It's an interesting puzzle, Sam. I have lots of stuff I'm having trouble getting into good enough shape to post, but here's something.

Your hypothesis is something like this:

(C) An individual's consciousness can leave and return to her body.

This is offered as an explanation for why someone might have a near death experience, and competes with hypotheses that treat the NDE as a type of hallucination or something.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, there are events of type (C). We want to see if NDEs are always, sometimes, or never accompanied by instances of (C). But so far as I can tell, we have no way of separating the observations.

For comparison, suppose you want to see if a flame of a certain temperature will burn some material. You can establish that the temperature is reached, and that's one observation; whether the material burns when exposed to that temperature is another observation.

But in this case, whatever evidence we have that an event of type (C) has occurred is the same as the evidence that an NDE has occurred.

So my question is something like this: is (C) an hypothesis that would explain the occurrence of NDEs, and we simply don't have independent access to type (C) events; or is (C) more of a description or interpretation of NDEs rather than a potential explanation?

I've been trying to figure out what to do if it's the first option, but I'm interested to hear your thoughts while I'm working on it.

I'm not sure one can establish a minimum criteria for what consciousness is, or when consciousness leaves a body, other than one is seeing oneself from a third person perspective - maybe the third person perspective is the minimum requirement. However, if this is all we had it probably wouldn't be convincing, at least to me. I did divide NDEs into three categories, from the very short NDEs (cat 1), and category 2 and 3 being more elaborate, that is, more detailed reports. However, the lines between each category are blurred, because there is overlap in the reports.

My intention is to respond to everyone, but if I miss someone, you'll have to forgive my feeble mind.

My two-cents:

Testimonial statements need to satisfy the following criteria:

1. The person must be reliable i.e. s/he must be honest.

2. The testimony must fit in with the existing knowledge framework. I think this is your criteria of consistency.

3. Corroboration is a plus point, especially if varied - men, women, animals, instruments, etc.

Testimonial statements re ''consciousness surviving the body'' fail on 2 and 3 - at least that's'what they say. — TheMadFool

Criteria (1) is very important, however, it's hard to believe that millions of reports with very similar accounts aren't reliable, or that they aren't honest. This is why most critics try to discount them in other ways.

Criteria (2) is important up to a point, that is, we can't let existing knowledge be the final arbiter in terms of what we believe, or we wouldn't move beyond our present knowledge. However, your point is well taken.

Finally, my evaluation of the NDEs doesn't suggest at all that criteria (1) and (2) are points of failure.

That’s what I’m trying to get at. What does that statement mean? What religious baggage does reincarnation carry?
.
Is it that, because you’re an Atheist, any subject, statement or word that comes from a religion is thereby ruled-out?
.
If suggestions or proposals have come to us from a millennia-old tradition, does that, for you, discredit them? — Michael Ossipoff

What I mean by religious baggage is all the dogma that people believe based on very little evidence, or based on ancient writings that have very little support. This is my view in general about religion. However, that said, it's my contention that the belief in reincarnation originally came from NDE reports, because there are many reports of past lives in NDEs. It may be the case that all religions started from NDE reports.

By the way, why do you assume I'm an atheist? Maybe I'm an agnostic, or maybe I believe there's a God, but that that God doesn't fit within the framework of any religious dogma.

Just because beliefs come from traditions that are thousands of years old, that in itself doesn't make them untrue, or for that matter it doesn't make them true. I try to go where the evidence leads, even if that evidence goes against one's world view. The goal is knowledge and nothing else.

Finally, you say that continuity of experience is all you need for continuity of the person. But how would you know that you have continuity of experience if you don't remember your experiences?

I don't think that we'll make much more progress since we're at the stage of saying the other person has not answered previous points. I presented the previous arguments I made as if I had demonstrated them, I believe they're conclusive - but of course I could be wrong. This impasse is unfortunate — fdrake

I thought I addressed most of your argument, but maybe I missed some of your points. I addressed some of it in a general way because I'm not sure if an analysis like the one you propose has ever been done. Also, I don't think that such an analysis is needed to reasonably conclude that these NDEs are veridical. Our main disagreement is over the consistency of the testimonials.

I took some drugs once and had a trip. I saw Mario jump out of the closet in my room. I didn't for one second believe Mario was there. There's definitely the possibility for non-equivalence between the content of the experience and what things in the environment generated it (specifically for me it was the drug, not a hidden Mario in the closet). I take descriptions of NDEs as accurate descriptions of what the people experienced (a truism), but not necessarily in accord with what actually happened. Without actually going through all the papers (an exercise I believe unlikely to provide sufficient evidence that consciousness leaves the body). The filters I described are examples of standard procedures to remove confounding variables to allow for causal claims to be made. Just generating an accurate statement (after filter application) still isn't sufficient to show that NDE experiences peer beyond the veil. — fdrake

I might have second thoughts about your Mario example if millions of people were seeing the same thing. However, because a few people see Mario that sure wouldn't warrant believing that the experience was more than a subjective experience, not in accord with objective reality.

I also addressed the idea that your filters are reasonable, but since there are no studies showing that your filters have done the job of weakening the testimonials, I'm not sure what else I can say. Other than you're correct that such a study should be done.

You seem to be saying, sorry if I'm incorrect, that since these filters are possible defeaters, that I should reject the testimonials.

How would a conclusion in this instance benefit you. Sure there is much evidence to support a theory that consciousness survives the body but there would certainly be many questions which could not be answered which would/should make one hesitate in making any conclusion especially if making a conclusion was not necessary. — Another

For me knowledge is intrinsically good, and in terms of NDEs I think it would be a good thing to expand our knowledge of consciousness. While it's true that there are many questions which we will not be able to answer, that shouldn't deter us from our quest. There will always be questions. In fact, the more I learn the more questions I have.

Even with everything we know about body and mind today without actually crossing the threshold of life and death this is question that could not be answered conclusively. — Another

We don't need to answer questions conclusively to have knowledge. Some of our knowledge is absolute, but most of it, or much of it, is based on what's probably the case, that is, a high degree of probability.

As stupid as it sounds I still ponder these thing continuously but this has never been a fruitful exercise. (I will certainly continue to ponder as well) — Another

It's not stupid, and don't let the view of others diminish your search for knowledge. Thinking outside the box is a good thing, as long as you don't get so far outside the box that you lose sight of the box.

Debating this or trying to convince someone this without more than a blurry picture and idea and with no means of obtaining indisputable evidence is questionable.
Certainly explore and ponder, it would be foolish to ignore what's happening around you but again I don't believe you can possibly find an answer.

I would enjoy little more than you proving me wrong though. — Another

I don't believe that what I presented is a blurry picture. I thinks it's quite clear. However, it took years of studying these NDEs to come to that conclusion. I don't expect, nor do I hope to convince anyone of anything, at least that's what I tell myself (lol). In an idealistic world it's all about the argument, that is, the framework used to present the evidence. Don't confuse the term argument with dispute, it's about how your statements follow from one another. It sure isn't the kind of debating that we see in our public forums, which is for the most part yelling, name calling, etc. However, as you can see in this thread, mostly it's done in a very respectful way. Sometimes we get agitated, but arguments are about reasons for belief, not about personalities or emotions.

And as for an answers, I do believe that I have found some answers, but mostly questions.

I haven't forgotten your last post. I'll get to it. It's a bit hard to follow though.

Does blowing into a balloon cause it to inflate?

I observe a guy blowing into a balloon, and I observe the balloon inflating. Then I do this 10,000 more times. I find that sometimes the blowing is not accompanied by the balloon inflating, but usually is. I investigate further and find some children cannot produce enough air pressure to inflate a balloon; some balloons were defective; some people used an ineffective technique. No balloon was ever observed inflating without someone or something blowing into it.

If we're talking causation/explanation, then step 1 is establishing correlation between two event types. So we have to be able to make separate observations of the putative causes and the effect we hope to explain.

That's it really.

One more note: the psychological facts are not in dispute. That people do have these memories is not being challenged, and having such memories is a psychological phenomenon.

What the source, or even cause, of these memories is, that's the question. You propose an answer to that question. So, on the one hand, there is the event of the consciousness leaving and then returning to the body, and, on the other hand, there are the memories of this event (or caused or brought about by the event).

I’d asked:
.

That’s what I’m trying to get at. What does that statement mean? What religious baggage does reincarnation carry?
.
Is it that, because you’re an Atheist, any subject, statement or word that comes from a religion is thereby ruled-out?
.
If suggestions or proposals have come to us from a millennia-old tradition, does that, for you, discredit them?

— Michael Ossipoff
.
You answered:
.

What I mean by religious baggage is all the dogma that people believe based on very little evidence, or based on ancient writings that have very little support.

.
So you’re saying that a word can carry the “baggage” of dogma based on very little evidence or ancient writings that have very little support.
.
But what you’re proposing fits the accepted definition of reincarnation. It’s just a common noun with a definition that doesn’t, of itself, imply anything other than what you propose.
.
Anyway, the specific word “reincarnation” is Latin-derived, and wasn’t used in ancient India.
.
But then you said that the ancient notion of reincarnation, and all religions too, likely are based on the same NDE evidence that you speak of. That seems to contradict what you said about “very little evidence” and “very little support”, because you regard NDEs as good evidence and support.
.
I think that NDEs are valid, and in fact I question what it would mean to say that they aren’t. But I haven’t read any NDE reports that describe lives before the one that has just ended, and I’ve read lots of NDE reports. There couldn’t be many like that, and, as I was saying before, the really atypical reports don’t have the authority of the ones that so many people concur on.
.
I don’t mean to make an issue about the disagreement with you regarding the details of reincarnation. But “reincarnation” is a legitimate word for what you propose.
.
But we should always be careful about what we attribute to dogma, and about blanket statements about religion.
.
I can’t help but notice that the metaphysics of Vedanta agrees closely with the metaphysics that seems logically inevitable. As you said, ancientness doesn’t invalidate anything.
.

I try to go where the evidence leads

.
Evidence is broadly defined as any support for a position. Evidence in metaphysics needn’t be the same as evidence in physics or in court.
.
I’ve talked to people who believe that the only “evidence” is the kind that comes from physical measuring-instruments. I always encourage them to devote their efforts and discussion to engineering and physics.
.
Testimonial evidence counts for something. I don’t doubt the veracity of most NDE reports.
.
But a metaphysics can be completely supported by logical support. No magnetometers, Geiger-counters, calipers or weighing-scales needed. No testimonials needed.
.

Finally, you say that continuity of experience is all you need for continuity of the person. But how would you know that you have continuity of experience if you don't remember your experiences?

.
Continuity of experience doesn’t require that we remember or know about it later.
.
Of course there are experiences that we don’t remember or know about later. It’s now known that most dreams aren’t remembered. We only remember the dreams that happen at or near the time when we wake up.
.
That doesn’t mean that we didn’t experience the other dreams, the ones that we don’t remember.
.
The reincarnation that I propose has continuity of experience. But, because past lives wouldn’t be remembered, then there can be no testimonial proof of it.
.
So far as I know, the only support for the reincarnation that I propose is that it’s consistent with, even implied by, inevitable metaphysics.
.
I gave the example of the mathematical definition of a continuous function. The continuity of a function is defined only at a point. A function is continuous if it meets certain requirements at every point.
.
(When I gave the definition of function continuity at x, I forgot to mention the requirement that the function has a value at x, and that that value is equal to the function’s limit as x is approached, from above and from below.)
.
Michael Ossipoff

You seem to be saying, sorry if I'm incorrect, that since these filters are possible defeaters, that I should reject the testimonials.

I don't think the filters by themselves are defeaters of the disembodied consciousness claim - it is possible that there are some testimonies which satisfy all of them. I also don't think the argument I've made shows that 'disembodied consciousness is impossible'. What I take away from the rarity of the testimonials that satisfy all filters is that non-confounded veridical NDE candidates are rare, and that this rarity is consistent with true statements in NDE accounts arising from, and please forgive the loose phrasing, 'sampling from simulated environments within the NDEs' rather than an unusual perceptual event of the NDE-experiencer's environment.

If testimonials that satisfied all filters were not rare - for example if every NDE occurred when the subject was provably unconscious and the true statements they made were highly specific (not exploiting statistical regularities in medical procedure descriptions), and the testimonials were recorded without doctors' influences. - AND if these NDE testimonials provided many accurate, non-generic statements about their environment then the numerosity of these testimonies would be some evidence of NDE veridicality (without confounders).

Since there aren't many NDEs that go through the criteria, there isn't much evidence for accurate statements in NDE testimonies that arise without presence of a confounding factor. So there isn't much evidence for NDE veridicality (statements within NDEs that arise from unusual perceptual events rather than statistical regularities or the underlying confounders). This is effectively saying that the true sample size for studying the presence genuine NDE perceptual events is tiny within the list of 4000 testimonials.

If you have time read the following. It might answer some of your questions.

http://www.newdualism.org/nde-papers/Greyson/Greyson-The%20Journal%20of%20Nervous%20and%20Mental%20Disease_1983-171-369-375.pdf

If you have time the following is also Dr. Greyson talking about consciousness at a conference. It's rather long though. If you want to go straight to his talk about NDEs, it starts at around 28:33.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aWM95RuMqU

I may have a few small problems with the methodology in the study - I need to close read it rather than skim to see what they're doing exactly with Pearson's R and Kronbeck's Alpha, also see how they're computing the correlation between the individual test items and their sum (usually an OK procedure). The worst bit of the methodology is that they don't use a statistical model to try and discriminate between people with high scores on the scale and people with low scores on the scale - just compare aggregate means, rather than assessing individual chance to be in a specific category. Generally this makes me suspicious because researchers using applied statistics should be able to do logistic regression (at least) to assess these questions. (paragraph beginning 'The criterion sample of NDE reporters...'

Regardless of these reservations - it does essentially what you described in one of your opening posts, a catalogue of common NDE experiences, then does a further grouping to allow the quantification of intensity of an NDE. The study is essentially 'what are the demographics of NDE experiences? what are the commonalities? how do these commonalities correlate? how do the individual commonalities correlate with overall NDE intensity?' - in essence an exercise in quantitative phenomenology.

This is in line with the limits of an observational study. They are asking no causal questions and bracket the issue of veridical NDE perception entirely (paragraph at the start, begins 'These near death experiences...'), and the question 'can we distinguish people who have had profound NDEs from people who sorta-kinda-maybe had them?' is consistent with it too (not that I think they addressed it very well).

Also absent from the report is an attempt to predict the content of an NDE from a specific individual - they do exactly as I said, provide a catalogue of overlapping categories and say 'it's probably some combination of those' (disjunctive events). And then they discuss the appropriateness of reducing the questionnaires through eliminating variables which do not correlate strongly with the test result - in essence removing some common NDE phenomenon to ease the discriminatory/categorisation question between profound NDEs and lesser ones.

This analysis is also important in determining the reality of NDEs.

Characteristics of Near-Death Experiences Memories as Compared to Real and Imagined Events Memories

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3609762/

And another interesting article for those of you who are interested.

https://books.google.com/books?id=110oDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT198&lpg=PT198&dq=statistical+analysis+of+near+death+experiences&source=bl&ots=rGwkDIdGsd&sig=UsTYfGpt08BAXwM6zKKUY5Gh9PY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKtaGWtfXWAhVGQiYKHaAWAhAQ6AEIZDAJ#v=onepage&q=statistical%20analysis%20of%20near%20death%20experiences&f=false

It's my belief based on my studies over the years that dogma is the enemy of truth. Whether it's religious dogma, scientific dogma, atheistic dogma, or political dogma, it doesn't matter when we're trying to accumulate knowledge. I'm talking generally here, that is, there are some things we can be dogmatic or absolutist about, but generally speaking if you have a world view that's too dogmatic, you're going to find yourself on the wrong end of knowledge. On the other hand, you don't want to be so open-minded that you become susceptible to everything that comes down the pike. So healthy skepticism is a good thing, but if you allow dogmatism and ego to dictate what you believe, then your not really concerned with truth.

It's interesting that people who study Jujitsu for many years are people who have to let the ego go to some extent. No matter how good they are, or how much they think they know, they're going to get beat by someone. Many people drop out because they can't handle losing to someone that's ranked a little below them. It's only as people let go of their egos that they're able to progress and continue to learn. I've noticed that many philosophers, and people in general, will hold on to a belief because of ego, myself included, so I put this out there for those of you who are only interested in learning. It's also for those of you who aren't afraid to have your beliefs tested by others. All of us can be beaten, in terms of what we think we know.

Hey Sam.

Thanks for posting some links. Here's a quote from the first paper:

This is in line with the hypothesis that the core components of a NDE are neurophysiologically determined [4], [18]. If we assume that some physiological mechanisms can account for NDEs (e.g. OBEs caused by a deficient multisensory integration at the right [19], [20], [21] or left [22] temporo-parietal junction or feeling the presence of another (deceased) person possibly caused by left temporo-parietal junction dysfunction [20]), then the subject really perceived these phenomena, albeit not corresponding to occurring events in reality. At this point, NDEs can meet the definition of hallucinations : “Any percept-like experience which (a) occurs in the absence of an appropriate stimulus, (b) had the full force or impact of the corresponding actual (real) perception, and (c) is not amenable to direct and voluntary control by the experiencer” [23]. Note that hallucinations are recognized to most often have pathophysiological or pharmacological origins, as we hypothesize, also is the case for NDEs. As for hallucinations, NDEs present a real perceptual bias (due to physiological mechanisms taking place during NDEs) and can include as many characteristics as real event memories. In addition, the effects of emotional and self-referential values of the NDE could make it a kind of “super-real” memory containing even more characteristics than real event memories. Considering together the concept of flashbulb memories and the similarity of NDEs with hallucinations, the higher amount of characteristics for NDEs that was here observed suggest that the memories of NDEs are flashbulb memories of hallucinations.

So these folks think NDEs are hallucinations rather than confabulations.

It's also a tiny, tiny study and I wonder whether those magic p-values mean anything at all.

Yeah, I dunno Sam. There's something odd about the notion that different folk saw different things all pertaining to religious belief, depending on the individual particulars. I mean, with regard to the notion that we all belong to one universal consciousness, it would be an incoherent one, if it were a composite of all the individual ones.

The monitoring devices used to detect brain activity may be inadequate for detecting thought/belief formation.

On my view, consciousness consists of thought/belief. Thought/belief requires a physical world and an agent capable of drawing mental correlations between objects of physiological sensory perception and/or it's own 'state of mind'. I work from the conclusion that thought/belief is accrued, and the premiss that at conception we are born completely void thereof.

If that is true, then there is no way for consciousness to survive without a body.

However, if thought/belief continues to form and/or be remembered for some sufficient period of time after our current monitoring devices no longer detect brain activity and/or heart rate, then that would allow an NDE to happen and be remembered upon revival, although it wouldn't adequately explain the claims of one's own consciousness leaving one's own body and purportedly viewing the body from beyond it.

Since the idea has gotten your full attention Sam, you may be interested in researching how different people actually acted during the event of actually dying. At the moment of death, there are interesting and sometimes quite disturbing patterns of behaviours, from peacefully closing the eyes one last time to blood curdling screams filled with unparalleled fear...

I've been studying these accounts for about 12 years, and I've read many of the deathbed visions along with DMT reports. I've also read many other accounts associated with OBEs. Negative reports are only a very small portion of the total reports, but they do happen. Most of the religious reports are dependent upon what someone already believes according to their culture, etc. I don't think any religion captures the essence of these reports. It's my belief based on what I've read and listened to that not only has religion got the afterlife wrong, but also the materialistic world view has it wrong too. Moreover, those who are trying to make these reports into something religious will inevitably fail, because it seems as soon as we do that we get too dogmatic.

I try to keep the conclusions in terms of what I think I know to a minimum, and I try to separate that from speculation. Although, there is a middle ground where it's not totally speculative, that is, there is some evidence, but I don't categorize it as knowledge. It's more of a strong belief based on good evidence, just not strong evidence. The best example I can give is that instead of it being 90% probable it might only be 50-60% probable.

By evidence you must mean empirical support. But I ran across a logical proof of Plato’s of the immortality of the soul I found quite compelling. I apologize for the continuous Plato references, but it’s what I’m reading. Hopefully you’ll indulge me in sharing it.
Plato says that if souls are merely the “harmonies” of the physical parts of the body then those with greater or lesser bodies have greater or lesser souls.
I work with individuals with disabilities and injuries and this argument speaks directly to my daily experiences. If our minds and indenties are based entirely off physical brain functions that people are naturally greater or lesser quality based on the quality or fiction of these structures and their function. A person with greater dendrite density in speech areas with greater verbal abilities is superior to a person lacking this enhanced variance. Even greater are both these typical individuals versus a child with cognitive impairments or an adult with a brain injury or stroke affecting their speech.
People born with lesser cognitive capacity or those who suffer injuries to their brain are inherently lesser human beings if there is no non-physical enduring source of worth.
This is then simmilar to Kant’s argument for God based on the need for justice. It is monsterous to imagine there are people with lesser or greater souls therefore souls must be independent of the body and must endure beyond bodily ills. If the soul is impervious to bodily injury it would then be impervious to death.

That's absolutely the right attitude.Complete skepticism, and willingness to listen to refutations of our claims.

Michael Ossipoff

There are several issues here that I'm not sure I can address in this one post, but I'll try to be concise and to the point.

I don't think there is any deductive proof that will work, that is, that proves the existence of the soul. I would argue that you don't need a proof to have knowledge.

If one defines greater or lesser in terms of one's ability to do X, then I guess there are greater and lesser souls or persons. I believe that persons have intrinsic worth that goes beyond one's ability, and that one's intrinsic worth demands that we treat people with respect, and that we treat them justly. I don't believe this is dependent upon one's belief in God, or some other lawgiver. I believe one could make an argument in terms of justice or other moral issues based on the nature of human beings, or on the basis of what it means to be a person (person, for me is a much broader definition). Much of what we believe about these moral issues is dependent of course on one's world view.

I don't see how it's monstrous to believe there are persons with greater or lesser souls. Unless one thinks that that gives one the right to treat persons with a lesser soul unjustly. I don't happen to think that justice is a matter of opinion, that is, I see it more objectively. Moreover, I see it this way apart from my belief about an afterlife. Even if one believes that when we die that's the end of our existence, this still doesn't give someone the right to act unjustly.

There is also something more to what I believe, that goes beyond the physical. I don't believe that we can ultimately be harmed if the NDE reports are accurate. And since harm is an essential property of evil or immoral actions, then ultimately there is no evil. There is only what we refer to as evil in terms of this reality. So is there evil? Yes and no, there is evil in terms of how we describe certain acts in this reality, but ultimately there is no evil, because ultimately we cannot be harmed. When I say ultimately, I mean in a higher consciousness or awareness, thus a higher reality. That higher reality is where our identity resides, where all our memories and experiences reside.

There is no doubt that our bodies are harmed, and that we feel pain in this reality, but if when we die this is all mitigated, then ultimately there is no evil. Thus, in a sense, there is no evil in terms of requiring justice. Especially if it's true that we chose to come into this existence knowing what we would experience. This, I believe, would also solve the problem of evil.

Think of this reality as a lower level of consciousness, and a lower level of sensory perceptions. The best analogy is that of a dream. In a dream all of our memories, knowledge, and experiences reside in our waking body. While we are dreaming we may experience dream pain, dream knowledge, and dream experiences, but once we wake up everything is expanded, and much of what we experienced in the dream is mitigated by our higher level of consciousness. It's not that we didn't have the dream experiences, it's that the dream experiences don't have the impact we thought they did. The same is true when one compares this reality with an even higher level of reality or sensory experiences. Much of what we experience here is also mitigated, especially in terms of harm.

I don't subscribe to complete skepticism, but a healthy skepticism.

I don't subscribe to complete skepticism, but a healthy skepticism. — Sam26

Sure, I only meant complete skepticism with regard to metaphysics.

...complete skepticism about metaphysical assumptions, and any notion that metaphysics applies to Reality.

Michael Ossipoff

Plato says that if souls are merely the “harmonies” of the physical parts of the body then those with greater or lesser bodies have greater or lesser souls.
I work with individuals with disabilities and injuries and this argument speaks directly to my daily experiences. If our minds and indenties are based entirely off physical brain functions that people are naturally greater or lesser quality based on the quality or fiction of these structures and their function. A person with greater dendrite density in speech areas with greater verbal abilities is superior to a person lacking this enhanced variance. Even greater are both these typical individuals versus a child with cognitive impairments or an adult with a brain injury or stroke affecting their speech.
People born with lesser cognitive capacity or those who suffer injuries to their brain are inherently lesser human beings if there is no non-physical enduring source of worth.
This is then simmilar to Kant’s argument for God based on the need for justice. It is monsterous to imagine there are people with lesser or greater souls therefore souls must be independent of the body and must endure beyond bodily ills. — MysticMonist

But what if reality is monstrous? IMO, it's hard not to love the intelligent more than the unintelligent, the healthy more the sick, the beautiful more than the ugly. One might decide that life isn't fair. A cynical or critical mind could postulate that philosophers often work to cover up this monstrousness. Ideas of cosmic justice or God can be viewed as "shields" against the otherwise blatant injustice and cruelty of reality.

Parenting comes to mind. Parents try to be fair. They try to create a "little world" for their children, where children are rewarded and punished justly, always for their own good in the context of unconditional love. One could theorize that theodicies are ways that adults try to continue this situation past childhood. One might argue that we dream up immortal souls because it's just too painful to see the little girl die of cancer or the brain-damaged adult float through life as a dependent. Of course we don't want to really die, too.

Obviously this is all up for debate. But some thinkers do engage with monstrous possibilities.

I couldn't have summed-up the Atheist Materialist world view, and its conclusions and consequences any better than that.

Michael Ossipoff

I've already discussed Materialism's brute-fact problem.

When there's a metaphysics that doesn't have an assumption or a brute-fact, then a brute-fact amounts to a disqualification.

When there's an inevitable metaphysics, then a metaphysics that just adds unfalsifiable assumptions is superfluous, and disqualified for all meaningful intents and purposes.

Michael Ossipoff

But what if reality is monstrous? IMO, it's hard not to love the intelligent more than the unintelligent, the healthy more the sick, the beautiful more than the ugly. One might decide that life isn't fair. A cynical or critical mind could postulate that philosophers often work to cover up this monstrousness. Ideas of cosmic justice or God can be viewed as "shields" against the otherwise blatant injustice and cruelty of reality.

Parenting comes to mind. Parents try to be fair. They try to create a "little world" for their children, where children are rewarded and punished justly, always for their own good in the context of unconditional love. One could theorize that theodicies are ways that adults try to continue this situation past childhood. We dream up immortal souls because it's just too painful to see the little girl die of cancer or the brain-damaged adult float through life as a dependent. — t0m

I agree with some of what you're saying, but what one believes in terms of their world view should hang on the evidence to support the argument. For example, even if there is good evidence to support an immortal soul, people will still want to believe it because it gives them hope. However, if you're just believing something because it sounds good, or it gives you hope, that's not a reason to believe.

For me the materialist world view is almost as bad in some ways as a religious view, both tend to be very dogmatic and self-sealing.

I believe that persons have intrinsic worth that goes beyond one's ability, and that one's intrinsic worth demands that we treat people with respect, and that we treat them justly. I don't believe this is dependent upon one's belief in God, or some other lawgiver. — Sam26

This is well said and I agree! There is an intrinsic worth to every human being.

You say it need not neccesarily come from God. That’s okay, because you still hold that it is real. I posted a while ago about a mystic’ s version of Pascal’s wager. Even if God doesn’t exist and there is no objective meaning (two seperate claims, its plausible to have objective meaning without God) then there is still philosophy. This forum alone proves it. Philosophy is the noble endeavor to find meaning or if it cannot be found to create it. Believing in the intrinsic worth of every person is exactly part of this endeavor and our faith in advancing this cause can never be in vain. Even if it is a pointless hope, is it not better to hope than dispair? I know this is a bit off topic but your made a perfect example of this point.