No Hereafter?

[Doug]

Richard Schweid has a book titled Hereafter: Searching for Immortality

The book is reviewed here.

It is divided up into three parts, with two chapters per part; each section concerns, as the book description indicates, "those who believe that somehow we shall be resurrected to pass eternity with intact bodies as the same people we were during our earthly sojourns; those who believe that what survives is a 'soul', or essence, which leaves behind forever the dead and decomposing receptacle in which it resided to move on in some fashion; and those who believe that death erases our lives entirely."

The book cites a Baylor study on popular belief about an afterlife, and pp. 187-88 says:

"In 1968, a Gallup survey reported that 73 percent of Americans believed in life after death, 8 percent did not know, and 19 percent said there was no life after death. The number of nonbelievers was rising as the twentieth century drew to a close. A 1997 Gallup poll taken in the U.S. reported that 67 percent of people surveyed believed they would continue to exist in some form after they died, 8 percent did not know, and 25 percent did not believe in anything beyond the grave. One in every four people believed that when the heart stops, and the brain dies, it is the end of life."

So one out of four people do not believe in an afterlife. Apparently at least some believers are closer to the beliefs of nonbelievers than we may have thought.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

I'm in the second category (the essence by whatever name survives, the body recycles it's elements) - but for myself, it wouldn't bother me if the 3rd (dead is dead) were true. My belief system gives me comfort in the thought that I will see my mother and various friends again when I leave this body. Nothing and nobody is harmed by my belief and if it doesn't happen to be true, it will be moot when I die.

[Doug]

I'm in the second category (the essence by whatever name survives, the body recycles it's elements) - but for myself, it wouldn't bother me if the 3rd (dead is dead) were true. My belief system gives me comfort in the thought that I will see my mother and various friends again when I leave this body. Nothing and nobody is harmed by my belief and if it doesn't happen to be true, it will be moot when I die.

DOUG
It would seem that you are correct that nobody is harmed by your belief. However, if enough people have that same belief, and if public policy is then influenced by this belief, and, say, it starts to interfere with scientific progress, then maybe some harm could be detected.

And is the principle as innocuous as it seems? "It is OK to believe X if X gives me comfort and it harms no one." What counts as harm? Plato would say that adhering to false beliefs is itself a kind of harm.

[Dardedar]

maybe some harm could be detected.

DAR
How about enticing youths to die in a war or terrorist attack because of an afterlife reward?

[Savonarola]

Plato would say that adhering to false beliefs is itself a kind of harm.

But who's to say that this belief is not itself false? (And do we then conclude that this belief is not necessarily harmful?)

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Nothing I said about my belief system included coercing anybody to do anything, nor picturing life without the body as being so glorious that someone would die to get there (much less kill to get there). To a certain extent, my belief system discourages suicide, since you don't get out of anything except the body itself. Whatever problems you had in this life (other than physical pain or things like finding the rent money) you take with you. I'm not even sure how a "this is what I believe, but it's OK if I'm wrong" system could interfere with public policy (other than encourage the separation of church and state) or scientific progress.

[Betsy]

For that matter, Doug's apparent belief that nothing happens when you die could be wrong, and therefore just as "harmful" as Barbara's belief. I'm with her, everyone can have their own belief about what happens and as long as they don't force it on other people it's okay. So what? If I want to believe that I have a soul and it turns into a fluffy little cloud that flies around the universe when I die, what's it to you?

But I know what Doug is saying too, we live in a world where most people with religious beliefs try to make everyone else adhere to those same beliefs. And that sucks.

[Doug]

Betsy writes:
For that matter, Doug's apparent belief that nothing happens when you die could be wrong, and therefore just as "harmful" as Barbara's belief.

DOUG
Right. So instead of just believing what makes you feel good, we ought to believe was is most likely to be true. Where experts cannot agree with a consensus on what is most likely to be true, one ought to withhold judgment.

Betsy cont'd:
I'm with her, everyone can have their own belief about what happens and as long as they don't force it on other people it's okay. So what? If I want to believe that I have a soul and it turns into a fluffy little cloud that flies around the universe when I die, what's it to you?

DOUG
But why not believe what is true instead of what is pleasant? If you have the truth, you can work with it and know that your position is compatible with what is actually going to happen. Otherwise, taking pleasure in something that will not happen requires a state of denial that can be, in fact, harmful.[/quote]

[Dardedar]

So what? If I want to believe that I have a soul and it turns into a fluffy little cloud that flies around the universe when I die, what's it to you?

DAR
Example: people believing in fluffy little souls being inserted by God into the zygote is largely the reason we can't have real stem cell research in this country.



Watch this clip of Michael J. Fox making an appeal for stem cell research.

I heard an interview on this today. Good scientists are packing up and moving to other countries to persue the great potential this research promises.

I used to be VERY invested in the idea of soul travel, life after death etc. Then when I learned more and tried to approach it more objectively I became more skeptical about such claims and shifted to agnostic, yet hopeful, on the matter. Only a couple years ago I learned this has been examined carefully and there are good scientific reasons for believing there is no soul or life after death. And essentially no good reasons for believing there is. People can and will believe what they want of course, and it is really hard to disprove the existence of objects that are conveniently invisible, weightless, immaterial and unobservable. It is when public policy is based upon these religious beliefs and good science that can help real people in the real world is stiffled to protect make-believe people in fluffy cloud land, that this becomes a bad thing.

D.

[Doug]

DOUG
The Wretch Limbaugh said some of the most disgusting remarks of his vomitous career just recently.

=============

On the October 23 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, Rush Limbaugh accused actor Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson's disease, of "exaggerating the effects of the disease" in a recent campaign advertisement for Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill. In the ad, Fox endorses McCaskill for supporting embryonic stem cell research, which her opponent, incumbent Republican Sen. Jim Talent, opposes. Noting that Fox is "moving all around and shaking" in the ad, Limbaugh declared: "And it's purely an act. This is the only time I have ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the disease he has." Limbaugh added that "this is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting, one of the two."
================
Read the rest here.

[Betsy]

Darrel, that's a good point. What we were trying to say is that you can believe whatever you want AS LONG AS you keep it as your personal belief and don't try to influence or affect other people because you believe it. But unfortunately, that's usually not the case, as you pointed out in your example.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Darrel and Doug - science deals with the physical and physics of this universal. Since the soul isn't physical, and probably doesn't belong to this universe, I would not expect you to find any scientific evidence of it. You don't know and can't know by scientific evidence who is "right" - and, of course, there is the possibility that we both are - that the belief creates the reality. Your issue appears to be the evil done in religion's name when those of coersive beliefs get power (no stem cell research, anti-choice law from pro-fetus calling itself pro-life, etc). However, this is true even if those coersers in power are atheists (U.S.S.R. and Communist China, for example). The problem is the coersion - not even a "my way or the highway" but "my way or death" - that extremists use. That is why there must be separation of church and state, and no coersion on our side to accept a "faith" of no faith. It's back to what I keep saying - we have to protect their rights even as we protect our own (and ourselves from them). "It ain't easy being green (progressive)."

[Doug]

Darrel and Doug - science deals with the physical and physics of this universal. Since the soul isn't physical, and probably doesn't belong to this universe,

DOUG
Science deals with what exists and how things work. If souls exist, or if they have any effect on our lives, then they are the proper subject matter for science.

I would not expect you to find any scientific evidence of it. You don't know and can't know by scientific evidence who is "right"...

DOUG
This assumes that souls are not detectable by science. I see no reason to simply assume that--except that it is an ad hoc position created in light of the fact that science has not detected souls.

...and, of course, there is the possibility that we both are - that the belief creates the reality.

DOUG
It is not clear how that would be possible. Before accepting that possibility, I would prefer to see an explanation as to how it is possible that souls exist and have tangible effects yet are not detectable by any physical means.

Your issue appears to be the evil done in religion's name when those of coersive beliefs get power (no stem cell research, anti-choice law from pro-fetus calling itself pro-life, etc). However, this is true even if those coersers in power are atheists (U.S.S.R. and Communist China, for example). The problem is the coersion - not even a "my way or the highway" but "my way or death" - that extremists use. That is why there must be separation of church and state, and no coersion on our side to accept a "faith" of no faith. It's back to what I keep saying - we have to protect their rights even as we protect our own (and ourselves from them). "It ain't easy being green (progressive)."

DOUG
MY issue is that the principle that one can accept a belief as true, on grounds other than the fact that evidence shows that it is true or likely to be true, is a principle that opens a pandora's box that allows a great deal of harm.

Believing a pleasant idea on the grounds that it is pleasant has no doubt been found an enticing proposition to many a racist and misogynist.