Most Religions Believe In An Afterlife

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

I believe that where souls go after death is to a spiritual world. We cannot know what that world will be like till we go there.

Know thou that every hearing ear, if kept pure and undefiled, must, at all times and from every direction, hearken to the voice that uttereth these holy words: “Verily, we are God’s, and to Him shall we return.” The mysteries of man’s physical death and of his return have not been divulged, and still remain unread. By the righteousness of God! Were they to be revealed, they would evoke such fear and sorrow that some would perish, while others would be so filled with gladness as to wish for death, and beseech, with unceasing longing, the one true God—exalted be His glory—to hasten their end.

Death proffereth unto every confident believer the cup that is life indeed. It bestoweth joy, and is the bearer of gladness. It conferreth the gift of everlasting life.

As to those that have tasted of the fruit of man’s earthly existence, which is the recognition of the one true God, exalted be His glory, their life hereafter is such as We are unable to describe. The knowledge thereof is with God, alone, the Lord of all worlds.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 345-346

So yes, the destiny of the soul after death remains unclear, but I don't see that as a reason to believe that the soul comes back to this world to live again. I cannot see any merciful and just God sending anyone back to earth to do this all over again. Once is more than enough.

Why do you think that going to a spiritual world after death is full of difficulties, simply because the nature of the spiritual world is unknown to us?

Thank you for your comment. The Quran and the Hindu texts both say that the ultimate objective is for man to come to Allah or Brahman. Now those who have lived in this world, but not attained that level, will die and they will not merge into God. So there has to be a solution. The solution, I think, is that the souls come back to earth and through another life, they further evolve, and they continue to do this until they evolve enough to merge with Brahman or Allah or God. If that is not the case, then a person who dies without self-realization is condemned forever to remain in that state.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

That is not your situation. You have done nothing to establish what electricity is or what causes it. You are simply having a shock, seeing a spark, then accepting the cause to be the divinity of Zeus. Or to bring it home, you are having an experience from meditation, then accepting the cause to be past lives.


There is an enormous body of study that explores why people think they have past lives. Fields like psychology, sociology, anthropology, and neurology have extensively examined these beliefs. From cognitive dissonance and memory distortions to cultural and societal influences, researchers have uncovered various reasons why individuals might feel a connection to so-called 'past lives.' There is extensive exploration into how the brain constructs and reconstructs memories, and how this can lead to the sensation of having lived before. This understanding doesn't require belief in past lives but recognizes the complexity of human perception and experience.

I don't think it is possible to determine whether the mind is reconstructing past life out of nowhere or whether the past life was real. What I do know is that there have been cases where a person has reconstructed his past life, and people have gone to that place of the past life and found the things to be correct. So, I would rather believe that the reconstruction of the mind is real rather than unreal. I may say that I don't have the energy to study the various theories of how the mind reconstructs past life. I have read Freud and Carl Jung, and that is as far as I have gone.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

How do the bodies in your dream reality come into existence and depart?

I think we are quibbling about something while we both agree. I agree that there is a soul that is permanent and it comes into this earth, takes another body, and then goes out. So, I don't understand what we are disagreeing about.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

I do not think that reincarnation gives you any better solution than that souls are created and assigned to bodies at birth or some stage of a pregnancy. The human population has expanded exponentially over the millennia, so were all of those souls just floating around for millennia and waiting for enough host bodies to occupy?

The real question is whether there is such a thing as an immaterial soul that somehow gets attached to a physical lifeform. A more logical view, based on the evidence of how mental faculties work, is that brains developing in fetuses create all the mental faculties that living human beings have. We can conclude that, because we observe how physical changes to brains alter those faculties. What you are thinking of as a "soul" is just an effect of physical brain activity. Therefore, when brain activity stops, the mind/soul stops existing as well.

The large number of souls can transit from animals to human beings, and from human beings to animals. So, there is no problem of billions of souls hanging around waiting for a body. I am of the view, based upon the experience of the sages, that the soul is an immaterial object that trans-migrates. However, I am not able to prove this.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I think we are quibbling about something while we both agree. I agree that there is a soul that is permanent and it comes into this earth, takes another body, and then goes out. So, I don't understand what we are disagreeing about.

Anything that comes and goes is impermanent. Who or what is it that is observing this soul coming and going?

 

[ppp]

I don't think it is possible to determine whether the mind is reconstructing past life out of nowhere or whether the past life was real. What I do know is that there have been cases where a person has reconstructed his past life, and people have gone to that place of the past life and found the things to be correct. So, I would rather believe that the reconstruction of the mind is real rather than unreal. I may say that I don't have the energy to study the various theories of how the mind reconstructs past life. I have read Freud and Carl Jung, and that is as far as I have gone.

As I said, you are getting a shock from an electric wire and declaring it to be the divinity of Zeus. All because you would "rather".

 

[Truthseeker]

If brain damage somehow damages the "soul", what does that say in the context of a deity that judges souls in terms of obedience or disobedience to God's will?

No, I don't believe that brain damage damages the soul in the sense that while brain brain damage will in many cases deleteriously affect someone's behavior, the soul itself is unaffected by that. The soul is independent from the body, though they work together. A person's behavior as a result of brain damage does not reflect badly on them, it is just a fact that it does affect their behavior.

 

[Truthseeker]

In my view, the Bible doesn't really teach much of anything that is coherent or consistent. It is full of contradictions and inconsistencies, but that reflects the fact that different sections come from different traditions over several centuries. That is true of both the Old and New Testaments. Different religious movements that claim to be inspired by the Bible often place very different interpretations on the text.

It is true that many authors wrote those books with different points of view. A lot of the Bible consists of human understanding of God, and we don't have direct Writings from people like Jesus, so we have to decide for ourselves how much of the Bible is true or not.

 

[ppp]

A person's behavior as a result of brain damage does not reflect badly on them, it is just a fact that it does affect their behavior.

What about people who become less selfish, more empathetic, and better at considering the consequences of their actions after brain damage? Does their behavior reflect well on them?

 

[Trailblazer]

It comes down to the same thing. Pot8to, potato.
If it can't be established and is a "mystery", then there is nothing there. Hence, nothing to show for it

It does not mean that there is nothing there just because it can't be established to be there...
Case in point: Before the planet Pluto was established to be there in 1930, it was there.

What's the practical, demonstrable, difference between "mystery" and "made up"?

There is a HUGE difference. Some things are unknown but that does not mean they are made up.
They could be true or false, or unknown between true or false, but unknown does not mean they are false

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

• true
• false
• unknown between true or false
• being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But they are.... For it not to be a collection of bare claims when it comes to the supernatural stuff, it would require independent verifiable evidence.
And then you could just point me to that independently verifiable evidence instead of "just believing it".
But you can't, can you?

No, I cannot point you to independently verifiable evidence for a soul.
There is no way that there can be independent verifiable evidence for the soul.
You either believe it exists or you don't.

Point is: if you have more then bare claims, then you would have proper justification that you can actually share.

I have justification, but it is in Scriptures and other books that you would not consider to be evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Thank you for your comment. The Quran and the Hindu texts both say that the ultimate objective is for man to come to Allah or Brahman. Now those who have lived in this world, but not attained that level, will die and they will not merge into God. So there has to be a solution. The solution, I think, is that the souls come back to earth and through another life, they further evolve, and they continue to do this until they evolve enough to merge with Brahman or Allah or God. If that is not the case, then a person who dies without self-realization is condemned forever to remain in that state.

We all view things differently, but the solution I see is that the soul will continue to progress in the spiritual world. It is not as if the spiritual world is a static place. I believe we will be progressing just as we do here. Eventually that soul will attain the presence of God, but it will take longer than if it had progressed further while living in this world, and that is why it is so important to try to progress in this world, as I believe most scriptures say.

“And now concerning thy question regarding the soul of man and its survival after death. Know thou of a truth that the soul, after its separation from the body, will continue to progress until it attaineth the presence of God, in a state and condition which neither the revolution of ages and centuries, nor the changes and chances of this world, can alter. It will endure as long as the Kingdom of God, His sovereignty, His dominion and power will endure. It will manifest the signs of God and His attributes, and will reveal His loving kindness and bounty.”

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 155-158

 

[Trailblazer]

Unless death is actually death, off course. In which case we won't be knowing anything since there would be no "we" any more to know or do things.

Of course, but the converse also applies.

Ow? How?

We cannot know it as a fact, but we can learn about it by reading about it.

Strange definition of "knowing" you have there.

There are different ways of knowing something.
You want to know by means of the first way, 1. Experiential (Empirical)
I know by means of the second way, 2. Cognitive (Rational)

3 Ways to Know Something
There are 3 main ways.

1. Experiential (Empirical)
With experiential, you know something because you’ve “experienced” it – basically through your five senses (site, hearing, touch, smell, and taste.)

2. Cognitive (Rational)
With cognitive, you know something because you’ve thought your way through it, argued it, or rationalized it.

3. Constructed (Creational)
With constructed, you know something because you created it – and it may be subjective instead of objective and it may be based on convention or perception.

3 Ways to Know Something

sourcesofinsight.com

 

[Truthseeker]

What about people who become less selfish, more empathetic, and better at considering the consequences of their actions after brain damage? Does their behavior reflect well on them?

Good question. I don't know the answer to that.

 

[Copernicus]

The large number of souls can transit from animals to human beings, and from human beings to animals. So, there is no problem of billions of souls hanging around waiting for a body. I am of the view, based upon the experience of the sages, that the soul is an immaterial object that trans-migrates. However, I am not able to prove this.

You still end up with this idea that there is some enormous, but finite, number of souls to go around, and they are all shifting from body to body. Most of those would not be human bodies, since there are more animals than the human kind. And then you have the issue of which life forms get souls and which do not. What happens when the Earth goes through a mass extinction event, as it has several times in the past? And do single cell organisms get souls, or do the bodies have to be multi-cell? What about plants? When organisms reproduce by means of fission, do they split their souls off into new souls? I could go on, but I think you understand where I'm going with this. The idea of souls pairing with life forms is not well thought out. Like the concept of life after death, it is a palliative for mortal beings who would rather not believe that their existence in the cosmos is only temporary.

 

[Copernicus]

No, I don't believe that brain damage damages the soul in the sense that while brain brain damage will in many cases deleteriously affect someone's behavior, the soul itself is unaffected by that. The soul is independent from the body, though they work together. A person's behavior as a result of brain damage does not reflect badly on them, it is just a fact that it does affect their behavior.

The soul damage concept was one that Trailblazer mentioned. You express a fairly conventional belief in Cartesian dualism--the division between the physical and the spiritual. It begs the question of what exactly it is that souls contribute to mental function. We pretty much know what brains contribute, because brain damage directly affects mental function. What does a belief in souls buy one? How does it explain anything about us?

It is true that many authors wrote those books with different points of view. A lot of the Bible consists of human understanding of God, and we don't have direct Writings from people like Jesus, so we have to decide for ourselves how much of the Bible is true or not.

My perspective on the Biblical tradition is that it was essentially an origin story for the Jewish empire in its heyday. That is, it combined elements of polytheistic/henotheistic Semitic folklore (reframed from a monotheistic perspective) with references to actual historical events. This kind of mythmaking and record keeping has been a common practice for groups of humans from small communities to large empires throughout history. Empires came up with more elaborate oral and written traditions than smaller communities, so it is no surprise that an Abrahamic version came into being for Israel and Judea. The Vedic tradition is another example, blending some elements of the traditional Indo-European pantheon with local religious traditions. They are fascinating bodies of literature to study, but they are grounded in very old and outdated cosmologies. Modern religions have repurposed and reinterpreted that older literature to give it more relevance to current events and concerns, so people still take them very seriously.

 

[ppp]

Good question. I don't know the answer to that.

Fair enough. But that would mean that this "A person's behavior as a result of brain damage does not reflect badly on them, it is just a fact that it does affect their behavior" is also that you don't know the answer to. For the same reason.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It does not mean that there is nothing there just because it can't be established to be there...

"nothing there" meaning, that there is no sufficient evidence to justify accepting the claim. And by extension, no rational justification to believe the claim.

Case in point: Before the planet Pluto was established to be there in 1930, it was there.

The planet was. But the rational justification to believe it was, wasn't.
The time to rationally accept something is true, is when the evidence to support it justifies it.

There is a HUGE difference. Some things are unknown but that does not mean they are made up.
They could be true or false, or unknown between true or false, but unknown does not mean they are false

Sounds like you didn't understand my question.
Take your Pluto example.

Suppose someone in 1600 claimed the existence of this planet.
How would people conclude that this claim wasn't made up, considering there is zero evidence for it?
Note that I asked for the practical difference.

No, I cannot point you to independently verifiable evidence for a soul.

Right, so how can I tell the difference between that being a justifiable claim or a made up claim?

There is no way that there can be independent verifiable evidence for the soul.
You either believe it exists or you don't.

Exactly. Just like I said.

I have justification, but it is in Scriptures and other books that you would not consider to be evidence.

You are literally saying that your justification for believing it, is that you believe it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We cannot know it as a fact, but we can learn about it by reading about it.

The things you read are just claims by others. It matters not if you write bare beliefs down or not. They remain bare beliefs.
Writing them down doesn't magically make them more credibly.

 

[Trailblazer]

"nothing there" meaning, that there is no sufficient evidence to justify accepting the claim. And by extension, no rational justification to believe the claim.

No evidence that is sufficient FOR YOU to accept the claim.

The planet was. But the rational justification to believe it was, wasn't.
The time to rationally accept something is true, is when the evidence to support it justifies it.

I do not know whether or not there was evidence to support it, but that was not my point.
My point was that Pluto existed whether or not anyone believed it existed.
Likewise, God exists whether or not anyone believes that God exists.

Sounds like you didn't understand my question.
Take your Pluto example.

Suppose someone in 1600 claimed the existence of this planet.
How would people conclude that this claim wasn't made up, considering there is zero evidence for it?
Note that I asked for the practical difference.

If there was zero evidence for the existence of the Planet Pluto people might conclude that this claim was made up.

Right, so how can I tell the difference between that being a justifiable claim or a made up claim?

Look at other evidence for the soul that is not independently verifiable.

You are literally saying that your justification for believing it, is that you believe it.

No, that is not what I said.
I said that I have justification, but it is in Scriptures and other books that you would not consider to be evidence.
Thus the Scriptures are my justification for believing that a soul exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

The things you read are just claims by others. It matters not if you write bare beliefs down or not. They remain bare beliefs.
Writing them down doesn't magically make them more credibly.

Now put on your logic cap.
How would anyone know anything about God if those Messengers of God did not make claims about God?

Whether or not those claims were made by real Messengers of God is what needs to be determined.
That can never be proven but there is strong evidence for it.