The View of an Afterlife - Positive or Negative?

[Sukerkin]

That's a valid viewpoint, Sage and as someone who has experienced more than their fair share of inexplicable 'paranormal' events, I'm more than ready to concede that the three solid dimensions we see (plus the non-visible one of time/duration) are not the be-all-and-end-all of the universe.

We'll have to chat sometime about your investigations, as it's a field that fascinates me and one with which I am not entirely unfamiliar {having been told on several occasions that I'm in "denial" :lol:}.

This ties in with what I was leading towards when my guests interrupted me last night viz what happens to the energy that is our consciousness? I have two pretty much mutually exclusive views on this.

The first is that the energy only has organisation as long as the impulsing artifact (our brain) continues to function. As soon as it ceases to be supported, which means we die, then that energy rapidly disperses into non-structured chaos. The energy states may persist, disorganised, in the atoms that made us up but what made us "Us" has gone. That's my 'engineer' side talking there. It's hard to argue with as the theoretical underpinings are fairly well established. Remove the 'motive force' of the organism and the biological 'machine' stops. Straightforward and highly demonstrable.

The second, conflicting view, is that altho' entropy is a truism, there is such a persistent, multi-cultural, belief that 'we' survive death and so many non-dismissable anecdotes that seem to support that belief, that it would not be rational to throw it all away as hysteria and self-deception.

Having lived in a house with a poltergeist, I'm fairly hard to dissuade that there is not something beyond the normal parameters of tangible living organisms.

So, what do I think of the concept of an afterlife? My internal jury is out. I don't know how to balance the rational with the experiential, the mathematical with the empathic.

When it comes to God, I'm fairly certain that I know my mind and that the odds are very strongly against there being such a ... erm ... being. The Afterlife, as defined as the persistence of consciousness (or fragments of same) after death, I'm less certain about. One thing is for sure, with the current population levels (and hence sheer volume of deaths) the 'ether' is surely going to get very crowded in short order and the reported incidences of the paranormal should escalate accordingly.

I'm willing to wait and see and the grief that I have, annually, for the deaths of those I have loved (platonically or otherwise) will persist. If nothing else, in my tears they live on.

 

[Steel Tiger]

The first is that the energy only has organisation as long as the impulsing artifact (our brain) continues to function. As soon as it ceases to be supported, which means we die, then that energy rapidly disperses into non-structured chaos. The energy states may persist, disorganised, in the atoms that made us up but what made us "Us" has gone. That's my 'engineer' side talking there. It's hard to argue with as the theoretical underpinings are fairly well established. Remove the 'motive force' of the organism and the biological 'machine' stops. Straightforward and highly demonstrable.

I'm willing to wait and see and the grief that I have, annually, for the deaths of those I have loved (platonically or otherwise) will persist. If nothing else, in my tears they live on.

It may seem strange but these two sentences really struck me in combination. If you consider that that thing that is us is gone when the mind ceases to drive it, then it cannot be possible for someone to be gone if they are in someone's thoughts. Alright, it can be argued that our 'motive force' only applies to our own being, but why? This is a kind of afterlife I guess.

These thoughts lead me to the Aboriginal views on their ancestors. The ancestors lived in the past by our European-oriented description. But to an Aboriginal his ancestors are living in the past. They see no temporal distance. There is no need for an afterlife because everyone lives on in, and with, their descendants.

 

[Empty Hands]

The first is that the energy only has organisation as long as the impulsing artifact (our brain) continues to function. As soon as it ceases to be supported, which means we die, then that energy rapidly disperses into non-structured chaos. The energy states may persist, disorganised, in the atoms that made us up but what made us "Us" has gone.

Exactly right. We know what the units of consciousness are, if not exactly how they function to give rise to the integrated experience we call consciousness. What are those units? Action potentials in nerve cells that cause action potentials in other nerve cells. Upon death, the sodium gradients collapse and those action potentials stop. Thus no more thoughts, and no more consciousness. There is no "consciousness energy" to persist.

The second, conflicting view, is that altho' entropy is a truism, there is such a persistent, multi-cultural, belief that 'we' survive death and so many non-dismissable anecdotes that seem to support that belief, that it would not be rational to throw it all away as hysteria and self-deception.

Perfectly rational actually, absent compelling evidence otherwise. Widespread belief and anecdotes apply to many demonstrably wrong things: women are inferior, slavery is natural and right, no-touch knockouts, and alchemy are but the merest sample of absolute nonsense fully believed in by appallingly large numbers of people at one time or another. Even that most notable of scientists, Isaac Newton, was a rabid believer in alchemy!

I was just having this conversation with a friend today, actually. Having faith (belief without evidence) is all well and good, but how do you discriminate what to have faith in? Evidence, I say, and widespread belief is no evidence for the afterlife.

 

[Empty Hands]

Alright, it can be argued that our 'motive force' only applies to our own being, but why? This is a kind of afterlife I guess.

If this is true, then there is no unitary "me." No "Empty Hands" who lives in LA and plays with chemicals. There are in fact thousands of versions of me, one for each mental construct living in the mind of someone who knows me somehow. Perhaps even billions or an effectively infinite number if we consider how I am perceived by animals and how I cause lasting changes in my environment.

Worse, few of those versions of me would agree with each other. To some who know me through this board, I would be some faceless, nameless crazy liberal whackjob. To those on other boards, I would be an evil heartless conservative. Some versions of me are noble and nice, others are vain and twisted. Some are hawt and sexy, most are probably odd looking and kinda ugly. What they all share in common is that none are complete, and none are really me at all.

So even if your idea was true, would you really like it all that much? Just a horde of incomplete caricatures of who you really were somehow defining your afterlife? It may be one of sorts, but one that I wouldn't like. It also wouldn't be an afterlife the real Steel Tiger or Empty Hands could experience and enjoy.

 

[Steel Tiger]

If this is true, then there is no unitary "me." No "Empty Hands" who lives in LA and plays with chemicals. There are in fact thousands of versions of me, one for each mental construct living in the mind of someone who knows me somehow. Perhaps even billions or an effectively infinite number if we consider how I am perceived by animals and how I cause lasting changes in my environment.

Worse, few of those versions of me would agree with each other. To some who know me through this board, I would be some faceless, nameless crazy liberal whackjob. To those on other boards, I would be an evil heartless conservative. Some versions of me are noble and nice, others are vain and twisted. Some are hawt and sexy, most are probably odd looking and kinda ugly. What they all share in common is that none are complete, and none are really me at all.

So even if your idea was true, would you really like it all that much? Just a horde of incomplete caricatures of who you really were somehow defining your afterlife? It may be one of sorts, but one that I wouldn't like. It also wouldn't be an afterlife the real Steel Tiger or Empty Hands could experience and enjoy.

It was just an idea that struck me as I read through Sukerkin's post and your counterpoint rings very true. My idea doesn't actually doesn't line up with my own thoughts on the subject at all. For me, as I expressed in an earlier post, there is an immutable, continuing "Me". That me is currently a human named Anthony, but in time it may be a rock or a tree. It will always recognise itself as "Me" and will be able to identify with whatever it is at the time but will not hold that form to be part of its "Me"ness.

 

[SageGhost83]

If I may, the presence or occurrence what we like to call "intelligent" hauntings is something that shows that the personality, I.E. the person, still persists after death. An intelligent haunting is one where the entity is aware and actually interacts with you. Having come across many in my investigations, I can tell you that, yes, they do exhibit real human personalities and approach you in there own way. Some are shy and skittish, some are more curious towards you than you are towards them, and some are outright nasty and don't like the fact that you are invading their personal space. They respond and behave in a logical way befitting a "living" personality. I think that a "residual" haunting would support that theory though, ST. It is unaware of itself and it just does the same thing over and over again while not showing any semblance of a personality. However, a residual haunting is not a person, it is an event, so I guess that it technically wouldn't count.

 

[thardey]

I think the question really comes down to the issue of whether we are made of spirit or not.

Old Hebrew philosophers used the word "souls" in regards to men and animals. Many, myself included, take that to mean that the "soul" is the physical part of our personality that Empty Hands was talking about. In theological circles the soul is defined as our "mind, will, and emotions." We know enough about the human brain to realize that these are all affected by physical, and measurable, processes. When you die, these processes cease to function, and therefore, one could say that the soul "dies." Even the memories of the person are physically stored in the brain, which begins to deteriorate, and the memories are lost.

However, there is also the idea of Spirit, or "Ghost." The ghost of you is with you right now, and is an integral part of you. The ghost of many people has never been recognized, or been developed. For some, it is like a spiritual appendix, there, but not really doing much. For others, that ghost is a powerful part of your personality and being. Sometimes we are led by the spiritual part of us, or the Ghost, and sometimes we are led by our physical processes, or our Soul.

When we die, it is our Ghost that lives on. Where it goes and what it does is different according to different religions. It can go to heaven, it can be reincarnated, it can wander in darkness, it can take up residence here on earth, it can herd cattle for eternity, etc. It's not that we "become" a Ghost after we die, but that our ghost is all that is left.

If the Ghost is just a case of bad pizza, or the heebie-jeebies, then when we die, we cease to exist.

Unfortunately, we cannot prove that Ghosts exist, since they can't be measured. Also unfortunately, it appears that the people who are sensitive to the presence of spiritual things, or ghostly things are so only because they are aware of their own spirit, or Ghost. Which means that those who don't believe, or aren't aware of their ghost will remain skeptical. Those who believe will have to use words like "hope" "faith" and "believe." Unless you've had an experience that makes you aware of the spiritual, the spiritual idea is preposterous. However, if you have had a spiritual encounter of some sort, no one is going to be able to really talk you out of it, even if you can't fully explain it.

That's where I re-define "Faith": Instead of it being a "belief without evidence" I define it as "interpreting the evidence with hope."

I want there to be a spiritual realm, I hope it is true, and therefore I interpret the evidence that exists differently than one who does not have that hope. I can't transfer that hope to anyone else, nor can anyone else take that hope from me.

Coming from a Christian viewpoint, it is that Ghost of you that is "saved" or "born again." Not the physical side of you. Only it's not usually called a "ghost" in the Bible, but "spirit." Paul has a long argument with himself in Romans chapter 7 about his "ghost" wanting to do or not do the "right thing," but his physical appetites compel him to do the opposite. He "does what he does not want to do."

Who knows? Maybe if your ghost is strong here, it will be stronger after, but if it is not strong here, or if it is not strong enough to affect you, it will be little more than a thought or vapor in the end. Essentially non-existence for those don't believe in the afterlife anyway! But I'm just postulating now.

 

[Steel Tiger]

Coming from a Christian viewpoint, it is that Ghost of you that is "saved" or "born again." Not the physical side of you. Only it's not usually called a "ghost" in the Bible, but "spirit." Paul has a long argument with himself in Romans chapter 7 about his "ghost" wanting to do or not do the "right thing," but his physical appetites compel him to do the opposite. He "does what he does not want to do."

Who knows? Maybe if your ghost is strong here, it will be stronger after, but if it is not strong here, or if it is not strong enough to affect you, it will be little more than a thought or vapor in the end. Essentially non-existence for those don't believe in the afterlife anyway! But I'm just postulating now.

I have a problem with Paul in Romans in that it seems an excuse for having done the wrong thing. As though, if he were brought to task over his actions he could say, "I didn't want to do it, but I could stop myself." Its a dichotomy created by supposing there is more than one self.

The idea that something of a person can only linger if it is strong enough is an intriguing one. But the suggestion that a person that does not believe in an afterlife will not have one really does add fuel to the bigotted zealots fire.

Of course there are those zealots who know damn well that everyone goes into an afterlife experience but if you don't follow there exact version of Christianity you will burn for all eternity.

The concept of a firey hell in Christianity is an interesting thing too. It seems to stem from a reinterpretation of the Latin infernus "being underneath" into something ablaze. Some earlier writings on hell, especially those discussing the fallen angels associated with Lucifer's revolt, placed hell on the third level of heaven and it was a cold and dismal place.

But most cultures have had a concept of an afterlife place that is forlorn and unpleasant. It is not necessarily a place of torment, it could simply be a really unpleasant waiting place, like a lonely little railway station in the middle of winter. I wonder why? It seems to me that a punishment after death suggests a feeling of guilt (very appropriate for Christianity) attached to simply being alive.

This leads me to that old adage, "Only the good die young." On the surface it suggests that a good person is naive and will not survive. However, it also suggests that only the young are good (virtuous, without sin) and it is a good thing for them to die becuase they will not acquire a lifetime of sin and evil. Taoism has a similar concept in that there is a suggestion that a newborn who dies is closer to the Tao than a man who has lived 300 years. When did age become a synonym for "not good"? A very long time ago I am guessing.

But this flies in the face of the Christian concept of original sin which suggests life is a trial because we are born full of sin (thank you Adam and Eve) and can only achieve happiness in the afterlife after a long life of contrition and abasement before god.

I have rambled around enough for the time being I think. The concept of an afterlife just gets me thinking about all these things, which seem to have come into being because of that concept. A belief in an afterlife might very well reassure people but it also throws up a lot of stuff for them to worry about.

 

[Archangel M]

"Am I the bulb or the light?" - Joseph Campbell.

 

[SageGhost83]

I think the question really comes down to the issue of whether we are made of spirit or not.

Old Hebrew philosophers used the word "souls" in regards to men and animals. Many, myself included, take that to mean that the "soul" is the physical part of our personality that Empty Hands was talking about. In theological circles the soul is defined as our "mind, will, and emotions." We know enough about the human brain to realize that these are all affected by physical, and measurable, processes. When you die, these processes cease to function, and therefore, one could say that the soul "dies." Even the memories of the person are physically stored in the brain, which begins to deteriorate, and the memories are lost.

However, there is also the idea of Spirit, or "Ghost." The ghost of you is with you right now, and is an integral part of you. The ghost of many people has never been recognized, or been developed. For some, it is like a spiritual appendix, there, but not really doing much. For others, that ghost is a powerful part of your personality and being. Sometimes we are led by the spiritual part of us, or the Ghost, and sometimes we are led by our physical processes, or our Soul.

When we die, it is our Ghost that lives on. Where it goes and what it does is different according to different religions. It can go to heaven, it can be reincarnated, it can wander in darkness, it can take up residence here on earth, it can herd cattle for eternity, etc. It's not that we "become" a Ghost after we die, but that our ghost is all that is left.

If the Ghost is just a case of bad pizza, or the heebie-jeebies, then when we die, we cease to exist.

Unfortunately, we cannot prove that Ghosts exist, since they can't be measured. Also unfortunately, it appears that the people who are sensitive to the presence of spiritual things, or ghostly things are so only because they are aware of their own spirit, or Ghost. Which means that those who don't believe, or aren't aware of their ghost will remain skeptical. Those who believe will have to use words like "hope" "faith" and "believe." Unless you've had an experience that makes you aware of the spiritual, the spiritual idea is preposterous. However, if you have had a spiritual encounter of some sort, no one is going to be able to really talk you out of it, even if you can't fully explain it.

That's where I re-define "Faith": Instead of it being a "belief without evidence" I define it as "interpreting the evidence with hope."

I want there to be a spiritual realm, I hope it is true, and therefore I interpret the evidence that exists differently than one who does not have that hope. I can't transfer that hope to anyone else, nor can anyone else take that hope from me.

Coming from a Christian viewpoint, it is that Ghost of you that is "saved" or "born again." Not the physical side of you. Only it's not usually called a "ghost" in the Bible, but "spirit." Paul has a long argument with himself in Romans chapter 7 about his "ghost" wanting to do or not do the "right thing," but his physical appetites compel him to do the opposite. He "does what he does not want to do."

Who knows? Maybe if your ghost is strong here, it will be stronger after, but if it is not strong here, or if it is not strong enough to affect you, it will be little more than a thought or vapor in the end. Essentially non-existence for those don't believe in the afterlife anyway! But I'm just postulating now.

I think it all comes down to viewpoint, as well. Are we looking at it strictly from a materialistic viewpoint, or are we looking at the deeper side of it? One rule of thumb is that you don't have a ghost, you are a ghost, just with a body. Someone once told me that we are not physical beings who are experiencing the spiritual, but that we are spiritual beings who are experiencing the physical. Something to the effect of you don't have a mind, you are the mind - thinking and being aware. There is the whole Out-Of-Body experience thing, too. Now, there are many scientific reports that say that it is a result of something purely physical, however, they still can't explain how somebody is hovering at the top of the room, looking down on their unconscious body and witnessing everything that is happening in the room in realtime. I have had a few of them myself and in one particular instance, I have even reached out and tried to touch my own body while it was unconscious on the operating table (not in that way, get your minds out of the gutter :lol. I always tell my peers that we can't take spiritual phenomena and apply physical laws and theories to them. I believe that such phenomena are beyond this plane of existence or at least different from this plane of existence. Apples and oranges, I guess. When investigating and gathering evidence, I always say that we must deal with it on its own terms and not limit ourselves to only the materialistic level. This makes for some very open and objective investigations, which is generally the goal. There are plenty of times, when reviewing the evidence, that the group doesn't know how a particular entity is doing what he/she/it does or why a particular entity does what he/she/it does. We conclude that some matters will simply never be known to the living and that each and every one of us, in due time, will personally know exactly what this afterlife thing is all about. Hopefully this revelation is decades down the road for all of us (although I have had several close calls while carrying out my own military duties).

 

[Tez3]

As Peter Pan says "'To die will be an awfully big adventure'.
I've always liked that, we can't avoid dying so looking at that way has always comforted me.

 

[morph4me]

I've always been comforted by the fact that rich or poor, powerful or powerless no matter what our circumstances, we all end up the same way

 

[tellner]

Pogo said it best

Don't take life so serious, son - it ain't nohow permanent.

 

[SageGhost83]

I was always told to wear the cleanest pair of underwear that you can find because you never know if you are going to get turned into a street pizza. Then there was something about being embarrassed in front of the neighbors...I don't know, my parents were weird.

 

[Archangel M]

"Am I the bulb or the light?" - Joseph Campbell.

"Well, that is no problem at all. The problem in middle life, when the body has reached its climax of power and begins to decline, is to identify yourself not with the body, which is falling away, but with the consciousness of which it is a vehicle. This is something I learned from myths. What am I? Am I the bulb that carries the light, or am I the light of which the bulb is a vehicle?

One of the psychological problems in growing old is the fear of death. People can resist the door of death. But this body is a vehicle of consciousness, and if you can identify with the consciousness, you can watch the body go like an old car. There goes the fender, there goes the tire, one thing after another – but it’s predictable. And then, gradually, the whole thing drops off, and consciousness rejoins consciousness. It’s nolonger in this particular environment."

-Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth, pp. 70-71

 

[thardey]

I have a problem with Paul in Romans in that it seems an excuse for having done the wrong thing. As though, if he were brought to task over his actions he could say, "I didn't want to do it, but I could stop myself." Its a dichotomy created by supposing there is more than one self.

Only if you skip Romans 1-3 where Paul makes it clear that it is that exact argument with ourselves (in Romans 7) that proves that we can't perform to the arbitrary rules we set for ourselves, therefore performance is useless in determining our status of reward in the afterlife. But that may be more appropriate in another thread.

The idea that something of a person can only linger if it is strong enough is an intriguing one. But the suggestion that a person that does not believe in an afterlife will not have one really does add fuel to the bigotted zealots fire.

How so? The bigots I have run into take pleasure in threatening people with hell. This would take the fun out of it for them. Anyway, it's not really theological, just a random thought I was having.

Of course there are those zealots who know damn well that everyone goes into an afterlife experience but if you don't follow there exact version of Christianity you will burn for all eternity.

The concept of a firey hell in Christianity is an interesting thing too. It seems to stem from a reinterpretation of the Latin infernus "being underneath" into something ablaze. Some earlier writings on hell, especially those discussing the fallen angels associated with Lucifer's revolt, placed hell on the third level of heaven and it was a cold and dismal place.

Actually it comes from the description of a garbage dump near Jerusalem, called "Gehenna" in Aramaic. They would burn the refuse and junk there continuously. Jesus used it in one of his descriptions of punishment. Also, in the book of Revelation, there is a "Lake of burning sulphur" or "The Lake of Fire" into which the Devil and his followers are thrown.

The idea of it being run by the Devil, with the pitchforks and cold coffee and all that is some other idea of which I don't know the origin.

The idea of cold comes from the description of "outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth" where unfaithful servants and friends are thrown in another of Jesus' parables.

But most cultures have had a concept of an afterlife place that is forlorn and unpleasant. It is not necessarily a place of torment, it could simply be a really unpleasant waiting place, like a lonely little railway station in the middle of winter. I wonder why? It seems to me that a punishment after death suggests a feeling of guilt (very appropriate for Christianity) attached to simply being alive.

While I know of many Christians who use guilt as a motivation to follow traditions and other rules that are long out of date, there are whole groups that have moved away from that, since it leads to a walking death. They focus on the forgiveness, but first you have to accept the feeling of guilt before you can release it to God. Once that's done, there's no more guilt. In fact, the very next verse in Romans after the above argument that I brought up claims: "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus." The problem is that it is some people's nature to need to feel guilty, and to make other feel guilty. This is in most every religion in the World, whether Catholic Christianity, Protestant Christianity, Judaism, Muslim, etc. It's not the religion that makes people feel guilty, it's that guilty people are drawn to religion.

This leads me to that old adage, "Only the good die young." On the surface it suggests that a good person is naive and will not survive. However, it also suggests that only the young are good (virtuous, without sin) and it is a good thing for them to die becuase they will not acquire a lifetime of sin and evil. Taoism has a similar concept in that there is a suggestion that a newborn who dies is closer to the Tao than a man who has lived 300 years. When did age become a synonym for "not good"? A very long time ago I am guessing.

I always figured it was a lament that life was unfair.

But this flies in the face of the Christian concept of original sin which suggests life is a trial because we are born full of sin (thank you Adam and Eve) and can only achieve happiness in the afterlife after a long life of contrition and abasement before god.

The idea in Christianity of "Childlike faith" has more to do with the simple ability of a child to accept a gift, without that annoying adult tendency to refuse to accept a gift without paying for it. Of course, once you try to pay for a gift, then it is no longer a gift. Again, much of Christianity has gone off course because people are good at devising new ways to "pay" for the gift of forgiveness. (No abasement involved - think Monty Python -"I hate Groveling! Everybody's alway groveling! 'Woe is me!' Knock it off! - God).

In my experience, Christianity is more like moments going "Oh!" Followed by other moments later on down the road going "Oh!" Kind of like Karate, now that I think of it!

I have rambled around enough for the time being I think. The concept of an afterlife just gets me thinking about all these things, which seem to have come into being because of that concept. A belief in an afterlife might very well reassure people but it also throws up a lot of stuff for them to worry about.

Well, at the heart of it, the afterlife is usually presented as "reality" to our current state of "practice." So any belief in the afterlife is going to hold the problems of today's life magnified.

 

[Tomu]

Excellent thread so far, thought I would add my .02 worth.

First let me say that I used to be a fundamentalist Christian. I believed the Bible to be 100% True etc. I came to a point where I could not reconcile my rational mind with the Bible being absolute truth. It was emotionally painful and took a long time before I even told my wife that I no longer believed. Also let me say that I am in no way bashing anyone here who is a Christian, Jew, Muslim etc... as not being rational. From what I can gather from thardey's posts he sounds like one of the most rational people I have read online. It has been about 5 years since my crisis of faith, but I feel that I have found something that works for me which is Zen Buddhism. Notice I said works for me, I didn't sat I buy in to some of the mythology of Buddhism.

Now I will try to get back on topic. It has been my life experience that human beings have a huge amount of trouble with the unknown. Whether that is about what happens when you die or what the weather is going to be tomorrow. I think fundamentalism addresses these unknowns for people. Here they have a system that tells them almost exactly what will happen when they die so their anxiety is relieved. I will admit that sometimes not knowing can be unnerving, but I would rather be uncomfortable sometimes than believe just for the sake of comfort.

So, do I believe in an afterlife? I don't know. I hope there is, but if there isn't thats ok too. After having wasted a good deal of my life in pursuits that were less than honorable, I think whats important now is to enjoy every minute with my family that I can and to be the best possible human I can(buddha nature):wink:

Lastly, for any Christians who are having problems with heaven and hell I would encourage you to read two books by Philip Gulley and James Mulholland called "If God Is Love" and "If Grace Is True" both of which helped me at a time when I needed them to.
thanks for letting me share my opinion.

 

[Archangel M]

Afterlife or not..were all gonna die sooner or later so what is...is what is...