Life And Death

[Brother Jeff]

Religious people believe that there is life after death, atheist believe that death is the end of existence. I would say there is little evidence that there is life after death and little evidence that there is no life after death, but someone has got to be correct. Death is defined as the end of life but are life and death really distinguished? If religious people believe that life keeps going after death than they have to explain death it'self and it's reality, while atheists have to explain what life really is if they believe existence ends at death, what is the real explanation behind existence? This is the view of an agnostic, a person who has opened up to the possibility that life and death cannot truly be explained by imperfect humans with limited intelligence.

 

Sorry this thread got hijacked into a discussion about NDEs. That wasn't my intention at all... I happen to believe that NDEs most likely are a glimpse of a reality different from our own but I don't think anyone really knows the answers to the Big Questions of life. I think I've made this point before, but all any of us can do is the best we can with the facts and evidence that we have available to us at any given time... My 2 cents...

[DoubtingNate]

 

Sam Harris's take on Alexander's book (he is also a neuoscientist).

 

Read the whole thing and my opinion remains unchanged. Sam Harris is a committed fundamentalist atheist (as committed to his worldview as any fundamentalist Christian or Muslim is to theirs), so I expect him to have a dissenting view. I don't think he was entirely fair to Dr. Alexander, and it appears that Harris has not read Alexander's book. His dissenting view was based on an article rather than the book, which to be fair, had not been published at the time Harris wrote his article. 

 

We don't even know what consciousness actually is (which Harris is honest enough to admit), much less how the brain produces it (if indeed it does), so I don't think we are at a place scientifically yet where we should be making absolute judgments about where consciousness comes from, the nature of it, or whether or not it can continue after brain death. An open mind to all the relevant possibilities is in order here, and atheists like Sam Harris (whom I do like and respect) don't have that, though they may claim to (as Harris indeed did...)...

 

It may be true that Dr. Alexander has made some reasoning errors and lacks the training to understand brain science but... I don't think that invalidates his experience at all. Dr. Alexander describes his experience as the most real experience he has ever had, and I find it impossible to believe that his severely ill comatose brain produced it from lack of oxygen or from a DMT overdose or whatever... But then, my mind is not closed to the possibility that these experiences are real glimpses of a reality beyond our own. But Sam Harris's mind is (closed) to that possibility...

 

 

Sam's perspective as a neuroscientist is what I found helpful - moreso than explanations given by other skeptics who are not already experts in that field.  He's explained 1) how the alleged lack of cortex activity can't be confirmed by the medical equipment available, or any other means that we know of, and 2) We already know that the mind is capable of generating intense and vivid hallucinations under a number of circumstances that would easily apply in Alexander's case.  Such experiences can be very real and even life-changing, but all that proves is that his life was changed by whatever he experienced.  We can't verify exactly what happened, but we already have explanations that are more likely than Alexander's story.

 

It's true that he's bringing his skeptical perspective to the table, but so am I.  In general skepticism is a good starting point for these kinds of claims.  Big claims require more evidence, end of story.  

[florduh]

I may not technically be an atheist since I accept NDEs as real experiences of a reality different than our own

 

Of course an atheist can believe in non-local consciousness, spirits, souls or the Matrix. None of that implies a god.

 

I didn't want to hijack the thread, but if you say that NDEs prove something and skeptics can't disprove it therefore it must be true, there will be some discussion! Again, FTR, I hope you're right.

[Ousian]

I think maybe your approach is giving too much credit to the religiously inclined, Cianna.  You draw this dichotomy between life after death, and the ending of life:

 

I would say there is little evidence that there is life after death and little evidence that there is no life after death, but someone has got to be correct

 

Well sure, I can make the claim that pastafianism is correct and the flying spaghetti monster offers the best explanation for human existence.  This doesn't mean there's a shred of reason to believe me.  Simply because people will contend that there is life after death, doesn't mean you have any reason to believe them whatsoever.  Without evidence, the expression of a belief in life after death is simply a belief, and is no more an expression of psychological disposition than any ideological position worth thinking about.  

 

Yes, there's little evidence that there is no life after death.  So?  There's little evidence of the flying spaghetti monster's existence as well.  This doesn't mean there's any reason to give any credibility to the idea.  The onus probandi, burden of proof, lies on the existential claim, NOT the negative of that claim.  You need absolutely zero evidence to not believe in life after death, this is the default position.  If somebody claims to believe in life after death, the burden of proof lies on them exclusively to back up their claim.  It doesn't matter how much evidence there is for no life after death, because you can't prove a negative.  What matters is how much evidence supports life after death.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I've been close to death several times in my life, closer than I ever cared to be.  Once, I got locked in to a 277 volt electrical current.  Normally, 277 volts is strong enough to knock a person back; but in this particular instance, I happened to be very well grounded.  I immediately knew I was in trouble.  I can't really say for certain how long I was locked onto the circuit; but judging by the depth of the entry wound, I can say that it was several seconds.  A lot of different thoughts will go through a person's mind when they have the very power of Thor's hammer coursing through their veins.  Naturally, my first thought was, "Why am I getting hit?  The circuit is off; why am I getting hit?"  I also remember thinking, "No one knows this is happening; there's no one who can help me."  At some point, however, my thoughts turned to death.  I thought, "This is how I died; this is how the legacy ended."  Strangely, this thought did not scare me, nor did I feel anger or saddness about it.  What I felt was tremendous relief.  At long last, I knew how I would die; the mystery had been solved.  I think that sense of relief was a defense mechanism that my brain launched in order to calm me and allow me to accept the inevitable.

 

Fortunately, I had the presence of mind to hurl myself backwards off of the ladder I was standing on and thus break the current.  Otherwise this old redneck wouldn't be around anymore. 

[Ousian]

Here's a great video on Sam Harris' take on the afterlife: 

[ExCBooster]

Thought I'd randomly point out that the choice of: religious = belief in afterlife OR atheist = belief in no afterlife is a false dichotomy. People don't default to atheism, if they're not religious, and it's perfectly possible to be either someone religious who doesn't believe in an afterlife or an atheist who does. Just putting that out there, to keep the argument here complex and nuanced.

 

I'm not religious, and I'm ignostic - something that cannot be coherently defined cannot be logically discussed or argued, and deities in the general sense are too culturally-bound and poorly defined to be a meaningful designation. Now, that said, I AM an atheist, with regards to the Christian God, and most others, because it can be defined, it can be falsified, and it HAS been, to my satisfaction. A benevolent, all-powerful, all-knowing entity that actually interacts with and cares about humanity in any way that can be prayed to is simply an impossibility. Turns out humanity likes to envision all-powerful creator deities that take a personal, human-like interest in their human affairs, in a very human way, even to the point of interacting with them as other humans might. Coincidence? I think not. If you look at the evidence, this is simply not a possible being, and people have to do a lot of dancing around the facts and willfull ignorance to keep the belief in the Christian-type God alive. People have more complete and meaningful relationships with their pets. Heck, more meaningful relationships with plants: at least they give shade, or food, or amusement, and you can take a hand in keeping them alive. So, ExCBooster is an atheist, in the special case of the Christian God, but an ignostic of the most exacting type, in the general sense.

 

I also think that ambiguity is a healthy thing. There aren't two categories: false or true. There are at least four: false, true, insufficient data (but a coherent enough question to ask), and mu (or null: the question itself cannot be asked or answered in a logically coherent way.) This is most obvious in English in the form of a leading question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Answering "yes" would imply that you have a wife and that you used to beat her. Answering "no" implies that you have a wife and that you still abuse her. That's why lawyers aren't allowed to phrase examination questions for witnesses this way. Asking these sorts of questions is ludicrously easy, and usually hinge on a heap of assumptions or leaps of logic that should not be taken - leaps of faith, rather.

 

I suspect, but cannot yet prove, that the "life after death" question could be answered in any of the four ways, depending on how it is asked. Maybe the problem isn't what the answer is, but the question itself. So, as for myself, I can confidently state that the idea of heaven or hell is false. As for the rest, maybe we don't have enough information to know how to ask the question yet, since the question in the broadest possible sense implies a lot of assumptions about the nature of time, and life, and consiousness that must be completely resolved before it can be asked in a logically meaningul way.

[directionless]

A few days ago I ordered "Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century" by Kelly. I haven't read the entire book, but I read what was available through Amazon's preview feature.

 

Anyway... one theory is that the brain is a filter for consciousness rather than the source of consciousness. I've never liked the idea that each human body has a discrete soul, because the human body is not really discrete. I prefer to think of a universal soul that is filtered through physical forms in states of incomplete awareness.

 

BTW Does anybody have an opinion of the book "Irreducible Mind"? I hate to confuse myself reading books written by quacks. I'm not sharp enough to tell the difference in many cases.

[Cianna200]

 

 

Religious people believe that there is life after death, atheist believe that death is the end of existence. I would say there is little evidence that there is life after death and little evidence that there is no life after death, but someone has got to be correct. Death is defined as the end of life but are life and death really distinguished? If religious people believe that life keeps going after death than they have to explain death it'self and it's reality, while atheists have to explain what life really is if they believe existence ends at death, what is the real explanation behind existence? This is the view of an agnostic, a person who has opened up to the possibility that life and death cannot truly be explained by imperfect humans with limited intelligence.

Sorry this thread got hijacked into a discussion about NDEs. That wasn't my intention at all... I happen to believe that NDEs most likely are a glimpse of a reality different from our own but I don't think anyone really knows the answers to the Big Questions of life. I think I've made this point before, but all any of us can do is the best we can with the facts and evidence that we have available to us at any given time... My 2 cents...

 

Don't worry, NDEs do have something to do with my belief.

[Brother Jeff]

Here's a great video on Sam Harris' take on the afterlife: 

 

I like and respect Sam Harris -- a lot! But what he and other materialistic scientists are being asked to consider isn't something outside the realm of possibility. It's true that damaging the brain also affects the mind, but at this point in time we don't even really know what consciousness is, much less if the brain is generating it. I think it is premature to make absolute statements about it. And there is a great deal of evidence (circumstantial though it may be) that something of us survives physical death. That "something" is known by different terms in different religious traditions. Christians would call it a soul. Hindus would call it the indivisible, indestructible Self. But the point is that something of us appears to survive physical death. I'm not sure why that should be such a problem for so many people...aside from fanatical devotion to a materialistic worldview no different from a Christian's fanatical devotion to theirs... My 2 cents... *shrugs*