Afterlife Ideas.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Afterlife Ideas.
Are your preconceptions (that's why I call them prejudices) about whether life after death is possible so powerful that you would still refuse to believe? Would you insist that Jesus' appearance is some trick, like the lady being sawed in half?
What evidence WOULD be sufficient to overcome your preconceptions?
Of course "seeing is believing" and the evidence from the purported history in the Gospels might not be credible, given a number of factors, including a long history of stories about dying and rising Gods, a motive for converting people with miraculous stories, and the desire to show Jesus fullfilling prophecies. Fine. Those are reasonable reasons to disbelieve a story that, on the face of it, is preposterous. After all, Thomas didn't believe the eye witness accounts of his friends. He didn't even believe his own eyes. He had to both see and touch before believing.
However, I suggest that anyone MORE doubtful than Thomas has prejudices (preconceptions) that are TOO powerful. We oughtn't to believe our preconceptions in the face of evidence that disproves them, difficult as it sometimes is to admit to being wrong.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7932
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Afterlife Ideas.
A couple of things:Ecurb wrote: ↑October 9th, 2020, 12:55 pmThere's no scientific data to support or refute it. If you were one of the apostles, (Thomas, perhaps) you might have a hard time believing your eyes, having buried the dead Jesus, to see him walking about as alive as you or me. But the evidence would be as "objective" as the evidence for any other event you witnessed.
Thomas (like most of us) was skeptical about life after death, but the evidence that persuaded him was about as "objective" as you can get.24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”
But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
Of course I don't believe the above account and neither do many of us here on the Philosophy Forum. Neither did Thomas, when he heard the eyewitness accounts of his buddies. That's because our prejudices find risng from the dead incredible. The eye-witnesses might be dissembling, or deluded. The accounts may have changed between the time of the testimony and the time at which it was written down in the Gospels. But I don't think we can say that the purported evidence isn't objective.
I assumed that we were speaking of human Afterlife. Jesus (for the purposes of Thomas) is a god, not a human so his experiences would have no correlation to the average human experience.
Secondly, most who speak of the Afterlife aren't speaking of zombies walking the Earth, they are speaking of heaven and hell, far from the surface of the Earth.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Afterlife Ideas.
Afterlife beliefs are many and varied: Hindus believe in reincarnation; the Greeks believed in Hades; some people believe in ghosts; Christians believe in heaven and hell. (At least that's what people say they believe; what they actually "believe", and what "belief" means is up for debate.)
- Jack D Ripper
- Posts: 610
- Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
- Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
- Contact:
Re: Afterlife Ideas.
I am not sure who you are asking. But I will answer for me, though with a question first: Am I a primitive superstitious person living a couple thousand years ago, or am I me as I am now for the purposes of this question? For me as I am now, I have already answered this question:
"If someone appeared to be dead, but then got up and demonstrated that he or she was alive, most of us would say that we were mistaken when we thought that the person was dead. There are all sorts of conditions that can fool one on such matters."
So, no I would not believe in life after death. I would be thinking that a mistake was made in supposing him dead.
Ecurb wrote: ↑October 9th, 2020, 6:17 pm Your guru, Jesus (whom you've seen perform other seeming miracles), has told you that he would rise from the dead. Then you see Him die and be buried. Then you see Him seemingly alive again. You touch the holes in his hands.
Are your preconceptions (that's why I call them prejudices) about whether life after death is possible so powerful that you would still refuse to believe? Would you insist that Jesus' appearance is some trick, like the lady being sawed in half?
I saw a really good version of the lady sawed in half. It was done with no box. So I am ready to believe that trickery can be very, very good. And also, how am I going to go back in time and confirm that he really was dead? Someone can have nails driven through them and still live. One can even have something pass through one's skull and still live, like Phineas P. Gage. Just do a search for him.
So, no, I am not going to believe that someone rose from the dead. There are too many other possibilities for that to ever be the most reasonable conclusion.
I object to the word "preconception" here. I did not start out with any opinion unfavorable to such a belief (in fact, I was raised with a prejudice to believe it was true, so quite the opposite of what you might be thinking), but from the experience of my life I have now gained an understanding of the fact that there are vast amounts of fraud and vast amounts of error that make such a story completely unbelievable at this point.
Ecurb wrote: ↑October 9th, 2020, 6:17 pm
Of course "seeing is believing" and the evidence from the purported history in the Gospels might not be credible, given a number of factors, including a long history of stories about dying and rising Gods, a motive for converting people with miraculous stories, and the desire to show Jesus fullfilling prophecies. Fine. Those are reasonable reasons to disbelieve a story that, on the face of it, is preposterous. After all, Thomas didn't believe the eye witness accounts of his friends. He didn't even believe his own eyes. He had to both see and touch before believing.
However, I suggest that anyone MORE doubtful than Thomas has prejudices (preconceptions) that are TOO powerful. We oughtn't to believe our preconceptions in the face of evidence that disproves them, difficult as it sometimes is to admit to being wrong.
The evidence would obviously have to be greater than what Thomas saw. There are nutjobs who are willfully crucified these days, to try to experience what their god experienced, and they do not generally die from it. For example, see:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/asia/phi ... index.html
So, if the story is not just a story and based on fact (which is extremely doubtful, but that is a subject for another thread), it is certainly possible that Jesus was believed to be dead, but not really dead, so he was taken off of the cross and then, being seen alive later on would be no miracle at all, as he was never dead before.
In order to be certain that someone rose from the dead, one would have to be certain of 2 things:
First, that the person really was dead. Being decapitated would help with such a belief, rather than having a couple of nails driven through extremities.
Second, that it was the same person later on. One would need to be certain that the person did not have a twin, or someone who just looked a lot like the person; you might want to do a search for celebrity lookalikes, some of whom look more like the celebrity in question than others.
Given the very strong motives that people have to "prove" such a thing possible, the most reasonable conclusion is going to be some kind of fraud rather than that it is real. There are too many Christians (and other religious people) who strongly want to get people to believe their position, and, what was shocking to me when I was young and naive and going to church regularly, many explicitly stated that they would do or say anything to convert others.
- Jack D Ripper
- Posts: 610
- Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
- Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
- Contact:
Re: Afterlife Ideas.
The fact that that is self-contradictory should be your first clue that not only is that false, it is necessarily false.
One of the tricks of religionists is to state literal nonsense, and pretend that it is profound. Fools can be suckered by that approach.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Afterlife Ideas.
If we are to appreciate the Humanities, we should perhaps try to appreciate religion, since it is one of the human creations into which the greatest effort, dilligence, inspiration and fervor has beeen expended. I'll grant, Jack, that I come from a long line of atheists and agnostics (I don't think any of my grandparents were religious), so I never had to reject religion, and I could see it as both a Humanity, and as a cultural development that explains and influences humanity. In GK Chesterton's superb book "Orthodoxy" one chapter is entitled, "The Paradoxes of Christianity", and it's about these contradictions.
IN the same book, another chapter is "The Ethics of Elfland". Chesterton sees Christianity as being like a fairy tale. But far from thinking that is a bad thing, he thinks that's one of the best things about Christianity.
- Jack D Ripper
- Posts: 610
- Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
- Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
- Contact:
Re: Afterlife Ideas.
I am envious of your beginnings. One of my grandfathers was a preacher. My parents were both extremely devout Christians. I was raised to believe that the BIble was the word of God, literally true in all of its details. That evolution was an evil doctrine. If you want a slight exaggeration (and I do mean slight), take a look at:Ecurb wrote: ↑October 9th, 2020, 8:22 pm Claude Levi-Strauss claimed that myth is deisgned to compare various seemingly contradictory things, and thus "overcome" the seeming contradictions. Death = birth is one of these seeming contradictions.
If we are to appreciate the Humanities, we should perhaps try to appreciate religion, since it is one of the human creations into which the greatest effort, dilligence, inspiration and fervor has beeen expended. I'll grant, Jack, that I come from a long line of atheists and agnostics (I don't think any of my grandparents were religious), so I never had to reject religion, and I could see it as both a Humanity, and as a cultural development that explains and influences humanity. In GK Chesterton's superb book "Orthodoxy" one chapter is entitled, "The Paradoxes of Christianity", and it's about these contradictions.
IN the same book, another chapter is "The Ethics of Elfland". Chesterton sees Christianity as being like a fairy tale. But far from thinking that is a bad thing, he thinks that's one of the best things about Christianity.
https://www.landoverbaptist.net
There is a very good reason why some people do not realize it is a parody web site, and that is because it is incredibly close to what people actually believe. It is very close to what I was raised to believe, barely a parody at all.
So, when you tell me to "appreciate religion", I cannot help but think that you have no idea of the damage it does, no idea of how it distorts one's view of the world, no idea what it is like to seriously worry that if one makes a mistake, one will burn in hellfire forever.
Appreciating religion is like appreciating being flayed alive.
It is probably the most evil thing that people have ever invented. No, you are not in a position to judge it. You do not know what it is like to believe such things.
It took me years of careful thinking to get out of that mindset. You have no idea what it is that you are discussing.
- Jack D Ripper
- Posts: 610
- Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
- Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
- Contact:
Re: Afterlife Ideas.
The reason so much diligence and effort and fervor was put into religion was because people seriously believed that if they messed this up, they would literally be in eternal torment forever. It is not because it has any inherent value, but just because they believed it was of such supreme importance.
The simple fact is, it is a steaming pile of excrement, worse than nothing at all. It is incredible to think about all of the wasted lives, all of the wasted time and effort, dealing with some stupid nonsense instead of trying to deal with what is real.
Glorifying that is glorifying what is worst in humanity. It is stupid and evil and horribly damaging and destructive. Religion is the worst thing that people ever invented.
- Jack D Ripper
- Posts: 610
- Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
- Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
- Contact:
Re: Afterlife Ideas.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Afterlife Ideas.
Seeing things from the outside and seeing them from the inside provide different perspectives, but it doesn't follow that one is "truer" than the other. I'll also grant that some people probably were literally "flayed alive" because of their lack of orthodoxy, while others (the Christian martyrs, for example) were flayed alive for their refusal to renounce orthodoxy.Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 9th, 2020, 8:55 pm
So, when you tell me to "appreciate religion", I cannot help but think that you have no idea of the damage it does, no idea of how it distorts one's view of the world, no idea what it is like to seriously worry that if one makes a mistake, one will burn in hellfire forever.
Appreciating religion is like appreciating being flayed alive.
It is probably the most evil thing that people have ever invented. No, you are not in a position to judge it. You do not know what it is like to believe such things.
It took me years of careful thinking to get out of that mindset. You have no idea what it is that you are discussing.
No doubt some religions and religious practices were (and are) abusive (human sacrifice comes to mind). But others are beautiful. In addition to writing "Orthodoxy", G.K. Chesterton wrote biographies of Thomas Acquinas, and Francis of Assissi. Chesterton wasn't a historian, and the justly famous books are a sort of intellectual or spiritual biography. It matters little if the details are true. The great philsopher Acquinas was obsessed with refuting the Manichean Heresy. One of the reputed miracles which gained him a well deserved cannonization occurred when he had written a philosophic refutation of Manicheanism. The Cathedral of Notre Dame had yet to be built, so he went to the cathedral of Paris, and laid his treatise on the altar. In front of 50 witnesses, he then rose 40 feet into the air, and floated out of the Cathedral.
Now, I don't care if the story is true, and neither, I think, does Chesterton. Instead, it's a story that reveals the "meaning" of Acquinas, the virtue of Acquinas. So, no, I can't agree competeley that religion is "the most evil thing", but I respect your experience, although I also respect the experience of the Saints.
-
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am
Re: Afterlife Ideas.
- Jack D Ripper
- Posts: 610
- Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
- Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
- Contact:
Re: Afterlife Ideas.
I am not saying that one cannot speak the truth from viewing it from the outside. I am saying that you are missing a great deal of what is involved in religion, of how people experience it, of what it meant to people like Augustine and the others. That brings to mind something you might want to read, his Confessions, which will be better if you get in unabridged form, to get his interesting take on time (which is sometimes edited out), so that it won't just be something to which you cannot relate (though I suggest you try to understand why he feels as he does; if you cannot, then you really do not understand what it is like to believe), but will give you better ammunition for your perspective, how his view of time was theologically motivated and yet also interesting.
As for seeing the "beauty" in religion, I am reminded of this, about dropping a bomb on a group of people:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/peop ... 55848.htmlI still remember the effect I produced on a small group of Galla tribesmen massed around a man in black clothes. I dropped an aerial torpedo right in the middle, and the group opened up like a rose. It was most entertaining.
People can see "beauty" in what is evil. That does not make it less evil. So seeing beauty in religion does nothing to show that it isn't supremely evil.
- Jack D Ripper
- Posts: 610
- Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
- Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
- Contact:
Re: Afterlife Ideas.
Ecurb wrote: ↑October 9th, 2020, 9:54 pm... In addition to writing "Orthodoxy", G.K. Chesterton wrote biographies of Thomas Acquinas, and Francis of Assissi. Chesterton wasn't a historian, and the justly famous books are a sort of intellectual or spiritual biography. It matters little if the details are true. The great philsopher Acquinas was obsessed with refuting the Manichean Heresy. One of the reputed miracles which gained him a well deserved cannonization occurred when he had written a philosophic refutation of Manicheanism. The Cathedral of Notre Dame had yet to be built, so he went to the cathedral of Paris, and laid his treatise on the altar. In front of 50 witnesses, he then rose 40 feet into the air, and floated out of the Cathedral.
Now, I don't care if the story is true, and neither, I think, does Chesterton. Instead, it's a story that reveals the "meaning" of Acquinas, the virtue of Acquinas. So, no, I can't agree competeley that religion is "the most evil thing", but I respect your experience, although I also respect the experience of the Saints.
You obviously do not understand the meaning of the story at all if that is what you believe. The meaning is, he really did rise 40 feet in the air and it really was a miracle. That is the point of the story, so that people will see the "truth" and believe. The fact that you cannot understand what is explicitly stated shows that you have no understanding of religion at all.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Afterlife Ideas.
Oh, bosh! Nobody can have complete understanding of anything, and seeing things from the inside might offer a different perspective than seeing things from the outside, but both provide only a single point of view.Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 9th, 2020, 10:31 pm
You obviously do not understand the meaning of the story at all if that is what you believe. The meaning is, he really did rise 40 feet in the air and it really was a miracle. That is the point of the story, so that people will see the "truth" and believe. The fact that you cannot understand what is explicitly stated shows that you have no understanding of religion at all.
The student of religion can't possibly know what other people "believe". We can only know people from their actions: what they say and what they do. For Fundamentalists (who probably don't believe Acquinas was a saint at all) "belief" in the Bible is the foundational tenet of their sects. However, since they can't tell WHAT their co-religionists believe, they must constantly recount their "born again" moment; their faith in the infallibility of the bible; their position about abortion (although I'm not sure what that has to do with the Bible). The constant yammering ab out "belief" may actually lead to belief, or it may not -- but it certainly communicates membership in the group, sort of like not eating cows for a Hindu, or eskewing pigs for a Muslim.
My experience with evangelical Christianity is slim. But in my anthroplogy days, I once attended a church in which people spoke in tongues (glossolalia). Now, this is supposed to involve an altered state of consciousness, in which the inspired person speaks in strange languages. When I saw it, as a mere observer, the state of consciousness appeared no more "altered" than it did for any other part of the service: singing a hymn or saying a prayer. It appeared to be a church ritual like any other. As I said before, I can't know what people believe, nor what there state of consciousness is. But I can observe and form opinions nonetheless.
Roman Catholics (like Acquinas) have other methods of ascribing membership in the group: baptism, communion, and the rest of the sacraments. So "belief" is less important.
Good stories have many meanings. Only Fundamentalists think that there is only one meaning to a story, and, in your case, Jack, the apple appears not to have fallen far from the tree. You may have cast off your religious fundamentalism, but retained your Fundamentalist approach to "meaning".
I have read "Confessions", many years ago. Here's a story (I guarantee I don't care if you believe it or not) about Augustine, from that book: In
Augustine's time, silent reading was practically unknown. People read aloud. Until the 9th century, scribes read the texts they were copying aloud. When Augustine came upon St. Ambrose silently reading to himself, he was shocked and mystified. "When he read," wrote Augustine, "his eyes scanned the page and his heart sought the meaning, but his voice was silent and his tongue was still." Whoa! Shocking!
- Jack D Ripper
- Posts: 610
- Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
- Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
- Contact:
Re: Afterlife Ideas.
I don’t care what you think of my experience; I do not need personal validation. This is not about that, but about an understanding of what religion is. My experience is only of value in this conversation insofar as it may help you to understand the subject being discussed.
Let us consider a verse from the Bible:
Exodus 22:18 (KJV):
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Aside from it being difficult to understand that as anything but literally (if it were a metaphor, what would it mean? I mean that question seriously, as I don’t think it makes any sense whatsoever if not taken literally), if we look at the Salem witch trials, and the other historical killing of “witches,” it is perfectly obvious that the Christians who killed the “witches” took the verse seriously and literally; they did not “metaphorically” kill the “witches’: they literally killed them.
Now, you might say, that is all well and good, but it is a long time ago and therefore does not tell us about Christianity today. (I could mention the fact that they no longer can get away with doing this, and therefore do not do it, but we can just move on to the next example, as I don’t think you will like the implications of this fact.)
Consider the case of evolution, and the creationists in the United States, who, today, want creationism taught in schools. They are not taking the Biblical story of creation as a metaphor; they are taking it literally. If they regarded it as a metaphor, they would not have the problem with evolution that they have, and they would not be advocating the teaching of literal creationism.
The idea that Christians no longer take the Bible literally is just false. It may be that you only encounter liberal Christians in your social circle, but that does not mean that there are no Christians who take the Bible seriously and literally. And very likely, if you live in a country in which Christianity is not taken seriously, many Christians there likely keep many of their views to themselves. Who wants to invite ridicule, over and over again, when it accomplishes nothing? So they are likely to not tell you what they really believe, while some of them comfort themselves with the thought that you are going to be punished in the end, with an eternity of hellfire and damnation. A literal fire that burns eternally, in which you are constantly feeling the sensation of being burned, but are not consumed by the fire, so that it never, ever, ends. That is the real beauty of Christian love and forgiveness.
What is extraordinary, though, is how you have repeatedly called the Bible “history”, yet you treat it as fiction. The simple fact is, people have regarded it as history, but as a special history, certified by God as true, making it be regarded as more authoritative than other histories.
This may be in part due to your local Christians being liberal (if that is the case), such that they do not believe all of the stories, rejecting the miracles. Ironically, that position is more unreasonable than taking it literally, because without the miracles, there is nothing special about it. to keep us focused on what is specifically Christian, consider the teachings of Jesus. If he was just a man and not a miracle worker, his teachings are nothing special at all, nothing worthy of particular reverence. In fact, some of what he says is just stupid and bad. If you need help analyzing the teachings of Jesus to see this, you can read Bertrand Russell’s short essay “Why I am not a Christian”:
https://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
And for those who believe the Golden Rule is so special, a quick online search will find one references that are older than the time of Jesus, so it is not original with him, certainly not showing any great originality or special wisdom.
It is only if Jesus were really divine, really a miracle worker, that he would be special at all. It is only the idea that he performed miracles that gives any credibility to the idea that his teachings *must* be special. So, those “Christians” who reject the miracles reject the foundation of their religion, and end up with no basis for being Christians at all. And that is what makes their position more unreasonable than the literalists, even though they are reasonable enough to see the problem with believing the miracle stories.
As for seeing the “beauty” of it, imagine the flames burning the flesh of “witches” and heretics, and you will have the beauty of the religion.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023