Belief in Some Kind of "Afterlife"

[john_doran]

I believe God does not exist but I do believe in some kind of continued existence after death. I base it on my belief that my life is meaningful and that without a continued existence my life would not be meaningful.

i don’t understand this…

how could eventual personal non-existence have any impact on the meaningfulness of my life now? if i get married to the woman i love, how could the “meaningfulness” of that moment be lessened by my ceasing to exist 40 years from now?

what do you mean by a life being “meaningful”? is it something other than what makes individual actions or moments in a life, “meaningful”? it would seem that it must be different. but if so, why should anyone care about the meaningfulness of their “lives” judged as a whole, over and above the meaningfulness of all of the moments and actions that actually constitute that life?

in other words, if i can have a life full of meaningful actions and interactions, friendships, and moments of joy and peace and what-have-you; if i can have a life full of those things, but my life still be “meaningless” because i just cease to exist when i die, maybe my life is “meaningless” in that sense, but who cares?

similarly, if personal extinction doesn’t actually impact the phenomenology of all of the happy, fulfilling (meaningful) moments of my life, and the experience of each of those moments is all of the phenomenological data we have concerning their “meaningfulness”, then how do you know your life is not, in fact, “meaningless” in the way it will be if you are just snuffed out when you die? what are you pointing to as your evidence of this kind of meta-meaning that can only exist if you never stop existing?

 

[Newbie2]

Well, then follow your own advice. Choose to believe in the tooth fairy! Let me know if you succeeded. If you can freely choose to believe that the tooth fairy is real, you can score a big point.

And I cannot “choose” to believe whether the “evidence presented is credible or not” either. Belief is not a matter of volition.

Please do not try to say that belief in God is different from the belief in the tooth fairy. For me they are indentically absurd.

I’m not giving advice, just stating how it is. I choose not to believe in the tooth fairy.

So how do you come to a conclusion as to whether evidende of anything is credible or not? Why, you choose to believe it or reject it. To say otherwise is to say that you have no free will in the matter.

No, I won’t say that…you have chosen, based on the evidence presented, not to believe in either God or the tooth fairy.

To suggest that people can automatically change their beliefs on a whim is an insult to their dignity, though I don’t think you mean it this way.

How so?

I submit that the notion that people cannot choose their beliefs based on the available evidence is an insult to their dignity, quite the opposite of what you seem to suggest.

 

[ateista]

I’m not giving advice, just stating how it is. I choose not to believe in the tooth fairy.

Can you choose to believe in it? Not just say that you do, that would be easy and incorrect. But deep down in your guts, actually believe that the tooth faity really exists and brings a quarter to the kids? Really believe this?

So how do you come to a conclusion as to whether evidende of anything is credible or not?

That is the point. You consciously or subconsciously evaluate the evidence. But belief is an instinctive process, performed by the subconscious.

Why, you choose to believe it or reject it. To say otherwise is to say that you have no free will in the matter.

The proper wording would be “accept or reject” the evidence. That is not the same as a belief.

No, I won’t say that…you have chosen, based on the evidence presented, not to believe in either God or the tooth fairy.

I see no credible evidence for either. At most the evidence is what is called “hearsay”, the testimony of other people, who also had no credible experience, only hearsay… and so on.

For some people testimonial evidence is sufficient. But you should ponder, why it is rejected in the courts. Because it is unreliable.

 

[Newbie2]

That is the point. You consciously or subconsciously evaluate the evidence. But belief is an instinctive process, performed by the subconscious.

The proper wording would be “accept or reject” the evidence. That is not the same as a belief.

I see no credible evidence for either. At most the evidence is what is called “hearsay”, the testimony of other people, who also had no credible experience, only hearsay… and so on.

For some people testimonial evidence is sufficient. But you should ponder, why it is rejected in the courts. Because it is unreliable.

Do you have any reference for this?

I’m pretty sure this isn’t the case; i.e. that belief isn’t a cognitive function. For example, we don’t know each other. However, I believe that are an athiest as you say. This is based only on the evidence that you provide in your posts, nothing more. It is not a subconscious action; I’m taking your assertion at fact value.

We may be dealing somewhat in semantics here, but in my example, I accept your “evidence” in your posts and believe you to be an athiest. Can you explain a bit further how you see “belief” and “acceptance of (some kind of) evidence” to have different meanings?

You do have a point, that it ***is ***possible for one to “believe” in something based on, as one dictionary puts it,
“confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof”.

 

[john_doran]

I see no credible evidence for either. At most the evidence is what is called “hearsay”, the testimony of other people, who also had no credible experience, only hearsay… and so on.

For some people testimonial evidence is sufficient. But you should ponder, why it is rejected in the courts. Because it is unreliable.

that’s too bad, because 99% of everything you believe you believe on the basis of testimonial evidence…

 

[ateista]

that’s too bad, because 99% of everything you believe you believe on the basis of testimonial evidence…

Right.

But you know that the acceptance of testimonial evidence is merely an epistemological shortcut. In everything there is a finite chain of testimonials, and at the end there is an actual evidence, open to be examined and repeated. Exception: past historical events… and they are irrelevant, whether they are correctly reported or not. Apart from those I could personally verify the claims if I invested enough time and effort.

That is the missing piece when it comes to religious claims. There is no way to personally verify their reliability. There are only testimonials, and at the end of the chain (in the case of Christianity) there is a 2-3000 years old writ, loaded with scientific absurdities and contradictions. That is not much of a foundation to base my whole life on.

 

[ateista]

You do have a point, that it ***is ***possible for one to “believe” in something based on, as one dictionary puts it, “confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof”.

You keep dodging the question: are you able to exercise a conscious effort and really believe in the existence of the tooth fairy? Once you answer this question we can move on and discuss the reliability of evidence.

 

[john_doran]

Exception: past historical events… and they are irrelevant, whether they are correctly reported or not.

how are they irrelevant? you have no historical beliefs that you hold with any conviction at all?

ateista:

Apart from those I could personally verify the claims if I invested enough time and effort.

A) but you don’t actually verify them in this way; how can the possibility of verification affect the actual state of your knowledge?

how can you have actual certainty about some proposition that derives from your possibly checking the evidence for it? you might as well say that you’ll never ***actually ***get thirsty because it’s always possible that you might take a drink of water.

B) why should anyone believe that it’s even possible for you to verify all of your beliefs with “enough time and effort”? maybe you lack the intellectual acumen to do the requisite math or other reasoning; perhaps you lack the requisite engineering skill to build the experimental apparatus; and so on.

ateista:

That is the missing piece when it comes to religious claims. There is no way to personally verify their reliability. There are only testimonials, and at the end of the chain (in the case of Christianity) there is a 2-3000 years old writ, loaded with scientific absurdities and contradictions. That is not much of a foundation to base my whole life on.

A) you probably hold historical beliefs that have less historical support than the core historical elements of christianity;

B) much of christian doctrine is grounded in philosophy, which, like math, is capable of yielding knowledge without the need for experiment. that is, the testimonial chain terminates at discursions you can duplicate;

C) i’m not sure what “scientific absurdities” you’re talking about, or what contradictions, but i’d bet dollars for donuts that they’re straightforwardly explicable in ways not dissimilar to the ways in which scientific partisans explain incongruities in their own preferred theories.

 

[Newbie2]

You keep dodging the question: are you able to exercise a conscious effort and really believe in the existence of the tooth fairy? Once you answer this question we can move on and discuss the reliability of evidence.

I’m not dodging.

If I:

1. Wanted to believe in the tooth fairy and
2. Had some good reason to believe in the tooth fairy and
3. (Closely related to 2) ) Had convincing evidence that the tooth
   fairy existed, even though I’ve never seen (her?)

then yes, I could really believe in the tooth fairy.

None of these conditions exist, however.

In contract, all of these conditions exist, for me, if we substitute “God” for “tooth fairy”.

 

[ateista]

how are they irrelevant? you have no historical beliefs that you hold with any conviction at all?

Sure I do, but they do not influence my life in manner. As such they are not relevant. Yes, the ancient Romans said: “Historia est magistra vitae”, but that is just one of cute “sententia et proverbiae” they were so fond of.

A) but you don’t actually verify them in this way; how can the possibility of verification affect the actual state of your knowledge?

The difference is that those claims are based on facts. And facts cannot be denied. They have this nasty habit of objective existence, whether one believes them or not. None of the religions are based upon objetively existing and verifyable facts. They are all based upon stories, and nothing else.

B) why should anyone believe that it’s even possible for you to verify all of your beliefs with “enough time and effort”? maybe you lack the intellectual acumen to do the requisite math or other reasoning; perhaps you lack the requisite engineering skill to build the experimental apparatus; and so on.

And maybe I don’t. Fortunately it is not necessary. The monolith of science is not just a haphazard collection of theories. Whether the current explanations will hold or will be amended and superceeded does not put doubt on the objective collection of facts, they intend to explain.

A) you probably hold historical beliefs that have less historical support than the core historical elements of christianity;

Are you talking about the elements like “resurrection”, “virgin birth”, “ascension to heaven”, “papal infallibility” etc? I would be very interested in seeing historical support for them. Better yet, an explanation of how are they different from magic? A virgin birth in not impossible, but it can only generate a genetic equivalent of the mother, so the offspring can not be a male - unless of course “magic” is involved.

B) much of christian doctrine is grounded in philosophy, which, like math, is capable of yielding knowledge without the need for experiment. that is, the testimonial chain terminates at discursions you can duplicate;

If philosophy would be like math, it would be grounded in axioms. But it is not. The axioms of logic have no counterpart in metaphysics or in epistemology.

True, some lines of thought purportedly able to establish the existence of a generic “god” are repeatable. None of them is convincing because they rest on assumptions like “necessary being”, or have serious logical fallacies.

C) i’m not sure what “scientific absurdities” you’re talking about, or what contradictions, but i’d bet dollars for donuts that they’re straightforwardly explicable in ways not dissimilar to the ways in which scientific partisans explain incongruities in their own preferred theories.

I am here to listen. A few scientific absurdities I already listed under the core elements of Christianity. Let’s add a few more: the Bible asserts that the value of “pi” is exactly three. It talks about a “worldwide flood”. It talkes about ex-nihilo creation of matter and energy.

It asserts the existence of a “soul” independent of the mind, which survives the deterioration of the material structure it is based upon. It asserts the existence of an immaterial being, who is able effect material existence, which “exists” outside space and time, and material existence cannot effect it in any way.

It speaks of the Sun stopping on the sky. Back then of course people had no idea that the seeming revolution of the Sun is actually due the the rotation of the Earth, and stopping this rotation would create incredible winds - unless of course “magic” is involved.

How many dollars are you willing to bet?

 

[ateista]

I’m not dodging.

Very well. Maybe we are getting somewhere after all.

If I:

1. Wanted to believe in the tooth fairy and
2. Had some good reason to believe in the tooth fairy and
3. (Closely related to 2) ) Had convincing evidence that the tooth
   fairy existed, even though I’ve never seen (her?)
   then yes, I could really believe in the tooth fairy.
   None of these conditions exist, however.

There is still a disrepancy between what I asked and what to answered. I did not ask if you “could” believe, rather if you “can” believe.

You 1) objection is not a problem. “Wanting” is definitely a volitional action. You can choose to “want” to believe in the tooth fairy. I can choose to want to believe in God.

As for 2) you disregard the evidence of millions of children who keep finding quarters under their pillows. The occurrence of verifyable facts (the quarters) is there. But you discard this evidence because you don’t find it sufficient.

As for 3), that is where the “meat” lies. You don’t find the “evidence” convincing. And that is the part which is not subject to volitional action. No matter how hard you would try to tell yourself that the evidence is “convincing”, you would be unable to do so.

In contract, all of these conditions exist, for me, if we substitute “God” for “tooth fairy”.

And for me the two cases are identical.

I could “want” to believe in God. Actually I would like to believe in God. I can see the evidence brought up by the believers. The trouble is that none of the evidence is material and subject to independent verification. In that it is less reliable than the existence of quarters.

But the true and final obstacle is the credibility of the evidence. Just as for you the evidence is insufficient and not credible in the case of the tooth fairy, the evidence for God is not credible for me. You cannot choose to believe the insufficient evidence to become credible. I cannot choose the accept the insufficient evidence as credible.

And that is why I cannot choose to believe in God just like you cannot choose to believe in the tooth fairy.

 

[davidv]

Very well. Maybe we are getting somewhere after all.

There is still a disrepancy between what I asked and what to answered. I did not ask if you “could” believe, rather if you “can” believe.

You 1) objection is not a problem. “Wanting” is definitely a volitional action. You can choose to “want” to believe in the tooth fairy. I can choose to want to believe in God.

As for 2) you disregard the evidence of millions of children who keep finding quarters under their pillows. The occurrence of verifyable facts (the quarters) is there. But you discard this evidence because you don’t find it sufficient.

As for 3), that is where the “meat” lies. You don’t find the “evidence” convincing. And that is the part which is not subject to volitional action. No matter how hard you would try to tell yourself that the evidence is “convincing”, you would be unable to do so.

And for me the two cases are identical.

I could “want” to believe in God. Actually I would like to believe in God. I can see the evidence brought up by the believers. The trouble is that none of the evidence is material and subject to independent verification. In that it is less reliable than the existence of quarters.

But the true and final obstacle is the credibility of the evidence. Just as for you the evidence is insufficient and not credible in the case of the tooth fairy, the evidence for God is not credible for me. You cannot choose to believe the insufficient evidence to become credible. I cannot choose the accept the insufficient evidence as credible.

And that is why I cannot choose to believe in God just like you cannot choose to believe in the tooth fairy.

A couple of thoughts on the highlighted items.

1. Material evidence: Why is this the standard? It seems that this is not universally applied. Why only to spiritual matters? It doesn’t seem to apply to creative ideas, fantasies and other non-material things.
2. Credibility: What makes the sources of and transmission of the “hearsay” not credible?

 

[ateista]

A couple of thoughts on the highlighted items.

1. Material evidence: Why is this the standard? It seems that this is not universally applied. Why only to spiritual matters? It doesn’t seem to apply to creative ideas, fantasies and other non-material things.

Material evidence is factual. It is the norm.

Fantasies, dreams do not have to be substantiated. They are personal occurrences and as long as they are kept that way, they are not subject to verification. On the other hand, if I were to compel you to act on my fantasy, you could (and should) demand a substantiation and if it were not forthcoming, you could rightfully discard it.

1. Credibility: What makes the sources of and transmission of the “hearsay” not credible?

“Hearsay” can be reliable sometimes. If the witnesses are honest and they are good observers, one can take their testimony and act on them. But how do we know it?

The trouble is that many times the testimony is tainted by personal prejudices and incorrect observations. That does not mean that the witnesses are dishonest. They are just imprecise. Investigators are very much aware that 10 eye-witnesses may bring forth 10 different descriptions of what happened. One photograph will “trump” all the testimonials.

No wonder that in the court of law hearsay evidence in not permitted. And a ton of “indirect evidence” is trumped by one “factual, material evidence”.

The point is: the less “important” something is, the more lax we can be in accepting or discarding the dubious evidence. The more important something is, the more precision we demand when substantiating it.

 

[Newbie2]

There is still a disrepancy between what I asked and what to answered. I did not ask if you “could” believe, rather if you “can” believe.

As for 2) you disregard the evidence of millions of children who keep finding quarters under their pillows. The occurrence of verifyable facts (the quarters) is there. But you discard this evidence because you don’t find it sufficient.

Let’s limit ourselves to the opinions of those with fully developed cognition, OK? Most young kids will believe most anything that their parents tell them. Besides…this belief is only temporary until they are told and discover for themselves that the tooth fairy is a myth.

And I suspect I know what you’ll reply, “How is that different than a belief in God?”. The answer, of course, is that those who instruct their children or others about God aren’t doing so for fun or for entertainment as is done with the tooth fairy. You won’t hear a catechist tell his or her students a couple years later, “Yeah, all that stuff about God was just for fun, he doesn’t really exist”.

As for 3), that is where the “meat” lies. You don’t find the “evidence” convincing. And that is the part which is not subject to volitional action. No matter how hard you would try to tell yourself that the evidence is “convincing”, you would be unable to do so.

I agree with you here, in that here lies our discrepancy. Hmmmm…OK, to clarify, how would you explain those who are athiests who then believe and convert to Christianity? It would appear that the evidence for God doesn’t change. Or for that matter, in your opinion, how would you explain why people believe in God?

And for me the two cases are identical.

I could “want” to believe in God. Actually I would like to believe in God. I can see the evidence brought up by the believers. The trouble is that none of the evidence is material and subject to independent verification. In that it is less reliable than the existence of quarters.

But the true and final obstacle is the credibility of the evidence. Just as for you the evidence is insufficient and not credible in the case of the tooth fairy, the evidence for God is not credible for me. You cannot choose to believe the insufficient evidence to become credible. I cannot choose the accept the insufficient evidence as credible.

And that is why I cannot choose to believe in God just like you cannot choose to believe in the tooth fairy.

Am I correct then, in thinking if there was credible (in your mind) evidence, you would believe that there is a God?

 

[john_doran]

Sure I do, but they do not influence my life in manner. As such they are not relevant.

not true: having conviction in propositions that your own epistemology tells you are unjusitifiable, is a matter of huge import in your intellectual life: it demostrates that you do not value consistency.

so how can we have a productive conversation if you are willing and able simply to be arbitrary in your judgment?

ateista:

The difference is that those claims are based on facts. And facts cannot be denied. They have this nasty habit of objective existence, whether one believes them or not. None of the religions are based upon objetively existing and verifyable facts. They are all based upon stories, and nothing else.

you miss my point: i will, arguendo, concede that many of your beliefs are based on “facts” that are capable of empirical verification.

still, how does ***possible ***verification of a proposition in any way lend warrant or justification to that proposition; if the epistemic ideal is actual (dis)confirmation of belief, how can you have warranted belief based on “i could, but have not, made the actual confirmation of this belief”. it just makes no sense.

i mean, say i believe the proposition “the moon is made of green cheese”. if all that is necessary for warrant is that it is possible for me to verify a belief, then presumably i am warranted in believing that i would find cheese if i went to the moon simply because it’s possible that i make the trip.

ateista:

And maybe I don’t. Fortunately it is not necessary. The monolith of science is not just a haphazard collection of theories. Whether the current explanations will hold or will be amended and superceeded does not put doubt on the objective collection of facts, they intend to explain.

A) again, not the point: whatever happens to the current theories, you actually have conviction in some of them now, despite not having actualy done the confirmatory work yourself; you believe them based solely on testimony.

B) your belief that science is “monolithic” could not be more wrong. seriously. you might want to do some reading into the history and philosophy of science - it is a enterprise of human beings, and as such is subject to its own brand of sociology. it is as much a “monolith” as politics. (cruising the various pysics fora would be eye-opening, as well - watching famous scientists ridicule each other and certain theories will quickly disabuse you of the idea that science is practiced by the coolly and rationally impartial. for real).

of course, there’s no dispute about the numbers that are coughed-up by accelerators or bubble chambers and the like: but there are massive disputes about what those numbers mean, not to mention all of the other philosophical underpinnings of the various disciplines.

it’s kind of funny, actually: you seem to be basing your scientific belief simply on what you understand to be the opinion of the majority. which is about as inimical to your stated empirical epistemology as you can get…

 

[john_doran]

Are you talking about the elements like “resurrection”, “virgin birth”, “ascension to heaven”, “papal infallibility” etc? I would be very interested in seeing historical support for them. Better yet, an explanation of how are they different from magic? A virgin birth in not impossible, but it can only generate a genetic equivalent of the mother, so the offspring can not be a male - unless of course “magic” is involved.

you’re conflating two aspects of historical record: 1) the statement of what happened, and 2) the explanation of how it happened.

whether or not mary’s conception was virgin, there was a jewish girl who gave birth to a man called Jesus in 1st century palestine. that’s a fact.

now, when it comes to evaluating the supernatural elements, you are simply rejecting them out of hand based on a certain ***philosophy ***about the possibility of miracles. if, on the other hand, you accept that miracles can occur, the evauation of supernatural biblical claims takes on an entirely different texture.

if you want to discuss the very coherence of miraculous events, i’m game. but it’ll be a philosophical discussion. not a historical one.

ateista:

If philosophy would be like math, it would be grounded in axioms. But it is not. The axioms of logic have no counterpart in metaphysics or in epistemology.

philosophy is like math in the sense that it attempts to determine what must be the case.

it is ***not ***like math in the sense of “commanding (almost) universal assent” (but then, neither is science).

ateista:

True, some lines of thought purportedly able to establish the existence of a generic “god” are repeatable. None of them is convincing because they rest on assumptions like “necessary being”, or have serious logical fallacies.

an argument’s “being convincing” isn’t the same thing as its “being correct”; i hope i don’t need to trot out (historical) examples to support this.

the arguments that you find unconvincing, i find totally compelling; where you see logical fallacies, i see none, at least none that aren’t either errors of reasoning on your part, or that aren’t based on gratuitous assumptions.

ateista:

I am here to listen. A few scientific absurdities I already listed under the core elements of Christianity. Let’s add a few more: the Bible asserts that the value of “pi” is exactly three. It talks about a “worldwide flood”. It talkes about ex-nihilo creation of matter and energy.

A) the bible isn’t a math textbook;

B) depends on what is meant by “worldwide”;

C) whether you think ex-nihilo creation is problematic will depend on your metaphysics.

ateista:

It asserts the existence of a “soul” independent of the mind, which survives the deterioration of the material structure it is based upon. It asserts the existence of an immaterial being, who is able effect material existence, which “exists” outside space and time, and material existence cannot effect it in any way.

It speaks of the Sun stopping on the sky. Back then of course people had no idea that the seeming revolution of the Sun is actually due the the rotation of the Earth, and stopping this rotation would create incredible winds - unless of course “magic” is involved.

as i say, all of these “problems” are simply explainable - if other threads pop up to deal with them, then maybe i’ll join in.

 

[rinnie]

Ateista, Yeah im back your biggest nightmare, but at least we know now where we stand, I will try have more compassion. Now here is my question, Do you believe in good and evil. and do you feel they exist. Also do your believe you have an inner soul?

 

[Jean_Anthony]

It is very easy in the Philosophy forum to chase side issues, but PLEASE stay on topic, everyone. If you wish to discuss side issues take them to new or existing threads. I will have to close this thread if it continues to stray because it is not fair to the OP or others who wish to discuss his/her topic.

 

[ateista]

I agree with you here, in that here lies our discrepancy. Hmmmm…OK, to clarify, how would you explain those who are athiests who then believe and convert to Christianity? It would appear that the evidence for God doesn’t change. Or for that matter, in your opinion, how would you explain why people believe in God?

This would really lead us to some path unrelated to this thread. We can explore such questions in a different thread.

Am I correct then, in thinking if there was credible (in your mind) evidence, you would believe that there is a God?

Yes, of course. That is a given.

 

[ateista]

Ateista, Yeah im back your biggest nightmare, but at least we know now where we stand, I will try have more compassion. Now here is my question, Do you believe in good and evil. and do you feel they exist. Also do your believe you have an inner soul?

You are far from being a “nightmare”. Since these questions should be explored in a different discussion, I will just give a very short reply here.

Good and evil do not exist as ontological entities. I believe that there is good and evil behavior.

No, I do not believe in a soul, if by the word “soul” you mean an immaterial “substance” which is independent from my physical existence. We can explore such questions at our leisure in another thread.