@Guy: Yeah... money is needed, to a point, but aiming for great wealth is explicitly discouraged by Christianity (at least). There are actually quite a few comments on this throughout the Bible, one of which is actually rather relevant to our topic.
Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:23-24, NIV)
(Context: They'd just met a rich young man who wanted eternal life, and who went away sad at the thought of giving up what he had now for greater rewards in the future. It was followed by Jesus also noting that what is impossible for humans is still possible for God, responding to his disciples' astonishment at his comments and general concern over what it actually takes to enter heaven.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that what makes me sad in this kind of thread here is that religious people are debated into submission to admit that there is no such thing as a god, that spirituality is a trick of the brain and that being religious means being irrational and opposed to science
I do not feel that this is in any way a tolerant behavior and as such it brings only strife and no greater understanding :-(
From my perspective, the religion v. science didn't start until several religious people started saying how science is just as reliant on faith as religion, or that maybe, religion was possibly even more reliable than science.
Go back, the comparisons weren't started by the atheists.
This is not the first time it's happened to me either. I often sit silently while religious people talk. Then if I'm asked, I'll be honest about my skepticism. I don't belittle, or compare, I usually just say that for me: it's never made sense, so I don't believe it.
They then force the debate.
My favorite was when one guy had this exchange with me after my atheism came up:
Him: you probably believe in all that climate s@@& too.
Me: Yes I do.
Him: How? It's not even possible to measure air!
Me: Yeah, I'm done with this, want to move on?
Him: Prove it to me, prove you can measure air.
Me: I'm not interested.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think my difficulty (and why I'm finding myself falling in on OQ's side here) is if it's actually unobservable/undetectable by science (and not just undetectable without being clever like BNW's non-reflecting/non-radiating object) it's also unable to have any impact on things that are observable/detectable. Because science is a generic enough set of tools that (to oversimplify) all you need to measure with science is "will X make Y happen more/less often?"
If we just haven't asked the right questions or don't have the right way to measure Y, that's not on science as a toolkit. We just aren't using it right for that purpose yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
or...
If something is completely undetectable, how do you know about it?
Something undetectable that you know about is itself a contradiction. It shouldn't be surprising that this leads to other contradictions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but I'd have to take it with a grain of salt.
Don't. It will raise your blood pressure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that what makes me sad in this kind of thread here is that religious people are debated into submission to admit that there is no such thing as a god, that spirituality is a trick of the brain and that being religious means being irrational and opposed to science
I do not feel that this is in any way a tolerant behavior and as such it brings only strife and no greater understanding :-(
From my perspective, the religion v. science didn't start until several religious people started saying how science is just as reliant on faith as religion, or that maybe, religion was possibly even more reliable than science.
Go back, the comparisons weren't started by the atheists.
I'm afraid that your perspective may be in error. Science v. religion goes back a very long way, at least to Copernicus. Martin Luther, for example, had a very pointed criticism of Copernican theories:
"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."
The argument here is one we still see today: it contradicts Scripture, therefore it must be wrong.
Of course the trial a century later of Galileo by the Catholic Church wasn't exactly a sterling example of forbearance on the Church's side.
@Berinor: "A claim has been made about continuity of existence past death. Due to the nature of this claim, it is functionally impossible to prove or disprove while alive. That said, it does have a clearly defined point at which knowledge of its accuracy, or lack thereof, would become possible if it is indeed true. I hypothesize that a certain presented idea is at least mostly correct about this continuity of existence, and for the sake of this experiment, I choose to live my life accordingly. Should the hypothesis be correct, my continued existence will benefit from this and I will be able to understand the full scope of the issue through inquiries made after death. Should the hypothesis be incorrect, I will regretfully not be able to tell anyone, since I will no longer exist. It would be preferable to be able to adequately test this, but the nature of the claim and tools available to me preclude this as a possibility and somewhat limit my options. Since I am unable to conclude this experiment while alive, I will refrain from saying that it is most definitely true the way I might about a theory that has had completed and replicated experiments, and instead I will politely limit myself to hoping for a positive result."
?
I think my difficulty (and why I'm finding myself falling in on OQ's side here) is if it's actually unobservable/undetectable by science (and not just undetectable without being clever like BNW's non-reflecting/non-radiating object) it's also unable to have any impact on things that are observable/detectable. Because science is a generic enough set of tools that (to oversimplify) all you need to measure with science is "will X make Y happen more/less often?"
Pretty much, yes. Except of course that science can work (in a theoretical basis) with such creatures.
"Wouldn't it be cool if X?"
"What? You'd never know it if it were! That's totally untestable."
"Yeah, but it would be cool."
"Yeah. Because if you had X, you'd also have Y, right?"
"Um,... yeah, you would. And that would give you Z, too!"
"So, if you had X, you'd also have Y and Z,.... and I think that would give you W as well."
"I think so."
And a lot of times, what has happened is that someone comes along and says
"Wait a minute. If you have X, you have W, right? Well, I know how to detect W!"
... and you get Nobel prizes all around. (Actually, it's a pity Paul Dirac didn't get a piece of that prize, but he already had one from 1933, so he was probably cool with it.) For another example, Hey Arno!
So, yes, science can say all sorts of things about the unobservable.... but that doesn't mean that it exists. And, perhaps more importantly, unless what they're saying is tautological, we don't know whether it's true or not.
.
If something is completely undetectable, how do you know about it?
Because you were told about it by someone with better knowledge than you?
We have no problem with that particular epistemological hurdle in other fields such as history or law. It may be completely undetectable now what happened on that particular night, but the witness was there when it was detectable. Of course, there are all sorts of issues with that aside from the inherent fallibility of human memory. To start with, why should we believe that the witness was actually where she claims she was?
In theory, God's revelation might qualify as being told about it by someone with better knowledge than you -- by definition, an omniscient God has better knowledge than any of us. But good luck showing that He exists or that He actually made the communication one claims he did.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that what makes me sad in this kind of thread here is that religious people are debated into submission to admit that there is no such thing as a god, that spirituality is a trick of the brain and that being religious means being irrational and opposed to science
I do not feel that this is in any way a tolerant behavior and as such it brings only strife and no greater understanding :-(
From my perspective, the religion v. science didn't start until several religious people started saying how science is just as reliant on faith as religion, or that maybe, religion was possibly even more reliable than science.
Go back, the comparisons weren't started by the atheists.
I'm afraid that your perspective may be in error. Science v. religion goes back a very long way, at least to Copernicus. Martin Luther, for example, had a very pointed criticism of Copernican theories:
Context matters. I believed (perhaps incorrectly?) that Raven Black was talking about the thread. I was also discussing specifically this thread.
edit: yeah, rereading, he says "in this kind of thread". The history lesson is interesting, but I don't think Copernicus has posted in this thread.
I think my difficulty (and why I'm finding myself falling in on OQ's side here) is if it's actually unobservable/undetectable by science (and not just undetectable without being clever like BNW's non-reflecting/non-radiating object) it's also unable to have any impact on things that are observable/detectable.
Agreed. The Higgs Boson doesn't qualify as unobservable/undetectable for me because its existence was postulated to explain (as I understand it) the observable phenomenon of electroweak interaction.
If something is completely undetectable, how do you know about it?
I don't.
I'm just trying to establish a ground claim that
all science can say about the unobservable/undetectable is that it can't observe/detect it.
I'm not making any other claims yet because this is a really fundamental building block of my world view. If we can't even agree on this then there's no further basis of discussion.
I think it's a solid claim though. Haven't heard anything here that debunks it. It's almost a simple tautology. The purpose of science is to explain the observable universe. It's obviously got no purview or interest in any possible unobservable one.
@Berinor: "A claim has been made about continuity of existence past death. Due to the nature of this claim, it is functionally impossible to prove or disprove while alive. That said, it does have a clearly defined point at which knowledge of its accuracy, or lack thereof, would become possible if it is indeed true. I hypothesize that a certain presented idea is at least mostly correct about this continuity of existence, and for the sake of this experiment, I choose to live my life accordingly. Should the hypothesis be correct, my continued existence will benefit from this and I will be able to understand the full scope of the issue through inquiries made after death. Should the hypothesis be incorrect, I will regretfully not be able to tell anyone, since I will no longer exist. It would be preferable to be able to adequately test this, but the nature of the claim and tools available to me preclude this as a possibility and somewhat limit my options. Since I am unable to conclude this experiment while alive, I will refrain from saying that it is most definitely true the way I might about a theory that has had completed and replicated experiments, and instead I will politely limit myself to hoping for a positive result."
?
This seems like a more narrative version of Pascal's Wager. I have no problem with that for yourself because you need to decide what you think is most plausible/best to believe given your worldview and experience. And (as I hope most here feel) I have nothing but respect for honest deliberations that came to different conclusions than mine.
But I have no problem dealing with the consequences of my not being able to predict what comes after. My perceived utility of those scenarios times my perceived probability of those scenarios shakes out so that my "I bet it's nothing" is a fine choice from my perspective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think my difficulty (and why I'm finding myself falling in on OQ's side here) is if it's actually unobservable/undetectable by science (and not just undetectable without being clever like BNW's non-reflecting/non-radiating object) it's also unable to have any impact on things that are observable/detectable.Agreed. The Higgs Boson doesn't qualify as unobservable/undetectable for me because its existence was postulated to explain (as I understand it) the observable phenomenon of electroweak interaction.
How about the positron, then?
How about the positron, then?
How about it?
I'm just trying to establish a ground claim thatall science can say about the unobservable/undetectable is that it can't observe/detect it.
I'm not making any other claims yet because this is a really fundamental building block of my world view. If we can't even agree on this then there's no further basis of discussion.
I think it's a solid claim though. Haven't heard anything here that debunks it. It's almost a simple tautology. The purpose of science is to explain the observable universe. It's obviously got no purview or interest in any possible unobservable one.
If you don't wind up substituting of [undetectable] with [directly undetectable] then you have nowhere to go, that logic train ends biting its own tail. if you're going to use the universe is here then you're detecting it through there being something rather than nothing.
How about it?
How about the positron, then?
It wasn't "postulated" to explain anything. Dirac noticed that the equations he used to describe the electron had a second solution, but with positive charge. There was no reason at that time to assume that such a beast existed or would be detectable, but he was able to describe its properties that it would have if it existed more accurately than even he realized..
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think my difficulty (and why I'm finding myself falling in on OQ's side here) is if it's actually unobservable/undetectable by science (and not just undetectable without being clever like BNW's non-reflecting/non-radiating object) it's also unable to have any impact on things that are observable/detectable.Agreed. The Higgs Boson doesn't qualify as unobservable/undetectable for me because its existence was postulated to explain (as I understand it) the observable phenomenon of electroweak interaction.
If something is completely undetectable, how do you know about it?I don't.
I'm just trying to establish a ground claim that
all science can say about the unobservable/undetectable is that it can't observe/detect it.
I'm not making any other claims yet because this is a really fundamental building block of my world view. If we can't even agree on this then there's no further basis of discussion.
I think it's a solid claim though. Haven't heard anything here that debunks it. It's almost a simple tautology. The purpose of science is to explain the observable universe. It's obviously got no purview or interest in any possible unobservable one.
Basically you want us to agree to something where you get to make up all the rules.
Pass.
Unless I get to make up rules you have to follow too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What many do not understand is that religion was science for its day. No, really. Consider this:
In every area of the world, there has been descriptions of superstition. It is how we think. If we gather seven flowers at midsummer night and sleep on them, we get a glimpse of the one we will marry. If we stick a spear into someone's footprint, they will die. And a million ideas like them. The keyword here is that the world is full of invisible forces, benign or not, that we can CONTROL. The consequence of all these ideas is that you will always be uncertain. Perhaps someone will curse you. Do your neighbours like you? Have you done what those who seem to have a good hand with the spirits want lately?
Religion came. In contrast to these superstitions, god or the gods were not things you could control. You could sacrifice, you could follow their demands, and you had to be respectful to the priests, but that was it. The gods could be beseeched to help you. With this, people's lives got easier. See also the thousands of stories where faith and religion defeats the darkness of mysticism. Trolls that die when hearing church bells, etc. That struggle was won by religion.
When science started out, it was seen as maybe dangerous, maybe of little consequence. Until it managed to get people to associate religion and mysticism. And history repeated itself. Science was seen as the rational alternative to the dark ages of religion. People could be content to ignore the demands of the priests as well, if they wanted.
But of course, neither religion nor mysticism has gone away. And there is no more clarity on the afterlife than before. It is a question science CAN'T answer. Even if all our brains can do is destroyed with the brain when we die, it IS possible that we are sort of reconstituted for eternity in heaven.
As an atheist, I see only oblivion after death. When I was little, I felt that eternity would be intolerable as nothing. I have since come to understand that my own nonexistence is answer enough to that question. And it leaves the issue of justice with no answer. Perhaps it is better to be grateful for the general hostility and unfairness of the universe?
There’s a pragmatic way to make up your mind about the afterlife.
If you want to probe the question « Is there an afterlife ? »:
- read books about it: the scientific, philosophical, and spiritual litterature.
- meet with and hang around people who have a link with the afterlife: mediums, witch doctors, spiritualists, ancestor cults worshippers, etc.
- See how they connect to the afterlife. Try to keep an open mind.
Then, having acquired all that knowledge, experiment for yourself the connection to the afterlife (with no drugs* ; no unsafe practices or people ; no sex with the wise man/woman ; no depletion of your financial resources ; no bodily harm whatsoever to yourself, or to others, and neither to small animals, because… duh !)
Then you will be able to answer the question for yourself.
Spiritual knowledge (and is not knowledge of the afterlife spiritual knowledge ?) necessitates work, honesty, an open mind and a sense of humour.
*drugs are s!@+. Drugs must be avoided. People who tell you you need drugs to acquire spiritual knowledge are to be avoided.
See also the thousands of stories where faith and religion defeats the darkness of mysticism. Trolls that die when hearing church bells, etc. That struggle was won by religion.
To me, mysticism is the practice of spirituality without dogma, supported by the personal experience of the individual interacting with the divine (hence the "without dogma" part, the divine transcending human categories and classifications of knowledge).
While superstition is something like the entrenched and static belief in various rules and taboos concerning the spiritual and natural worlds, without reflexion upon itself nor direct experience of the spiritual world.
Mysticism is not to be opposed to the spiritual part of religion, but is sometimes in conflict with religious dogma, and is often in conflict with the social part of religious practices:
for example, priests can only be male ; the lay person should have contact with the divine solely by the priest's intervention --> all elements of the catholic religion.
I agree with you, Syssil, that superstition is not the same thing than faith or religion.
When science started out, it was seen as maybe dangerous, maybe of little consequence. Until it managed to get people to associate religion and mysticism.
Since my definition of mysticism don't agree with your approach of it, I'm in disagreement with this part. It seems to me that mysticism has been misunderstood throughout history, by layman and erudite man alike, and so largely ignored by them.
And history repeated itself. Science was seen as the rational alternative to the dark ages of religion. People could be content to ignore the demands of the priests as well, if they wanted.
The zeitgeist changed, and the church lost its magister on scholarly pursuits (in medieval Europe, all universities used to be staffed by clerics and believers).
But of course, neither religion nor mysticism has gone away. And there is no more clarity on the afterlife than before.
There is not any consensus in Occident about the afterlife, that's true. I'm not sure Muslim societies have the same view, nor hindu society, among others.
But I realize this discussion is, for the most part, about our society's belief in the afterlife.*edit:some changes of not-so-english words
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps it is better to be grateful for the general hostility and unfairness of the universe?
I feel the universe is full of love, and I wish I could communicate that feeling to you :-).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
S!$& happens. All the time. It is a great comfort to me to know that the s%#& doesn't happen because of things I did. Love is something that gives meaning... but never mistake that for the universe caring about you. You, me and we all are minuscule ripples on the surface of a tiny planet in a tiny solar system in a tiny galaxy.
The key is to understand that something valuable is valuable despite it being finite. Think back to a summer evening in your childhood when you were happy. Was that meaningless because it is gone now?
|
I kinda feel like existence of afterlife is really irrelevant. I mean, sure, people are afraid that their existence is permanent, but there is no way to "know" it so why should it really affect anyone's behaviour?
Anyhoo, I haven't read the whole thread(geez this one moves fast), but lots of pages earlier there was wondering if biblical description of heaven would in practice change the people so that they suddenly become blissful despite that its not in human nature to be always happy.. Well biblical version of afterlife is kinda propaganda-y anyway.
I mean, like, lots of people think nowadays that hell is all punishment and pain and whatever, but just by going by the bible, it seems to be basically be eternal seperation from God. Which is by itself supposed to be a really horrible thing because apparently being with god is what you should want. Like, in Judaism "hell" isn't physical thing, its basically being really shamed of yourself for deviating from god from what I have read :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- read books about it: the scientific, philosophical, and spiritual litterature.
Let me sum up the scientific consensus on this
This is your brain
This is your brain in a blender
It no longer works. You are no longer conscious.
- meet with and hang around people who have a link with the afterlife: mediums, witch doctors, spiritualists, ancestor cults worshippers, etc.
You mean people who claim to have a link to the afterlife. The distinction is important.
Compare the possibilities that there is an afterlife and these people are reaching it with the alternatives.
1) they're lying (either for attention or money), using cold reading and other techniques to make it look like they're talking to ghosts
2) they're crazy,deluded, or otherwise just wrong. You can hear voices that aren't there or believe in their cultures practises.
3) There really is an afterlife and supernatural powers, but science hasn't managed to brush up against them, at all.
4) Alien teenagers messing around beaming thoughts at random people
Then, having acquired all that knowledge, experiment for yourself the connection to the afterlife (with no drugs* ; no unsafe practices or people ; no sex with the wise man/woman ; no depletion of your financial resources ; no bodily harm whatsoever to yourself, or to others, and neither to small animals, because… duh !)
And how would you tell an altered state of consciousness from crossing over into the spirit realm with an altered state of consciousness from meditation, oxygen deprivation, induced hysteria, or peyote?
Your brain plays funny tricks on you every second of every day, normally. make your brain work abnormally and the tricks change.
Spiritual knowledge (and is not knowledge of the afterlife spiritual knowledge ?) necessitates work, honesty, an open mind and a sense of humour.
It requires circular thought. Knowledge is true information. Spiritual knowledge requires that the spiritual realm be true.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it depressing that the phrase "keep an open mind" has been hijacked, almost universally, to mean "turn off all critical thinking." The English language is the poorer for it.
The pragmatist approach that I present is not for anyone, it seems.
BigNorseWolf, if I understand you correctly :
1)
Only scientific proof - as you understand science to operate - can prove or disprove to you the existence of the afterlife.
2)
You find highly unlikely that there's an afterlife, since its existence hasn't been scientifically proven yet.
Have I got 2) right ?
If this is so, I deduce you're making a reasonable - to you - assumption that science has not hinted at the existence of the afterlife yet.
I'd like to ask you a question : have you already read the scientific litterature about the existence/non-existence of the afterlife ?
I find it depressing that the phrase "keep an open mind" has been hijacked, almost universally, to mean "turn off all critical thinking." The English language is the poorer for it.
My proposal is more : try to figure it out by yourself.
If I posit "Try to figure it out by yourself" = "Turn off all critical thinking", I don't find this depressing, but, on the contrary, highly hilarious and revealing of your thought process, Stuffy Grammarian.
Do you see yourself as scientifically inclined ? Spiritually inclined ? Are you religious ? Open to new ideas and/or experiences which could challenge your world view ? I'm genuinely curious.
I would be greatly interested in knowing how science explains the prevalence of religious beliefs in modern human beings
Because we're genetically hardwired to believe in supernatural forces when confronted by things we can't explain.
I think that what makes me sad in this kind of thread here is that religious people are debated into submission to admit that there is no such thing as a god, that spirituality is a trick of the brain and that being religious means being irrational and opposed to science
I do not feel that this is in any way a tolerant behavior and as such it brings only strife and no greater understanding :-(
From my perspective, the religion v. science didn't start until several religious people started saying how science is just as reliant on faith as religion, or that maybe, religion was possibly even more reliable than science.
Go back, the comparisons weren't started by the atheists.
I'm afraid that your perspective may be in error. Science v. religion goes back a very long way, at least to Copernicus. Martin Luther, for example, had a very pointed criticism of Copernican theories:
"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."
The argument here is one we still see today: it contradicts Scripture, therefore it must be wrong.
Of course the trial a century later of Galileo by the Catholic Church wasn't exactly a sterling example of forbearance on the Church's side.
No.. it was an indictment of a~+*!%@ry on Galileo's side. There's a lot of misunderstanding and plainly wrong belief on this period of history. Let me blow away some misconceptions.
1. The church was anxious for Copernicus to publish. It was Copernicus himself who witheld publication to he was virtually on his deathbed. Martin Luther may have criticised him, but remember that Luther does not represent the Roman church, but the opposition to it.
2. Galileo was JUSTLY prosecuted for breaking his word to his patron Pope Urban. (if I remember the name correctly). Galileo had agreed to publish his work as a set of theories, which they were. Instead he published them as proven fact, which they were not. The Enlightenment had progressed enough was that the most the Church could do to him was subject him to house arrest. The war between religous and scientific zealots in Western thought, however pretty much has it's roots in Galileo.
@thejeff
It seems to me your explanation postulates - axiomatically - that there are no supernatural forces in our universe.
If one does think - as I do - that there are supernatural forces around us, the question of why the Occident doesn't believe in those any more is greatly interesting. Fascinating, even.
@thejeff
It seems to me your explanation postulates - axiomatically - that there are no supernatural forces in our universe.If one does think - as I do - that there are supernatural forces around us, the question of why the Occident doesn't believe in those any more is greatly interesting. Fascinating, even.
Here's the thing. When one questions WHY you and thejeff believe as you do, it's the answers that tell the tale.
Back in prehistory there was a lot less that was explainable by rational thought so a god/angel/devil/nature spirit would be invoked to explain it. So when someone got sick, rational men of the time would say that a plague spirit had posessed his body. Or the wrath of Thor had split a tree with lightning.
The thing is.. science and investigative belief have been filling in those gaps. We understand things such as bacteria, viri, and how weather builds up static electrical charges. So the empty spaces for the supernatural have been shrinking to the degree to the point where the only "empty spaces" left for gods are in areas extremely removed from the common experience, such as quantum level blank spots where theory has not been written, and extreme astrophysical events like singularities in the center of black holes.
The idea of an afterlife came from the insistence that humans were machines operated by ghosts residing inside of physical bodies. But as we find more physical explanations for human thought processes and conciousness, we find less and less need to invoke such dualistic models. And with less and less need to invoke a resident spirit to explain what a human is... the less and less relevance is the idea of an afterlife. Now it is more of a rejection of the idea that a personal identity or conciousness must ineviatably fade from the world. In other words, the only reason to believe in an afterlife is an appeal to personal vanity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1)
Only scientific proof - as you understand science to operate - can prove or disprove to you the existence of the afterlife.
For investigating anything it's as close to science as the subject allows or it's horsefeathers. Fake mediums, subjective human experience, and altered states of consciousness have to be excluded as possibilities in any rational investigation
2) You find highly unlikely that there's an afterlife, since its existence hasn't been scientifically proven yet.
Have I got 2) right ?
You have the smaller part of the picture.
Alien life doesn't have scientific proof yet either. But the basic mechanics for it: other planets with the ingredients for life and the mechanisms of evolution are there for it to exist.
Not only is the afterlife not evidenced, the mechanisms by which it could possibly work aren't evidenced either. We haven't even seen any evidence for a mechanism by which an after life could possibly exist , much less that it does.
If this is so, I deduce you're making a reasonable - to you - assumption that science has not hinted at the existence of the afterlife yet.
I'd like to ask you a question : have you already read the scientific litterature about the existence/non-existence of the afterlife ?
There isn't any. And please, before you insult me and link to something double check that it says what you think it says. Afterlife experiences as your brain has oxygen deprivation and chemicals pumped into it is not the same as an afterlife.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
QL - I would advise you not to conflate, "In the absence of a good choice, people choose a supernatural explanation." with, "A supernatural explanation isn't a good one."
Of course, if supernatural forces interact with what we currently consider "material", understanding it might cause us to stop calling it "supernatural".
I'unno, I'm not sure that "existing in the first place" is something extremely removed from our common experiences. It's easy to try and push God into the gaps, but it's a bit harder when you've yet to adequately explain some of your basic premises.
(1) Do you see yourself as scientifically inclined? (2) Spiritually inclined? (3) Are you religious? (4) Open to new ideas and/or experiences which could challenge your world view? I'm genuinely curious.
(1) Not "inclined" -- I am a scientist. Before that, I was an educator, and before that, an artist.
(2) The term seems to be functionally devoid of any actual meaning*.(3) I can't answer that in a yes/no fashion; I am a Zen Buddhist, and an atheist.
(4) Constantly and eagerly so -- but, again, not in the "whoa, everything must totally be true, man!" kind of way that you seemed to be implying.
Basically you want us to agree to something where you get to make up all the rules.
I don't see how I'm doing that.
1. Science is meant to explain the observable universe.
2. Anything that is unobservable* is of no concern to science.
I don't see anything in those statements that can be disputed. I also don't see what the positron has to do with the statements. I'm honestly kind of surprised by the pushback.
*Unobservable obviously means having no impact on the observable universe as anything that has an impact on the observable universe is observable through that impact.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If one does think - as I do - that there are supernatural forces around us, the question of why the Occident doesn't believe in those any more is greatly interesting. Fascinating, even.
Are you still persisting in this debunked claim that only Westerners are not "spiritual"? Again, I'd mention my Chinese (as in: from mainland China) friends who scoffed at my meditation practice.
The supposed "mystical Easterners" vs. "Rationalist Westerners" is a very tired and very inaccurate cliche.
