What is death? If there is an afterlife?

[The Sum of Awe]

It's relatively easy if you believe that life is more than just your body.

If you believe that your life is a conglomerate between your body and your soul and that the body and soul both have unique experiences and also have shared experiences, and that death is nothing more than a shared experience of separation wherein the body spends some time in the ground and the soul spends some time somewhere else, and that all of this is a part of your "life", which continues on even after death and eventually when your body and soul rejoin one another, then it really isn't that hard.

What is easier? How does it make that thing easier?
Even if that thing is easier, there is still no proof for it.

 

[jarofthoughts]

What does altruism have to do with anything?

Altruism and altruistic behaviour is the basis for morality and what we consider good.

Being good for the sake of goodness doesn't necessarily have anything to do with putting yourself at a disadvantage for the sake of someone else.

Yes it does.
Sort of.
See this article on my blog for a more coherent (though far from complete) explanation: Random thoughts about Science and the World - Where Do You Get Your Morals From?

After all, while we often define goodness as selflessness, that doesn't necessarily have to come with actually causing oneself harm.

Depends on the definition of harm.

After all, when people give to the poor, what do they actually get out of it?

It's a complicated impulse that derives from both flock instincts and social demonstration of strength.
We see the same things happening in the animal kingdom, specific examples being South American Vampire Bats and African Meerkats.
I'll explain if you're not familiar with their behaviour.

What do charities get out of their, well, charity? Nothing. So why do they do it? Because it's the right thing.

See above.

You don't actually think it's possible that a Christian church may actually deny the doctrine altogether? After all, the central point of Christianity is, in fact, the teachings of Christ, and one member of this church that I know pointed to one of Jesus's alleged teachings and declared that it was false. In addition, the traditional concept of hell is actually not Biblical, and the references from which it was taken have other possible, equally valid, interpretations.

The concept of Hell has been a part of Christianity's doctrine for centuries and it is very much a part of Catholic doctrine.
Catholics being the largest denomination in the world they are the general standard.

Whether it is mentioned in the Bible is in this context irrelevant, but you are also mistaken that it is not Biblical.
It is mentioned 15 times in the NIV version, 25 times in the King James version, 15 times in the New American version and 17 times in the English Standard version.
I'm not sure which version they use in the church your girlfriend goes to, but I'll be happy to look it up for you.

Also, denying the teachings of Jesus might be fine and dandy, but if one does so one cannot reasonably call one self a Christian.

 

[Penumbra]

How can you define death, if there is an afterlife? and/or conscience still 'alive' or 'around' after your body has been pronounced dead by a doctor?

Death is more like a process than a definable instant. Breathing stops, consciousness ceases, the heart stops, brain activity ceases, and eventually the body begins to decay.

I don't see good evidence to believe in an afterlife. All indicators I've seen point to the consciousness being constructed by the brain, so when the brain dies, consciousness, personality, memories, and therefore person-hood is destroyed. It's a destruction of information. For people that propose that consciousness exists independently of the brain- I'd have to see good evidence to accept that as true.

Death is something that's necessary for life to be on this planet. We can't just expand exponentially without dying as well. And I think person-hood is something that's good if it's limited in duration rather than infinite. It's something to be experienced until it is not anymore. Some deaths can be untimely and sad, but I don't think death in general is a negative thing.

Epicurus kind of concisely summarized my position a little bit before I did:

“Death is nothing to us, since when we are, death has not come, and when death has come, we are not."

 

[Riverwolf]

Altruism and altruistic behaviour is the basis for morality and what we consider good.

Only to an extent.

Yes it does.
Sort of.
See this article on my blog for a more coherent (though far from complete) explanation: Random thoughts about Science and the World - Where Do You Get Your Morals From?

I'll look at it later; I'm kinda multitasking right now.

Depends on the definition of harm.

We have a good definition of it. Harm is something which causes negative effects finally, with little or no additional beneficial effects.

It's a complicated impulse that derives from both flock instincts and social demonstration of strength.
We see the same things happening in the animal kingdom, specific examples being South American Vampire Bats and African Meerkats.
I'll explain if you're not familiar with their behaviour.

That doesn't answer what we get out of it; that just explains why we have the instinct in the first place. It still stands that charitable people gain nothing from their charity (except, perhaps, the blissful feeling that comes with it, but I'd hardly call that a "gain.")

In addition, people can train their minds to apply this compassion to all living things, and even to things which are not alive (like children who convince themselves that their toys are alive and treat them with like compassion.)

Sure, you've explained where compassion originates from a scientific perspective, but that doesn't really counter my point.

The concept of Hell has been a part of Christianity's doctrine for centuries and it is very much a part of Catholic doctrine.
Catholics being the largest denomination in the world they are the general standard.

Fallacious. Catholics are not the microcosm for all Christianity, especially since Protestant Christianity started with going against the Catholic Church. Methodism is a Protestant denomination.

I'm not sure if there's a named fallacy for this (it might be argumentum ad numerum), but it certainly is illogical to say that just because one denomination of a religion is the largest, that it can accurately represent all denominations. If I may use my religion as a demonstration of this, it's like saying that because the majority of Hindus consider the Bhagavad-Gita as a primary text, that it is a primary text and that someone cannot discard it and still call himself a Hindu; that's not true at all. I actually know of a denomination that outright rejects the BG, and is very, very Hindu.

Besides, are you aware that the Catholic Bible has more books than the Protestant Bible?

Whether it is mentioned in the Bible is in this context irrelevant, but you are also mistaken that it is not Biblical.
It is mentioned 15 times in the NIV version, 25 times in the King James version, 15 times in the New American version and 17 times in the English Standard version.
I'm not sure which version they use in the church your girlfriend goes to, but I'll be happy to look it up for you.

Doesn't matter. The Old Testament makes no mention of hell whatsoever, and the Gospels are referring primarily to the trash dump outside Jerusalem. Besides, you could also easily say they were symbolic, because Jesus, by his own words, often spoke in parables.

I did some rudimentary Biblical studies a few years back, and this is what I found. The traditional concept of hell is actually an adaptation of the Greek Tartarus (and, of course, Greco-Roman culture had a HUGE influence on Christian thought). The modern image comes from Dante's Inferno, and Milton's Paradise Lost.

Also, denying the teachings of Jesus might be fine and dandy, but if one does so one cannot reasonably call one self a Christian.

Sure you can. After all, we have intellects, and we can therefore use them to look at the overall teachings of Jesus, and easily find parts which contradict the overall teachings, and reasonably deny them. It's been a while since I've read the Gospels, but from what I remember, there were two primary aspects to his teachings(ascetic and apocalyptic), and only one of them really mentioned hell. Jesus also taught compassion extensively, so if there's a teaching attributed to him that's not compassionate, it can reasonably be denied, at least until a logical explanation as to why he may have acted that way comes up.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Only to an extent.

If so, then to a very very large extent.
I can't think of a single example of behaviour we consider good that isn't in some way related to altruism.

I'll look at it later; I'm kinda multitasking right now.

Well, it would explain some of the points below...

We have a good definition of it. Harm is something which causes negative effects finally, with little or no additional beneficial effects.

And that's the rub.
See, as I stated earlier, there is no such thing as a purely altruistic act, which means that all such acts, directly or indirectly lends some benefit, or at least did so in our evolutionary history.
Otherwise those behaviours would not exist.
Read the article for clarification.

That doesn't answer what we get out of it; that just explains why we have the instinct in the first place. It still stands that charitable people gain nothing from their charity (except, perhaps, the blissful feeling that comes with it, but I'd hardly call that a "gain.")

I am by your above statement going to assume that you are not familiar with the examples I gave. Is that correct?

In addition, people can train their minds to apply this compassion to all living things, and even to things which are not alive (like children who convince themselves that their toys are alive and treat them with like compassion.)

Playing serves a very clear and well understood evolutionary purpose.

Sure, you've explained where compassion originates from a scientific perspective, but that doesn't really counter my point.

Yes it does, or at least would have done if you'd read the article/was familiar with the examples I gave.

Fallacious. Catholics are not the microcosm for all Christianity, especially since Protestant Christianity started with going against the Catholic Church. Methodism is a Protestant denomination.

I'm not sure if there's a named fallacy for this (it might be argumentum ad numerum), but it certainly is illogical to say that just because one denomination of a religion is the largest, that it can accurately represent all denominations. If I may use my religion as a demonstration of this, it's like saying that because the majority of Hindus consider the Bhagavad-Gita as a primary text, that it is a primary text and that someone cannot discard it and still call himself a Hindu; that's not true at all. I actually know of a denomination that outright rejects the BG, and is very, very Hindu.

I stated from the offset that I was generalizing.
If you want me to be more specific and discuss specific denominations you need to give me more to go on.
Otherwise I have no choice but to generalize.

Besides, are you aware that the Catholic Bible has more books than the Protestant Bible?

Yes.

Doesn't matter. The Old Testament makes no mention of hell whatsoever, and the Gospels are referring primarily to the trash dump outside Jerusalem.

A couple of examples:

"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell." Matthew 5:22

"If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." Matthew 5:29

"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28

Seems pretty clear that he's referring to a place of punishment don't you think?

Besides, you could also easily say they were symbolic, because Jesus, by his own words, often spoke in parables.

By that reasoning one might just as well say that the entire Bible is symbolic and that nothing in it should be taken as written, including the whole, "there is a god" bit.

I did some rudimentary Biblical studies a few years back, and this is what I found. The traditional concept of hell is actually an adaptation of the Greek Tartarus (and, of course, Greco-Roman culture had a HUGE influence on Christian thought). The modern image comes from Dante's Inferno, and Milton's Paradise Lost.

I consider it highly possible that the Bible stole some concepts from the Greeks.
After all, they stole from many other religions as well, so why not the Greeks... :sarcastic

Sure you can. After all, we have intellects, and we can therefore use them to look at the overall teachings of Jesus, and easily find parts which contradict the overall teachings, and reasonably deny them. It's been a while since I've read the Gospels, but from what I remember, there were two primary aspects to his teachings(ascetic and apocalyptic), and only one of them really mentioned hell. Jesus also taught compassion extensively, so if there's a teaching attributed to him that's not compassionate, it can reasonably be denied, at least until a logical explanation as to why he may have acted that way comes up.

Premise #1: God is perfect.
Premise #2: Jesus is not only the son of god, but he also IS god.
Premise #3: A perfect being does not make mistakes. That means that it cannot change its mind or contradict itself.
Conclusion #1: Jesus is perfect.
Conclusion #2: Jesus cannot contradict himself or change his mind.

Meta-conclusion: If the teachings of Jesus as written in the Bible contradict one another there are only two possible conclusions;
Either premise #1 or premise #2 must be dropped, or that the Bible is false.
This last conclusion of course raises the question about what else it is lying about.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I think it is self evident we can only be aware of the states of existence as that even though there are “squillions” of possible more ways of not existing than existing it is only through certain little quirks of nature we become aware of any existence. One has to take into consideration what goes with their perception of time after death just as they have to consider their perception of time before birth. I know from several experiences of going through general anaesthetics in hospital I had no perception of time.

At one time I was having an operation on an ingrown toe nail, the anaesthetist asked me as he was about to inject the aesthetic into me to start counting down from ten, so I started 10...9...8...7...6...(at this point I started to notice my toe feeling a little sore but I still counted down) 5...4...3..., then a nurse whispered in my ear and said "you can stop counting down now the operation is over.

I believe the same thing happens on a much grander scale before we born you know you were unconscious I had no perception of time because we are now aware through measurements of the Hubble constant the universe is estimated to be 13.7 billion years old and before you were born that did not seem like 13.7 billion years to you. There was not sense of impatiently waiting in the universe on the sidelines to get born, you were just born and I never gave the history of the universe one thought because I were so oblivious to it. It is as though that 13.7 billion year history never existed just as I believe my toe operation in the hospital never existed when I still kept counting down from ten after the operation.

I am more of the view when you die you forget you were even born in the first place but there is a natural anthropic selection effect which will inevitable cause you to be born somewhere else, because it you stay dead for eternity it goes without saying you will have no perception of time for eternity with nothing in you to perceive time then time itself would subjective come to an end like an astronaut falling into a black hole backwards and observing the universe hyperaccelerating time as he falls through the event horizon, he sees the entire future of the universe play out in what is subjectively to him just a matter of seconds.

 

[horizon_mj1]

Hmmm...

"Sleep is a naturally recurring state characterized by reduced or absent consciousness...."

Sleep - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps you should consider editing the wiki article

Yeah, your resource is ok if you don't mind anyone who wants to change it can. I choose to get my information from reliable sources: US NSF - Multimedia Gallery - "Mem-Sleep" -- The Discovery Files Here you will find that while sleeping, our what you call "absent cansciousness" is working. Well go fingure, I guess there is a bit more to the brain than what you thought?

 

[horizon_mj1]

The point is that fire is a process, not a substance, just as life is a process.

You might like to reflect that energy is not a substance, but a condition of some thing. For example, a stone in a high place has potential energy; when it falls, it gains kinetic energy and loses potential energy.

This new-agey talk of energy as if it were a substance is nonsense.

Well hate to tell ya, but photons are energy and they are a substances, new-agey or not, it is what it is.

 

[horizon_mj1]

The idea of vitalism is nonsense.
Also, do you have evidence that there is anything that is not physical?

Did you ever hear of oxygen and other gases, well you see they are not per say physical yet still contain molecular structure. Photons are yet another non-physical structure that has significant impacts of life on earth.

Just goes to show what happens when people didn't quite understand elementary school physics...

Yeah, my point exactly! It never ceases to amaze me how simplistic people remain even when there is a cauldron of knowledge through science that should teach people that not everything is always the way it appears (after all this is even one of the simplest and most important things in life to remember).

 

[james2ko]

Yeah, your resource is ok if you don't mind anyone who wants to change it can. I choose to get my information from reliable sources: US NSF - Multimedia Gallery - "Mem-Sleep" -- The Discovery Files Here you will find that while sleeping, our what you call "absent cansciousness" is working. Well go fingure, I guess there is a bit more to the brain than what you thought?

I realize the brain performs certain tasks while we sleep. If you read it carefully, the article does not mention a person is "consciously" invoking these processes. They happen involuntary, unconsciously, and without awareness. Which is the whole point to my post, similar to death, there is no voluntary self-consciousness or self-awareness while we sleep.

 

[Riverwolf]

If so, then to a very very large extent.
I can't think of a single example of behaviour we consider good that isn't in some way related to altruism.

Well, it would explain some of the points below...

And that's the rub.
See, as I stated earlier, there is no such thing as a purely altruistic act, which means that all such acts, directly or indirectly lends some benefit, or at least did so in our evolutionary history.
Otherwise those behaviours would not exist.
Read the article for clarification.

I am by your above statement going to assume that you are not familiar with the examples I gave. Is that correct?

Playing serves a very clear and well understood evolutionary purpose.

Yes it does, or at least would have done if you'd read the article/was familiar with the examples I gave.

I'll go ahead and address each of these at once.

Believe it or not, I already knew everything in that article. Plato already briefly mentioned it in Republic as a reason why societies came up with laws.

I still fail to see how it refutes "good for goodness' sake", which your article actually seems to encourage at the end.

Again, I say, all you've done is provide the evolutionary reason why we have those instincts in the first place, not give any reason why "goodness for the sake of goodness" is refuted.

I stated from the offset that I was generalizing.
If you want me to be more specific and discuss specific denominations you need to give me more to go on.
Otherwise I have no choice but to generalize.

I told you it was Methodist. United Methodist, to be exact.

A couple of examples:

"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell." Matthew 5:22

"If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." Matthew 5:29

"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28

Seems pretty clear that he's referring to a place of punishment don't you think?

Those verses are referring to Gehenna:

"But I say to you, That every one who is angry with his brother lightly, liable shall be to the judgment: but whoever shall say to his brother, Raca, liable shall be to the Sanhedrim: but whoever shall say, Fool, liable shall be to the Gehenna of fire."

"But if thine eye, the right, cause to offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that should perish one of thy members, and not whole thy body be cast into Gehenna."

"And ye should not fear because of those who kill the body, but the soul are not able to kill; but ye should fear rather him who is able both soul and body to destroy in Gehenna."

Here's an example of symbolism being used. Gehenna is not the modern concept of Hell (which was described in Dante's Inferno) at all, but rather is being used as a metaphor for a "place of torment for the wicked." I don't think the gospels make mention of it being eternal.

By that reasoning one might just as well say that the entire Bible is symbolic and that nothing in it should be taken as written, including the whole, "there is a god" bit.

Only if you don't take the time to actually study it and figure out what the symbols are for yourself, based on context, meditation, etc.

There are ways to figure it out, you know.

I consider it highly possible that the Bible stole some concepts from the Greeks.
After all, they stole from many other religions as well, so why not the Greeks... :sarcastic

Not the Bible, but Christian tradition. Can you tell the difference?

Premise #1: God is perfect.
Premise #2: Jesus is not only the son of god, but he also IS god.
Premise #3: A perfect being does not make mistakes. That means that it cannot change its mind or contradict itself.
Conclusion #1: Jesus is perfect.
Conclusion #2: Jesus cannot contradict himself or change his mind.

Meta-conclusion: If the teachings of Jesus as written in the Bible contradict one another there are only two possible conclusions;
Either premise #1 or premise #2 must be dropped, or that the Bible is false.
This last conclusion of course raises the question about what else it is lying about.

The Bible isn't a single work; it's a collection of works, with many interpolations. Based on this fact, it's improper to take a general, bird's-eye view of it, but rather to take each book in itself by itself, and discover what it's saying for one's own self based on the context in which it was written (as best as we can, anyway.)

That's how it was learned that there may have been at least four separate authors of the Pentateuch, even though the whole thing is traditionally believed to have been scribed by Moses while God spoke it. With reference to the gospels, we can tell that the authors of "Matthew" and "Luke" based their works on earlier texts, one of which was the canonical "Mark", and and a theoretical gospel (it hasn't been found) called "Q".

 

[jarofthoughts]

Did you ever hear of oxygen and other gases, well you see they are not per say physical yet still contain molecular structure. Photons are yet another non-physical structure that has significant impacts of life on earth.

Errr... no.
Gasses are made up of atoms and atoms are most certainly physical, and so are Photons.

Yeah, my point exactly! It never ceases to amaze me how simplistic people remain even when there is a cauldron of knowledge through science that should teach people that not everything is always the way it appears (after all this is even one of the simplest and most important things in life to remember).

This, however, I do agree with.
Which is why we should always follow the latest, best scientific evidence when determining how reality works.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

The answer would not be too different to asking, "what is sleep if you wake up the day after"? Sleep is still sleep in spite of waking out of it, and death would still be death even if there is an afterlife.

 

[horizon_mj1]

Errr... no.
Gasses are made up of atoms and atoms are most certainly physical, and so are Photons.

I guess a much better example would be Dark Matter. Scientist have been studying it for years and still can not tell you the makeup, how it works to create galaxies (at least that much is known), or if there is any type of physicality at all. I agree that the latest scientific knowledge is the best way to logically consider things yet unknown. After all if it were not for "thinking outside the box" I doubt there would be very many innovations that came from sciences that can help answer so many complex questions.

 

[horizon_mj1]

I realize the brain performs certain tasks while we sleep. If you read it carefully, the article does not mention a person is "consciously" invoking these processes. They happen involuntary, unconsciously, and without awareness. Which is the whole point to my post, similar to death, there is no voluntary self-consciousness or self-awareness while we sleep.

Did you ever hear of lucid dreaming? LUCID DREAMING This is a way to breach the divide between consciousness and sleep, giving the person both self-awareness and self consciousness while sleeping. If you are comparing sleeping to death, maybe there is a way for to be aware of not only yourself, but also what happened and what is happening in the world around you. This could be the explanation of ghosts aside from residual hauntings (energies altered through death, yet the ability to interact with living energies through self awareness in death).

 

[james2ko]

Did you ever hear of lucid dreaming? LUCID DREAMING This is a way to breach the divide between consciousness and sleep, giving the person both self-awareness and self consciousness while sleeping. If you are comparing sleeping to death, maybe there is a way for to be aware of not only yourself, but also what happened and what is happening in the world around you. This could be the explanation of ghosts aside from residual hauntings (energies altered through death, yet the ability to interact with living energies through self awareness in death).

My wife has them constantly. She experiences the DILD (dream initiated lucid dream) type. Although, she does have a sense of self-awareness in her "dream" world doesn't mean she is awake or conscious of the "real" world. As far as the ghost theory, occasionally, these dreams involve visits to friends and family members homes. Not once have they reported any unusual circumstances, noises or strange events. From my Christian perspective, I believe there is a spirit realm which, at times, are allowed to manifest themselves to humans. But I do not believe they are human souls [spirits].

 

[Looncall]

What about the clergy who are not those things?

(referring to avarice and power-hunger in clergy)

A good point. The really intriguing thing about religion is that many perpetrators of the scam (sincere clergy) are themselves victims of it. That really is an ingenious arrangement. But, after all, it has been refined over thousands of years.

 

[Looncall]

Lucky you guys.

It might be mentioned in our schools, but I don't think it was done so very well.



I think all that was explained to us about them is that we were asked if they were solids or liquids, and they finally basically said "both." If they used the term "non-newtonian", I don't remember it.



Well, I do live in America. ^_^

Though I do have a quick question about that: I learned a while ago (on these forums, in fact) that matter and energy are essentially the same thing in different forms. (Matter is essentially condensed energy, as it were.) If energy is a process but not a substance, how can this be? Was my informant (an atheist, if I remember correctly, just FYI) mistaken?

It can be a tricky distinction to keep straight. Here is an example: when an atomic nucleus decays, the resulting nucleus has less mass. The mass lost appears as particles emitted and as the kinetic energy of those particles and the resulting nucleus.

You cannot have energy on its own. It is a condition of something.

Matter is not condensed energy, but matter and energy can be interconverted.

Please see the good discussions of this point by others.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I guess a much better example would be Dark Matter. Scientist have been studying it for years and still can not tell you the makeup, how it works to create galaxies (at least that much is known), or if there is any type of physicality at all. I agree that the latest scientific knowledge is the best way to logically consider things yet unknown. After all if it were not for "thinking outside the box" I doubt there would be very many innovations that came from sciences that can help answer so many complex questions.

The word 'Dark Matter' is just a place-holder until we can figure out what this stuff really is, and I have never heard any scientist even mention that it could be something not physical.

You can't insert whatever you like into the gaps of our knowledge.

So far we have no evidence of ANYTHING being not physical.

 

[atanu]

How can you define death, if there is an afterlife? and/or conscience still 'alive' or 'around' after your body has been pronounced dead by a doctor?

I think, these questions are unanswerable till it is exactly known "Birth and Death for whom?" Assumption in the mind is that i know the I. IMO, assumption that i know the I needs thorough testing. Also there is a need to distinguish the present moment from the thoughts of past and future. But the mind itself being made of the past and present thoughts cannot do this on its own.

On reflection, there seems to be no birth and death of any real thing. There is birth and death of an ego "i", which is an association of awareness with a body that grows and perishes. Birth seems to be a beginning of a story begun by entanglement of person with matter and thus giving rise to a story called an individual mind. Death is end of that story by withdrawal of the connection. This, however, is itself a part of a story.

Being aware in the moment no one can prove that awareness will vanish at some point of time. The thought that awareness will vanish is actually a product of awareness. Without awareness such thoughts cannot arise. Most intimately evident fact in the moment, more intimate than an apple on one's palm, is the person who has an I and who sees the apple. At a given moment, whether in deep sleep, or dreaming, or waking, mind cannot deny it.