One.
A good friend of mine died this week, so I’ve been thinking a lot about grief. It is a surprisingly selfish process. I don’t feel bad for my friend. I feel bad for me. I guess this should be true for anyone who believes there is no afterlife or that their loved one is in a pleasant afterlife--heaven, most commonly. In the first case, like with me, there is no longer any friend to feel bad for. In the second, the friend is now better off than those he left behind. Unless one expect’s that their dead friend is in hades, no worries.
Two.
Atheists, who obviously don't offer prayers or comforts of the beyond, generally offer condolences by saying that the passed lives on in our memories. This should make me feel better, but it kinda bums me out. I know how flawed memory recall is. I know that some of what I remember of him has faded or has been altered and that this will only get worse the more I think back on him. This seems to be one of those cases where being informed backfires. Ignorance is, occasionally, bliss.
Three.
So is there any chance my friend still exists? The only comfort I can come to is that it's possible that there is a multiverse and my friend has duplicates still kicking, perhaps infinitely so. In some universes he didn't die. In others he survived and is wildly successful. In others still he died younger or was never born, but let's not dwell on those. This notion isn't so much supported by evidence as it is speculation based on interpretations of theoretical physics, but it's a hell of a lot more likely then, well, hell.
The service is Sunday and it will be Hindu in nature, which should be interesting. Thanks for reading.
Showing posts with label death. Show all posts
Showing posts with label death. Show all posts
Thursday, March 5, 2015
Monday, September 8, 2014
For Heaven to be Perfect, You Can’t be There
If heaven is defined as the best possible afterlife, there are at least as many concepts of heaven as there are religions in the world. I’d argued there are as many different concepts of heaven as there are people who have ever considered it. Perfection is seemingly a subjective idea as strange as that sounds. Be it virgins, streets of gold, reunions with family, or nirvana, most agree that the bad things we experience in life, do not occur in heaven. They don’t occur because they fundamentally can’t.
If I’m in heaven and a fellow worthy dead guy wants to do something I don’t like, they just can’t do it because it would conflict with my perfect world. Yet if they can’t act on their desires, then their experience is lacking and therefore not a fulfillment of their ideal. The only way around this is to say, despite appearances, perfection is not subjective. There is one perfect experience for all of us, we are just not yet able to know it. This still poses a problem--that person who knows this hypothetical objective perfection, isn’t you.
Even predicting you will become that person is folly. That person is so fundamentally not you that I’m completely justified in saying that aren’t going to heaven. Heaven, as understood by believers, is an infinite dimension after our finite life. That means any being that can experience things will experience an infinite amount of happiness there. That being will also experience an infinite amount of sadness, guilt, suffering, envy, ect. In fact, an eternal timeline for any of us will result in an infinite amount of every positive and negative emotion and response. If the being who goes on to such a place is anything like us, it really doesn’t matter whether we go to heaven or hell--the experience is functionally the same. For heaven to be devoid of the negative, we must be rendered incapable of experiencing everything from pain to boredom. By the time you are a being who is like that, that being won’t bare any resemblance to you.
Think about yourself at five years old. You are likely made up of entirely different atoms today. You think entirely different thoughts and have entirely different knowledge. Some memories may be shared, but chances are most only feel the same and are different from what actually happened. That child is the you of the past, but is only tangentially related to the you of the present. Imagine how much more different the you of the future would be divorced from most of the experiential ability, intelligence, and freedom of will we’re capable of now. It would be like a saying a computer that has had all it’s software and hardware replaced is the same computer. No, you’re not going to heaven. If heaven exists, that other guy is.
Come to terms with the fact that collectively we aren’t compatible with a universal perfection and work towards a best-case world in which everyone gets a fair shot at social happiness.
If I’m in heaven and a fellow worthy dead guy wants to do something I don’t like, they just can’t do it because it would conflict with my perfect world. Yet if they can’t act on their desires, then their experience is lacking and therefore not a fulfillment of their ideal. The only way around this is to say, despite appearances, perfection is not subjective. There is one perfect experience for all of us, we are just not yet able to know it. This still poses a problem--that person who knows this hypothetical objective perfection, isn’t you.
Even predicting you will become that person is folly. That person is so fundamentally not you that I’m completely justified in saying that aren’t going to heaven. Heaven, as understood by believers, is an infinite dimension after our finite life. That means any being that can experience things will experience an infinite amount of happiness there. That being will also experience an infinite amount of sadness, guilt, suffering, envy, ect. In fact, an eternal timeline for any of us will result in an infinite amount of every positive and negative emotion and response. If the being who goes on to such a place is anything like us, it really doesn’t matter whether we go to heaven or hell--the experience is functionally the same. For heaven to be devoid of the negative, we must be rendered incapable of experiencing everything from pain to boredom. By the time you are a being who is like that, that being won’t bare any resemblance to you.
Think about yourself at five years old. You are likely made up of entirely different atoms today. You think entirely different thoughts and have entirely different knowledge. Some memories may be shared, but chances are most only feel the same and are different from what actually happened. That child is the you of the past, but is only tangentially related to the you of the present. Imagine how much more different the you of the future would be divorced from most of the experiential ability, intelligence, and freedom of will we’re capable of now. It would be like a saying a computer that has had all it’s software and hardware replaced is the same computer. No, you’re not going to heaven. If heaven exists, that other guy is.
Come to terms with the fact that collectively we aren’t compatible with a universal perfection and work towards a best-case world in which everyone gets a fair shot at social happiness.
Friday, October 18, 2013
Brain Death and Other Happy News
The belief of a soul or spirit that can exist independent of a brain is a romantic idea that I don’t often go out of my way to debate. After all, believing that the essence of one’s identity continues after death is an understandable comfort to those dealing with mortality. That said, I’ve been asked recently why exactly I don’t believe in disembodied consciousness and figure that here is the perfect place to record my thoughts.
Strictly speaking, this isn’t an atheist issue. The existence of a God doesn’t imply an afterlife nor does the absence of a deity imply that there can’t be a hereafter. The fact that the two beliefs are so often tied speaks to how religions have positioned themselves to appeal to desires in order to gain a following. By this I mean that a master who must be worshiped and a church that must be paid doesn’t fulfill many emotional wants, however, a master who can eternally reward worship and a church that serves as the proxy for heaven--that’s desirable to many. Still, the afterlife, like God, is an issue for skeptics. Neither can be proven or specifically understood and they both rely on supernatural assumptions. It’s impossible to say for certain that we don’t wake up somewhere else post-mortem, but below are my reasons for doubting.
There are many ways to show that my consciousness (or my mind/spirit/soul/self--depending on definitions) is directly tied to my physical brain. Drink too many beers and I become less inhibited, more friendly, and slower to process new information. Drink enough, and my consciousness goes on hiatus entirely--and booze is just the tip of the iceberg. When considering the full range of effects pharmacology has our brain, how can anyone deny that chemicals are a catalyst for how we think and behave? We observe higher levels of serotonin or dopamine when happy. Age wears down the brain as much as any other bodily organ--resulting in sluggish thinking, memory loss, and confusion--which in some cases are diagnosable as Alzheimer's or Dementia. There is a laundry list of contributing evidence that shows as goes the brain, so goes the mind. The reasonable conclusion is that when the brain goes completely, (dies) so does the self. I get it, it's a bummer, but desire does not dictate reality.
Strictly speaking, this isn’t an atheist issue. The existence of a God doesn’t imply an afterlife nor does the absence of a deity imply that there can’t be a hereafter. The fact that the two beliefs are so often tied speaks to how religions have positioned themselves to appeal to desires in order to gain a following. By this I mean that a master who must be worshiped and a church that must be paid doesn’t fulfill many emotional wants, however, a master who can eternally reward worship and a church that serves as the proxy for heaven--that’s desirable to many. Still, the afterlife, like God, is an issue for skeptics. Neither can be proven or specifically understood and they both rely on supernatural assumptions. It’s impossible to say for certain that we don’t wake up somewhere else post-mortem, but below are my reasons for doubting.
Monday, June 3, 2013
Explanations
A natural explanation is always better than a supernatural explanation. This goes for theories, hypothesises, guesses, hunches anything--if it relies on the natural it is preferable by the sheer fact that we know that the natural exists and don’t know the supernatural exists. This will remain true until we have proof of miracles, repeatable experiments in clear violation of natural laws, or something to confirm that magic is real.
This may seem obvious, but the religious rarely apply the rule to the claims of their church. For instance, Christians often claim the best evidence supporting their faith is the empty tomb of Jesus Christ.* This is really the linchpin of Christian apologetics. While whether or not there ever was an empty tomb as described in the bible is debatable, if we assume the resting place of JC was revealed to be empty--there are so many better explanations than resurrection. Examples follow.
There are good reasons why these scenarios are unlikely, but I find them all more likely than the divine reanimation of Jesus’ corpse. Each explanation, outside of the last option, we know could happen. They are consistent with our experience of reality. We have evidence that the man we now refer to as Jesus existed. We have evidence that this man had followers with an interest in spreading his word. We have evidence that government employees sometimes act outside or against their duties. We have evidence that religious motives can drive people to lie and break the law. We have evidence that bears exist and eat any available meat when hungry enough. Some of this evidence is not ironclad, but it’s something. This is enough to show that the above options (outside the alien bit) are possible, if not probable.
The problem with positing a divine resurrection is that we can’t even say that it is possible. We’d need evidence that both God exists and that the dead can rise, neither of which we have. In fact, brain activity returning days after brain death is contrary to everything we know about neuroscience. The heart beating again after rigamortis sets in is in direct conflict with biology. This brings me back the the alien option. Clearly an alien moving JC is excessively unlikely, but is it possible? Well, just as we don’t have evidence for divine resurrections, we don’t have evidence of intelligent alien life, but there’s a difference. Aliens are not in conflict with science. There’s nothing that prohibits life starting and evolving on another planet. Because of this, an advanced race with seemingly no motive for abduction taking a religious leader is possible while said religious leader getting up and walking away from a crucifixion is not.
*In my experience, apologists most often refer to the empty tomb as evidence supporting their faith, more so than even eye witness accounts of Christ risen. It’s as if they realize that accounts of witness could be fabricated yet believe there is still an empty tomb somewhere sealed from 2000 years of tampering that we can use as “exhibit A.” This obviously isn’t the case. There are plenty of natural explanations for eye witness accounts that are more valid than divine resurrection by the same rule referenced above--most notably that they are, in fact, fabrications.
- Early Christians could have removed the body to propagate the resurrection lending validation to Christianity.
- Authorities could have lied about the true location of Jesus’ tomb to keep Christians away.
- Secretly Christian authorities could have kept the body for themselves in hopes Jesus’s reputation for healing was valid postmortem.
- A bear inside the tomb could have eaten Jesus’ body.
- Aliens could have removed the body just to mess with us.
The problem with positing a divine resurrection is that we can’t even say that it is possible. We’d need evidence that both God exists and that the dead can rise, neither of which we have. In fact, brain activity returning days after brain death is contrary to everything we know about neuroscience. The heart beating again after rigamortis sets in is in direct conflict with biology. This brings me back the the alien option. Clearly an alien moving JC is excessively unlikely, but is it possible? Well, just as we don’t have evidence for divine resurrections, we don’t have evidence of intelligent alien life, but there’s a difference. Aliens are not in conflict with science. There’s nothing that prohibits life starting and evolving on another planet. Because of this, an advanced race with seemingly no motive for abduction taking a religious leader is possible while said religious leader getting up and walking away from a crucifixion is not.
*In my experience, apologists most often refer to the empty tomb as evidence supporting their faith, more so than even eye witness accounts of Christ risen. It’s as if they realize that accounts of witness could be fabricated yet believe there is still an empty tomb somewhere sealed from 2000 years of tampering that we can use as “exhibit A.” This obviously isn’t the case. There are plenty of natural explanations for eye witness accounts that are more valid than divine resurrection by the same rule referenced above--most notably that they are, in fact, fabrications.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Friday, October 5, 2012
Mortality Week: Could God Kill Himself?
Could God create a stone so heavy even He couldn’t lift it? How does God know what it is like to learn if He has always known everything? These are just a couple examples of logic busting paradoxes that an idealized deity runs into. I’ve posed these questions to apologists who explain them away as illogical...but that’s kind of the point. If they think God can hold his omnipotent title while being confined by logic, fine. Thinking about mortality this week, I thought of a new question. Could God kill himself?
There is nothing illogical about this question. Suicide is something you or I can do fairly easily (although I don’t recommend you try.) I’ve reached out to a few high-profile apologists with this question. No answers. None. I’ve never gotten such a lack of feedback from these people.* I guess it’s because they know the repercussions of the question.
I’ve come to realize that I may never be able to convince a true believer that God is imaginary, but if this question can convince them that God is either mortal or less-than-omnipotent, I’m at least making some headway.
From my understanding, the biblically accurate answer is that yes, God could kill himself. We are made in his image, so anything we can do, he should be able to accomplish. A theist might argue that God can’t sin and suicide is a sin. To this I say that He clearly sins in the bible by wiping out masses of people on more than one occasion. The theist would then either have to grant me that God sins or take the stance that anything God does is inherently not a sin, which makes suicide not a sin if and when God commits it. This isn’t a question of whether God would commit suicide, it is a question if He could.
Any theists who would like to weight in on this, please do so in the comments or by email or on Twitter or by...carrier pigeon? Anything, just show me how I’m wrong. Until then, let’s just agree that your God ain’t what He used to be.
Upon further Googling, I realize that I'm not the first to ponder this question--even though I arrived at it organically. The only answers out there from the theist perspective I have already covered or fall under the "puny humans can't comprehend God" category. These same people then go on to explain all about God...paradoxes within paradoxes.
I’ve come to realize that I may never be able to convince a true believer that God is imaginary, but if this question can convince them that God is either mortal or less-than-omnipotent, I’m at least making some headway.
From my understanding, the biblically accurate answer is that yes, God could kill himself. We are made in his image, so anything we can do, he should be able to accomplish. A theist might argue that God can’t sin and suicide is a sin. To this I say that He clearly sins in the bible by wiping out masses of people on more than one occasion. The theist would then either have to grant me that God sins or take the stance that anything God does is inherently not a sin, which makes suicide not a sin if and when God commits it. This isn’t a question of whether God would commit suicide, it is a question if He could.
Any theists who would like to weight in on this, please do so in the comments or by email or on Twitter or by...carrier pigeon? Anything, just show me how I’m wrong. Until then, let’s just agree that your God ain’t what He used to be.
Upon further Googling, I realize that I'm not the first to ponder this question--even though I arrived at it organically. The only answers out there from the theist perspective I have already covered or fall under the "puny humans can't comprehend God" category. These same people then go on to explain all about God...paradoxes within paradoxes.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Monday, October 1, 2012
Mortality Week: Afterdeath
Welcome to Mortality Week! (not to be confused with my past theme of Morality Week) Everyday this week I'll be posting articles relating to what it means to be mortal. Mostly it means we're gonna die. Death is certain. The afterlife? Less so.
Grundy on the Christian Afterlife
I was a Christian for twenty years and I still don’t have a clear picture of heaven. The bible is somewhat contradictory and somewhat vague on the topic. The church has done it’s best to fill in the blanks, but “the” church is really just “a” church and every denomination is a bit different. If I had to cobble together a consensus, all I can say about heaven is that “it’s nice.”
A believer would probably say that it’s perfect, but my perfect might not be your perfect--but we are probably going by God’s perfect which likely isn’t either of ours perfect. Last time the Almighty made paradise it had an evil, talking snake in it, so I’m not making any assumptions.
Then we have the problem of eternity. I call it omni-bordeom, because you can, and will, have too much of a good thing. The are only two ways around this. One is a divine-lobotomy that takes away your ability to become bored, but once we get into God fundamentally changing who you are, can we say that it is really you that lives past this mortal coil. The other option is continuing the human tradition of shitty memories. I might live forever, but I’ll only remember the past fifty years or so. This undermines the idea of both eternity and perfection, but it’s better than getting sick of your favorite movie.
Grundy on the Muslim Afterlife
72 virgins, right? Better comedians than I have written every joke that can be written about the Muslim afterlife. Honestly, I have a feeling there is more to it than non-Muslims think. I’m not saying that it isn’t a stupid and misogynistic view of the hereafter, but it could very well be not stupid and misogynistic in quite the way I imagine. Until I’m more educated, no comment, but I’m pretty sure they suffer from the same downsides of eternal life.
Grundy on the Hindu Afterlife
Like Islam, my understanding of Hinduism is that of an American outsider. At first glance, I kinda wish it was true. The idea of Karma is the fairest motivator to be moral in all the religious traditions. Instead of our acts for the span of 0 to 100 years being the subject of judgment to determine our next infinity of years, we have a system of judging one life to determine the starting point of our next life. We trade the two extreme options of heaven and hell, to a sliding scale. If an afterlife exists, I’d like it to be this one...but I’m not holding my breath.
Grundy on the Atheist Afterlife Death
When I tell people that I believe that nothing happens to us when we die, it is usually met with some variation of “that’s depressing.” (This is often coming from people who think everlasting punishment is an option.) Depressing or not, we have no reason to believe that we have a soul or spirit or anything more than what our living brain provides. Wishful thinking does not dictate reality. Even if you find some argument for God convincing, which you shouldn’t, that doesn’t mean an afterlife is a given. Just because something is eternal, doesn’t mean that we are. The only reason almost every religion connects an appealing afterlife with their God, is because we wouldn’t worship the God or obey the religious leaders otherwise.
Am I glad that there probably is no afterlife? Not particularly. I’d rather have reincarnation or some reunion with lost friends, but not at the expense of knowing that others could be unjustly suffering. Hell is universally unjust.
Hitler doesn’t deserve eternal torment. There, I said it. I’m not sure what he deserves. Maybe an ass full of red hot coals. Maybe a painful death and rebirth for every Jew who died in the Holocaust and every soldier who died in World War II. That would be an “eye for an eye” revenge that only a supernatural deity could exact. This would be overkill, pardon the pun, but it would still be infinitely more just and humane then eternal torture. I don’t think believers ever quite wrap their brains around “forever,” if they did I’d expect a lot more objections.
No afterlife is at once more depressing and more comforting than most religious alternatives, but not by design. Atheists hold certain beliefs because there is no evidence to believe otherwise. The afterlife will forever be beyond our knowledge. It is up to you to either believe your preference, or to go with the most educated guess.
Grundy on the Christian Afterlife
I was a Christian for twenty years and I still don’t have a clear picture of heaven. The bible is somewhat contradictory and somewhat vague on the topic. The church has done it’s best to fill in the blanks, but “the” church is really just “a” church and every denomination is a bit different. If I had to cobble together a consensus, all I can say about heaven is that “it’s nice.”
A believer would probably say that it’s perfect, but my perfect might not be your perfect--but we are probably going by God’s perfect which likely isn’t either of ours perfect. Last time the Almighty made paradise it had an evil, talking snake in it, so I’m not making any assumptions.
Then we have the problem of eternity. I call it omni-bordeom, because you can, and will, have too much of a good thing. The are only two ways around this. One is a divine-lobotomy that takes away your ability to become bored, but once we get into God fundamentally changing who you are, can we say that it is really you that lives past this mortal coil. The other option is continuing the human tradition of shitty memories. I might live forever, but I’ll only remember the past fifty years or so. This undermines the idea of both eternity and perfection, but it’s better than getting sick of your favorite movie.
Grundy on the Muslim Afterlife
72 virgins, right? Better comedians than I have written every joke that can be written about the Muslim afterlife. Honestly, I have a feeling there is more to it than non-Muslims think. I’m not saying that it isn’t a stupid and misogynistic view of the hereafter, but it could very well be not stupid and misogynistic in quite the way I imagine. Until I’m more educated, no comment, but I’m pretty sure they suffer from the same downsides of eternal life.
Grundy on the Hindu Afterlife
Like Islam, my understanding of Hinduism is that of an American outsider. At first glance, I kinda wish it was true. The idea of Karma is the fairest motivator to be moral in all the religious traditions. Instead of our acts for the span of 0 to 100 years being the subject of judgment to determine our next infinity of years, we have a system of judging one life to determine the starting point of our next life. We trade the two extreme options of heaven and hell, to a sliding scale. If an afterlife exists, I’d like it to be this one...but I’m not holding my breath.
 |
| Via Flea Snobbery |
When I tell people that I believe that nothing happens to us when we die, it is usually met with some variation of “that’s depressing.” (This is often coming from people who think everlasting punishment is an option.) Depressing or not, we have no reason to believe that we have a soul or spirit or anything more than what our living brain provides. Wishful thinking does not dictate reality. Even if you find some argument for God convincing, which you shouldn’t, that doesn’t mean an afterlife is a given. Just because something is eternal, doesn’t mean that we are. The only reason almost every religion connects an appealing afterlife with their God, is because we wouldn’t worship the God or obey the religious leaders otherwise.
Am I glad that there probably is no afterlife? Not particularly. I’d rather have reincarnation or some reunion with lost friends, but not at the expense of knowing that others could be unjustly suffering. Hell is universally unjust.
Hitler doesn’t deserve eternal torment. There, I said it. I’m not sure what he deserves. Maybe an ass full of red hot coals. Maybe a painful death and rebirth for every Jew who died in the Holocaust and every soldier who died in World War II. That would be an “eye for an eye” revenge that only a supernatural deity could exact. This would be overkill, pardon the pun, but it would still be infinitely more just and humane then eternal torture. I don’t think believers ever quite wrap their brains around “forever,” if they did I’d expect a lot more objections.
No afterlife is at once more depressing and more comforting than most religious alternatives, but not by design. Atheists hold certain beliefs because there is no evidence to believe otherwise. The afterlife will forever be beyond our knowledge. It is up to you to either believe your preference, or to go with the most educated guess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)