And I suppose this is the ultimate source of my anger. It is not the belief in life after death per say, it is the belief in something that is not real, that I, in my viewpoint, see as self-evidently wrong after these years. — Philosophim

It's interesting when you work alongside palliative care services, where people are dying, how many religious people no longer believe in anything at the end.

Further, I find the idea of life after death the ultimate in arrogance and hubris. — Philosophim

I'm not sure I can see hubris or pride in this. Fear and denial, yes. People don't want the show to end and they hate the thought of those they love no longer being extant. An afterlife, reinforced by society and culture, is an effective way to manage grief and dread. But I agree with you that supernatural beliefs like this often cause great harm.

A mechanical linear view of matter won't get to the core reality on consciousness — Gregory

Neither will a non-linear view. The core reality of consciousness lies inside matter.

An afterlife, reinforced by society and culture, is an effective way to manage grief and dread. But I agree with you that supernatural beliefs like this often cause great harm. — Tom Storm

Natural beliefs can cause great harm too. Just look at the state nature is in. And the worst has still to come.

Natural beliefs can cause great harm too. Just look at the state nature is in. And the worst has still to come. — Dijkgraf

Human beings cause great harm, period. :wink: But this doesn't change the nature of religious harm.

The core of reality lies within consciousness which is social.

"Consciousness finds that it immediately is and is not another consciousness, as also that this other is for itself only when it cancels itself as existing for itself, and has self-existence only in the self-existence of the other." Hegel

The reason is that it becomes an excuse for humans to put up with suffering and lower states of being. — Philosophim

So the anger is about the people who put up with suffering and lower states of being, isn't it? What about them makes you angry? Is it that they don't try hard enough? Do you despise people stuck in lower states of being? What are the example of the "lower states of being" that make you angry?

Are there examples of people who believe in life after death but don't use this as an excuse to put up with lower states of being? Do these people make you angry?

Why would people stop putting up with suffering and lower states of being if they didn't believe in life after death? Wouldn't it become another excuse? "I'll be dead anyways. Nothing that I do now will matter when I'm gone. I'll just do whatever feels good." Wouldn't you feel angry about the people that say this?

When I listen to those who have accomplished great things in life, be it financial, ethical, or personal goal oriented, I rarely here, "I did it because I know there's life after death." — Philosophim

How often do you hear "I did it because nothing matters after I die"? I don't hear this much often. Although, it does ring a bell. Après moi, le déluge. This expression is generally regarded as a nihilistic expression of indifference to whatever happens after one is gone. Can you offer a reason why anyone should care about how they live their life if nothing matters after they die?

Further, I find the idea of life after death the ultimate in arrogance and hubris. — Philosophim

I agree, it does seem uninformed and unsupported by evidence. But why being mad about it? I find the idea of being angry at others a sign of arrogance and hubris. What gives you the right to be angry at others? You don't seem apologetic about your anger. This starts making me angry. But then I'm able to defuse my anger. I don't have any reasons to have strong feeling about you or the OP.

Death is frustrating. People holding unreasonable believes is frustrating. Not being able to change other people's mind is frustrating. Being frustrated about many things is frustrating. I find empathy and philosophy to be good tools to defuse anger.

What about all those hideous crimes, from bride-burning to mass murder that are initiated by religious belief? — Tom Storm

Although I didn’t specifically mention religion in my response, I guess that, because belief in an afterlife is usually associated with religion, then the kind of response I gave is categorized as implying belief. And then because of that association, we’d better not entertain such ideas!

"Consciousness finds that it immediately is and is not another consciousness, as also that this other is for itself only when it cancels itself as existing for itself, and has self-existence only in the self-existence of the other." — Gregory

What does he mean?

Untimately for Hegel conciousness only truly exists as love which transcends matter because matter cannot explain anything about it whatsoever. The difference between matter and experience is obvious. The very logical categories we think in of matter causing sensation has to be question from the very root

Sorry, it's my default setting. But I am getting better. :pray:

hey nothing personal it's just an observation. I think however that contrary to what the OP argues, for a very large majority in the secular West, the non-belief in an idea of the afterlife means that there are ultimately no consequences for anything you do in 'this life'. If death is an absolute end then whatever you do hasn't really amounted to anything. That is regarded as a form of nihilism in Buddhism.

Heck, I've never known anyone who has evinced the belief that when they die, they will go to heaven. More likely for a lot of people, as the song says, 'I swear there ain't no heaven and I pray there ain't no hell.' ('But I'll never know by living only my dying will tell.')

'Afterlifers' be like:

"Ideas" associated with fact-free (i.e. faith-based) "beliefs" – like conspiracy theories – about purported matters of fact (re: "life after life") are, at best, suspect, no?

Life after death just seems counter to every single basic learned experience of life — Philosophim

Most probably you are talking about your experience and also the experence of millions of people. But, as I said, there is an equal --or maybe greater, if you consider the East too, but I'm not sure-- amount of people with a different experience on the subject. You just can't ignore it. Also, if Science has not proved it, it doesn't mean that life after death doesn't exist. Science has not proved anything about consciousness either. But most of us know that consciousness exists. (Some deny it ...)

The evidence is as solid as the sun shines. — Philosophim

What is this evidence?

Perhaps too if I saw more people motivated to be better people or do greater things in the world with a belief in their eternal existence, then I would be less angry. — Philosophim

That's very nice. I also say that if the belief in God make someone more ethical, or just more happy, then let him believe in God. I will support him. But unfortunately, there are innumerable atrocities that have happened in the histery and are still happening in the name of God! And this makes me angry too! Because it's not anymore about beliefs but about hypocrisy.

All of our beliefs are our personal reality. It doesn't mean they match actual reality. — Philosophim

What's "actual reality"? I don't think it exists such a thing. There's only personal reality (as you say) and "common reality", i.e, the reality of tqo or more persons. Reality has to do with agreement. If we agree on something, we can say that we have the same reality regadding that thing.

But much appreciated Tim! — Philosophim

My name is Alkis. But thank you anyway! :smile:

Is there no one who drank the waters of the Mnemosyne pool? Everyone decided to go Lethe huh? That could only mean one thing...

What if mass shooters really believed that they would suffer in the afterlife as a consequence of their actions? As it is, I'm sure most of them believe that when they die there are no consequences. — Wayfarer

This is my problem. Studies show that the strength of the penalty passed a certain point does not deter crime. The death penalty for example, actually doesn't deter crime any more than locking up a person. This can indicate to us that broadly, people are not motivated by the degree of long term rewards or punishments for what they do. It may be that most people don't think about it.

Even then, another study shows that most people believe themselves to be better than average. Why would a person who believes they are better than average feel like they wouldn't get a nice afterlife? So even when people do think about it, I believe its mostly assumed they will live forever, and it will be nice.

Thanks for your input Wayfarer.

It's interesting when you work alongside palliative care services, where people are dying, how many religious people no longer believe in anything at the end. — Tom Storm

Interesting experience, thanks for sharing.

I'm not sure I can see hubris or pride in this. Fear and denial, yes. People don't want the show to end and they hate the thought of those they love no longer being extant. An afterlife, reinforced by society and culture, is an effective way to manage grief and dread. But I agree with you that supernatural beliefs like this often cause great harm. — Tom Storm

Yes, I agree fear and denial can play a part just as equally.

So the anger is about the people who put up with suffering and lower states of being, isn't it? — pfirefry

Can you offer a reason why anyone should care about how they live their life if nothing matters after they die? — pfirefry

Yes.

What about them makes you angry? Is it that they don't try hard enough? Yes

Do you despise people stuck in lower states of being? Yes.

What are the example of the "lower states of being" that make you angry?
Procrastination. Dismissal of other's suffering. Dismissal of your own suffering. It is a pretend solution to problems in life, so that one does not have to work on fixing the actual problems.

Are there examples of people who believe in life after death but don't use this as an excuse to put up with lower states of being?

I'm sure there are. But I have not found this to be the majority of cases. I was open to learning from others if they had the opposite experience.

Do these people make you angry? — pfirefry

No. I honestly have no opinion on the means someone uses to get to a better place in life, as long as it doesn't unnecessarily hurt themselves or others.

Why would people stop putting up with suffering and lower states of being if they didn't believe in life after death? Wouldn't it become another excuse? "I'll be dead anyways. Nothing that I do now will matter when I'm gone. I'll just do whatever feels good." Wouldn't you feel angry about the people that say this? — pfirefry

Yes, I would feel angry with people who say this, but I think there is an easier time convincing someone to not feel this way. Such a person is motivated by the here and now, and works to solve the problems that they encounter in life. Teaching a person that life can be richer than just pleasure is not a promise down the road, but something that can also be realized "today".

Can you offer a reason why anyone should care about how they live their life if nothing matters after they die? — pfirefry

Yes. Because such a person is motivated by their own life today. And caring about more than your own life, matters to their life today.

Further, I find the idea of life after death the ultimate in arrogance and hubris.
— Philosophim

I agree, it does seem uninformed and unsupported by evidence. But why being mad about it? — pfirefry

I don't get to choose my emotions. Emotions are usually the first thing we rely on when we have not thought about a subject in depth. Its our gut reaction. What I can choose is what I'll do with that emotion. I chose to come to these boards and share that with other people. Not as a rant, not as a claim that I am the arbiter of truth, but as someone who is expressing nascent thoughts, and wants to hear other view points and thoughts on the matter.

I appreciate your input.

Most probably you are talking about your experience and also the experence of millions of people. But, as I said, there is an equal --or maybe greater, if you consider the East too, but I'm not sure-- amount of people with a different experience on the subject. You just can't ignore it. — Alkis Piskas

True. My experience is from a Western bias.

Also, if Science has not proved it, it doesn't mean that life after death exists. Science has not proved anything about consciousness either. But most of us know that consciousness exists. (Some deny it ...) — Alkis Piskas

Science does not attempt to prove that life after death exists. Science is about falsification, about setting up a hypotheses, and trying to knock it down. Only if it withstands every attack, can we be confident we have something reasonable.

The evidence is as solid as the sun shines.
— Philosophim
What is this evidence? — Alkis Piskas

Your brain is you. This has been proven time and time again over decades. Damage the brain, you damage the person. Change the chemical balance of the brain, you change the person. Depression medication and anti-psychotics prove this. Alcoholism and drug use eat the brain like an evil smiling parasite, and the effects are plain for everyone to see.

You can read about all sorts of brain damage example. One man was brain damaged to no longer be able to process colors. His eyes were fine, but his brain interpreted everything in black and white. Why when he died would he suddenly see colors again? How could he process colors without light and eyes? Why would a brain, which is geared towards processing the physical world, suddenly "be" again after it is gone?

We are physical beings. Its like a modern day engine. I can't tell you exactly how it works, but if I take a hammer to it, it stops working correctly. There is absolutely zero evidence of some form of life and consciousness existing apart from the brain. Anyone who sees the evidence, cannot reasonably conclude otherwise. It is a belief in Santa despite seeing your parents put the presents out themselves.

That's very nice. I also say that if the belief in God make someone more ethical, or just more happy, then let him believe in God. I will support him. But unfortunately, there are innumerable atrocities that have happened in the histery and are still happening in the name of God! And this makes me angry too! Because it's not anymore about beliefs but about hypocrisy. — Alkis Piskas

Funny enough, religion does not make me angry. I believe that for many majority of cases, people live their lives in a better way because of it. And I am with you that if the belief in God makes a person happy and more ethical, yes, let them continue that belief.

Religion fills a need in humanity for a community that pushes them to be better people. Sometimes this is misguided and abused, no question. But if they did not belong to a religion, they would likely belong to something else that would be misguided and abused, like politics for example. :)

What's "actual reality"? I don't think it exists such a thing. There's only personal reality (as you say) and "common reality", i.e, the reality of two or more persons. Reality has to do with agreement. If we agree on something, we can say that we have the same reality regarding that thing. — Alkis Piskas

Right now, I want you to try using the power of your mind to float 3 feet off the ground. Can't do it right? That is actual reality. The idea that your view of reality somehow shapes reality is an appeal to our vanity. Your view of reality does nothing to alter what is. The idea that two people can somehow shape reality from their viewpoints is also absurd. All we can do is recognize how reality works, then see if we can alter it to what we want within the limitations of what we have.

But much appreciated Tim!
— Philosophim
My name is Alkis. But thank you anyway! — Alkis Piskas

My apologies! Much appreciated again.

Poor horses!

Heck, I've never known anyone who has evinced the belief that when they die, they will go to heaven. — Wayfarer

Everyone I know who claims to believe in an afterlife believes that they will either go to heaven or be reborn as some fancy, exalted being.

In fact, in an argument with a Catholic lady, I once actually said, "Yeah, but for you, everything's easy, because you'll go to heaven and be happy forever", to which she smiled in a matter-of-factly manner, "We'll all go to heaven". And she's a Catholic!! What she said was heresy!

It seems to be an essential part of religious/spiritual life to have the confidence that God/karma is on one's side.

We don't know what the physical or mental are, so saying we're "physical" is a moot point. You can't possibly know what you mean by that, as you lack global perspective.

Someone once said that the distinction between past, present, and future was a persistent illusion. We have to come to terms with the fact that the past still is the present; then you can talk about how brain damage proves we're our brains.

There are a myriad of ways of survival of consciousness after death, but not if you're so myopic you can only see the small picture. And the breadth of some of your philosophies is very narrow indeed. Think in the box much?

if Science has not proved it, it doesn't mean that life after death exists.
— Alkis Piskas — Philosophim

Errata: It should be "it doesn't mean that life after death doesn't exist".

Science does not attempt to prove that life after death exists. — Philosophim

You are right. I mean, "there's no scientific proof".

Your brain is you. — Philosophim

No, it's not! :smile: I'm not my brain.
(See https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11791/you-are-not-your-body/p1)

Religion fills a need in humanity for a community that pushes them to be better people. — Philosophim

Well, as it is proven through the ages and in all places on Earth, from the less civilized people (tribes) to the most civilized ones, "religion" is more than just something to fill a need or a kind of motivation for being a better person: it is a natural thing for Man. It is part of the human condition. Religion is what makes one a better human being. (And of course, I don't mean speciffic religions, and esp. the dogmatic ones.)

Right now, I want you to try using the power of your mind to float 3 feet off the ground. Can't do it right? — Philosophim

I can't! I always wanted to be able to do that! :grin:

My apologies! Much appreciated again. — Philosophim

No problem. And thanks again. :smile:

I think you have it right. Wanting life after death is motivated by a sense of unfairness or disappointment of our limitations, and I'm sure other emotions. To me, those emotions are not meant to be buried with the "liquor of immortality", but should be used to motivate and direct us to go past our limitations, and work on fixing the world's unfairness. — Philosophim

But this is a Sisyphean task.
It's not possible to motivate oneself consciously for such a task.

I personally don't think it's completely and entirely unreasonable to believe something profound occurs at death; that, perhaps, the essence of who we are is firmly rooted in a deeper reality.

I do and don't care. I just feel that everything that's important to us, our lives, aren't the one thing the universe wastes completely.

I also am a firm believer that the past is as real as the present. I cannot say for sure what that says about my consciousness.

Matter is in time just as consciousness is in time

To me, those emotions are not meant to be buried with the "liquor of immortality", but should be used to motivate and direct us to go past our limitations, and work on fixing the world's unfairness. — Philosophim

I think that's a very noble aspiration, and one that I'm sure many practising Christians would applaud. Not the tub-thumping evangelicals but those labouring quietly in service of others.

There's a Sanskrit expression for the 'liquor of immortality', which is amṛta, often described as 'the nectar of immortality' or 'the deathless'. (Etymological note - the word comprises 'a-', the negative particle 'not', and mṛtyu, meaning death, which is the Indo-European root of 'murder'. So literally 'un-murderable').

Everyone I know who claims to believe in an afterlife... — baker

None of my social circle believe in it. My in-laws are devout Christians, so I suppose they believe it, although I've never really discussed it with them and they generally don't evangalise. But Australia is an overall secularist culture, I think the majority of people would say death means nothing more than simple non-existence.

My belief is that existence overflows the bounds of birth and death. That is influenced by my acceptance of the tenets of Buddhism. Buddhists have an elaborate system of the six realms of existence. It's true that their dogma has it that us uneducated worldlings don't get to see into those realms on this side of death. That's something I don't like much but I grudgingly will admit the possibility. I don't find hell difficult to believe in, looking at the appalling things that some people do. Not that I intend to persuade others to believe that.

Even then, another study shows that most people believe themselves to be better than average. Why would a person who believes they are better than average feel like they wouldn't get a nice afterlife? So even when people do think about it, I believe its mostly assumed they will live forever, and it will be nice. — Philosophim

Of course, people willl believe anything, especially in today's world where there is such a huge variety of belief systems rubbing shoulders and the enormous proliferation of screen entertainment and fantasy literature. There are UFO cults and all kinds of strange movements. But I think to understand how belief in the afterlife figures in traditional culture would take a fair amount of study - anthropology and comparative religion, to begin with. I think it's often very hard for us within the context of an advanced technological culture to really understand it from an 'insider' perspective as it's a very different worldview.

Why does it matter how angry a thesis makes you? Do you think reality cares? Are you 6?

There's life after death whether you like it or not.

First, death is a harm. Yet death would not be a harm unless we existed at the time, for one surely cannot be harmed by something if one does not exist to be harmed by it. Thus, if death is a harm, then we exist when we die. But if death was the cessation of our existence, then we would not exist at the time. Thus death is not the cessation of our existence - and thus we live after death.

Second, our minds are indivisible. You either have a mind or you do not. There is no such thing as half a mind.

If our minds were complex objects then they would be divisible. But as they are indivisible, they must be simple.

Simple objects exist with aseity, that is they are self-existent and have neither been created - for there is nothing from which one can make them - or deconstructed - for there is nothing into which one can deconstruct them.

Thus, our minds are immortal. And as minds are always in some kind of mental state, and to be alive is to be in a mental state, then life does not end.

The soul is not simple. Consciousness is a subject, not an object. No soul

This is a philosophy forum. Do some. Don't just state things.

Consciousness is not a subject -that's gibberish. Consciousness is a state. It is a state of mind.

And it is minds that are indivisible and thus exist with aseity.

And we do have souls, for souls are immaterial minds and minds are immaterial, for minds are simple and no material thing is simple.

Those were all arguments. An argument - good one - extracts the implications of some self-evident truths of reason. What Gregory does is just express his views.

So, here's an argument:

1. Minds are indivisible (self-evident to reason)
2. Only simple things are indivisible (for a complex thing can be divided into its component parts)
3. Therefore minds are simple things

Here's another, building on the last

1. If minds are simple things, then they can neither be created nor destroyed
2. minds are simple things (see argument above)
3. therefore, minds can neither be created nor destroyed.

Don't just say some stuff. Engage with the arguments by constructing an equally valid argument that has the negation of one of those premises as a conclusion - then we can inspect the premises and see if they have any self-evidence.