Afterlife (Endings)

by dhw, Saturday, January 12, 2013, 13:00 (4116 days ago) @ BBella

dhw...It [religion] requires a strong faith to believe in a power for whose existence there is no evidence other than inference, for whose presence there is no evidence whatsoever, and whose nature and intentions are totally unknown.-BBELLA: Most scientist these days would agree with your claim above, that there is no evidence of God. But can we really discount billions upon billions of people for thousands of years across every continent, even in the deepest remote regions with no communications with the outside world, the wisest, the young, the most scientific minds and the greatest and most humble philosophers, that have not only believed in a God or Great Spirit, etc., but many have claimed they could feel it's presence and even claim to know it's intentions or will? You would think that just the overwhelming number (altho diverse in expression) would be more than enough evidence and would at least carry some weight, even with science.
 
I should really quote all of your post (totally to the point, and not rambling at all!), but this will suffice to give the flavour of your argument. Much of what you've said is what I would say to an atheist. The problem for me is that I have never found an argument which was not precisely balanced by a counter argument. "Diverse in expression" is a typical example. My theist self argues that for all the differences in expression, what religions have in common is the idea (amounting to a kind of universal truth) that there is some superpower out there which created us and maybe is even interested in us. But my atheist self points out that humans, because of their extreme awareness, need explanations for things they do not understand, and need reassurance in a world full of unknown dangers, suffering, and the knowledge that eventually they will die. The explanations are as varied as the societies that provide them, but as science demolishes the myths and false explanations, our more "sophisticated" religions have to change, and ultimately to seek refuge in whatever remains unexplained. This suggests anything but a universal truth.
 
However, my personal non-belief is not caused by faith in science. I don't believe science can ever come up with the answers to our basic questions. Nor is it caused by scepticism concerning NDEs and other so-called "paranormal" (I don't like the expression) experiences. I have a completely open mind on these, have moments of oneness with the world (the living world rather than the universe), and am as baffled by consciousness and imagination as everyone else should be. So my mind is not closed to the possibility of a UI of some kind. But...and of course the agnostic has to come up with a "but"...the theory that all these mysteries can be solved by an even greater mystery ... a form of eternally existing intelligence that does not depend on materials, is as endless as this universe and perhaps others too, is mindful of tiny specks like us ... is far, far beyond the reach of my intellect and imagination, and I have no intuition that tells me it must be there, let alone interested in us. At least Apollo, Freyr, Helios, Mithras, Surya and Tonatiuh all have the quality of being visible and of directly giving us life (they are sun gods). If I told you that the sun was a conscious being, would you believe me? If not, why not? (Billions of people throughout history HAVE believed it.)-You wrote: [...] "if you haven't already realized it, the kind of answers to these kind of questions (God, the afterlife, etc) can only be truly answered or understood through personal experience." I think that is right. And we always come back to subjectivity ... we are for the most part trapped within ourselves, with hopelessly limited vision and understanding. I'm afraid this applies equally to theist, atheist and agnostic, and the billions of people who believe are as subjective as those who don't. The fact that times have changed, and the existence of some kind of deity is no longer taken for granted, is no proof either way. Perhaps people used to be more gullible, or perhaps they were closer to Nature and to the truth. Who knows? Whether believers are "delusional" or not is a very blunt way of approaching the subject (and forms part of the conclusion to my "brief guide"), and I would hate to associate myself with Dawkins' use of the term, but in all honesty I can only answer: maybe, maybe not!
 
BBella: I would like to ask you what kind of an afterlife (saying there is one) would make sense to you?-I'm afraid it's the same problem as what kind I would like! It would only make sense if I kept my identity and was able to meet up with people I knew (preferably those I loved!) ... but (the key question) what would an eternal self living eternally with other eternal selves do throughout eternity? If you lose yourself, you might as well be dead. And the option you once offered of choosing to return to earthly life would only make sense if I knew I was myself (some people do claim to remember their previous lives, but I certainly don't). Does a cycle of being me and then not knowing I am me make sense? Eternal death makes sense, but of course that does not constitute an afterlife!