About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Monday, November 12, 2007 - 10:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I myself do not believe in a god, but that does not keep me from thinking that there may be a form of afterlife.  I am including under the heading of "afterlife" any type of alleged afterlife, including life as a reincarnated being or life as a disembodied spirit.  I was wondering if anyone knows how an Objectivist, qua Objectivist, could refute the idea that it is possible that there is an afterlife.  I realize that this may sound like a strange question for some of you, just as some theists questions to me have seemed strange.... Nonetheless, I hope that one of you could help me out on this one.

Post 1

Monday, November 12, 2007 - 12:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Christopher, it is a matter of epistemology. You have to get a basic understanding of what it means to know something and how one attains knowledge. But to sum up shortly, it is impossible to prove a negative. No one can disprove an afterlife just as no one can disprove there is an invisible purple dragon living in your house. But to believe in an afterlife ought to require some proof one exists. If your basis for belief is not based on sensory perception, you will find you will run into a lot of problems in life. If we suggest one should believe in what one cannot prove, it would suggest knowledge is subjective and the fanciful whims of the individual is as valid as cold hard logic and sensory evidence.

I would suggest reading "An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology", there also a slew of great books on epistemology with specific themes to them. A really good one for questions of God, afterlife or the supernatural is George H. Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God"

Post 2

Monday, November 12, 2007 - 12:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,
Thans for recommending that book to me... I will try to check it out. 


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Monday, November 12, 2007 - 1:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I can prove there is no afterlife. The proof is that it's self-contradictory. Here's why:

In order for there to be an afterlife, the soul must survive the death of the body. But we know that the soul is a faculty of a living organism -- that consciousness depends on functioning sense organs, a brain and nervous system.

Sensory perception is possible only in a particular form, which is governed by the nature of our sense organs, each of which involves different forms of perception. Vision, which is a function of our optic nerve, is a different form of awareness than hearing, which is a function of our auditory nerve and is a different form of awareness than smell, which is a function of our olfactory nerve, etc. Without sense organs, perception would not exist, because it would have no form, and formless perception is a contradiction in terms.

Similarly, without a functioning brain, consciousness could not retain any memories or engage in any form of thought or evaluation. In short, when the body dies, the soul or consciousness dies along with it.

What is curious is that people who believe that the human consciousness survives death are often unwilling to believe the same for the consciousness of their dog or cat. What do they think happens to the souls of their pets? Apparently, they're content to believe that when their pet dies, its soul dies as well. But, for some reason, they think that when a human body dies, its soul lives on. Very strange.

- Bill


(Edited by William Dwyer on 11/12, 1:20pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Monday, November 12, 2007 - 2:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill:

You mean there's no doggy heaven either? I have a lot of explaining to do to my dog :)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Monday, November 12, 2007 - 3:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I was talking to some people at my apartment complex, who were telling me about the time they told their kids there was no Santa Claus. One of them, who was 6 at the time, was very upset, and said, "Now I suppose you're going to tell me there's no Easter Bunny!"

Since these folks are Catholics, I wanted to say, "And I've got some more bad news -- there is no God or afterlife either," but I held my tongue, as it was not the appropriate time to raise that issue!

Yes, Ryan, there is no Doggy Heaven (sheds a tear!).

- Bill

Post 6

Monday, November 12, 2007 - 3:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I concur with Bill. In addition, I would add that the idea of an afterlife is also contradictory in that if something survives death, then a person (thing) didn't actually die. To die is to cease to exist. You cannot both exist and not exist at the same time.

Post 7

Monday, November 12, 2007 - 4:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Very well put John Armaos and William Dwyer.

About all I can add is that even if an "afterlife" did exist, one has no way to imagine what it would be like, how to prepare for it, or what sort of plans/actions one should take in this life to potentially improve the next.

Of course you could believe that something is True (consistent with reality) when you have no evidence or evidence contradicts (Faith). Information and ideas that are independent of or contradicting evidence are useless when predicting the future and planning.

And telling people that you think something is True when they think it is impossible to know such a thing will probably cause them to trust your thoughts/words less.

Post 8

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 7:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In connection with #6: Plato got there first, and he used the argument to get just the opposite conclusion.  In the Phaedo he says that a non-living soul, like a non-burning flame, is a contradiction.  Ergo souls don't die.

Post 9

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 10:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,
I was more wondering what were the PHILOSOPHICAL reasons for believing that an afterlife cannot exist.  I mean, I would hope that there must be some philosophical basis for thinking what we do about man regarding the possibility of an afterlife.  Otherwise, the basis for science is never really settled and we are left without knowing much of why to do anything at all. 


Post 10

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 10:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I haven't read the Plato reference. However, the thread is a discussion of "afterlife". An after life assumes a death (whatever it is that is dying).

Post 11

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 3:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I was more wondering what were the PHILOSOPHICAL reasons for believing that an afterlife cannot exist.

Christopher,  Bill did dispute it PHILOSOPHICALLY.  The "mind/body dichotomy" is a PHILOSOPHICAL myth.


Post 12

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 3:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't believe in an afterlife or a god but here is a curious thing and I'm not sure what to make of it; there have been hundreds of documented cases like this.
http://erraticwisdom.com/2007/06/14/reconciling-reincarnation
Is it fiction or some strange event unexplainable with current ideas and science?
Also, I just wanted to note that the scenario Bill gave was very much like my finding of atheism. At 8 I realized Santa was fiction, seriously calling into question my beliefs in God; by 12 I had finally formulated enough arguments to reason God is not real.

Post 13

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 4:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
James,

Unfortunately, the page you pointed to is acting strangely, and I'm not able to read the whole story, but I have heard of these things.  It's interesting, but I wouldn't call these circumstances, or claims of them, proof of anything.

There isn't a mystery anywhere that science, at some point, can't solve, or explain.  So far, with regard to past life memory, all we have are claims, and that just isn't good enough.


Post 14

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 4:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In connection with #6: Plato got there first, and he used the argument to get just the opposite conclusion. In the Phaedo he says that a non-living soul, like a non-burning flame, is a contradiction. Ergo souls don't die.
Right. You can have a body that's not living, i.e., a dead body, but you can't have a soul that's not living, i.e., a dead soul. Therefore, souls don't "die"; they just cease to exist. They're like a living process that ceases to function after the organism dies. A non-functional process is a contradiction in terms. If it's non-functional, it's not a process. Of course, Plato didn't acknowledge that the soul, while not "dying," nevertheless ceases to exist. In that respect, his argument is sophistical and trades on an equivocation. The fact that the soul doesn't "die" because you can't have a dead soul in the same way that you can have a dead body does not mean that the soul continues to exist after the body dies.

Plato also believes that man has no right to commit suicide, because he has no actual ownership over his body; he is the property of the gods, who would punish him in the afterlife, if he were to destroy something that he does not own. Interestingly, one of my Catholic neighbors expressed the same view, when she voiced concern over the fact that her son had tried to commit suicide. She thought that if he had succeeded, he would wind up in Hell. Not much has changed in the last 2,500 years.

- Bill

Post 15

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 5:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Christopher Parker,

Death and the Meaning of Life

Even if your soul existed forever, you would not gain any purpose (externally) than if you only lived 100 years. No matter how long you live, you still have to choose your own purpose or let others choose it for you.
Otherwise the basis for science is not settled
Hmm. No, science is well founded. One does not learn that something is ABSOLUTELY UNDENIABLY FOREVER True through science. But one can learn ideas/concepts/processes/generalizations, etc through science that are never evidently wrong and frequently useful in predicting, planning, and achieving goals.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 5:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 One does not learn that something is ABSOLUTELY UNDENIABLY FOREVER True through science.

I think we've learned absolutely and undeniably that bacteria can cause illness, even death, among other things, forever.  Facts is facts.


Post 17

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 7:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There is a primary driver behind any postulation of an afterlife: wishful thinking.  My own take is that if some of form of afterlife does exist, great!  Perhaps then we'll all get to understand the great mysteries of existence.  There is certainly no proof of one, however, so it is useless to spend any precious thought time on it. 

Post 18

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 9:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I quote Calvin and Hobbes on this, "..if I'm not going to be eternally rewarded for my behavior, I wold sure like to know now."
Although if the Christians are correct with determinism then it would be pointless to punish those who a creator forced into doing something so even if there is an afterlife which there probably is not, then you will not be punished in it. If an afterlife exists then everyone will be happy and if it doesn't, none should care. Thus we don't need to waste time debating about the existence of an afterlife or in preparation for one, we should simply count it as though there is no afterlife.

Post 19

Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - 8:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The problem is which afterlife to bank on.  Various theories from various religions are in general conflict.  The Mormons, for example, do not believe in Hell.  EVERYBODY goes to Heaven in their view, just to different levels of it.  So the Mormon ideal is not about trying avoid being tortured for eternity - and any God that behaved that way should be terminated with prejudice anyway - but rather about perfecting ones self in order to more quickly move up the ladder to being another God, oneself. 

If I were to pick afterlives on the basis of attractiveness, theirs certainly has some nice points, as in, instead of having to blow yourself up to get 70 virgins, as a God, you have literally billions of wives with whom you spend an eternity having sex in order to create trillions of spirit children in order to populate all the new planets you're meanwhile creating for them.  Does this sound good already?

Anyway, the problems of conservation of mass and energy tend to make me sceptical about most paradises, much like time travel.  However, there is ONE scenario that works for afterlives, potential paradises, miracles, telepathy, magic, and even time travel, and that is the one in which we are all in a vast simulation.  Or, maybe its not so vast at all.  Maybe we turned off large portions of our memory in order to be fed a computer generated universe in which we alone are a real person, and one day perhaps we will awaken and remember why we decided to do it.  Like afterlives, unfortunately the scenarios of virtual universes are also endless, leaving us to assume, just to be safe, that everything is actually REAL and we better PLAN on it.  Or you could try jumping off the skyscraper, as in "Vanilla Sky."  If you live, then it's a sim.


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.