they are going die and I cant blame them at all for that. Ending is everywhere in this reality with every moment passing away into oblivion. In this case evolutionary programming and entropy "kills" people.

purpledragon677

but everyone is going to die at some stage it is life so live life to the full if there is something after death then its a bonus and in relation to the religious views i completly understand that people rely on religion but if there is no god then people are simply turning to a false support does that not mean that in itself that is a bad thing and why should people feel that they need some other person/thing/entity that watches over them

nyarlothothep

purpledragon677 wrote: »

but everyone is going to die at some stage it is life so live life to the full if there is something after death then its a bonus and in relation to the religious views i completly understand that people rely on religion but if there is no god then people are simply turning to a false support does that not mean that in itself that is a bad thing and why should people feel that they need some other person/thing/entity that watches over them

False support isn't necessarily a bad thing if the person in question needs it to be happy/content, so long as it doesn't affect the wellbeing of others who do not share it.

brianthebard

JoeBallantine wrote: »

Religious belief can only give solace to a religious person, an athesist may well find solace in something else... Dawkins mentions how religious believers are often the most fearful of death, this is a strange position given that they are going to heaven... why aren't the religious congragulated when they are dying... 'Paddy, that great news'

Cheers

I think Dawkins' is just being overly simplistic for the sake of his argument there. The traditional Irish wake is as much a celebration of a person's death as their life. Obviously no one is going to congratulate a person who tests positive for cancer or the like. In reality a person's reaction to death is personal (shock), that's about the long and the short of it.

JoeB-

brianthebard wrote: »

Obviously no one is going to congratulate a person who tests positive for cancer or the like.

I believe that's a contridiction in the behaviour of religious people.

After all, religious people will bang on and on about how great God is and how the afterlife is going to be so peachy.. yet when these same people are given a fast track to that same peachy afterlife they are saddened rather than being estatic.

For me as a non believer I would be saddened, shocked and dissapointed to be given a diagnosis of a terminal illness because I reckon when I die I will cease to exist... but a religious person who believes they are going to an amazing heaven should be very very happy that they have been chosen to be fast-tracked.. yet they're not... it confuses me.

Joe

Offalycool

Personally I think life has purpose in a spiritual way. I have come to this belief through reflecting on my life experiences, be they heavy or light. In a world of infinite freedom of thought, Religion exists in many forms, be it orthodox or new age (I hold these terms loosely). Whatever my personal view at any giving time (it changes from time to time) I think religion will always have have a place in human society, the fact there can never be justification for religious belief will allways cast doubt and equally enforce its possibility. Mainstream religion (both orthodox and new new age) for me is a logical public reflection of something unexplainable. I didn't reflect on this much in my youth, it simply wasn't relevant, but with different events in my life I addressed the unknown in the heat of my elation, or dispare. Much of my early correspondence (I use this term loosely too) was quite negative and understandably so. I mean if you acknowledge an elevated conciseness exists and you hold it responsible at least in part for (a) your existence and (b) your present curcumstance you tend to get pissed of with it. Anyway.. my point is religion for me is a public acknowledgement of something that is real, but something that can only be truly believe in through a personal relationship (and like any relationship it has its ups and downs). I realize there is a political end to organized religion, and people minipulate others through it, but what makes it different from any other social structure.. not much except if you get it, and without trying to be condescending, I belive all will in this life or some other, if (when) you get it there is no argument or statistics or event that will take it from you.Your problems dont just vanish but you look at hhings diffrently. Its like rideing a bike, only if you lose a limb you may not be able to ride any more, but if you get "it" you don't need limbs, your limbs are just rules in the game our imortal expanding conscious spirt uses to express itself, as easily as they were conger into existence they will be disposed off, with no consequence. so there.

With reguard to being fastracked to nirvana, I think we are coming right back here. We are all one entity expressing itself and nobody gets outa here till we learn what we came here to figure out (collectivley).

brianthebard

JoeBallantine wrote: »

I believe that's a contridiction in the behaviour of religious people.

After all, religious people will bang on and on about how great God is and how the afterlife is going to be so peachy.. yet when these same people are given a fast track to that same peachy afterlife they are saddened rather than being estatic.

For me as a non believer I would be saddened, shocked and dissapointed to be given a diagnosis of a terminal illness because I reckon when I die I will cease to exist... but a religious person who believes they are going to an amazing heaven should be very very happy that they have been chosen to be fast-tracked.. yet they're not... it confuses me.

Joe

Of course you would find that position confusing and contradictory if you look at the world in black and white terms. Let me try an analogy. When people go to college they know that it is a means of working towards a better life once they leave. Yet when they finish college they often feel sad, confused, scared etc, even though that was the plan all along and that was what they had always meant to do. Now if what you are saying is true then these people are hypocrites, but what is more likely is that they are complex human beings, who as a rule dislike change and will often resist it at first even if it is for the better. Change will often be difficult to deal with, no matter if it is desired or not. Once further thing that you are overlooking is that those religious people who are scared will often accept death nearer the end, but to be told that their life is now ending and that they may be going to the next will always be a shock to the normal person, no matter how strong their beliefs.

Seloth

A person who is religiouse and finds out that they have a terminal illness will be saddened for many reasons.

1.We are human after all.

2.A person who believes in an afte rlife is still going into the unkown.

Lads coul ye also stop throwing all people hwo believe in God into one basket,as there are many diffrent lvls and forms of belief.For instance,while I do believe in God in some form or way,I also believe evolution happened and that the earth around 4.54 years old,and not 4000.

Personally I do not like Richard Dawkins,it's not that he is an atheist,its the fact that he is wrong when he talks about theist and ushc on so many lvls.He claims Atheist enjoy life to the fullist as they know this is all they get,thats absoultly bollocks if you ask me.He claims that theist fear atheism nad such,wrong again.He is speaking for the 86% of the world that are religiouse in some way or forum((Refrence:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Worldwide_percentage_of_Adherents_by_Religion.png).On the late late I can rember him syaing that he thinks there is life in the universe,so advanced((either technologically or evolutionary)) that they are God like.I cna rember Pat kenny and the Proffesr of Philopshy who I believe was in Trinity laughing at him as he just contradicted himself.He claims so much but is so wrong,he is a negative image to athiests,I know a good few agnostics and atheists and I have no problem,but since the world stereotypes,well then he is a bad stereotpye for Atheists.

But so yes,Dawkins view of people who dont believe in an afterlife having a much better life is,in all words,bull****.They would have the same enjoyment in life then some one who does believe visa versa.

Edit-Also,when he was on the Late late,can anyone rember some of the texts comming in,the one that stuck with me was some one who said "Hasent anyone heard of evolution in this country"Gawd that annoyed me,it implies that that guy thinks all theists dont believe in it when in fact 3/4 if not more do.Sorry,just wanted to add that.

JoeB-

Brian the Bard, you make some excellent points and of course you are right, everybody dislikes change and it is obvious that death is the greatest change of all, despite an individuals beliefs.

There is an exception of course and that is with Muslim suicide bombers... they seem to genuinely believe that they will be rewarded with a martyrs heaven and they seem to embrace death willingly in order that they may receive their reward more quickly. This is a very difficuly mindset for me to understand... it is similar to how men would run into certain death during the trench warfare of WW-I, surely none of them wanted to die, so what compelled them? (Rhetorical question, apparently their own officers would court martial them and shoot them if they refused.)

Seloth

Well there are extremists with everything,be it Cahtloic,Muslim,Atheist.

As for the tranchware fare,well take the Iirsh who fought in WWI.They did it as they tohught Ireland would be rewareded with freedom,others may have done it as thye did not know what they were getting into,or needed the money,or simply fought as they thought they had too.But you have to remember,no war was fought at such a scale before this,so they had no example to terrify them so much to stay away.Thus the drafting of WWII.

TheThing!

Death enriches life. Without death, life is meaningless. If you do not know darkness then light is nothing special, if you do not know despair, happiness is nothing.

Joe1919

In my view Dawkins is an absolutist and for this reason I think a lot of skeptics would find him equally as fundamental in his beliefs as any extreme religious believer. Personally I prefer the skeptical view which states that we cant ever really know anything but we cant really get away from having some sort of beliefs in order to function e.g. do you believe in education? do you believe your house is worth what you paid for it ,do you believe in yourself, your family.........? We all have historical,economic, scientific, social, political....................................beliefs

Seloth

@The Thing

So what your saying is that people take things for granted e.g life,yet many people dont.For instance I'm trying to cram as much experiances in as possible but I'm not Atheist.Thats a guess at what you said as in turn it dosent make much sense,people still fear death as it is the unknown be you atheist or theist so your argument is flawed.

@Joe.

Complements to your post,not many people in this world say that there are also Atheist extremists as well.And yeah,While I do believe in a God I'm also not sure theres one as well.I am open to that one does not exists,but that one exists too.Thats why I dont see why people who say they believe in science and not God,well thats quite stupid as Science is the workings of old and new things and the discovery of the new while being open to all things rather than saying that something is not possible on a subject which we cant know about such as religion((but of course something such as a current human flying with out any help on our planet and others like that are exceptions)).

Joe1919

Belief goes well beyond religion. What the difference between belief, knowledge &opinion? Whats the difference between been an Abosolutist, Objectivist, Subjectivist, Skeptic, Relativist, Nihilist............? Scientific absolutism could be a bigger threat than religious absolutism. Nietzche said God was dead before the twenteeth century yet the twentieth century was the probably worse century ever for war.Is the use of science doing irrepairable damage to the enviorment? Is mass comsumarism not another religion? Are we not constantly bombarded with advertisments to spend? Where can we go to escape this?

JoeB-

Dawkins doesn't consider himself to be a fundementalist... He isn't 100% certain that there is no God, he is only as certain that there is no God as I am that there is no Santa Claus or elves in my garden (i.e 99.9% certain)... he believes fundementalism is when people are 100% certain that an unprovable God exists.. as many religious people do believe, absolutely, 100%, that God exists, despite any evidence to support this.

The problem I have with religion is that firstly the religions often claim the existence of an eternal soul, despite there being no evidence to support this... then they use the presence of this eternal soul to exert influence over people, by saying they must follow their rules to ensure an eternal life... it's all a scam in my opinion.

Joe1919

The point I'm making is that religion may be a belief system rather than an absolute truth or reality. The idea of god is that of the "unmoved mover" (Aristotle) or as Saint Anselm says "than which nothing greater can be conceived" and this suggests God to be a man made concept..The Soul (Psyche) is something we cant explain but is a way of trying to explain our consciousness as something independent of the body.Materialist may try to reduce the soul down to the material body. But what then if a computer was built that was as intelligent as a human and you turned it off. Would you be a murderer? We cannot prove whether God exists in reality or not as we cannot prove whether the world exists in reality or not. Certain 'things' in life seem to exist although they have no real existence.An example is the border between two countries or counties. It only exists on the map. If you go and look at it in reality you will see it has no real existence, it is merely a concept of the mind. Property ownership is another human concept. Yet people have fought and died over borders and property.Of course ideas of property are like religious ideas. A Marxist is a property non-believer!The people in power or control will always use human concepts or 'the order of things' to their advantage. You can take a pragmatic view of 'belief systems' and this reduces these to there usefulness. Myths and Christianity was useful in the past but some people may see the newer scientific and economic and political viewpoint as more useful. ( Comte)But Scientific,Economic & political 'truths' cannot really be proven true (but only false)(Hume and Popper's skepticism on induction & all swans are white)Darwinism may be seen as a great myth in the future.

art

Joe1919 wrote: »

The point I'm making is that religion may be a belief system rather than an absolute truth or reality. The idea of god is that of the "unmoved mover" (Aristotle) or as Saint Anselm says "than which nothing greater can be conceived" and this suggests God to be a man made concept..The Soul (Psyche) is something we cant explain but is a way of trying to explain our consciousness as something independent of the body.Materialist may try to reduce the soul down to the material body. But what then if a computer was built that was as intelligent as a human and you turned it off. Would you be a murderer? We cannot prove whether God exists in reality or not as we cannot prove whether the world exists in reality or not. Certain 'things' in life seem to exist although they have no real existence.An example is the border between two countries or counties. It only exists on the map. If you go and look at it in reality you will see it has no real existence, it is merely a concept of the mind. Property ownership is another human concept. Yet people have fought and died over borders and property.Of course ideas of property are like religious ideas. A Marxist is a property non-believer!The people in power or control will always use human concepts or 'the order of things' to their advantage. You can take a pragmatic view of 'belief systems' and this reduces these to there usefulness. Myths and Christianity was useful in the past but some people may see the newer scientific and economic and political viewpoint as more useful. ( Comte)But Scientific,Economic & political 'truths' cannot really be proven true (but only false)(Hume and Popper's skepticism on induction & all swans are white)Darwinism may be seen as a great myth in the future.

This is a very confused jumble and much, like that fact that God is a concept etc, fairly states the obvious. But I've no idea how you went from stating that the myth of Christianity was useful to some people (notably the Roman empire of course) could indicate that Darwinism may be a myth? Darwinism is, afterall, observable and measureable, God is not.

art

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I wasn't arguing against atheism at all. My only only digression with Dawkins is that I think society isnt yet ready for a full scale atheist revolution because our lives are pathetically short and some people need the crutch of religion to deal with the crappy reality that they are going die and I cant blame them at all for that. Ending is everywhere in this reality with every moment passing away into oblivion. In this case evolutionary programming and entropy "kills" people.

The reverse outlook on this is that perhaps we will never mature further as a species unless we look death in the eye and get on with life, without falling back on the crutches of these thousand year old myths and fairy tales.

Seloth

You see JoeBallantine, you proved a point of mine.

Most religiouse people are Fundametalists,most are very much open to the thought that God may not exist.

Also There is no evidense for the soul not to exists either but there was also the 21 grams and before some one says that was disproved well it wasent.What annoys me about your post is that you say there is no soul despite the lack of evidense that the thing dosent exist.You claim religion uses it to make people follow orders when it fact it is stated that these a guide lines.

And art what he is saying is that if Jesus did exist people would have said he was observable and measureable,Same for King arther or any other person from times since past,but as your self would probably say,Jesus is a myth,King arthur is considered by allot to be a fairytale but in a thousand years time so could Darwin.It could be said about anyone famouse,Bush,Bertie, anyone.

Joe1919

art wrote: »

Darwinism is, afterall, observable and measureable, God is not.

If reading the decent of man, especially ChapterV, (On the devolopment of intellectual and moral Faculities), Darwin appears to to be making moral speculations (which are difficult to measure )(and promoting Psychological Egoism) in reducing morality down to natural selection.
Incidently I like Darwin but I think its OK to be critical.

art

Joe1919 wrote: »

If reading the decent of man, especially ChapterV, (On the devolopment of intellectual and moral Faculities), Darwin appears to to be making moral speculations (which are difficult to measure )(and promoting Psychological Egoism) in reducing morality down to natural selection.
Incidently I like Darwin but I think its OK to be critical.

Reducing contemporary Darwinism down to one passage of text in "Decent of Man" is (nicely ironically) specious.

brianthebard

art wrote: »

This is a very confused jumble and much, like that fact that God is a concept etc, fairly states the obvious. But I've no idea how you went from stating that the myth of Christianity was useful to some people (notably the Roman empire of course) could indicate that Darwinism may be a myth? Darwinism is, afterall, observable and measureable, God is not.

How do you measure and observe evolution (which I presume you mean when you refer to Darwinism). Are you referring to the so called "Darwin's finches"?

art

brianthebard wrote: »

How do you measure and observe evolution (which I presume you mean when you refer to Darwinism). Are you referring to the so called "Darwin's finches"?

There's all sorts of examples across the spectrum of animal and plant life, I wasn't referring to just cases Darwin raised. Specific mechanisms at play in evolution may still be part of debate but the overall result is very measurable: species do evolve.

Seloth

Art he was saying the Darwin himself could be seen as a myth in the future,not the theory.

And Dawins theory of evolution while credible is still not correct as he says it takes long periods of time.Well for is instance take the modern super rat scavaging many city's.It's larger,producs 4 times the litter of a normal rat,lives longer and is resistant to most rat posions.And that only happened in the past few years.

brianthebard

art wrote: »

There's all sorts of examples across the spectrum of animal and plant life, I wasn't referring to just cases Darwin raised. Specific mechanisms at play in evolution may still be part of debate but the overall result is very measurable: species do evolve.

Perhaps they do, but there are still questions being asked about evolution, and how they evolve. We shouldn't see it as cut and dry.

art

Seloth wrote:

Art he was saying the Darwin himself could be seen as a myth in the future,not the theory.

And Dawins theory of evolution while credible is still not correct as he says it takes long periods of time.Well for is instance take the modern super rat scavaging many city's.It's larger,producs 4 times the litter of a normal rat,lives longer and is resistant to most rat posions.And that only happened in the past few years.

Okay - I found that post to be fairly confusing, if he was claiming Darwin the man may become mythological in a thousand years then that is, indeed, a different argument. Note I mentioned "contemporary darwinism" - I think its fair to avoid close readings of Darwins text given he was obviously compromised by the Zeitgeist, as are most of course. As you say, there are many examples of super fast evolution - though this, in turn, helps to substantiate the core essence of Darwin's writing, the actual existence of evolution.

brianthebard wrote: »

Perhaps they do, but there are still questions being asked about evolution, and how they evolve. We shouldn't see it as cut and dry.

On the contrary, I think it should be considered more "cut and dry" than not. This way we can avoid the daftness of having quackery like "Intelligent Design" intrude on rational debate. There is no doubting the fact of evolution, which is the important thing - the mechanisms involved may still have academic nuances but the core concept of evolution, that was derived from Darwin, is unambiguously real.

Seloth

Religion and still exist with evolution you know.

With out Religion science is boring -Albert Einstein.

art

Seloth wrote: »

Religion and still exist with evolution you know.

Buddhism is a good example of that. Christianity (and other Bible based religions) obviously not.

Seloth

If you truly believe that then I can honestly say your an idiot as thinking one and the other cannot cooperate in modern times is completly sensless.And Actualy the Pope said himself that evolution is the greater theory and must been looked apon by most costs.

Many Vatican sponsored schools find new scientific discoveries all the time.