Death And Science

[Abiyoyo]

Yoyo, doesn't it seem odd that church sells you a product that is impossible to know if it exists until you die? Is there a better con game around? If so, I've never heard of it.

 

You may be afraid of death, lots of people are. But is that fear so great you will believe anything, not matter how outrageous, just on the hope you will not cease to exist?

 

And Floriduh mentioned Allah not because he is an alternate god, but because the Muslim hell is far, far worse than the xtian hell. Since you brought up Pascal's wager, he was commenting that you could be wrong about jesus and be tormented much more harshly than you think you will be escaping right now. There is a good chance Islam is truer than xtainity too. It's newer, perhaps god had forgotten to mention some things when Moses and jesus were around so he had to send old Mo' to set things straight again. It does seem god is quite forgetful at times.

 

Haven't been to church in months and didn'r really grow up hearing all that stuff, so to imply that the church is ''conning'' is just false. I do like to read though. :wink: I don't believe anything, Marty, not 'anything' to me. I see the Bible on many aspects as well as Christianity. As far as Muslims go, the only difference between them and Christians is that they wrote about Jesus as a great prophet, and not the Son of God. They do not worship Jesus, nor do I; which leads my question, Am I suppose to worship God or Jesus? And in which manner, in flesh, or spirit? Actually, Marty, the Muslims believe Jesus is a great prophet that comes to battle Satan at Armageddon.

 

I worship the spirit that was within Jesus, just as the Nicene Creed said, in essence. And if I worship a spirit, the spirit that was in Jesus, then if that Spirit was the same spirit of God, I then am worshiping God. Right?

 

He's not forgetful.

[Abiyoyo]

1) That really doesn't apply well because as when Santa doesn't bring me that bike. My mother can say,"Well son, I'm sorry, there is no Santa Claus really, and I couldn't afford it." There are real walking, talking, alive people that understand what the 'aftermath' is of, no Santa Claus. Do you know anyone Chef that can comfort me of what becomes of my highly emotional, creative, thought and reasoned mind when it ceases to have blood flow?

 

Comfort you? What the heck? Here is a real walking, talking, alive person telling you that the aftermath of no god is nothing. You won't mind not existing a bit, for you will have no mind when the blood ceases to flow to mind it with. How do I know? Because I never minded not existing before I had a mind for the same reason.

 

Now that may not comfort you. I'm still not comforted about the bike even though the reason for not getting it was explained to me. My non-comforted state does not guarantee that Santa really will give me the bike someday.

 

But Chef, you have not died, and rose again The people telling me Santa Claus is 'not' real don't have to surpass science to do so. That was the point. Nobody knows what happens after we die, except on a physical realm.

 

2) Can't know till the end, and that's the point of the whole topic.

 

Then how do you know you have the right religion to preserve your mind? Maybe if you were broke a lottery ticket would comfort you as long as they never had the drawing to actually pass out the money.

 

What should I consider to make it 'not' the right one? All that has come my way, I have looked into, none have compared in my eyes.

 

3) I don't think our creativity will endure that long until reality finds life out again. Reality is that the human body is complex, and it's requirements are endless. We may seem immortal, yet someone with any common sense would know that we would not be immortal. Immortality is endless, ever existing, correct?

 

The questions were hypothetical. I don't think that science will produce immortality. Eventually the sun will burn out. Eventually the universe will get cold.

 

For one, we are subject to the natural world... So, we are always subject to ourselves and nature because we are a product of nature.

 

I should say I rest my case. Here it is in a nutshell; humans are natural not supernatural. Nothing supernatural has ever been found. When ever anything new is found, it turns out to be natural. I suspect that trend will continue. The natural will end. You will end. Your wonderful mind will end. As it is written, "It came to pass."

 

I agree, but according to my religion, my mind will not cease to end, I will just be sleeping. Have you ever wondered if at the point where the physical body ceases to function, whether the body is just sleeping? Studies show that during sleep at night is when a human being is the closest to death they will ever be without actually dying.

 

 

 

So, getting back to the OP, why does one say that a religious person is necessarily wrong, or confused, or believing in mythology, when what they may believe has hope of life after death?

 

So, getting back to my answer -- because one sees the gullibility of the child who depends on Santa to provide his wants. Nothing wrong with a child living in a fantasy world unless it causes the child to refuse to mature. "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me."

 

Once I discover something is or probably is a fantasy, I can't pretend otherwise. It could be failing on my part.

 

As far as comfort goes, I'm more comfortable with the idea of being dead than I ever was as a Christian. I'm still just as queasy with the dying bit. I'm not a fan of personal pain, but not even religion gives one an out on that.

 

So to that extent, I am a child because I believe in a religion that has been passed down for around 1800 years? I am immature?

[Abiyoyo]

Death and science are really two words that probably shouldn't go together, just as science and religion shouldn't. One thing, looking at all the facts, studies, histories, religions, Gods, human, everything, etc is that death is going to happen, unless science figures out how to immortalize life. This has not been done, and until then, death is something unavoidable. In my personal experience, death, is the one thing that keeps me believing in religion.

 

Religion is usually, for a non believer- useless, and mythological. Yet, death is something that our, sciences, have not figured out fully. Why is a religious person necessarily wrong, or confused, or believing in mythology, when what they may believe has hope of life after death? Does the Christian concept of hell cancel out a Heaven? Does the Christian concept of Heaven cancel out Hell?

 

So because there isn't a scientific answer you just assume that religion has one? and in particular the religion you happened to be raised in? well isn't that convenient for you?

 

I don't assume religion has a scientific answer, but it's the answer for me. I have a challenge for you Kuroikaze, since it seems so ridiculous to believe in a higher being. Whatever the number for your age is, divide it into 5000 years, and tell me what the percentage of that is. This is the percentage of your life's footprint on Earth. For, me the realization that I am a blink of this world, let alone eternity, leads me to process that there is a higher being. The reason I am able to conclude that is because of the fact that I am capable of concluding that unlike any of my 'physical creatures' on Earth. The human species is unique, unique enough to comprehend.

Maybe both exist, yet we interpret and judge, when we are not upheld to do so. Maybe we take God, and His authority into our own hands. I could be the most righteous person ever to have lived, and I still would not be able to judge where someone spends there eternal rest. The finite can't define the infinite, right? But the infinite can define the finite. If we are all God's children, then would we not go to be with the father of His creation? Does our finite sins exclude us from the infinite?

 

When you claim the infinite can define the finite you are, in fact, defining the infinite. If you don't understand it, you don't understand it. Don't claim you can't know anything about something and then go and tell us something about it.

 

I assume that the infinite can define the finite because it would be a concept a 3rd grader could gather. But, for the sake of argument, you can scratch that from the topic. Does that help?

 

 

 

So, I think death is the reason that religion is justified, and still held to many degrees. It is the one commonality of all human race.

 

Do many people believe in religion because they are afraid of the unknown? Yes I would agree, but weather or not that is justified is an entirely different topic. Ones desire for there to be life after death is not evidence that such a thing exists, yet you seem to be claiming that it is.

 

Yes, I do, and I explain not because there is no better reason, theology, philosophy, etc, but because of all the attributes toward the religion, and history.

[Abiyoyo]

Okay, so Science can't say for certain that death is the end, but seeing as Science can't say ANYTHING with an absolute certainty, I'd say that's no argument in favor of your position. The evidence brought to us by science is enough to say that the soul probably doesn't exist AND, if death isn't the end, that fact has nothing to do with a disembodied specter that needlessly attaches itself to the physical for finite periods.

 

Doesn't sound like the scientist I have debated in the Science and religion section that speak of endless reasons why we should keep spending billions in research for people to commune on Mars. I'm not calling you out here Dhampir, just saying that the scientific 'community' seems very upstanding on the position of , "we never know unless we keep moving forward" philosophy. I agree, in a scientific realm, on a physical matter, that if science says something doesn't exist, then it doesn't.

 

If someone said gravity can be defied, yet we have not the technology to prove that notion, then science stands as gravity can't be defied. Yet, science can be proven wrong with the advancements of technology. So, scientific research and development in my eyes are much different then scientific evaluations by scientific people. People, even in science, hold truths and theories firm, without yield, until it is proven incorrect.

 

The problem here is that God, if God, is the creator, so could His creation define Him?

[Abiyoyo]

florduh,

 

re: “Ah, Pascal's Wager. Again.”

 

 

And we know that the wager is invalid right from the start since it is based on the notion that a person can consciously CHOOSE to believe things, which of course is impossible.

 

I agree with you here rstrats, but at the same time disagree. I have always understood that there may, or is a higher being, yet, I remember times where my life went about without the slightest thought toward it. I always knew, if there was, it wasn't within some type of system where evangelists appear almost as salespeople; yet I always felt as though there was a higher being.

 

I didn't grow up with religion crammed in my head, so in a sense, my experience through adulthood with religion has been a freeing experience. When I walk outside now, I feel as though someone cleared my vision. Now, I know others here, have felt this same type of experience, through leaving Christianity. All I will say is that, people, especially Christian people, can be cruel and judgmental.

 

But to answer your response, I see Christianity as more of a realization than a 'choice for Jesus'.

[Abiyoyo]

To me, the belief in life after death is pure ego. It's that little part of our brain railling against the fact that the universe as a whole will not even notice when we're gone.

 

IMOHO,

 

I agree with you here Skank, but also will note in that same context is the reason I do attend to a God, because we are unique minded.

[Dhampir]

Okay, so Science can't say for certain that death is the end, but seeing as Science can't say ANYTHING with an absolute certainty, I'd say that's no argument in favor of your position. The evidence brought to us by science is enough to say that the soul probably doesn't exist AND, if death isn't the end, that fact has nothing to do with a disembodied specter that needlessly attaches itself to the physical for finite periods.

 

Doesn't sound like the scientist I have debated in the Science and religion section that speak of endless reasons why we should keep spending billions in research for people to commune on Mars. I'm not calling you out here Dhampir, just saying that the scientific 'community' seems very upstanding on the position of , "we never know unless we keep moving forward" philosophy. I agree, in a scientific realm, on a physical matter, that if science says something doesn't exist, then it doesn't.

 

If someone said gravity can be defied, yet we have not the technology to prove that notion, then science stands as gravity can't be defied. Yet, science can be proven wrong with the advancements of technology. So, scientific research and development in my eyes are much different then scientific evaluations by scientific people. People, even in science, hold truths and theories firm, without yield, until it is proven incorrect.

 

The problem here is that God, if God, is the creator, so could His creation define Him?

I'm lost here. What are you saying?

 

What I was saying amounts to a basic observation. You don't even need to be a scientist to figure it out-- It was a novel idea to me when I had it, for instance. Energy does not remain cohesive or fixed without a physical medium to store it. In your OP you said something about studying religions and gods with relation to death, as if that's remotely relevant. People from the earliest points in history observed death and knew it for what it was. One minute, you were doin' stuff, the next you weren't doing anything. So they threw you in a shallow hole in the ground.

 

As introspection and abstract thought developed, people became more and more uneasy with the idea that people inevitably and invariably stop doin' stuff, they imagined that maybe there's something inside those bodies that just stops being there after some point, and this invisible, undetectable, imperceptible something keeps on doin' stuff. The soul isn't remotely based in reality. It's completely untestable, and unfalsifiable.

 

I said this elsewhere, but I'll explain it here as well. Science is like a picture that you see though a lens. When you first look at the picture, you can't see it very well, because the lens isn't very refined. You know what the picture is, but you can't make out it's particulars. As time passes, you add lenses, and/or swap the lens that's there for better, sharper lenses, and you can make out more and more of the particulars.

 

Now what I mean to say with that is that no matter how old an observation is, we always KNOW something about it. Our knowledge may be limited, but we know something, and as time passes we learn more and more till we have a sharp picture of what it is. The idea of the soul on the other hand, has been around for at least the last 10,000 years, and WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING now, that we didn't know 10,000 years ago. We're asking the exact same questions now that we did back then. Outside of things that are withheld from ALL observation and interaction (such as being integrated into our physical being), if it exists, we should have some concrete info about it by now. Come on, it's been 10,000 years at least.

 

If it can be perceived, it can be scientifically explored. What that means is that either the soul doesn't exist, or it only exists as a philosophical concept, like love, or the beauty of truth or something.

[florduh]

Now what I mean to say with that is that no matter how old an observation is, we always KNOW something about it. Our knowledge may be limited, but we know something, and as time passes we learn more and more till we have a sharp picture of what it is. The idea of the soul on the other hand, has been around for at least the last 10,000 years, and WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING now, that we didn't know 10,000 years ago. We're asking the exact same questions now that we did back then. Outside of things that are withheld from ALL observation and interaction (such as being integrated into our physical being), if it exists, we should have some concrete info about it by now. Come on, it's been 10,000 years at least.

 

That was so well put, I just thought it needed to be repeated. You have summed up the entire kingdom of woo with that. For the word "soul" you can substitute ghosts, demons, or psychic phenomena of any description.

[Abiyoyo]

I'm lost here. What are you saying?

 

I was saying that even if a God existed that created the universe, life, Earth etc; Could we define this God scientifically? You say that if something can be perceived, then it can be explored, and concluded that it is either existent or non existent.

 

You said love as an example for a perceived thing that is more toward a philosophical concept, yet love IS a real feeling within one's self, and can be defined through human experience. It may not be scientifically provable, explainable, or tangible; but it does exist in many ways and forms through the human race, and through our experiences.

 

I would assume it is wrapped around philosophical conception because of it's 'real feeling to humans', existence since any recordings of human race, and because it is observed through the human race. Now, this makes love a real thing. Far more than a concept. It may be viewed as in it's many forms in concept, but love itself is real.

 

Many would say, well, it's not real because you can't touch it, smell it, feel it, or demonstrate it. That is true, yet it is 'observed' through the human race and is defined through us to be a real thing. God is the same way for me.

[rstrats]

YoYo,

 

re: “I agree with you here rstrats, but at the same time disagree.”

 

 

With all due respect - and I hope you don’t take this the wrong way - but someone a whole lot smarter than I am will have to try to understand that comment.

[Dhampir]

I'm lost here. What are you saying?

 

I was saying that even if a God existed that created the universe, life, Earth etc; Could we define this God scientifically? You say that if something can be perceived, then it can be explored, and concluded that it is either existent or non existent.

 

You said love as an example for a perceived thing that is more toward a philosophical concept, yet love IS a real feeling within one's self, and can be defined through human experience. It may not be scientifically provable, explainable, or tangible; but it does exist in many ways and forms through the human race, and through our experiences.

 

I would assume it is wrapped around philosophical conception because of it's 'real feeling to humans', existence since any recordings of human race, and because it is observed through the human race. Now, this makes love a real thing. Far more than a concept. It may be viewed as in it's many forms in concept, but love itself is real.

 

Many would say, well, it's not real because you can't touch it, smell it, feel it, or demonstrate it. That is true, yet it is 'observed' through the human race and is defined through us to be a real thing. God is the same way for me.

If this god were a natural being, then yes, we could define it scientifically. Just as soon as we got a concrete set of characteristics for this god by which to differentiate it from, well, nothing. This god, should it be within the universe, does not interact in a meaningful way, or at least does so in such a way that we CAN'T perceive it. This god could be hiding from perception purposefully, which is not something one could say for a soul. On the other hand, if your God is interacting with you in a way that you can feel, then by all means, we should be able to at least indirectly observe this. If the feelings you have can be reproduced any number of ways, then the reasonable assumption is that your belief is different from the reality.

 

I said love was a concept, not a percept. Now sure, feelings of love, as manifested within a person, is created by chemicals and reactions, neuronal firings and synapes and so on. That makes Love a purely physical thing on an individual level, which btw, is kind of a mark against the idea of the soul. Love is percieved by how it's expressed, but since ALL those actions can be undertaken by people who don't actually feel love toward a particular person, that makes love as a collective idea, a concept.

 

The soul, being something completely different in nature is either real and explorable, or not, and exists only as a concept, or nothing at all.

Seeing as feelings of love are rooted in the physical, and expressions and descriptions thereof in the conceptual, then the soul must be somehow rooted in the physical or the purely conceptual. If it's the former, then the 10,000 + year dearth of conclusive evidence/observation is proof that there is no such thing. If it's the latter, then it can be as real as you want it to be, just short of actually being real.

[chefranden]

But Chef, you have not died, and rose again The people telling me Santa Claus is 'not' real don't have to surpass science to do so. That was the point. Nobody knows what happens after we die, except on a physical realm.

 

Neither has anyone else*. But if they had, that was them not you.

 

No one has to surpass science to tell you about Jesus either.

 

Yes we do know what happens after we die. We rot. We used to get eaten by lions and tigers and bears, oh my! But now we mostly rot. I don't know if you are a hunter. I used to be, too old and fat now. I used to be a soldier too, too old and fat for that as well. I can tell you from experience that other than form there's no difference between a shot deer and a shot human. As it is written, "Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return."

 

*Edit: It occurs to me that I could easily say that I had risen from the dead. You couldn't prove that I haven't risen from the dead. Nevertheless, you would be right to reject my claim based on the evidence of what happens when people die. That would be a sane conclusion. An insane conclusion would be for you to obey me because you can't prove that I didn't rise from the dead. I reject the idea of Jesus (or any of those other god/men) rising from the dead for the same reasons you would probably reject my claim to have risen from the dead.

 

What should I consider to make it 'not' the right one? All that has come my way, I have looked into, none have compared in my eyes.

 

You need consider nothing but the odds. You chose to be christian because you were raised to be christian. The odds that you were taught the right religion are as small as if you reached into a bag and pulled out the right religion and denomination. Christianity seems better (i.e. less foolish) to you, because you are use to it. As a partisan you are unable to make a fair comparison.

 

I agree, but according to my religion, my mind will not cease to end, I will just be sleeping. Have you ever wondered if at the point where the physical body ceases to function, whether the body is just sleeping? Studies show that during sleep at night is when a human being is the closest to death they will ever be without actually dying.

 

Study has shown that when I sit on a rock I'm as close to a rock as I can be with out actually solidifying. But really, a person can tell the difference between a guy being dead and a guy being asleep. Even if you can't, just wait a couple of days and your nose will tell you.

 

So to that extent, I am a child because I believe in a religion that has been passed down for around 1800 years? I am immature?

 

Yes to that extent, you are less mature than I. But I think that it is not your fault so to speak, because like the vast majority of people you are evolutionarily wired to stay immature in this area. My inability to believe in spite of all the evidence contrary to religion, is probably a mutational defect that would cause my death in another place or time. I could blame this on God if I believed in him. For he must have made me a Greek unable to believe in his foolishness, once I saw that it was as foolish as any other religion.

[Dhampir]

That was the point. Nobody knows what happens after we die, except on a physical realm.

No one knows that there is something that's NOT of the physical realm. We humans are composed of matter, which makes us physical. The soul is taken to be some form of energy, which makes it physical.

 

Matter = Physical.

 

Energy = Physical.

 

Physical ≠ that which is composed of matter only.

 

Nothing, NOTHING that we can or have observed is non-physical. To speculate that there is such a thing seems like the last refuge for everything you believe in, but can't prove, or even remotely demonstrate.

 

Therefore, you've more or less admitted that we CAN know if death is most likely the end, scientifically, or at the very least, if there's a soul responsible for our continued existence thereafter. The so-called "non-physical" is equal to that which is non-existent. Either that, or you think that disembodied energy is non-physical. It's not.

 

Like I said before, if it exists, then we should know something about it by now. We don't, therefore it probably doesn't exist. Even if we came by our knowledge indirectly, we should have something solid by now.

 

Chef raises an interesting question though, all that aside. Do animals have souls? If not, why not?

[Guest Marty]

Studies show that during sleep at night is when a human being is the closest to death they will ever be without actually dying.

 

Which studies? None that I have heard of. Yoyo, could you provide a link to where you got this info from? We have LOTS of study into sleep patterns and brain wave function during different levels of sleep, and from what I've understood, our brain ceases to function upon death, so how is death in any way akin to sleep? I'd like to read the studies that discuss this amazing piece of news that seemed to completely escape my attention when I was studying brain function a few years ago.

 

FWIW, I do seem to remember reading that surgical anastesia is actually bringing you pretty close to death, and is why you have a separate doctor whose job is to watch your vitals closely and to adjust drug levels to make sure you don't go too far or not far enough. But this is not what you are saying, is it?

 

Just because sleep outwardly resembles death does not mean it does internally as well. The body is just as active (if not more so, processing the days memories, reparing damage, etc) than when awake.

[TheMathGuy]

I think the idea of life after death is entirely fictitious. There has yet to be found a single scrap of evidence for this supposed "soul" that exists separately from our body and goes on living after we die. In fact, as modern neuroscience is showing, our very personality is affected by the physical structure of our brain. This is some pretty strong evidence that "who we are" is our physical brain, not some hypothetical "soul" that nobody can provide any evidence actually exists. So when this physical brain breaks down, it is the end of our very existence. I see no reason to think otherwise.

[REBOOT]

So, I think death is the reason that religion is justified, and still held to many degrees. It is the one commonality of all human race.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

Not quite. Religion was created in order to exploit the fear of death and build centrist judgemental morals in order to help control populations.

 

Death is unavoidable and the potential/consequentiality of after-life unknown. Not knowing is very hard on the human psyche, thus the race of science to lift every stone.

 

I wouldn't be wrong if I said you personally needed a religion, would I ?