Sometime ago i was very disturbed by that belief, i actively avoided it, the recurrent and classical dilema of the pointless and uncertain existence, it may sound (look) kind of cheesy, but when i actually started to give myself time to think about it, i began to like it, to find it peaceful. Recently, as a consequence of what i said before, i started making peace with the absurdity of life, why the hell do we all want to find meaning in everything? a use for every action? i believe that it is when we got trapped in those questions, that we begin to lose our capability of being "happy" or as i like to call it peaceful (I'm not saying that we should stop asking them). I think the only reason we are here is because the universe accidentally gave us life, and that there's not a point to that life, so why not just have fun with what we got? we can elaborate the most complex methods of having fun, but i think that we shouldn't lose that thought. I'm sorry for going away from the subject, but i found it very related for some reason, also sorry for the posible bad english.

Everything in the mind is a concept; this includes our understanding of non-existence. Yet it feels to us that what we think of when we observe in our minds the concept of non-existence somehow accurately reflects what non-existence is in actuality, but where is the evidence for this? — intrapersona

One way to approach this question is to think of the time before we were born i.e. before we came into existence. If anything, that time matches quite well with the time after we die in terms of our consciousness. It's an old idea but it makes sense. The state before a bulb is lit and after it is on for sometime and then put off is similar as far as illumination is concerned - darkness.

In other words, for most of society as naive realists or materialists it feels intuitive to think that when you die there is nothing (probably inferred from self-awareness stopping during sleep), but "nothing" is just a concept in the mind. YOU nor any man have any guarantee that you know what nothing means, nor what infinity actually is. Why then are people so sure that their conceptions reflect true states of affairs in the external world accurately? It is clear that these concepts transcend the limits of our feeble human minds and yet we act and think as if we have an absolute true comprehension of what they are and how they exist (probably because it is too difficult for us to think otherwise). — intrapersona

I'm with you in regard to the unjustified confidence materialists have on the matter - that death is the end, a complete and final destruction of consciousness.

However, the opposite - the belief in an afterlife or some conception of continuation after death - is also unjustified.

Given the above I think the reasonable epistemic stance is that of ignorance - we don't know. However, many a times one has to come to a definitive conclusion. If this is the case then where should we place our bets?

I'm confused on this one. Science, the greatest of human achievements, seems to be ambivalent on the matter. While the core sections of science don't entertain ideas of souls and the afterlife, there's still room for such a possibility in the lacunae of scientific ignorance.

Religion on the other hand has definitive beliefs on these matters supported by, usually, proofs that are miraculous in nature. None of these proofs have stood up to scientific scrutiny but that, by itself, doesn't devalue these proofs. As I said before, science has enough holes to allow for the possibility for souls and the afterlife.

So on balance of probabilities it's reasonable to hold that there's more to this universe than meets the eye. Some will take this window of opportunity to be large enough to pull in theories of souls, afterlife, reincarnation, heaven, hell, etc. Others will not.

Likewise, everything in this world is merely a construct of our comprehension and we act as if we are windows for the truth even though it is only a circular self-affirming impression that we attain from putting together our sensory worlds. — intrapersona

What do you mean?

Dean Zimmerman has an interesting essay about what it would take and mean to survive after death.

http://fas-philosophy.rutgers.edu/zimmerman/pitsod.pdf

A new born brain is empty. Brain only analyzes experiences starting with birth and stores the results within itself, to be applied to subsequent experiences to find happiness. The total mind is much more, it contains our desires, love, hate, instincts, intuitions, premonitions, etc. Some times when we are overwhelmed by a baffling situation we ask our deeper mind for the answer, We call this soul-searching. And often a good answer pops up in the mind unexpectedly. Again, when our brain runs against a wall, we sleep on the problem (dwell in the mind beyond the brain), and often get the answer. More relaxed the mind is quicker the answers come to the upper layers of mind, which we call consciousness. Some times the world tells that our project on hand will fail, but an inner voice, which is called faith, sometimes keeps telling us that it will succeed.

The answers beyond this life and beyond this world lie deep in our mind, below the brain. Brain understand the only parameters (dimensions) we have experienced in life so far. Our mind knows them all.

I suspect understanding of concepts like nothing, infinity, god, what is before and after life lie deep in our mind, not in our brain.

In other words, for most of society as naive realists or materialists it feels intuitive to think that when you die there is nothing — intrapersona

There is little evidence that most of society thinks there is nothing after death. A solid majority in quite a few societies thinks there is something after death.

Their opinions are no proof. But neither are the beliefs of the those who are pretty sure nothing follows death.

That death means eternal rest in the arms of God, or eternal nothingness can both be comforting, and when one contemplates one's death, people want to feel comforted that there either is something (like heaven) or there is nothing. The two options serve peace of mind differently.

My instinctive answer to your question is that most people believe there is nothing beyond, because nowadays they totally identify with the physical body and the material world. They don't look any deeper than that, and Western culture, insofar as it has divorced itself from its traditional religion, doesn't have any kind of narrative about what that might be. So for a lot of people it's like - let's not go there. I'd rather not think about that.

But people are born with predispositions, characteristics, attributes, and so on. Certainly they on-board a considerable amount more in the 18 odd years that human children take to grow - but where did that 'initial config' come from come from? I'm not sure it's something Darwinian theory can answer. Like, what is the Darwinian explanation for musical prodigy? Or prodigy of any kind? (Oh, I know - 'makes more kids'. Like, spin me another one.)

And, speaking of kids, there are children who appear to have memories from previous lives. You can discount those cases - and most will - but it's nevertheless the case that they exist.

My view is, this life is a chapter in a story which began sometime before physical birth, and ends sometime beyond physical death. (But I'm vague about the details.)

It would be a stretch to say that most people don't believe in life after death. It is probably more accurate to say most atheists and agnostics do not believe in life after death.

The reason for this is probably lack of memory of previous lives. We believe in our persistence in this life because we have memory of the past. Memory gives us the concrete sense of life. This gets a little murkier when one is in the state of sleeping where memory still exists, but if a completely different sort. Some of it attaches to current life but other parts of which have no concrete connection.

However, it gets even more detached when one seeks memory of prior lives, yet done telltale evidence does persist in the form of inherited traits, inborn skills, natural talents, etc. Why isn't there the concrete memory of multiple lives as there is of one? Some claim they have such concrete memories though they are dismissed by others. Some may say that all memories eventually dissipate, only to be reawaken by some connection during a single life or many.

One can say that understanding memory provides a portal to understanding life (lives). It appears to be some sort of energy pattern mapped into a holographic field that; we have access to via reference signals that our bodies generate but I am quite sure this is the tip of the iceberg.

Everything in the mind is a concept; this includes our understanding of non-existence. Yet it feels to us that what we think of when we observe in our minds the concept of non-existence somehow accurately reflects what non-existence is in actuality, but where is the evidence for this?

In other words, for most of society as naive realists or materialists it feels intuitive to think that when you die there is nothing (probably inferred from self-awareness stopping during sleep), but "nothing" is just a concept in the mind. YOU nor any man have any guarantee that you know what nothing means, nor what infinity actually is. — intrapersona

Actually, I think that the concept of "nothing" is probably the most accurate concept we have. Nothing is easy to imagine. It's simply a complete absence of everything. You seem to be confusing the concept (or mental model) of nothing, which is something, with an objective nothing. There is no confusing what nothing is. There is no skewing the concept of nothing. If you think of a total absence of everything, including time, then you have successfully thought of and modeled nothingness in your mind.

Our brains model things. Our brains simulate things. Our brains do not contain the very things they are simulating or modeling. They only contain models. So if we are "limited" by our brains only having models and not the real thing, then to complain that we don't have the real thing instead of models, would be complaining that you are a mind instead of being the universe.

As for the rest of your post, I point to the very fact that all life seems to try to avoid death at all costs. Death must be a negative to life for it to be instinctive to avoid it. You see, the philosopher's own genes are wiser than his solipsist consciousness, "knowing" that death terminates a certain group of genes, possibly before being passed down to the next generation, which is necessary for the continued existence of life. So it would be no surprise that behaviors that avoid death would be selected in favor of those behaviors that don't. Your genes "know" that there is nothing for the organism after death, but it's existence continues in the world through the copying of it's genes.

What if science eventually got to the point of enabling everyone to live forever? Would that be a good thing or a bad thing? I'm not asking about the impact on the environment, population growth, etc. We can use technology to alleviate these impacts by finding more places to live. I'm asking about the impact it would have on our view of death.

So for a lot of people it's like - let's not go there. I'd rather not think about that. — Wayfarer

You're right about the indifference people have to such issues. However, I don't think it's volitional. Rather sensory overload is to blame. We're easily distracted and there are too many distractions in this age. Add to that the paucity of evidence for anything beyond materialism and we create the right conditions for non-believers in anything spiritual.

Like, what is the Darwinian explanation for musical prodigy? Or prodigy of any kind? (Oh, I know - 'makes more kids'. Like, spin me another one.) — Wayfarer

What alternative explanations are there? Are you suggesting reincarnation? If you are then prodigies usually do new things. They don't remember past lives or such. So there's an absence of the necessary connection between the past and present. I think prodigies don't imply anything out of the ordinary. Of course life is far from ordinary.

Like, what is the Darwinian explanation for musical prodigy? Or prodigy of any kind? (Oh, I know - 'makes more kids'. Like, spin me another one.)
— Wayfarer

What alternative explanations are there? Are you suggesting reincarnation? — TheMadFool

Reincarnation is a bad word. But I think there has to be some kind of means by which cultural and other forms of knowledge are transmitted, and I don't think science really understand what it is. It might be something like what was suggested by Plato's anamnesis. This was widely believed, early in Western history, but the Church forbade the 'monstrous doctrine of the pre-existence of souls' in about the 4th Century a.d.

Secondly, as far as Darwinism is concerned, it ought not to be forgotten that it is a biological theory. But an account of the evolution of species is a different kind of matter to accounting for human cultural abilities. Alfred Russel Wallace, co-discoverer of the principle of natural selection, said exactly that in his Darwinism Applied to Man.

As I said, as we live in a predominantly physicalist culture, then physicalist explanations are taken as definitive by many people, but they obviously fail to address the kinds of questions being asked by the OP.

Reincarnation is a bad word. But I think there has to be some kind of means by which cultural and other forms of knowledge are transmitted, and I don't think science really understand what it is. It might be something like what was suggested by Plato's anamnesis. This was widely believed, early in Western history, but the Church forbade the 'monstrous doctrine of the pre-existence of souls' in about the 4th Century a.d. — Wayfarer

Each individual may appear only once in time, and yet have an eternal existence. Would you count that as "pre-existence"?

I really don't know. As I said, I'm vague about the details. I think, suffice to say, I don't believe the human is purely physical (actually, nothing is actually 'purely physical', as we don't really know what 'physical' means.)

In the case of the Christian anathema, that was applied to the teaching of Origen, who was one of the Fathers of the Church. He made some remarks that were interpreted as implying the pre-existence of the soul, and also its eventual perfection, through the process of what was called back then 'metempsychosis'. But it's a very obscure area of scholarship and I've never studied it formally.

(As you know Berdyaev, I did notice an article somewhere on Berdyaev and Origen, which you might find of interest. I also found When Souls had Wings: Pre-mortal Existence in Western Thought, OUP, 2010 although haven't looked at it yet.)

In any case, it is often said that prior to this pronouncement, in around 400 AD, there was some acceptance of re-birth in the early Church, although I have read opinions that fiercely reject that view. However it is certainly the case that the Pythagoreans believed in re-birth, and Plato's teaching of anamnesis seems to suggest it. The Roman Catholic encyclopedia, New Advent, says that belief in many lives was practically universal in the ancient world, but is now, to all intents, culturally taboo in the West.

Perhaps Plato's idea of anamnesis could be consistent with an eternal life.
King James Bible
Jesus said them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

For me reincarnation on the physical plane makes no sense without the idea of an immortal soul and its relationship to God, at least. There does not seem to be any coherent idea of what it is that is reincarnated, and in what sense it could be "me" any more than any other incarnated being is "me".

Karma makes no sense to me without assuming God and Divine Justice either. Without God it just seems to be an amplified naive notion of deterministic causation.

Thanks for the link; looks interesting.

For the question was presented, what happens to the body, mind and soul after death ?

It dissolves back into the universal fabric, possibly as memory.

Perhaps Plato's idea of anamnesis could be consistent with an eternal life. — John

There is an entire genre of literature devoted to synthesising Platonism, neo-platonism and Biblical eschatology. Some of the early Greek-speaking theologians specifically Clement of Alexandria and Origen (mentioned previously) devoted illustrious careers to it. There's a modern Anglican writer, Henry Chadwick, who has written volumes on it (e.g.).

Karma makes no sense to me without assuming God and Divine Justice either. — John

Buddhists disagree, but I don't think this is the place

You mean they disagree it makes no sense to me? :s

Well, Buddhists accept the fact of re-birth but they don't worship a creator-god, and it is generally said that they also don't believe in 'the soul', although that's where the discussion becomes very tricky. But really it's a topic that is out of scope for Philosophy Forum, as it is not really part of the Western philosophical tradition.

OK, but I think the issue is relevant to the OP, and if it qualifies as philosophy...
I mean this is designated as a philosphy forum not a Western philosophy forum I would have thought.

Karma makes no sense to me without assuming God and Divine Justice either. Without God it just seems to be an amplified naive notion of deterministic causation. — John

To the contrary karma makes sense:

1. It is in sync with casuality. Of course you must believe that everything observable in our universe is both an effect and a cause. If you do believe this then why should human actions be exempt from this general rule (causation)?

2. It solves the problem of evil that looms over god-beliefs.

For me reincarnation on the physical plane makes no sense without the idea of an immortal soul and its relationship to God, at least. — John

The Buddhist teaching that 'nothing is self' doesn't deny the reality of agency, or of cause and effect. As long as the individual identifies with the six sense gates (which we generally do, else we wouldn't be here) then to that extent we have an identity. That sense of identity is like a magnet which attracts the iron filings of karma. When it is de-magnetised (i.e. dissolved into awakening) then there's nothing for the iron filings to cling to, therefore, no ego. So the reality of no-self is what is awakened to, it is not a dogmatic statement that 'there is no self'.

So Christians think there is a soul that will be saved, but in reality Christians are saved by giving themselves entirely. That is why it is said 'he that saves his life will loose it. He that looses his life for my sake will be saved'. I think, unfortunately, such sayings have been taken as a warrant for all kinds of foolish martyrdom, but what it really means is complete 'self-giving' or 'self-abnegation'.

The feeling that there is a self, a me or mine, that has to be saved, is exactly what has to be lost. That is what the crucifiction represents, complete self-giving. Then there is nobody left to save!

The feeling that there is a self, a me or mine, that has to be saved, is exactly what has to be lost. That is what the crucifiction represents, complete self-giving. Then there is nobody left to save! — Wayfarer

Can you explain further? To me it appears like sophistry.

That is how I interpret Christian orthodoxy.

I sense Buddhist influence in such an interpretation. What is it about Buddhism you find so appealing?

To me Buddhism shares a commonality with other religions viz. the escape from suffering. It's old wine in a new bottle. To say nothing of the selfishness inherent in such endeavors; attempts to free oneself from suffering.

Well, if that's your view, nothing to discuss.

I suspect understanding of concepts like nothing, infinity, god, what is before and after life lie deep in our mind, not in our brain. — Ashwin Poonawala

You seem to draw a distinction between mind and brain. Can you clarify?

You're a very well read member of the forum and I'm eager for some genuine spirituality.

So, what about Buddhism is more convincing than the other religions?

For the question was presented, what happens to the body, mind and soul after death ? — ElicitToxicity

The body and the mind are simply the 'vessel' to carry our soul in, as it exists in the reality you see and interact in around you. After your body and mind cease living, your soul continues on, in another form of energy, which is not always visible to those still living.

The problem is that 'normal' instances of causation are understood in terms of coherent mechanisms consistent with, and plausible within, the frameworks of our general understanding of the physical world. When it comes to Karma, this is not the case.

So Christians think there is a soul that will be saved, but in reality Christians are saved by giving themselves entirely. That is why it is said 'he that saves his life will loose it. He that looses his life for my sake will be saved'. — Wayfarer

I think this reading is entirely incompatible with the spirit of Christian teachings. Sure, Christians are exhorted to forego the attachments of their souls to worldly things, and to truly repent in order to be saved. The promise for the genuinely repentant soul is eternal life. This complete revolution may be achieved in an instant by the grace of God, and is not something that can be attained by any cult of evolutionary 'spiritual development'. It is the unique individual soul that is promised eternal life.

I am not arguing for the correctness of Christianity over Buddhism, everyone must decide for themselves when it comes to religion, but I do maintain that the two religions are truly incompatible. They simply teach very different things. It has become fashionable to attempt to assimilate Christianity to Eastern teaching, and I think this is profoundly wrong. Christianity is a unique religion, that teaches the possibility of a unique relationship between truly individual souls and God through Christ, who is understood to be the one and only case of God-become-Man.