The afterlife

Black Swan · 09-03-2019 8:06pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

And so, knowing there is an afterlife can be knowledge based rather than faith* based.

*where faith is taken to mean belief without evidence

Raises a question of epistemology. How do we know what we know? In this case, how do we know that the afterlife exists? What evidence exists that would support the existence of the afterlife? Of perhaps more interest, if an afterlife exists, precisely what would be the characteristics of that existence?

antiskeptic · 09-03-2019 8:29pm

Fathom wrote: »

Two hypothetical premises for discussion purposes only. We need to agree on the 2 premises made first, before proceeding to the conclusion. I don't agree with either premise (e.g., "there is a God" and "God choses to let someone know"), therefore I cannot proceed to your conclusion.

You don't have to agree with the premise in order to proceed to the conclusion anymore than you have to agree Hitler was a benefit to mankind in order to participate in a debate on the side representing same statement.

Further, to move from a position of faith to one of science, your hypothesis needs support of empirical evidence based upon the scientific method.

That presupposes that empiricism is a) the only way to know b) the supreme way of knowing. Can you demonstrate empiricism supreme, empirically?

The conclusion above needs dealing with on it's own merits, it isn't usurped by leaping to supremacy conclusions about science.

sReq | uTeK · 09-03-2019 8:34pm

Simple really, the majority of people fear death. So easy to create an afterlife to ease the burden.

Secondly, from God manifested religion. A horrible way to try and govern society with a list of rules (commandments) or you were not getting to that after life.

For me you live on in the genes of your kids and from a molecular structure you'll always be around as Energy never truly dies.

antiskeptic · 09-03-2019 8:43pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Raises a question of epistemology. How do we know what we know?

Indeed. My inclination is to suppose that all the ways in which we support our knowing being knowing are conventions we adopt because they make sense / are acceptable to us.

The decision that this knowledge (or method of concluding knowledge) is indeed knowledge, is a personal one. If we point to the fact that others agree with us in order to add weight to our conclusions, we are merely saying that "I place value on the fact that others agree with my assessment"

Like monkeys, it's personal conclusion all the way down.

In this case, how do we know that the afterlife exists?

That shifts the question to us. The question above asks whether God could make us know (which I'm assuming for the sake of argument, he can, just as he would have inserted all the other attributes we have that allow us to know). And if he does, then don't we know?

What evidence exists that would support the existence of the afterlife?

A verse in the Bible deals with faith in a definitional way: Faith, the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

What it implies is that faith is something other than that defined by e.g. Richard Dawkins, a kind of blind, tail on a donkey thing. Rather faith provides the substance for the belief (just as I have substance for the belief that my wife loves me due to the love-activities she engages in), and is the evidence of things that can't be seen (in the empirical sense)

Substantial, evidenced. No more blind that I am looking at this screen.

All that this need mean, is that we can be wired to perceive, evaluate, conclude for things in a way that suits the dimension we are dealing with. We can know empirically, we can know emotionally, we can know spiritually.

Of perhaps more interest, if an afterlife exists, precisely what would be the characteristics of that existence?

Whilst of huge interest, the question lies more in whether we can know about it at all. If so, then this second question comes to the fore.

antiskeptic · 09-03-2019 8:53pm

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Simple really, the majority of people fear death. So easy to create an afterlife to ease the burden.

Simple really, the world looks flat, so it is flat.

Secondly, from God manifested religion. A horrible way to try and govern society with a list of rules (commandments) or you were not getting to that after life.

As it happens, I bought my son his first (kids) bible today. They simplify the message down for kiddie consumption. Flicking through I came to something like this:

Now there are the rules
And there are the other rules
Supplementary rules
Additional rules
Rules for special occasions
Rules, rules and more rules
The way to keep God on your side is obey the rules

Fooled Ya!

I'd agree that rules based religion gives God a bad rap but hey, you got to talk to rules based religion about that. To be fair to them however, it might also be that you've gotten the wrong end of the stick.

For me you live on in the genes of your kids and from a molecular structure you'll always be around as Energy never truly dies.

A very common faith based view.

Black Swan · 09-03-2019 9:06pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Lets suppose there is a God and God choses to let someone know there's an afterlife and lets them know something of the nature of it.

Would the person know there's an afterlife?

It seems to me that to deny that the person knows there is an afterlife necessitates deployment of a man-made philosopy regarding what it is to know and which denies this person's knowing as bona fide knowing.

Which means man-made trumps God-made? Hardly.

And so, knowing there is an afterlife can be knowledge based rather than faith* based.

*where faith is taken to mean belief without evidence

To what extent is the above argument circular by merely restating one's assumptions using other words later in the discussion for the conclusion? Is it an example of Petitio principii?

Then again to what extent may it be a causal post hoc fallacy? Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). Example: "there is a God," and "Which means man-made trumps God-made? Hardly."

4068ac1elhodqr · 09-03-2019 9:23pm

Suppose a good place to start as any is folks that have had NDEs and presented information on their return.
This neuro-MD lad seems to have one of the best sellers, having documented hundreds of cases including his own.

51K8hp-Pr5L._AC_UL200_SR200,200_.jpg

antiskeptic · 09-03-2019 9:29pm

Black Swan wrote: »

To what extent is the above argument circular by merely restating one's assumptions using other words later in the discussion for the conclusion? Is it an example of Petitio principii?

Its not circular by virtue of the fact that the conclusion isn't being stated as hard.

It's an if/then. If God (operating as stated) then certain conclusions can follow

Then again to what extent may it be a causal post hoc fallacy? Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). Example: "there is a God," and "Which means man-made trumps God-made? Hardly."

Hardly indeed. It's "If ...etc"

If God exists, it seems that a man can know there is an afterlife (and anything else such a God chooses him to know). The significance of this is that all rests on the IF being true. If the IF is true, we have removed dependence on man and the philosophies he's inclined to rest upon for deciding that he knows something.

Indeed, man, in his attempting to examine and codify the issue of how we know, would merely dissecting the mechanism of knowledge sowed in him by his creator.

You can imagine that his best efforts in this might well be crude, incomplete... maybe (comparatively) childlike, in fact.

antiskeptic · 09-03-2019 9:54pm

Karson Bewildered Nitrate wrote: »

Suppose a good place to start as any is folks that have had NDEs and presented information on their return.
This neuro-MD lad seems to have one of the best sellers, having documented hundreds of cases including his own.

Hardly proof. More a body of evidence to be considered. Where evidence doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion it attempts to point to.

It seems to me too, that there is no need to wait until death to know that there is an afterlife.

4068ac1elhodqr · 09-03-2019 10:11pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hardly proof. More a body of evidence to be considered. Where evidence doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion it attempts to point to.

It seems to me too, that there is no need to wait until death to know that there is an afterlife.

Perhaps, only seen a clip of it on tv, podcast or somewhere, haven't read it, but almost every account this chap has gathered (over 300 with 100 featured in the book) alludes to non-explainable evidence returned by the subject.

Documented conscious awareness outside of a 'temporary non-living', or 'medically flat-lined' body is the closest practical thing to the suggestion of an 'afterlife'.

Black Swan · 09-03-2019 10:16pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

The decision that this knowledge (or method of concluding knowledge) is indeed knowledge, is a personal one.

Are you suggesting that there is no objective knowledge, only personal subjectively accepted knowledge?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Like monkeys, it's personal conclusion all the way down.

To what extent is this (above) statement an ad hominem?

antiskeptic wrote: »

If we point to the fact that others agree with us in order to add weight to our conclusions, we are merely saying that "I place value on the fact that others agree with my assessment"

Intersubjectivity found in scientific literature reviews may suggest or not suggest support for a position (e.g., afterlife). But the scientific method proceeds with caution, only suggesting and not proving, unlike many repetitious affirmations often found in faith-based systems. Where many faith-based systems claim absolutes ("there is a God"), scientific positions must exhibit falsifiability (Karl Popper), suggesting that the preponderance of future evidence may support or erode confidence in a method or position, and if the latter, require revision or rejection. It's an ongoing process as depicted in Wallace's Wheel of Science that tends to favour objective over subjective data.

One of many cautions in method is to test the null (no significance) rather than the research hypothesis (what you believe to be true), and to the extent that the null is rejected, the research hypothesis gains support. But limitations (cautions) are to be reported to the consumer of scientific literature, and such limitations are normally acknowledged to exist in all scientific works (e.g., significance levels and confidence intervals, systematic error, etc.), unlike some faith-based systems that repetitiously affirm absolutes.

antiskeptic · 09-03-2019 10:18pm

Karson Bewildered Nitrate wrote: »

Perhaps, only seen a clip of it on tv, podcast or somewhere, haven't read it, but almost every account this chap has gathered (over 300 with 100 featured in the book) alludes to non-explainable evidence returned by the subject.

Not trying to be funny, but perchance, any of them dead for three days? What I mean by that is that anything happening in or around the clinical time of death could well be kicked to the not unreasonable touch of "mystery" as to when death occurs precisely.

Witness testimony to a guillotined individual's head supposedly opening it's eyes in response to his name being called.

Far less doubt when all physical systems are well into the rotting stage.

Documented conscious awareness outside of a 'temporary non-living', or 'medically flat-lined' body is the closest practical thing to the suggestion of an 'afterlife'.

If you worship at the alter of empiricism (so to speak), then yes, of course

mrcheez · 09-03-2019 10:23pm

fepper wrote: »

Most of current oldest generation do believe in heaven and lived life as best they could with hopefully they'd be rewarded with a place in heaven when they passed on,great conviction really and most of them lived to die with that aim

I detest this concept of living a good life in order to get a reward later on.

Surely one lives a good moral life because it's for the benefit of all around you as part of a productive future. Not so you get a reward.

Same with the idea of monks/nuns living away in isolation with the aim of living a life that will one day reward them in an afterlife. Such a waste.

4068ac1elhodqr · 09-03-2019 10:28pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not trying to be funny, but perchance, any of them dead for three days? What I mean by that is that anything happening in or around the clinical time of death could well be kicked to the not unreasonable touch of "mystery" as to when death occurs precisely.

Of course wouldn't be a (N)DE, or be able to document from source if they didn't 'return' as such from a (temporary) clinical dead state.

Much of the commonplace evidence gives detailed information from the subject from the near (not the immediate) surroundings, including overheard conversations. Also detailed physical location descriptions not otherwise known and so on.

Then there's information from other 'dimensions as such', usually relatives and so on, offering occasionally verifable information or advice.

Suppose a former neurosurgeon is the ideal chap to explore the subject, hence this book is the best seller of this genre.

antiskeptic · 09-03-2019 11:20pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Are you suggesting that there is no objective knowledge, only personal subjectively accepted knowledge?

When it comes to an individual's perception of anything that might objectively (i.e. not reliant on mans determination that it is objective) be the case, then yes. All knowledge is subjective - in that it relies, ultimately, on a personal decision as to what tools constitute a good way to arrive at objectivity. For example, if you conclude (as I do) that science is a good way to arrive at objectivity about a certainty category of things then it is you doing the concluding.

That a number of individuals subjective views align and can be added together says nothing about actual objectivity (they might all share a common perceptive flaw which distorts their perception). What we end up with by adding like perceptions is virtual-objectivity. Which isn't the same thing is actual objectivity.

The decision that such a process (adding together subjective perceptions) increases objectivity is a personal decision, something that folk sign up for.

To what extent is this (above) statement an ad hominem?

To no extent at all. I merely meant to convey the notion that whenever you go digging for objectivization of knowledge you end up at personal-at-root. It's monkeys (personal) all the way down.

Intersubjectivity found in scientific literature reviews may suggest or not suggest support for a position (e.g., afterlife).

The idea that intersubjectively leads to objectivity is a personal (subjective) decision. Since it's a subjective decision, the supposed objectivity is just that, supposed (or virtual as I say above)

But the scientific method proceeds with caution, only suggesting and not proving, unlike many repetitious affirmations often found in faith-based systems. Where many faith-based systems claim absolutes ("there is a God"), scientific positions must exhibit falsifiability (Karl Popper)

Which presumes intersubjectivity-aids-objectivity is falsifiable. Is it falsifiable? Or is it the case that the concept stands outside SciMtd, assumed to be the case from the get go.

I'm not sure why a sensible tenet of science (falsifiabilty) need be assumed to apply across the board of all ways of possible knowing. Isn't that projection of what necessarily works (and is necessary) for the goose works for the gander?

You might deal with the IF statement that got us going - for it might help quicken things. If the IF is true (God exists and chooses to let a person know something) would a person know that thing?

IF God exists then surely the various ways in which we come to know are instituted by him (since he would have created us thus). If one of the ways in which we come to know involve / rely on intersubjectivity then so be it. If they don't then so be it also. We would know anything we know because the Creator enabled the means whereby we come to know. Whether by empiricism or whether by any other means at the Creators disposal.

antiskeptic · 10-03-2019 1:03am

mrcheez wrote: »

I detest this concept of living a good life in order to get a reward later on.

Jesus and Paul (I pick the most obvious examples) would agree with you.

Surely one lives a good moral life because it's for the benefit of all around you as part of a productive future. Not so you get a reward

.

On first sight laudible. But ultimately your doing it for the same reasons that those criticize above. Because it serves what you find desirable.

Same with the idea of monks/nuns living away in isolation with the aim of living a life that will one day reward them in an afterlife. Such a waste.

Such a gross simplification.

antiskeptic · 10-03-2019 1:11am

Karson Bewildered Nitrate wrote: »

Of course wouldn't be a (N)DE, or be able to document from source if they didn't 'return' as such from a (temporary) clinical dead state.

Not sure what you mean here.

Much of the commonplace evidence gives detailed information from the subject from the near (not the immediate) surroundings, including overheard conversations. Also detailed physical location descriptions not otherwise known and so on.

What's the scientific view? If there are sound occasions where someone is able to recount details of something they simply couldn't know from their location on a slab.

Suppose a former neurosurgeon is the ideal chap to explore the subject, hence this book is the best seller of this genre.

I don't see what a neurosurgeon has to do with someone knowing what occurred beyond the realm of neurology. Once it's confined to neurology (we now know a person can hear a lot further than we previously thought) there's only the detail of how that is to be filled in.

nozzferrahhtoo · 11-03-2019 4:34pm

Karson Bewildered Nitrate wrote: »

Suppose a good place to start as any is folks that have had NDEs and presented information on their return.

Well not really, because those people did not die. And as was said on the forum once before, an NDE is about as much of an experience of death as walking to a plane but not getting on is an experience of a sun holiday away in Spain.

NDE is interesting for what it can tell us about the brain under duress and stress. It tells us nothing whatsoever about an after life or any possibility that there is one.

Karson Bewildered Nitrate wrote: »

This neuro-MD lad seems to have one of the best sellers, having documented hundreds of cases including his own.

And if how he documented his own is anything to go by, I am not going to assume he documented the others all that well either.

He made some glaring factual errors in his claims. Alas being a Neurosurgeon gave him the street cred with the lay public to make, and get away with, those errors. Not just the lay public either but a cringe-worthy article in Newsweek which bought hook line and sinker into his nonsense.

But he seemed to know very little about the relevant brain science behind his claims. And sure why would he? He is a neuro SURGEON which is not the same as a neuroscientist. As scientist Mark Cohen points out "Neurosurgeons, however, are rarely well-trained in brain function."

Karson Bewildered Nitrate wrote: »

Much of the commonplace evidence gives detailed information from the subject from the near (not the immediate) surroundings, including overheard conversations.

I was listening to a Rabbi in some debate I could find if I had to. He was talking about how his autistic son can relay the contents of conversations several rooms away. Which he always found fascinating.

Rather than his son having super human abilities, or people in NDE having out of body experiences where they are obtaining information by means outside of our current knowledge of physics..... I would somewhat expect these people simple lack the filters the rest of us have.

We are constantly getting inputs from our environment through our senses, which also create much secondary activity in our brain. The brain however is constantly filtering much of that input and the resulting secondary activity.

Were those filters to become compromised in some way, either in an autistic child or an NDE experience or a drug trip or anything else, the brain would become awash with information that it would normally not process. Including, perhaps, conversations outside the border of "normal" hearing ranges.

Karson Bewildered Nitrate wrote: »

Also detailed physical location descriptions not otherwise known and so on.

It is interesting that the "evidence" from anecdote for NDE and also reincarnation tend to be the same. That is: It is claimed some subject has obtained information that they otherwise could not have.

Problem is they never seem to show it IS information they otherwise could not have had. They simply assume thing. One guy who ran away from the forum entirely once tried to claim, for example, that a 10ish year old girl speaking a long dead language was evidence of reincarnation. How else could she speak it after all!?!?!

This was his evidence after me asking for his BEST example of evidence for reincarnation. Guess what I found out after 5 minutes of research? The girls father studies that long dead culture, including their language. Amazing coincidence huh? And when she was evaluated by people who actually speak the language, it turns out she was not fluent. She had a cursory and broken childish grasp of the language AT BEST.

As soon as any controls are introduced these anecdotes fall away. Take NDE for example. A believer in the after life Sam Parnia tried to get evidence of OBE during NDE. Patients who claim to have seen objects they otherwise should not have seen from their hospital bed. Anecdotes like that ABOUND in the NDE literature.

Yet as soon as even modest controls were put in, unmissable incongruant objects placed in locations only an OBE person could spot, not a SINGLE RESULT of someone seeing any of them returned.

So not only can we not verify the reversal of the burden of proof..... by showing the information they had could not have been obtained by other means......... when we do put in controls to test that the anecdotes drop to zero. Quelle Suprise huh?

Karson Bewildered Nitrate wrote: »

Suppose a former neurosurgeon is the ideal chap to explore the subject, hence this book is the best seller of this genre.

Unfortunately not, as I said above. He is in fact the perfect chap to get it wrong but to have credentials that make other people think he is getting it right. And that is, judging by the newsweek article written about him and his book, exactly what did happen.

Furthermore people have directly compared the text of his descriptions of his experience with the text people have offered describing experiences on things like MDMA. And it is remarkable how similar they are.

Fathom · 11-03-2019 9:05pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Lets suppose there is a God and God choses to let someone know there's an afterlife and lets them know something of the nature of it. Would the person know there's an afterlife? It seems to me that to deny that the person knows there is an afterlife necessitates deployment of a man-made philosopy regarding what it is to know and which denies this person's knowing as bona fide knowing. Which means man-made trumps God-made? Hardly. And so, knowing there is an afterlife can be knowledge based rather than faith* based. *where faith is taken to mean belief without evidence

Substitute the name "God" above with the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM). Its veracity follows the argument construction (above), if either has veracity. Both have been treated as givens, except FSM has a wiki link imbedded used to add more clarification than the use of "God." Could the word Nature also be substituted and treated as a given and exhibit similar veracity for the argument construction (above)?

fritzelly · 11-03-2019 10:44pm

I believe in something after death everyone and everything is connected to - no afterlife like religion preaches about, not religious in the slightest. Like to think it is more a collective consciousness more than someone knocking on the Pearly Gates asking to be allowed in.
Had a few experiences in my life that tell me there is more than just being born and then you're dead - we live in an impossible universe inside something that doesn't exist until the universe expands in to it. So I think to say there is conclusively nothing after is a misnomer when we really nothing about anything being like little ants on a planet among trillions of planets that we know of.

ps
Had a NDE and it was nothing like the usual bright tunnel - was in fact pitch black, only lasted a minute or so I'm told - maybe I wasn't dead long enough!

Black Swan · 12-03-2019 3:28am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which presumes intersubjectivity-aids-objectivity is falsifiable. Is it falsifiable?

Intersubjectivity is an attempt to establish reliability, or consistency between measures. Reliability does not guarantee validity, therefore it is falsifiable (e.g., if you misspell a word consistently, you have reliability without validity). But validity must have reliability as one of many conditions needed to establish sufficiency (validity as truth in measurement). Once again see Karl Popper for a more detailed explanation.

antiskeptic wrote: »

IF God exists then surely the various ways in which we come to know are instituted by him (since he would have created us thus).

In this above statement, how does one leap from "If God exists" (original premise) to "he would have created us thus" conclusion? When was creation introduced? It just suddenly appears as if drawn from a self-evident belief-system, when all parties to this discussion may or may not consider such as self-evident, as well as some idea that the afterlife may or may not exist.

Peregrinus · 12-03-2019 3:45am

Black Swan wrote: »

. . . In this above statement, how does one leap from "If God exists" (original premise) to "he would have created us thus" conclusion? When was creation introduced? It just suddenly appears as if drawn from a self-evident belief-system, when all parties to this discussion may or may not consider such as self-evident, as well as some idea that the afterlife may or may not exist.

It's definitional, I think. "God" in antiskeptic's statement refers to a concept of God who (among other possible attributes) is the creator of all things that are. Therefore, if God exists, he created us, since otherwise we would not be.

antiskeptic · 12-03-2019 10:42am

Black Swan wrote: »

Intersubjectivity is an attempt to establish reliability, or consistency between measures. Reliability does not guarantee validity, therefore it is falsifiable (e.g., if you misspell a word consistently, you have reliability without validity). But validity must have reliability as one of many conditions needed to establish sufficiency (validity as truth in measurement). Once again see Karl Popper for a more detailed explanation.

Your thumbnail explains it well.

My point was that the attempt at achieving reliability via intersubjectivity makes the assumption the multiple observations iron out individual subjective wrinkles leading to validity.

But if all the observers spell wrong in some way shape or form, what is being obtained after the ironing out is the majority error. It seems to me. We are no nearer validity (other than validity defined as the majority view)

Isn't the decision: 'intersubjectivity aids validity' a personally decided upon leap? A decision undergirded by the fact that many others make that leap too.

In this above statement, how does one leap from "If God exists" (original premise) to "he would have created us thus" conclusion? When was creation introduced? It just suddenly appears as if drawn from a self-evident belief-system, when all parties to this discussion may or may not consider such as self-evident, as well as some idea that the afterlife may or may not exist.

See Peregrinus above. In the context of a discussiom about an afterlife, introducing a God-possibility and looking at some of the consequences of same seems a reasonable step to take.

It seems to me that in the case of God, our objective knowing would find its grounding in God. IF God then we know because He is objective. Whereas without God our objective knowing has to be grounded in our subjective selves ( which is a nonsense).

Intersubjectivity, whilst useful in a utilitarian way, doesn't appear to be able to act as an ultimate grounding. Since its a grounding that's built on subjective foundations. A bootstrap grounding, as it were.

It strikes me too that IF God AND God has us knowing things, then we know whatever he has us know - irrespective of what our position is regarding his existence. We mightn't know how we know what he has us know. But we know it nontheless.

Dr. Bre · 12-03-2019 12:12pm

Maybe we are God..

NIMAN · 12-03-2019 12:18pm

fritzelly wrote: »

I believe in something after death everyone and everything is connected to - no afterlife like religion preaches about, not religious in the slightest. Like to think it is more a collective consciousness more than someone knocking on the Pearly Gates asking to be allowed in.
Had a few experiences in my life that tell me there is more than just being born and then you're dead - we live in an impossible universe inside something that doesn't exist until the universe expands in to it. So I think to say there is conclusively nothing after is a misnomer when we really nothing about anything being like little ants on a planet among trillions of planets that we know of!

Of course no-one can say for certain there is nothing after death, they are only giving an opinion. It's an impossible thing to prove or disprove, unless you are daft enough to believe that mediums are real.

But as for saying you believe something exists after death, why would something not exist before birth by the same logic?

Black Swan · 12-03-2019 12:24pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's definitional, I think. "God" in antiskeptic's statement refers to a concept of God who (among other possible attributes) is the creator of all things that are. Therefore, if God exists, he created us, since otherwise we would not be.

That may be so; then again, it would be good to define this "God," as used in this discussion by antiskeptic, as there are many different versions of God (or Gods and Goddesses) across the hundreds, perhaps thousands of belief systems, both contemporary and past. Nature was also mentioned above, which may have several conceptualisations. Additionally, there are a vast assortment of beliefs, or the lack of, in how agnostics may treat the label God, afterlife, and creationism.

Even Christianity has many different belief systems, and how they may define their God, the afterlife, and how they may treat something like the theory of evolution (as opposed to creationism mentioned earlier). For example, the Lutheran version of Christianity has many different versions ranging from the Missouri Synod that interprets their God as a strict creationist, and completely rejects and sees evolutionary theory as sinful. In contrast, the Lutheran ELCA colleges and universities offer an interpretation of a God to biology majors that finds evolutionary theory as a complementary process to the explanation of changes that have occurred since creation. Some ELCA Lutheran biologists I've chatted with have not rejected the Big Bang theory. Rather, it was an alternative explanation of creation where their God started it with a Big Bang, and the energy and trillions of random combinations throughout the universe allowed for life to emerge on Earth, and perhaps other planets in the universe, without the extraordinary second-to-second, minute-to-minute, etc., attention of their God in every tiny, tiny detail (as proselytized by many belief systems).

Consequently, it is not useful to treat "God" as a given, that everyone accepts without exception, when launching "If" statements such as "If God exists" (original premise).

Peregrinus · 12-03-2019 2:05pm

Well, to pick nits, these competing Lutheran ideas that you mention are not different, still less inconsistent, conceptions of God; more differing understandings of creation, or differing understandings of how to read scripture, which is very different. All of the Lutherans you met would doubtless affirm a belief in God, the Father almight, Creator of heaven and earth and of all things seen and unseen. And, while you could doubtless usefully unpack what each of them means by terms like "father", "almighty", "creator", "heaven" and so forth, there'd be a lot of commonality there; they have a substantially common concept of "God". And it's certainly wrong to say that any of them claim that God is "a strict creationist"; we may or may not be strict creationists, but God isn't a creationist at all (in Christian thinking); he's a Creator, which is quite different.

I take your point that it's not useful to treat God, or any particular conception of God, as a given. But the practical reality is that there are culturally-determined conceptions of God which are common. I suggest the "If" statements ("If God exists, he created us") are best understood as meaning, not "the Creator God is the only one that could exist", but rather "I am postulating the familiar concept of the Creator God for the purposes of this discussion ".

antiskeptic · 12-03-2019 3:56pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

"I am postulating the familiar concept of the Creator God for the purposes of this discussion ".

Where 'familiar' means that:

- all our ability to know and the mechanisms (where necessary) we use for arriving at knowing derive from his design for us.

'Design' here doesn't specify means whereby we are as we are. Just that there is nothing outside him and the influences he permits to occur contributing to our make up.

- insofar as there is insufficiency/error in our mechanisms/ability to know they are either the result of the limits installed in his design (e.g. subjective error) or the results of interference by external-to-us forces which he permits to operate within his creation (e.g. the divil)

Fathom · 13-03-2019 12:54am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Lets suppose there is a God and God choses to let someone know there's an afterlife and lets them know something of the nature of it. Would the person know there's an afterlife? It seems to me that to deny that the person knows there is an afterlife necessitates deployment of a man-made philosopy regarding what it is to know and which denies this person's knowing as bona fide knowing. Which means man-made trumps God-made? Hardly. And so, knowing there is an afterlife can be knowledge based rather than faith* based. *where faith is taken to mean belief without evidence

This whole argument depends upon the first premise ("Lets suppose there is a God"). If the first is false, then the 2nd premise and all the conclusions about "afterlife" and "knowledge based" are moot. Interestingly, the weight attributed to the 2nd premise, conclusions, and discussions made by the author have treated this first premise as if true, without convincing empirical evidence that "there is a God," thereby extensively begging the question in what follows the 1st premise. Until convincing evidence occurs in support of the 1st premise, this argument is merely an exercise in construction (if true, then), and has no utility or merit to move the discussion from faith-based to "knowledge based" regarding the afterlife.

antiskeptic · 13-03-2019 1:21am

Fathom wrote: »

This whole argument depends upon the first premise ("Lets suppose there is a God"). If the first is false, then the 2nd premise and all the conclusions about "afterlife" and "knowledge based" are moot.

Supposing, supposing
Three men were frozen
One died, how many were left?

None, we're only supposing

The question posed asks you what the case would be (or suggests what the case would be) in the event the supposition is true.

Do you or don't you agree with the conclusion in the event the supposition is true?

And if not, why not?

It seems to me that if true, then your assumptions about what constitutes knowledge, and the position you hold below regarding same, dissolve.

Until convincing evidence occurs in support of the 1st premise, this argument is merely an exercise in construction (if true, then), and has no utility or merit to move the discussion from faith-based to "knowledge based" regarding the afterlife.

What constitutes convincing evidence, lies in the eye of the beholder (and anyone of like mind). That says nothing about whether they are right to be convinced of whatever they are convinced about.

The point has already been raised upstream of here.

the_syco · 13-03-2019 1:23am

Meh. Reincarnation is the only afterlife that makes any sense to me.

Be you a bird, a bee, or a bush.

Fathom · 13-03-2019 1:32am

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Simple really, the majority of people fear death. So easy to create an afterlife to ease the burden.

Genesis 1:27 with a switch: "So (human beings) created (God) in his own image" as characterized by anthropomorphism, with associated human social constructions as the "afterlife" used to reduce fear of death?

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

For me you live on in the genes of your kids and from a molecular structure you'll always be around as Energy never truly dies.

Replace God with a science-based Nature, receiving information (genes) from parents, and as parents passing on that "molecular structure" to future generations, thereby exhibiting a genetic "afterlife?"

Etc · 13-03-2019 1:43am

Humans are one of billions of species existing on this earth. When was the last time you thought that the chicken you ate or the fly you swatted was going to it's afterlife ?

Humans are no more special than any other species on this planet, yet we seem to think that we should be granted something for being here for a few years. You live, you die and nature moves on.

Fathom · 13-03-2019 1:46am

antiskeptic wrote: »

What constitutes convincing evidence, lies in the eye of the beholder (and anyone of like mind). That says nothing about whether they are right to be convinced of whatever they are convinced about.

Beyond argument construction (if...then), where is the "convincing evidence" that is not merely faith-based "repetitious affirmations" (discussed earlier) in support of the first premise, and what follows it? Can you briefly summarize that evidence beyond argument construction, or is it intended to be a "given" for "anyone of like mind?"

Fathom · 13-03-2019 1:57am

the_syco wrote: »

Meh. Reincarnation is the only afterlife that makes any sense to me.

Etc wrote: »

Humans are one of billions of species existing on this earth. When was the last time you thought that the chicken you ate or the fly you swatted was going to it's afterlife ?

If reincarnation exists, which also suggests that it applies to all species, then do all species have a reincarnated afterlife?

Etc wrote: »

Humans are no more special than any other species on this planet, yet we seem to think that we should be granted something for being here for a few years. You live, you die and nature moves on.

When taking a university biology class I remember something suggested about all species, including homo sapien sapiens: The only thing you can reasonably predict about a species is that it will either evolve or become extinct someday. This biology class gave no empirical evidence to support the notion of an afterlife.

Peregrinus · 13-03-2019 3:53am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Lets suppose there is a God and God choses to let someone know there's an afterlife and lets them know something of the nature of it.

Would the person know there's an afterlife?

I think to answer that we have to explore what is meant by "God choses to let someone know there's an afterlife".

In conventional Christian thinking, God has created us with the capacity for sensory perception, and the rationality that allows us to reflect on that and draw conclusions.

So, for example, we could say that God "chooses to let us know" that the world is round since he has created us with the capacity to observe the world and to reflect on our observations to a point where we can work out that it is round.

But, in a different sense, God to "choose to let us know" something by special and supernatural revelation (e.g. "This is my Son the beloved").

Or, in yet a third sense, God could "choose to let us know" something by simply implanting that knowledge within us so that we never don't have it, and also never question how we have it. So, for example, we know what our own sensory perceptions are because we can't not know that (and, the Christian would say, this is because God has created us this way).

So, God could choose to let us know about the afterlife by providing empirically-observable evidence from which we could draw the conclusion that there is an afterlife (e.g. near-death experiences, communications from beyond the grave). But even if God does choose this, it's plainly not inevitable that people will conclude from such evidence that the afterlife is real.

Or, God could choose to let us know in the second sense, by extratordinary divine revalation. But, since the acceptance of extraordinary divine revelation requires faith, this isnt a knowledge that can be accessed without faith.

Or, God could choose to let us know in the third sense, by simply creating in us an inherent awareness of the afterlife. The problem with this is that many people deny that they are aware of the afterlife, and we have no reason to doubt their honesty. So it doesn't seem that God has done this, or at least He hasn't done it consistently.

antiskeptic wrote: »

And so, knowing there is an afterlife can be knowledge based rather than faith* based.

*where faith is taken to mean belief without evidence

No knowledge of any kind is possible without faith in something, even if that something is only the reliability of your own sensory perceptions. The question is never "can we know this without faith?"; it's "what faith to we have to have in order to know this?".

the_syco · 13-03-2019 10:40am

Fathom wrote: »

If reincarnation exists, which also suggests that it applies to all species, then do all species have a reincarnated afterlife?

Yes. If we have no remembrance of the previous life (for the most part), then no storage capacity (brain) is needed. So the species can be what we reincarnate to, and them us. Not sure if time would matter to such a construct, so when (or what) we reincarnate as may not follow a linear timeline. Thus man could become eagle, beetle, or a tree that lives forever, watching the world

So perhaps, if the soul matters, then perhaps we are put into an easier life if we did good?

Fathom · 15-03-2019 10:20pm

the_syco wrote: »

Yes. If we have no remembrance of the previous life (for the most part), then no storage capacity (brain) is needed.

Near death experiences were anecdotal. At the case study level. Difficult to generalize to population level. If at all. Except for those NDE believers. "Remembrance" alternatives? Interesting studies with flatworms (phylum Platyhelminthes). Cut their heads off. They regrow them. Still remember from things experimentally learned. Due to existence of pluripotent stem cells throughout bodies. There is also the “McCannibal and his Mau Mau” hypothesis, where cannibalistic flatworms eat earlier experimentally trained flatworms and have some memory transfer for several generations. Eat thy neighbor to give them afterlife? Caution should be used with McConnell study?

Black Swan · 21-03-2019 7:19pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

No knowledge of any kind is possible without faith in something, even if that something is only the reliability of your own sensory perceptions. The question is never "can we know this without faith?"; it's "what faith to we have to have in order to know this?".

There are substantial differences in the religious faith paradigm and that of scientists exhibiting confidence in knowledge obtained through the scientific method. Religion and science do not share the same epistemological status, and to claim that "No knowledge of any kind is possible without faith in something" does not establish equivalence between religious faith and scientific confidence, or the knowledge obtained thereof, and to claim that they are equivalent in epistemological meaning was terribly misleading.

antiskeptic · 21-03-2019 10:51pm

Prior to expressing faith in the scientific method you need to deploy faith in your own assessment capability.

If deciding, for example, that you are capable of subjective error, and that SM is a useful way to circumvent the problem, it is you doing the assessment of self and own ability be in error.

All knowledge rests on a personal assessment at root. With you in primary position, whatever about the casacade of tools you figure best (according to personal assessment as to their worth) to apply.

All this to arrive at a personal sense of satisfaction that what you know constitutes knowledge.

Since knowledge is personally arrived at thus, there is no difference in 'epistemological status'.

There is no way to leapfrog your way past the personal root and suppose SM having an status other than that which you find satisfactory to give it.

Black Swan · 22-03-2019 12:20am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Since knowledge is personally arrived at thus, there is no difference in 'epistemological status'.

The theories and practices of science are fundamentally different from that of religious faith. Epistemology asks the question "how do we know what we know?" The epistemological pursuit of scientific knowledge must be subject to falsifiability, which radically differentiates religion from science in terms of method and of knowing. If they were similar, where is falsifiability (as defined by Karl Popper) prominent in religion? Does religion continuously challenge, question, and empirically test articles of faith or God's commandments, ultimately revising or replacing such articles or commandments once a preponderance of empirical evidence suggests thus (see Wallace's Wheel of Science)? In testing these articles of faith or God's commandments, how often does religion proceed as if the null hypothesis were true (i.e., that such articles of faith or God's commandments were insignificant or false)? How often do church members seriously and continuously challenge their articles of faith or God's commandments?

All the above aside, if your original premise is false, then all that follows is moot (e.g. a house of cards). Original premise: "there is a God." Establish beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists, or the merit of continuing this discussion appears problematic.

Peregrinus · 22-03-2019 2:13am

Black Swan wrote: »

There are substantial differences in the religious faith paradigm and that of scientists exhibiting confidence in knowledge obtained through the scientific method. Religion and science do not share the same epistemological status, and to claim that "No knowledge of any kind is possible without faith in something" does not establish equivalence between religious faith and scientific confidence, or the knowledge obtained thereof, and to claim that they are equivalent in epistemological meaning was terribly misleading.

How fortunate, then, that I advanced no such claim.

Different epistemologies proceed from different axioms. None of the axioms can be proven (duh!) but it does not follow that they are all "of equal status', except to the trivial extent that they are all unproven. We have to make decisions about which epistemologies we will employ (if we ever want to claim to know anything at all), and this requires us to evaluate different epistemologies, their strengths, their weaknesses, their fitness to be employed in this or that field of enquiry, etc, etc. We do in fact make choices between alternative epistemologies all the time, and I suspect for the most part we do not examine closely the basis on which we do so.

In the field of natural science, the epistemology employed by scientists enables us (given its assumptions) to draw conclusions that are attended with a very high degree of certainty. Sadly, other fields of enquiry - ethics, aesthetics, philosophy, lit. crit., "should I marry her?" - are not similarly blessed. This does not mean that the epistemology of natural science should be brought to bear in these fields. The axioms which prove so reliable and useful in the field of natural science may be less reliable, less useful or even completely irrelevant in other fields of enquiry. So the epistemology I employ to make, say, ethical decisions may not produce such certain or reliable results as the scientific method produces, but it is still nevertheless a better epistemology to employ in that context than the scientific method would be. Are the two epistemologies "equivalent"? I don't even know what that question means.

Black Swan · 23-03-2019 4:16pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

How fortunate, then, that I advanced no such claim.

You were quoting antiskeptic in your quoted discussion, and I was "fortunate" too in addressing his quote within your quote. (I share your humour about third party quoting my me in this case)

Peregrinus wrote: »

Different epistemologies proceed from different axioms. None of the axioms can be proven (duh!) but it does not follow that they are all "of equal status', except to the trivial extent that they are all unproven.

Yes, science does not prove anything; science only suggests. The natural sciences have more precise and valid forms of measurement than the social, behavioral, educational, business, and related disciplines; i.e., they can be more objective and less subjective than the social "sciences."

Peregrinus wrote: »

We have to make decisions about which epistemologies we will employ (if we ever want to claim to know anything at all), and this requires us to evaluate different epistemologies, their strengths, their weaknesses, their fitness to be employed in this or that field of enquiry, etc, etc.

Such episteomological "decisions" were made decades ago, as codified by such scientific philosophers as Karl Popper, et al. Since then such decisions as to theories, methods, data, analysis, and results have continued to be evaluated against falsifiability, as well as other necessary conditions towards attempting to establish sufficiency. The "weaknesses" you mentioned have been reported in limitations of credible research, and often challenged by peer-reviewers during the publication process, and subsequent researches overtime.

Peregrinus wrote: »

We do in fact make choices between alternative epistemologies all the time, and I suspect for the most part we do not examine closely the basis on which we do so.

Disciplines tend to reduce or eliminate such "choices between alternative epistemologies" by specifying appropriate research frameworks; e.g., biology may differ from chemistry as to their specific application of the scientific method. Of greater influence as to method are the RFPs, where only those that comply with a specified framework may be funded.

Peregrinus wrote: »

In the field of natural science, the epistemology employed by scientists enables us (given its assumptions) to draw conclusions that are attended with a very high degree of certainty.

Agree.

Peregrinus wrote: »

This does not mean that the epistemology of natural science should be brought to bear in these fields. The axioms which prove so reliable and useful in the field of natural science may be less reliable, less useful or even completely irrelevant in other fields of enquiry.

August Comte, et al, attempted to employ the scientific method to disciplines outside the natural, later relabeling of many disciplines as sciences (e.g., social and behavioural sciences). Unfortunately, the theories, assumptions, and measures appear to have fallen below the rigour of the natural sciences in terms of objectivity and validity. Nevertheless, the attempts away from subjectivity towards scientific objectivity by these social and behavioural disciplines appear to have more merit than armchair opinions.

Fathom · 23-03-2019 6:56pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Prior to expressing faith in the scientific method you need to deploy faith in your own assessment capability.

Confidence with caution, not "faith."

antiskeptic wrote: »

If deciding, for example, that you are capable of subjective error, and that SM is a useful way to circumvent the problem, it is you doing the assessment of self and own ability be in error.

The scientific method is not all about "self." There are standardized methods to objectify the design, data collection, analysis, results, and estimate error of research conducted. Limitations are noted to increase objectivity. Just because a person or persons conduct the scientific research, especially in the natural sciences, does not imply that all that is done is subjective, or based upon "faith." The use of "self" and "faith" discussed here is begging the question (as noted above). It's a spin on words that fails to differentiate between science and faith. Or between subjectivity and objectivity of method.

antiskeptic wrote: »

All knowledge rests on a personal assessment at root. With you in primary position, whatever about the casacade of tools you figure best (according to personal assessment as to their worth) to apply.

The above is a hasty generalization fallacy, lacking empirical evidence to support claims. Read Karl Popper (as noted in above posts) to understand the differences between subjective and objective research. As well as the cautions used in the scientific method to improve upon objective research outcomes.

antiskeptic wrote: »

All this to arrive at a personal sense of satisfaction that what you know constitutes knowledge.

What matter "personal sense of satisfaction" and "know what constitutes knowledge?" These are two different things. You are confounding emotions with knowledge.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Since knowledge is personally arrived at thus, there is no difference in 'epistemological status'.

Combined with the 2nd to last quote above, this is a straw man fallacy. You have created a weak and ridiculous position, and then proceeded to easily knock it down, ignoring any significant differences that exist in the real world between science and faith.

Peregrinus · 25-03-2019 6:30am

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Black Swan. I don’t want to pick up on all your points, becasue the conversation will get too sprawling (for me, at any rate), but if I may just pick up on a couple:

Black Swan wrote: »

Yes, science does not prove anything; science only suggests. The natural sciences have more precise and valid forms of measurement than the social, behavioral, educational, business, and related disciplines; i.e., they can be more objective and less subjective than the social "sciences."

This is inherent in the nature of the social sciences, I think. For me, the dividing line between tne natural sciences and the social sciences is that the subjects of the latter include us ourselves; our minds, our thoughts, our actions, our choices. And these are inherently subjective factors. This isn’t a weakness or a fault in the social sciences; it’s just their defining characteristic.

Black Swan wrote: »

Disciplines tend to reduce or eliminate such "choices between alternative epistemologies" by specifying appropriate research frameworks; e.g., biology may differ from chemistry as to their specific application of the scientific method. Of greater influence as to method are the RFPs, where only those that comply with a specified framework may be funded.

Disciplines do this, but I wasn’t thinking of disciplines so much as of individuals. I employ different epistemologies when addressing the questions “why won’t my car start?”, “why do I feel so low today?”, “how am I to deal with this problematic behaviour that my child is exhibiting?” and “how do I make [difficult ethical choice]?”. We all do, and we do this not (usually) as the result of training in any discipline.

Black Swan wrote: »

August Comte, et al, attempted to employ the scientific method to disciplines outside the natural, later relabeling of many disciplines as sciences (e.g., social and behavioural sciences). Unfortunately, the theories, assumptions, and measures appear to have fallen below the rigour of the natural sciences in terms of objectivity and validity. Nevertheless, the attempts away from subjectivity towards scientific objectivity by these social and behavioural disciplines appear to have more merit than armchair opinions.

Ah, maybe not. This isn’t a simple binary.

Consider a social science like, say economics. This is the study of the choices people make about the allocation of scarce resources. Obviously, it’s possible to make reliable empirical observations about relevant objective facts ; when the price of spuds rose by X% consumption fell by Y%. And if we have enough such empirical observations we can start to hypothesize explanations, and to draw conclusions which enable us to make predictions. The problem is that our predictions aren’t based just on the empirical data; they also rest on certain axioms, one of which typically is that people are rational and self-interested. To the extent that people are mostly rational and mostly self-interested, our explanations and our predictions may hold mostly good. But we’re still faced with two problems; first, what rational self-interested people view as being in their own interest may not align with what I view as being in their interest and, secondly, sometimes people are either not rational or not self-interested.

The result of this is that if my prediction lead me to expect X in a certain situation and instead Y eventuates, this isn’t necessarily fatal to the validity of my prediction in a way that it would be in, say, physics. The unexpected result could the outcome of either of the factors just mentioned. This shows that my methodology doesn’t - and probably can’t - produce results which are as reliable as the results that the methodologies employed in physics can produce. But this doesn’t mean that my methodology isn’t substantially reliable; reliable to an extremely useful degree. And it certainly doesn’t allow us to conclude that my methodology has no more merit than armchair opinions.

(Not sure how we got here from a consideration of the afterlife!)

Black Swan · 25-03-2019 4:45pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is inherent in the nature of the social sciences, I think. For me, the dividing line between tne natural sciences and the social sciences is that the subjects of the latter include us ourselves; our minds, our thoughts, our actions, our choices. And these are inherently subjective factors. This isn’t a weakness or a fault in the social sciences; it’s just their defining characteristic.

The social and behavioral disciplines may attempt to move away from the limitations that exist in the individual unit of analysis though the use of higher levels (e.g., group, organisation, county, region, nation, population). Unfortunately, some of these disciplines still cling to the case study unit, especially psychiatry, and such a level was obviously subjective. For example, when Sigmund Freud in his Civilization and Its Discontents had drawn conclusions from highly subjective cases to make claims about populations he committed an ecological fallacy. The near death experience literature that pertains to the afterlife has been at the case study unit of analysis and may be as problematic as Freud's accordingly. Also, Freud's and NDE's nonrandom, convenience sampling methods may be subject to selection bias (e.g., Freud's case studies of women were generally selected from those who could afford his fees).

The social and behavioral disciplines have also attempted to overcome some of their limitations by increasing the rigour of data selection and analysis (e.g., big data algorithm analysis, especially as pertains to targeting customer advertising with increased buying of products and services). I have not found big data for NDE or other afterlife measures that exhibited rigourous empirical studies with reliability or validity.

hgfj · 25-03-2019 5:09pm

I don't believe in god or an afterlife but I used to, and when I did I sort of figured god didn't so much create the universe as become the universe. God didn't say, "Let there be light" but said,"Let me be light"

The afterlife

Comments