Posted 23 November 2003 - 04:00 PM
Gewis: Being the black sheep of this community I am, I'm going to post my religious views on the subject ANYWAY. And here I thought you were a white sheep. As far as I know, you've always been welcome to post your religious views here.
(Yeah, that's right, you haven't scared me away yet.) I don't think it's been anyone's intention here to scare you away, Gewis.
"A Gateway to heaven or hell," of all the options, is closest to what I believe, but at the same time, not really close at all. It's more like a transition, from mortality to a spiritual state without a body, and really none too pleasant. (I was alluding to the popular image of heaven's gate. All the same, I can see your point; 'gateway' as a descriptor does have its limits) Sure, there's pleasure and happiness that come from righteous ('virtuous' is the best synonym for those who wonder) living, but the body has potencies and capabilities that the spirit alone can't even approach. That's why resurrection is necessary. (in my mind, the spirit is a growing manifestation of the body ~ both intimately and vigorously bound to it; if the body dies, the spirit dies with it).
"For this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." -Moses 1:39 (You won't find it in the Bible.) And Joseph Smith stated, "The sole object of human existence is happiness." Happiness is the point of our immortality. "And spirit and element, inseperably connected, receive a fulness of joy." -D&C 93. (in each of these references, I could just as easily interpret 'immortality' as 'physical immortality'; remember, the pronouncements of human authorities are not a substitute for what is true.)
Our chemical structure, hormonal processes, things that allow us to feel things with such strength and potency, are impossible without a physical substrate such as the body. (I agree) Natural law will not now, never has been, and never will be violated. (I think you mean that they cannot be violated with impunity) Those principles that govern the function and relation of all matter are universal, so it follows that God, understanding such principles, and being governed by the point that he's in absolute harmony with truth, would also have such a body for his own happiness and joy, and would provide the same opportunity for such for his children. (I can understand such principles; I can be in harmony with what is true; I can enjoy my body and be happy; and I can enjoin others to do the same) However, as a student currently working in nuclear physics on some pretty far out stuff, I think it's safe to say that our understanding of natural law is rather limited. (you don't know that; not until you have the perspective of someone who knows more ~ a lot more).
And to anybody who may say the dead have never come back to tell us what it's like. Well, you're right. They didn't come back to tell us what it was like to be dead; they had more important business to take care of. (how do you know that, Gewis?)
Ben Hijink: In the strict, original form of Buddhism, Nirvana IS oblivion (non action, the extinquishment of all desire, not good nor bad, just non-being - one gets there by letting go of concerns before death), so I chose that option just to be difficult. " ;~) (Ben, I appreciate the challenge, but I don't it's fair to say that nirvana is equivalent to oblivion. The former implies awareness sans desire and concern; the latter is devoid of it entirely)
Really though, there is so much label-identification that results from questions like these. (I share your reluctance to subscribe to labels). I'm a "negative-atheist" (hmmm) in that I see no compelling reason to think that conscious experience continues with out a body to support it, which is exactly what many people who call themselves agnostics think. (actually, agnostics wouldn't be sure whether conscious experience continues without a body to support it.)
At the same time, since we all lack omniscience, the most defensible position one can take is to honestly confront speculations and try to ascribe probabilities based on what can be observed. Nick Bostrom has been attempting to apply just such an inductive method through analytical philosophy when he deals with the possibility that we are living in a simulation. The simulation argument is actually much stronger than any of the numerous conflicting and self-contradictory religious notions of afterlife that emerged from prescientific cultures (in which revelation seemed to have a relatively high likelihood of being true). (a provocative and fascinating argument to be sure, but mere speculation nonetheless; I'm not sure how anyone could ever demonstrate it unless they were able to step outside of it and observe it "from the outside").
Even [if we] happen to be in a kind of simulation (which I would argue does not make our existence less "real"), there is no compelling reason (no compelling reason that you're aware of), based on what we might infer about the simulator culture, to expect that the simulators would have devised an elaborate method by which to make it *seem* to fellow simulations that a being had died only to bring the creature out into another realm of their simulation. A simulation based on the traditional notions of heaven and hell that can only be navegated by the luck of finding or being born into the *right* religious system is particularly "repugnant" to use that favoite phrase of the theologically-influenced (though he denies it) bioethicist Leon Kass. (I think if we pull back and look at "the big picture," we might find something more comprehensive and interesting; viz., religion, to those in charge of a simulator culture, might be just one more factor in the cultural and social evolution of a species; again, mere speculation).
Casanova: There is no death, in the sense of the utter obliteration of you. (how do you know for sure?) Some of the best thoughts on where we go, once we leave this troubled realm, are given by C. S. Lewis. (we're all entitled to our opinions, but if we make a claim, we must support it with evidence)
Of course your egoic participation in this veil of tears, called human history, will end, but then human history has seen it's best days, and it is all downhill from here, into the gutter of egalitarian totalitarianism, or as Tocquiville called it, Democratic Tolalitarianism. Combine that with Corporate Fascism, and you might as well pray for a gigantic solar flare to incinerate the earth's surface. (this is an interesting perspective, but unfortunately, one that is a product of fear and loathing).
The sin against suicide is probably another trick of the Demiurge (this is a mythical creation), to keep us all in this particular physical dimension, for as long as possible, as well as the preposterous plans of Tipler, and his Forever Machine. (I believe that everyone should have the option to live or die after a careful and fully informed consideration of the grave consequences with someone who is highly skilled to provide it).
You have to be in absolute radical denial of the endless irriritating frustrations, and cruelties of life and existence in this physcial realm, to want to go on living in it, for millions, and billions, of years. (not necessarily; we tend to attract what we harbour ~ if we harbor frustration, we attract frustration; if we harbor cruelty, we attract cruelty). There will be wars, dictators, natural disasters, alien invasions, massacres, pograms, exterminations of millions of human beings, political and business corruption, ever worsening acts of terrorism, etc. in the near, and far future. (this is the kind of speculation that comes from expecting the worse from humanity; not very enlightened to the say the least).
Existence is not nice. This is an actively hostile universe. Tragedy will get you, one way, or another. Count on it. (in the absence of intention, the universe is neutral to your hopes and dreams; if you expect tragedy, tragedy is all the more likely to befall you).
The old Doctor Who series was accurate in it's presentation of what we can expect in the future, and what we can expect of those who try to become immortal, and who try to become Gods (you don't know that for sure). Life in the universe is beyond the tragic, and smells of both farce, and absurdity. The Master knows something. (The Master knows nothing; life is what you make it; if you become fixated on farce and absurdity, that is what you will tend to see all around you).
kcisobderf: Personally, I think it is oblivion. And that's how I voted. But if I could wish for something more, it wouldn't be for me. I have a dearly beloved pet who is past halfway through his expected lifespan. I will grieve deeply when he dies, but I will feel more sorry that his life is so much shorter than mine. This is the third pet that I wish could be reincarnated and enjoy a better existence, in part because of my care and attention. Pet owners may know of the "Rainbow Bridge". It's purely fictitious but comforting all the same. (sometimes, we must find our solace where we can; even more important, however, is our willingness and ability to process and release our grief, sadness and anguish so that it doesn't taint our relations in the future)
darktr00per: What about the effects on the social organism. With immortality at the forefront people will become even more isolated and selfish. (they will if they focus exclusively on trying to control and manipulate their interactions and circumstances) The quest for immortality isself is selfish and based on individual suvival. (a more positive interpretation: the quest for immortality is earnest and based on individual fulfillment) As it is well known that changes (biological or other) happen as a social group not just a individual. I realize this could be many things. Another note-with the constant engineering of genetics or forms of reproduction.-mutations could occur. example with genetically engineeredplants could cross polinate and create a species that would destroy the whole eco system. I think that over millions of years nature has a good system and inderstanding of genetic material. (as has been said elsewhere, nature is not the final word on what is good for us; it can be improved, but in my view, it must be improved (or replaced) with care)
blally: Though, in all honesty, I should reply that I do not know, I chose to vote for oblivion. By doing so, it came to mind that such a decision is exemplary of how I opt to act - according to what I believe to be the most likely. Though epistemologically a staunch skeptic, I recognize that, in order to promote and effect positive change, one MUST subscribe to a certain ontology. No hypotheses can be formulated without acknowledging the possibility of a certain state of affairs. It may be argued that atheism is just as dogmatic as religion in that both make a claim as to what "lies out there" (for lack of a better term). A Christian, for example, would state, succintly: "I know what is out there - it is heaven"; an atheist would state: "I know what is out there - it is nothing". However, the distinction between the two ontologies arises not from their conclusions, but from their methods: the former relying on deductive non-falsifiable statements which are claimed to be irrefutable, the latter depending on falsifiable empirically-derived theories. So, though I would have to categorize myself, at the core, as an agnostic, I realize that, to posit anything meaningful, one must make an assumption as to our state of affairs and thus I voted oblivion. (my take on this is that it is better to first take the null assumption, viz., oblivion, but then to stay open to evidence that would indicate otherwise).
chubtoad: Most religions believe in a god that created the universe, but did not have to be created itself. If you wanted to, you could suppose that there was a god with the ability to create the universe which did not have the ability to create itself, but then you would have to beleive in another god with the ability to create that god. What if instead you take one step in the other direction. Now you have the universe with the ability to create itself. Adding a chain of one or more gods to the list just makes things more complicated. I don't know if you can apply Occam's Razor to something like this, but if you can the theory with least assumptions is just the universe had the attribute of not needing to be created. (creation implies a will; a view that is consistent with the assumption of oblivion is that the universe is eternal, in both directions; the content changes, but its existence remains a constant throughout).
azalyn: I had to pick "oblivion" because I have seen no evidence so far that consciousness can exist without a functioning brain. Of course, I am always open to the possibility that I could be wrong about absolutely everything. (I am always open to the possibility that I could be wrong about some things).
Lazarus Long: Look at the statistical variation forming, it is quite interesting. (yes, quite) We are demonstrating a demographic distribution inversely proportional to the common wisdom. No surprise there. (Indeed)
The vast majority of "expressed" opinion here among us is actually a variation on two themes that are not logically opposite; just alternative perspectives.
A: I don't know
B: I know it is oblivion
(I am intrigued by the number who chose "I honestly don't know;" in my eyes, this certainly bears further examination)
C: is a minor statistical bump in the middle representing the "acclaimed vast majority" of commonly held belief. The so called moral majority's tenets.
I suggest it is fair to call us heretics, or perhaps instead we reflect the reality that parochialism is no longer representative of the global common wisdom. (wouldn't it be nice if the latter were true?)
thefirstimmortal: Neither in the hearts of men nor in the manners of society will there be a lasting peace until we outlaw death. (Let us make death an option; I agree with Bruce: death should be an option ~ see my qualifications above)
Clifford Greenblatt: Originally posted by Sophianic: The assumption of oblivion after we die is, for many, a tough one to swallow. And yet, a belief or conviction in the value of life shaped by this assumption is much stronger for having been shaped by it.
There is some difficulty in this logic. If a person's true destiny is to be a brain surgeon, believing in a future of living on the public dole will certainly not be of positive value in preparing for a medical career. (two problems here: (1) 'true' destiny implies other-worldly pre-destination; and (2) a belief in a future of living on the public dole is not compatible with a strong belief in the value of life) The only people who could benefit from believing false things about their future are those who's true destiny is very dismal. (I submit that we are creators and masters of our own destiny; the responsibility for it is ultimately ours and ours alone) "Give booze to those who are perishing ... let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more."
The materialism vs dualism issue is crucial to everyone's destiny. In Biblical dualism, the physical housing of a person's spirit (i.e. the brain) may disintegrate, but a new and imperishable house will built for the same spirit. Oblivion is an assumption made by many materialists, but even an assumption that we are nothing more than an amazing organisation of elementary particles does not provide anything in the way of support for a permanent future of oblivion. The space between elementary particles may be regarded as a sort of oblivion but that space is not infinite. Loss of the subjective experience of consciousness in one spacetime locality does not exclude the possibility of it happening in another place, whether or not the different places can be related to each other by any system of spacetime coordinates. (my sticking point here is in your use of the term 'possibility'; a possibility is either an idle speculation or a tentative claim with some evidence in its favor; in the absence of the latter, I cannot stake my life on the former) Some notable hard core materialists are turning to the idea of an infinite multiverse to explain away the anthropic principle. In doing so, they are unintentionally but logically excluding the possibility of permanent oblivion. (the 'multiverse' is a misnomer; the universe could just as easily encompass all that is thought to exist in a multiverse; if a 'multiverse' contained wholly disparate worlds, we could never know it)
LongeCity
