@Ambrosia: Aaaaaah, I think I begin to understand, at least. I was taught that everybody would have a fair chance to hear the teachings of Christ and decide for themselves whether or not to believe. So, for example, people who were raised as Muslims in the Middle East right now and only ever taught that version of Jesus wouldn't be denied the opportunity to enter Heaven (assuming, for the sake of argument, that Christianity is at least mostly right) simply because of where and when they happened to be born. Broadly speaking, that really doesn't fit with Christianity's idea of a just, benevolent deity, and I understand why you might find such a suggestion distasteful. I, too, would be rejecting a faith if I thought that was what it taught. There's a pretty gaping hole between "benevolent" and "punishes people for things outside of their control", isn't there?
That... is a discussion that's probably outside the bounds of this thread, so I will respectfully refrain from further commentary on it. o wo/
If such a thing exists, I would hope it would be a positive subjective experience for any that wished to partake of it.
Even those who might feel they are being sent to a 'bad' place.
I want gaming there, though, if it does exist. Because as 'Toby' mentioned above, eternity is quite a long time.
We want to avoid the Bandwagon Fallacy, of course - being the largest religion in the world doesn't make you correct, but on the whole, things are probably weighted in the direction of the larger religions. Isn't trying to use logic with unknowables fun? 8D
Who knew it would boil down to either being Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism being correct.
I'd say more on that, but it would probably be seen as too inflammatory for some to withhold their thoughts on that particular subject.
Personally, despite my background, family, and heritage, I currently am a Christian. That of course means I believe that if we accept the grace of our Lord, we can be saved with him in heaven.
However, I feel one of the key things we have in this life is freedom and the freedom of choice. We should respect the beliefs of others in that regard, whether they believe or do not believe.
In fact, it is possible in some ways that atheists have done far more in furthering human rights than many of our world religions which are responsible for much of the death and mayhem.
I'm not sure I would ascribe to Pascal's wager either. I feel that one must truly accept their religion (as per my religious thoughts), rather than just acting upon it. If one does not believe, than why waste the time on something that will ultimately be futile, as per their beliefs?
I would that all would believe as I do, but I also feel that everyone should have the freedom and liberty to choose as they want, and act as they desire.
Here's the opposite side of the wager. Let's say someone ONLY acted in accordance with a religion in order to get the reward at the end. In that light, they didn't drink, they didn't smoke, they didn't eat meat, or whatever other restrictions they have. They absolutely hated that and abhorred their life as a result. Then they get to go to heaven, only to find out that the same way they acted in life, is how they get to act in heaven. Would that not be a sort of hell to them?
In that light, if there is an afterlife, perhaps the way we act in this life will reflect on what we get in the next, and thus we will be where we will feel most comfortable, or at least, if there is a hell, not someplace which would be even worse than us than where we end up.
However, I feel one of the key things we have in this life is freedom and the freedom of choice. We should respect the beliefs of others in that regard, whether they believe or do not believe.
I fully agree. While I may disagree with others, that's no cause to demean them - especially because, just like everyone else, they usually have a reason for the positions they hold, and learning about those tends to be educational.
It's pretty hard to convince someone to listen to you - much less get them to agree - when you spend all of your time attacking them. Whether or not I agree with the choices people have made, I acknowledge and respect their right to make those decisions.
Let's see if the Parnia et al work on NDEs shows something. Plus frankly we don't understand the answer to the so-called hard problem of consciousness. That underpins any answer IMO.
Ultimately we have have the question of why does reality exist rather than nothing? I want to believe there's meaning beyond what we currently understand.
Yes and no. You are probably right on the cryoclone. It would not have your consciousness. I hadn't thought of that. However, memories are composed of structural changes in the brain tissue. There is nothing that would prevent your clone from having your memories. It would be a functional copy of you - but you would still be dead.t would be a functional copy of you - but you would still be dead.
Memories are not transmitted by DNA. 1. What would preserve your memories? 2. What are memories physically? 3. How would they be extracted and transferred? There are no real applicable answers for these questions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Ambrosia: Aaaaaah, I think I begin to understand, at least. I was taught that everybody would have a fair chance to hear the teachings of Christ and decide for themselves whether or not to believe. So, for example, people who were raised as Muslims in the Middle East right now and only ever taught that version of Jesus wouldn't be denied the opportunity to enter Heaven (assuming, for the sake of argument, that Christianity is at least mostly right) simply because of where and when they happened to be born. Broadly speaking, that really doesn't fit with Christianity's idea of a just, benevolent deity, and I understand why you might find such a suggestion distasteful. I, too, would be rejecting a faith if I thought that was what it taught. There's a pretty gaping hole between "benevolent" and "punishes people for things outside of their control", isn't there?
That's part of it, to be certain. [LGBTIQ DISCRIMINATION RANT DELETED]
Any belief in a God, no matter how tiny or untested/untempered that belief, changes my thinking unacceptably. If I completely accept that there is no God, no ultimate deific acceptance/absolution/reward, then this life is it. No safety net, no do overs, no deus ex machina solutions, no absolutions. Someone(s) alive or yet-to-be must always live with the consequences of our actions and inactions. If I want to see the world become a better place, or even just attempt to hold back the rising tide, I myselve must constantly make the effort for it to happen. I must remain ever observant and vigilant, I must consider the consequences of my choices, and I must bear the weight of those consequences. I miss the mark and outright fail at it daily, but I'd rather live with that than the alternative: that all my reassurances and self-absolutions that it's all somehow part of God's plan meant that I didn't make the effort, or I didn't strive to do better when I should have, and someone else paid the price for it.
Edit: I know that probably sounds self-centered and arrogant, and it probably is. I'm not saying that I can't depend on other humans or discounting their own efforts. But other people, while I can't know their intentions, are tangible beings with which I can interact and observe. God, so far, isn't.
Look in a mirror and smile. Show me your teeth and I'll show you your afterlife...
Among humanoids uplifted from apes, the baring of teeth is often a threat display.
Look in a mirror and smile. Show me your teeth and I'll show you your afterlife...Among humanoids uplifted from apes, the baring of teeth is often a threat display.
Good thing we're downshifted
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Ambrosia: For what it's worth, I still think that humans ought to do their best now - the promise of a future reward does not make it acceptable to simply ignore (or worse, promote) hardship in the present. Or, to put it another way, bad things are still bad things. Furthermore, acts of good are not demeaned by things that will happen in the future - and should be done not for the hope of reward, but simply because they're good.
(Also, I am very much anti-discrimination. I may not agree with people's lifestyle choices... but if they aren't hurting anyone else, then as far as I'm concerned, it's their business and no one else's. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Ambrosia: For what it's worth, I still think that humans ought to do their best now - the promise of a future reward does not make it acceptable to simply ignore (or worse, promote) hardship in the present. Or, to put it another way, bad things are still bad things. Furthermore, acts of good are not demeaned by things that will happen in the future - and should be done not for the hope of reward, but simply because they're good.
(Also, I am very much anti-discrimination. I may not agree with people's lifestyle choices... but if they aren't hurting anyone else, then as far as I'm concerned, it's their business and no one else's. Everyone deserves to be treated with respect.)
Exactly, something one of my pastors once told me is that atheist can teach Christians one of the greatest lessons of all. Doing good because it needs to be done. A lot of religious people do good even the good they do in private where no one can see because of what future rewards they might receive. Whereas an atheist doing good in private where no one can see it does it because that good needs to be done.
Except you do have games that expressly exclude psionics or non-human aliens or any of a number of other things. I was just wondering if there is a TTRPG that expressly excludes the afterlife and/or metaphysics. Perhaps the game Calex mentioned is one such?
Very few games actually DO. Mainly for the reason that unlike D+D and it's antecedents, Death IS generally the end of a character's story. There's no such thing as resurrection mechanics for most roleplaying games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only real answer to this is "I don't know, and there's no way for me to know before I die".
If there is, I hope it's not the one that the Abrahamic religions espouse. Putting aside that it sounds like it might be a choice between never-ending boredom and eternal torment, the qualifications for getting in are so varied and contradictory that that makes "guessing right" a fool's errand before you even get into other cultures and religions' beliefs.
Or, really, most other religions' afterlives sound unappealing as well. Reincarnation may as well be a permanent end to your existence, and becoming one with nature sounds like only a vague step up, for instance.
If there's nothing at all, that sucks though.
I'm pretty picky I guess.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some days I wish the afterlife was like "Hi. You're dead now. Where do you want to go?" I'd answer "I want to be a full time active member of the Avengers."
At least if I can't get my choice of going to be a 12th level paladin of Torm in 2nd edition version of Faerun/Forgotten Realms.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't want to die and be moving around the world in greyscale getting a migraine having to 'corpserun' to a new body. That would be gawdawful.
Yes and no. You are probably right on the cryoclone. It would not have your consciousness. I hadn't thought of that. However, memories are composed of structural changes in the brain tissue. There is nothing that would prevent your clone from having your memories. It would be a functional copy of you - but you would still be dead.t would be a functional copy of you - but you would still be dead.Memories are not transmitted by DNA. 1. What would preserve your memories? 2. What are memories physically? 3. How would they be extracted and transferred? There are no real applicable answers for these questions.
I was talking about the situation where someone is frozen and revived. A cryoclone. 1. The physical structure of the neurons in your hippocampus. 2. IIRC, membrane changes called LTP or long term potentiation in said cells. 3. They wouldn't need to be since it is the same body. Now, it is purely theoretical, since the revival part is out of reach. It may be that such fine changes are wiped out getting there, but if so, there are other membrane changes that would also not remain which would kill you.
It's much harder to build dramatic tension around a lack of something, unless your audience is completely familiar with the every day impacts of that thing.Except you do have games that expressly exclude psionics or non-human aliens or any of a number of other things. I was just wondering if there is a TTRPG that expressly excludes the afterlife and/or metaphysics. Perhaps the game Calex mentioned is one such?There are very few games based around the lack of an afterlife. There are plenty that ignore it - most games that aren't fantasy or horror, for example.
Mind you, most don't expressly exclude psionics or non-human aliens either - they just don't have them.
There's one game I remember called "The End". The Tribulations have happened and are over and done with. God and Satan have claimed those who rated heaven and hell, and the doors to both have been shut forever. And to the Meek who weren't good or bad enough for either, God has told them that they have indeed inherited the Earth but both God and Satan were through with them. For the Earth is ALL they will ever have, and there is no heaven or hell for them after death. The Earth has been healed of mankind's abuses, but God has also rescinded mankind's mastery of it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since a passive deity is essentially a total lottery, there's really no way for me to interact with it (including changing my behaviors) in any meaningful fashion. On the other hand, if a deity is active, my choices are more likely to matter. Accordingly, that's what I've decided to focus on.
The issue is that many, many religions are mutually exclusive. If you don't believe in them prior to death, their afterlife doesn't let you in. This includes many Christian varieties.
Mormons have a variation that you can't be admitted into heaven until you're baptized as a Mormon, but this baptism can occur at any time and can be done symbolically in your name. It doesn't matter how nice you are until you've had this baptism. Baptism as some other type of Christian doesn't count either.
Just curious, have you scheduled your Mormon baptism? Just in case?
Not meant to be antagonistic, but I'm guessing there are limits to how far you'll go in "hedging your bets".
@Irontruth: My teachings would actually disagree with your first line - you can disbelieve prior to death and still have a chance to get into Heaven. The main issue is whether or not you were adequately informed about its teachings. If you weren't, then even rejecting Christianity isn't your last chance. There is no way to "lose out" because of circumstances. There's no "bad luck", there's no "asked on a bad day for you and you were a bit too snappy", and there's no "raised in a culture militantly against this faith and you ignored them even when you heard stuff". You have a fair chance to hear the teachings and make your decision - before or after you die. No exceptions. It's one of the things I like about Christianity. XD Now, if you've been adequately informed and you still say "no", well... you made your choice.
See, the funny thing about having free will is that you get to live with the consequences of your decisions - the good and the bad. And since I believe that free will is extremely important to this whole thing, well... yeah.
As for the Mormon baptism... no. Earlier, I discussed (in great detail) why I think believing in an afterlife makes sense. That said, I think belief needs to be genuine. It doesn't need to be a lot of belief - Christianity has a quote about faith the size of a mustard seed (~1-2 millimeters) being enough to move a mountain - but it does need to be genuine. Going through the motions doesn't cut it. I did, however, get baptized as a Christian - well after I turned 18. I was also baptized as a baby, but I don't like that tradition, and I don't think it really counts until you're old enough to make the decision for yourself. o_O If I got a Mormon baptism, I feel like that would kind of go against the faith I decided to accept - it'd be heretical towards both my faith and theirs, since I wouldn't truly believe.
To put it another way, I don't think hedging my bets so much I'm actively heretical is a very smart thing to do. If an existing deity is basically benevolent, I hope that they will recognize my sincerity, and that's really all I can do in that regard. I think they'd look more positively on that than on lying to everyone in order to cover my bases. I mean, let's not forget that most faiths actively teach you to avoid both lies and heresy...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hello, all. Wanted to throw in my two coppers.
Is there an afterlife? I believe that there is.
It would take quite a while for me to present the elements that have persuaded me that the spiritual is real, though totally outside our capabilities to objectively test. Suffice it to say: I am not persuaded that purely material causes are sufficient, especially given that certain material constants must be violated in the unrecorded past to even begin to allow for what we see.
I'm not very "good" at it, but I'm a Bible-believing Christian. And I believe the greatest gift He gave us (after Jesus, of course) is free will. No matter where it originated, exercise it. Respect it. And, for me -- fight for it, even on behalf of those with whom you disagree. To take that away from others is to reject the handiwork of God.
@Irontruth: My teachings would actually disagree with your first line - you can disbelieve prior to death and still have a chance to get into Heaven. The main issue is whether or not you were adequately informed about its teachings. If you weren't, then even rejecting Christianity isn't your last chance. There is no way to "lose out" because of circumstances. There's no "bad luck", there's no "asked on a bad day for you and you were a bit too snappy", and there's no "raised in a culture militantly against this faith and you ignored them even when you heard stuff". You have a fair chance to hear the teachings and make your decision - before or after you die. No exceptions. It's one of the things I like about Christianity. XD Now, if you've been adequately informed and you still say "no", well... you made your choice.
See, the funny thing about having free will is that you get to live with the consequences of your decisions - the good and the bad. And since I believe that free will is extremely important to this whole thing, well... yeah.
As for the Mormon baptism... no. Earlier, I discussed (in great detail) why I think believing in an afterlife makes sense. That said, I think belief needs to be genuine. It doesn't need to be a lot of belief - Christianity has a quote about faith the size of a mustard seed (~1-2 millimeters) being enough to move a mountain - but it does need to be genuine. Going through the motions doesn't cut it. I did, however, get baptized as a Christian - well after I turned 18. I was also baptized as a baby, but I don't like that tradition, and I don't think it really counts until you're old enough to make the decision for yourself. o_O If I got a Mormon baptism, I feel like that would kind of go against the faith I decided to accept - it'd be heretical towards both my faith and theirs, since I wouldn't truly believe.
To put it another way, I don't think hedging my bets so much I'm actively heretical is a very smart thing to do. If an existing deity is basically...
I understand how you say your philosophy works. I get it, I really, really do.
In contrast, many religions DON'T work that way. They require adhering to religion specific principles that have no moral basis, but are merely tenets of the religion (see Mormon baptism above). There is no morality in Mormon baptism, it's purely a religious ritual to signify membership, but it is required for that religion.
Many Christian sects actually require sect-specific baptism.
And of course, if God is actually the God of Islam, then by their rules, any Christian baptism is going to bar you from heaven.
The point is that while you may believe that God is benevolent and is going to let all the nice people in, a lot of people don't believe that and the majority of monotheistic religions don't hold that belief, but rather espouse their version as being mutually exclusive to all others.
Therefore the wager, as you present it, is pointless. If you're right, then my belief doesn't matter, merely my actions. If you're right about there being a heaven, but wrong about the entry requirements, then the wager is much more difficult than you propose.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello, all. Wanted to throw in my two coppers.
Is there an afterlife? I believe that there is.
It would take quite a while for me to present the elements that have persuaded me that the spiritual is real, though totally outside our capabilities to objectively test. Suffice it to say: I am not persuaded that purely material causes are sufficient, especially given that certain material constants must be violated in the unrecorded past to even begin to allow for what we see.
Such as??
Here's the thing biology and chemistry guarantee to make this a croc. Once brain activity ceases, there is no way to restart it. The brain itself dissasociates.{. . .}
I also tend to believe that cryonic suspension is one of the biggest frauds ever to be perpetuated in the name of science.This is probably correct for now, but with another 100 years or so of advances in medicine, it may cease to be correct (although probably not within my lifetime). Although knowing how medical advances work these days, I would expect mainly people like Montgomery Burns to benefit from it, not most of us.
Rana sylvatica begs to disagree with you.
About the only thing that cryonics can offer would be to clone you from your remains. That clone won't be you though, it would be a brand new person who only has your appearance, not your memories.
That depends upon what form memories are stored in. If that information survives the freezing and you manage to recover from all the other damage (or, more speculatively, the information is written onto a clone), you're good to go.
I guess we'll find out once we get there or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find belief in an afterlife to be the most rational course of action. Before you start mentioning science and evidence, though, bear with me. XD I'll explain. This is based on three facts:
That line of thinking (Pascal's Wager, or variations) assumes that you're able to just pick a belief - kind of how you chose an insurance company. "This one seems the best for me. I'll go with this one."
I suppose that's how it works for some. I, however, cannot believe in an afterlife. It just doesn't work, it doesn't jibe, it doesn't compute - in any way, shape, or form. I cannot force my brain and being into that box. It sure would be cool if I could, it would be nice to walk around and actually believe myself to be immortal - I just switch forms, but will remain myself (somewhat, depending on afterlife flavor).
But for me, that "wouldn't it be cool" is just another point cementing the impossibility. My childlike wish for a summer without end. My lack of ability to fathom how I will just cease. My want for something to chase away the looming non-existence, ever moving closer. And my instinctual need for a safe parental lap to climb up in - instead of an inexplicable nothingness.
I, of course, respect the right of people to have other beliefs than I do. And I have no need whatsoever to try to preach "I'm right you're wrong". But I cannot change my thinking about this no more than I can snap my fingers and become invisible. I'm sure many people are ambiguous, switch back and forth, or pick whatever is most convenient - like your post suggests - and nothing wrong with that. But some folks "just know". And not just the religious ones.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
There has to be something after this. The alternative is too banal to contemplate.Nothing sounds nice and peaceful, like a well-deserved rest. If there is an afterlife, I'm gonna want to sleep through at least the first couple millennia.
if you wake up with something drawn on your face... It was toz. I saw him with magic markers earlier.
Such as??Hello, all. Wanted to throw in my two coppers.
Is there an afterlife? I believe that there is.
It would take quite a while for me to present the elements that have persuaded me that the spiritual is real, though totally outside our capabilities to objectively test. Suffice it to say: I am not persuaded that purely material causes are sufficient, especially given that certain material constants must be violated in the unrecorded past to even begin to allow for what we see.
First, and most notably, the Law of Abiogenesis. I readily grant that this derivative itself falls outside the bounds of all rational observation, but its violation in the one necessary instance (at minimum) does not necessarily follow from what we have observed, recorded, and tested. It is a rational explanation (the violation of said law), but its abrogation (same law's) requires no less cognitive dissonance than attributing life's origin to the pie in the sky, Adulhambra, or Jehovah (among myriad others), provided we are using purely scientific methods to dictate our conclusions.
Explaining the material by means of the material automatically excludes immaterial possibility. Which, then, demands an exception in the "somewhen, way back".
Whether one ascribes to material accident or supernatural action, both are reasonable; science alone can only illuminate how much we don't know.
First negative supplied. Rebuttal?
What is the Law of Abiogenesis?
If you mean: "That which I call life, of the sort I observe right now does not spontaneously arrive in the time frames I can observe directly from that which I call unlife" then perhaps. If you're calling back to anti-Aristotelianism to say that meat doth not maggots make then sure, I guess.
But that's a little like saying "Impetus has to come from somewhere, since objects want to fall towards the earth; a Prime Mobile is as reasonable an explanation as this mysterious thing you call 'force.'"
At the limnal areas, the line between life and not-life becomes indistinct and arbitrary.
Moreover, non-living matter becomes living matter becomes non-living matter all the time. It's called eating. There is nothing mysteriously immaterial about, say, consuming a bit of limestone rock and having the rock become my bones and then my bones (in time) becoming unliving rock. No spirit need be invoked for that.
As to the "leap" from unlife to living organisms, the idea that it requires a "poof-now-life" transition is an illusion born of not comprehending the time scales involved and the arbitrariness of the definitions of life and not life. It may seem a great difference between a crystal outgrowth that repeats itself and grows in the right set of conditions, and a stromatolite mat. And from the narrow and brief flickering perspective of my own life, it certainly seems a great difference.
But that difference is only an artifact of my own lack of imagination. There is no real conceptual or logical bar to a gradual transition from minerals to proto-life to life. Those are merely convenient categories by which I can better comprehend and sort the dizzying array of information that the cosmos presents me.
Therefore, since there is no need for the spiritual, its introduction is not on par with the material, as a useful explanation.
@Razcar: Actually, it took me several years longer than it would've taken to pick an insurance company - because I wanted time to actually study the faith, understand its teachings, and question it to see if I felt it held up. After finding answers for a number of my most important questions (why are we here, why is evil permitted, how should people behave, etc.), I compared those to other faiths and, ultimately, found the others lacking. Only one faith managed to consistently hold up under my questioning, and that's why I ultimately accepted it.
Part of belief is familiarity, I think. It's pretty hard to just wake up one day and go "Yeah, I'm gonna believe and be part of X Faith now". Hence, y'know, all the outreach churches do.
@quibblemuch --
Digestion occurs in systems within which organisms are already present. So we get to the dilemma about chickens and eggs.
. . . not comprehending the time scales involved . . . .
I would truly appreciate the opportunity to examine a mathematical model that sufficiently provided for the progressions from included crystals to observed biodiversity. Do you know of one that has been presented?
There is no real conceptual or logical bar to a gradual transition from minerals to proto-life to life.
I have already attempted to indicate that I agree that there is a logical progression to such views. However, as I just asked: "How did this happen?", and the best response I have encountered from those who deny the existence of the supernatural is "Musta just been that way," (And here I'm pointing to Hawking, Stenger, and Dawkins, to name a few) I am asking for something comprehensible. Versions of evolutionary theory I have so far encountered have yet to provide that mathematical progression I'd like to see: one not propped up on "special conditions" in the first place. Such exceptions, so required, point to the limits of what we can observe, and have observed, and furthermore leave the "God of the Gaps" still in the places we cannot yet see.
TL;DR -- "Explanations" and "hand-waving" are very different things. We can cry calumny at one another forevermore and still find the same kind(s) of flaws in our separate views.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"How did this happen" is the answer science is always trying to find. We don't yet have the technology to perfectly make a model of what happened 3 billion years ago. That's why there is a logical process and many hypotheses as to what could have done many things in the universe and no one definitive answer, even for things we take for granted (we barely even understand how gravity works, after all, but most would agree it certainly EXISTS and has the effects that studies have indicated it has).
Pointing out a lack of a complete answer is no more a "rebuttal" to the scientific process than "Nuh-uh, you're a dummy" is to a religious belief. Both completely miss the entire point.
@syrusTerrigan
You're missing the point about digestion. The point is not that we observe transitions between "living" and "non-living" in extant organisms. It is that the notions of "living" and "non-living" are, themselves, rendered problematic by simply changing perspective.
If you can point to a calcium atom and say "this one is living" and to another and say "this one is not-living" then you will have created a conundrum that materiality will not solve.
But that is not the case. "Living" and "non-living" are artifacts of our knowledge--not inherent qualities in matter. They are what Francis Bacon called "Idols of the Mind." Therefore, the problem that is raised of "abiogenesis" leading to "biogenesis", formulated in the way you seem to be formulating it, is a non-issue.
Note that I am not saying that there is no point to exploring the increase in complexity and development of what we presently observe. Nor am I saying that said exploration is by any means complete. What I am saying is that the demand to account for a transition between "living" and "non-living" matter is a demand that cannot be satisfied, because it is a demand based on poorly formed terms.
To that end, then, there will never be a mathematical model nor theory sufficient to address your concerns. Because they are concerns that only occur within an ill-defined system of thought.
Moreover, to equate ignorance or incomprehension with infinite impossibility doesn't really solve anything. I could say "I don't understand how a complicated collection of material atoms thinks this thought, therefore there must be a anarial element or explanation. Or at least an anarial explanation is equally reasonable as a material one. Until such time as a complete material explanation that I can understand is provided to me, I am justified in adducing and elaborating on an anarial one.
And I could demand that my interlocutors teach anarial explanations side-by-side in schools and that the anarial method receive the respect (and funding and social praise) that the material does. I could say of anything not explained in material terms that an anarial explanation could be said to exist and cannot be ruled out. And I could sagely observe that there is always some element of the universe that speaks to the anarial part of the human being, above mere material concerns.
All I have done is multiply terms with no justification.
It is not hand-waving to answer the question: "How did this particular set of atoms (e.g., a person) get to behave this way?" by saying "By the same processes that this other set of atoms (e.g., a rock) got to behave that way--though the details are much more complex and we're still working them out."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no "law of abiogenesis". Not if you count the views of the scientific community. Matter is matter. It will behave the same way in the same situation whether you call it alive or dead. Further, science is already starting up projects of creating viruses from scratch. Besides, the people counting up how likely life is per volume of water and million years etc are missing one central issue: Where life did not happen in the universe, there are no individuals discussing the likelihood of their existence. For life developing, the arena is not just Earth, but a vast and unknown number of planets where it COULD have developed.
@Razcar: Actually, it took me several years longer than it would've taken to pick an insurance company - because I wanted time to actually study the faith, understand its teachings, and question it to see if I felt it held up. After finding answers for a number of my most important questions (why are we here, why is evil permitted, how should people behave, etc.), I compared those to other faiths and, ultimately, found the others lacking. Only one faith managed to consistently hold up under my questioning, and that's why I ultimately accepted it.
Part of belief is familiarity, I think. It's pretty hard to just wake up one day and go "Yeah, I'm gonna believe and be part of X Faith now". Hence, y'know, all the outreach churches do.
My 'choosing an insurance company' example didn't have anything to do with the time involved in the decision, nor that it was a decision of the same dignity. My apologies. Rather, it was to illustrate an informed decision, like you said; a "rational course of action". As I understood it, your post talks about "doing the smart thing", right? In your post, that is to believe in an afterlife, option 1 or 2 (or rather in your case, to become Christian - which is not what this thread is about - so I will stay with the afterlife aspect). So, I would have to reach that decision after pondering what makes most sense - afterlife or no afterlife. But why not, right? If you're wrong, sure, bummer, but if you're right... great!
However, my situation is quite different, as I described. I cannot chose to believe in the afterlife, no matter how smart hedging my bets like that would be, because belief in it is just totally alien to me. There's not one aspect that have came up in my life, nor anything I have studied, read, or discussed that would lead me to believe something like that exists. But there's so many important things pointing as to why people would like to think it does, which just seals the deal for me. There's not even a speck of sand's weight in the balance scale for the existence of an afterlife in my case. There's no doubt. No questioning. I don't live in an afterlife-believing society or context, so there's nothing for me to repel and no angst. I just cannot chose option 1 or 2, just like I cannot start telling myself something else that is totally contrary to my beliefs. For me there is no choice - but that doesn't mean I don't respect that you were in a position to make one, and did.
...I have so far encountered have yet to provide that mathematical progression I'd like to see: one not propped up on "special conditions" in the first place.
Are you asking for a mathematical model without initial conditions?
@Razcar: I can't speak for any other faiths, but for mine? Personally, I think you're fine. o wo/ Faith can't be forced, after all, even by the person in question. And as I mentioned before, I think you'll have a better opportunity to make a decision later - one that offers the kind of evidence you seem like you'd need to make a properly informed decision. If I'm right, yay. If I'm not... well, disagreeing with me isn't likely to hurt you any if I'm wrong to begin with, so either way, I think you come out ahead. XD
There is no "law of abiogenesis". Not if you count the views of the scientific community. Matter is matter. It will behave the same way in the same situation whether you call it alive or dead. Further, science is already starting up projects of creating viruses from scratch. Besides, the people counting up how likely life is per volume of water and million years etc are missing one central issue: Where life did not happen in the universe, there are no individuals discussing the likelihood of their existence. For life developing, the arena is not just Earth, but a vast and unknown number of planets where it COULD have developed.Evolution and the origin of life are well outside the question of there being an afterlife. And are even more likely to erupt into a flamewar that'll get this thread locked.
That said, it will be interesting to see if any of the space missions find evidence of life - bacteria level or below. Near as we can tell, life on earth goes back about as far as it would be possible - as soon as the asteroid/comet bombardment stopped, nearly 4 billion years ago, possibly even slightly before.
We've had discussions on religion before without the thread being locked. The big one is still open to this day. That said, the mods seem much more likely to lock a thread these days than 3-4 years ago.