Is no life-after-death, something to fear?

[ProdglArchitect]

If, at the moment of our deaths, we were told that there either was or was not an afterlife, would that retrospectively change or even discount the meaning that we had each found during it?

Yes, it would.

If everything amounts to nothing in the end then everything is meaningless. No matter how good or bad a life you lived, no matter how easy or difficult it was, you die and that’s that.

It doesn’t matter if humanity lasts until the end of the universe. At the end, it will all be shredded, crushed, melted, or whatever other possible end to the universe there is. It will all amount to absolutely nothing. Any meaning we ascribe to it will only exist in our minds, and will have no actual affect in the long run.

It will all be completely and utterly pointless.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

If, at the moment of our deaths, we were told that there either was or was not an afterlife, would that retrospectively change or even discount the meaning that we had each found during it?

Yes, it would.

That’s the only answer I wanted. Because it is predicated on the fact you agree that we can (and almost certainly will) live our lives both agreeing that we find value in it. That there is meaning in those lives. That truth and justice in those two existences actually matter.

That we might discover at the moment of reckoning that there is no ultimate purpose, then that would seem to be a depressing scenario for you. But not for me. In fact, I was going to say that I have come to terms with it. But that’s not quite correct. I have always accepted it as being entirely natural.

Does that change the way I live? Not in the slightest. Althought there are suggestions that as this is the only life we get we better make the most of it. But that’s as much of a suggestion as ‘breathing in and out is beneficial to your health’.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

Not for those of us who have faith.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

That truth and justice in those two existences actually matter.

Except they don’t at all, because in the end the sum outcome of that truth/falsehood and justice/injustice is the same. No matter what apparent good you bring about in your life, it will ultimately amount to nothing.

would seem to be a depressing scenario for you.

In actuality, it would be relieving on some level. Per my own convictions I am a deeply sinful man who can’t seem to get beyond certain inclinations. I frequently find myself in a state where, were I to die, I would be damned. It would be a relief if there was nothing, because then I would have nothing to worry about.

The point is that, no matter what personal meaning you inject into your existence, once you are dead that meaning ceases to exist. Others may adopt your meaning, and you may start the belief system that endures until the end of time, but eventually time will end, and all of it will have no more meaning than had that system never existed.

If there is nothing after we die, then there is nothing after everything dies, and where there is nothing there can be no meaning.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

That truth and justice in those two existences actually matter.

Except they don’t at all, because in the end the sum outcome of that truth/falsehood and justice/injustice is the same. No matter what apparent good you bring about in your life, it will ultimately amount to nothing.

would seem to be a depressing scenario for you.

In actuality, it would be relieving on some level. Per my own convictions I am a deeply sinful man who can’t seem to get beyond certain inclinations. I frequently find myself in a state where, were I to die, I would be damned. It would be a relief if there was nothing, because then I would have nothing to worry about.

The point is that, no matter what personal meaning you inject into your existence, once you are dead that meaning ceases to exist. Other may adopt your meaning, and you may start the belief system that endures until the end of time, but eventually time will end, and all of it will have no more meaning than had that system never existed.

If there is nothing after we die, then there is nothing after everything dies, and where there is nothing there can be no meaning.

But we experience meaning during our lives. And value. And meaning and value do not cease to exist when we cease to exist. A Bach cello suite doesn’t stop being beautiful when you die. Your family still has value. There is still justice. You obviously don’t experience these things when you are gone but they are still there.

To complain that at the end of time it is all just meaningless is almost borderline manic depressive.

‘…eventually time will end, and all of it will have no more meaning than had that system never existed.’

That is the most depressing thing I have read in a very long time. It could be a quote from Marvin the Paranoid Android:

 

[ProdglArchitect]

And meaning and value do not cease to exist when we cease to exist

That is a philosophical statement, one which is not born out by the realities of an after-life-less existence.

A Bach cello suite doesn’t stop being beautiful when you die

If it can no longer be played due to there being no one to play it, then it has effectively returned to non-existence.

Your family still has value.

Until they die. Then they have no more value than I have, or anyone else has once they’re dead.

There is still justice.

Until there is no one left to transgress / enact it.

To complain that at the end of time it is all just meaningless is almost borderline manic depressive.

It is a realistic examination of the question. No matter how long we last, eventually the universe will cease to exist. At that point, none of what has been accomplished will mean anything. We could colonize every planet in the universe, but once the universe it done for none of that will exist any more. It will, at that point, be relegated to utter meaninglessness.

That you don’t want to address this fact only means that you have haven’t actually thought through your own philosophy, as any serious consideration of the question cannot exempt this reality from the discussion.

That is the most depressing thing I have read in a very long time

It is depressing, it is also completely factual. That is why, taken to its only true end, the belief that there is nothing after death can only lead to complete and utter nihilism. Any meaning we attempt to inject into it is only a desperate attempt to stave off the realization that nothing we do has any meaning, and therefore we should either do whatever we want to derive pleasure while we can, or kill ourselves to avoid hardship.

To be clear, I do not hold this position. I believe that there is life after death, and everything we do has real meaning that will continue on long after we have died. However, that is only because we will also continue on after we have died. If we do not then, as I have stated here, eventually everything will amount to nothing, and life is truly and completely meaningless.

 

[billsherman]

That is why, taken to its only true end, the belief that there is nothing after death can only lead to complete and utter nihilism.

If this were true wouldn’t you think that Jewish people would be all nihilists? Except they aren’t. You’re projecting your own views on others. To quote a Pope: “There is another way!”

You could take the idea of no life after death in the direction of nihilism, or you could take it in one of any number of other directions.

 

[Freddy]

We could colonize every planet in the universe, but once the universe it done for none of that will exist any more. It will, at that point, be relegated to utter meaninglessness.

Well, I’ve got to decide what’s for dinner tonight. The kids are coming over. I’ll worry about the utter meaningless of a cold and lifeless universe later.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

If this were true wouldn’t you think that Jewish people would be all nihilists?

No, I don’t, because the lack of belief in an afterlife isn’t a universal Jewish belief.

You could take the idea of no life after death in the direction of nihilism, or you could take it in one of any number of other directions.

You can take anything in any number of directions, that doesn’t actually make your conclusion rational. I welcome you to refute my conclusion if you see it differently.

 

[billsherman]

You can take anything in any number of directions, that doesn’t actually make your conclusion rational.

But isn’t rationality purely subjective? That’s kind of my point.

You can look at things over different time horizons and come to vastly different conclusions on a rational course of action, right? If you own Apple stock and have a life expectancy of twelve months, a rational hope could be that they liquidate and return all their equity to shareholders. If you own the same Apple stock, but have a life expectancy of fifty years, you could rationally hope that the company continues to reinvest its earnings to grow over the next generations.

Both of those viewpoints can be viewed as either rational, or irrational, depending on who is doing the viewing. The same is true of life after death. You can view it in any number of ways, all of which will be rational to some people and irrational to others. Hence, the reason why there ARE in fact so many different views on an afterlife throughout human history (and presently!). No view of an afterlife is inherently more rational than another.

So, no, I don’t see how your conclusion that

taken to its only true end, the belief that there is nothing after death can only lead to complete and utter nihilism.

can be correct. There is no obviously reason why nihilism is the only place to go if you reject an afterlife. A good friend of mine is a Jewish rabbi, who does not believe in an afterlife, and he is without a doubt nothing even remotely close to a nihilist.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

But isn’t rationality purely subjective? That’s kind of my point.

No, it’s not. That’s relativistic thinking, and is itself irrational.

If rationality is subjective, then there’s no reasonable means by which to determine that a course of action is rational because there is no way to ensure that you yourself are being rational. There may be multiple rational courses of action in a given situation, but what is rational and what is irrational are knowable qualities given a set of circumstances.

Your example of stocks isn’t an apt one for the discussion because it involves too many unknowable factors. In situations like that there are multiple potential rational judgments that could be made given the user’s knowledge and other external variables.

The topic at hand deals with only two potentials with a handful of knowable variables.

• One, is there an afterlife? A simple yes or no.
• Two, is the universe going to end? Yes. We may not know the specifics of how, but this iteration of the universe, and everything contained within it, will end.
• Will all individuals eventually die? Yes. No matter how long we may live, when the universe goes we go with it. In most suggested ends of the universe, it will be impossible for life to exist long before the universe itself actually collapses, so there’s no avoiding this one.

So, the only variable factor here is whether or not there is an afterlife.

If there is, then what we do continues on after our deaths, and even after the eventual death of the universe. Our meanings do not stop with our hearts and brains, they continue on in whatever afterlife exists.

If there isn’t, the no matter what we do, or how long we last, eventually the universe will be destroyed and it will all amount to nothing. No matter what meaning we may give a life, the longest that meaning can continue to be remembered / acted upon is the end of the universe, at which point the final outcome will be no different than had that meaning never existed. This renders it all ultimately meaningless.

We ascribe meaning because we must, we have an instinctual understanding that life is not meaningless, that we must have a purpose. That is why your rabbi friend, and pretty much all the atheists/non-believers I know, believe it has meaning. However, if there is nothing external to this reality, no afterlife in which our actions may continue to have impact eternally, then it will all ultimately be meaningless. The fact that people don’t allow themselves to arrive at this conclusion doesn’t disprove it.

Given that we know life has meaning, then the only rational conclusion is that we also know that there is something afterwards, even if we’re unwilling to consciously acknowledge that fact.

 

[itsjustme]

No, it’s not.

Sorry, I’ve gotta side with @billsherman on this one, rationality is subjective, and your post clearly illustrates this.

I presume that you think that your argument is rational, but I have to disagree.

Case in point, the first premise:

• One, is there an afterlife? A simple yes or no.

There’s actually a third option…maybe. And it’s the third option that would appear, in this case, to be the rational option. Because rationality is relative to the available information. In this case your information is inconclusive, therefore “maybe” is the rational choice. However someone else may have different information, therefore what’s rational for them may be different than what’s rational for you or I.

Rationality is relative to the available information, and therefore subjective.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

There’s actually a third option…maybe. And it’s the third option that would appear, in this case, to be the rational option. Because rationality is relative to the available information. In this case your information is inconclusive, therefore “ maybe ” is the rational choice. However someone else may have different information, therefore what’s rational for them may be different than what’s rational for you or I.

If there is a potential for an afterlife with lasting consequences to exist, then the most rational course of action is to act as though it does exist. It doesn’t make sense to think you might experience eternal joy or eternal suffering and then chose to act as though that potential doesn’t exist. I know tons of people that do that, but it doesn’t make it a rational choice.

Given that, I paired it down to two. Either act as though it does, or act as though it doesn’t.

Rationality is relative to the available information, and therefore subjective.

I disagree. Given a set of knowledge, rational and irrational options exist. That knowledge may vary from person to person, and therefore each person may arrive at a different, rational, conclusion given their circumstances, but that doesn’t make the determination of rational / irrational subjective. A subjective statement is “I prefer this to that.” You could prefer an irrational course of action to a rational one. However, whether or not something is rational is based on the criteria going into that determination. I may prefer raisin bran to cinnamon toast crunch, but if I want to eat a sugary breakfast then the rational course is to eat cinnamon toast crunch.

 

[tafan2]

As a serious Catholic, who “looks forward to the resurrection of the dead and life in the world to come”, I am not for sure that I agree. At any rate, I think it may be a poor argument for faith. I base this on the history of Judaism. The Jews, starting with Abraham, gave us a belief in the one, true God, the creator of all things. Yet, early Jews certainly had faith and yet did not necessarily believe in life after death. It was a relatively late development in Jewish theology, one can say that it was not fully revealed until Jesus. Yet the Jews had faith, they believed in God, they though it worthwhile to live moral lives, to follow God’s commandments. One can say they found meaning in life.
Its a fallacy for atheists to say that religion, especially monotheistic religion, was created in our minds because we feared death. It most certainly was not. It is likewise a fallacy to say that if God had created us without mortal souls, our lives would not have meaning, the universe would not have meaning. There would still be a reason to love, to live a moral life.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

As a serious Catholic, who “looks forward to the resurrection of the dead and life in the world to come”, I am not for sure that I agree. At any rate, I think it may be a poor argument for faith.

I don’t actually hold this position, I am only arguing from the given criteria. I also don’t intend it as an argument for faith.

One can say they found meaning in life.

That’s not the question at hand though. The question was whether or not it has meaning. I can find meaning in just about anything, but when I die that meaning is lost, no different than had it never existed at all.

There would still be a reason to love, to live a moral life.

Why?

Other thank making my life easier, or deriving pleasure, all of which loses all meaning to me at the point of my death, why should I do any of those things if it doesn’t change the final outcome?

Again, to be clear, this is not the position I hold, but I’ve not seen anyone present a counterpoint to this.

 

[tafan2]

Again, to be clear, this is not the position I hold, but I’ve not seen anyone present a counterpoint to this.

I think there is a very good counterpoint, and this position of others, which you are presenting, harms evangelization IMO. The counterpoint has been given on this thread, but I will make an attempt to put my spin on it. Regardless of the “final outcome”, we certainly recognize suffering here on earth. Atheists can recognize suffering as well as people of faith. And no one sees it as inherently beneficial (site note: We catholics do see benefits to suffering, but the suffering is not a good in and of itself). So there is a point to charity towards others, there is a point in preventing and alleviating suffering, ie there is a point to leading a moral life.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I think there is a very good counterpoint, and this position of others, which you are presenting, harms evangelization IMO

Actually, I’ve made it clear that I don’t see anyone who does hold this position, or rather, I’ve only met a couple of people who do.

My point is that there’s no rational reason not to hold to this position if there is no afterlife, except maybe for the fact that doing so will probably result in you being abandoned by every other sane person on the planet >_>. The fact that people do not hold to this position tells me that everyone, on some level, perceives that there is something more than this life, whether consciously or not.

I also agree that we should do good, as does every atheist I know, but if there is no afterlife then there’s no objective reason for that to be the case. We all just instinctively know that we should. (A point in favor of natural law).

 

[tafan2]

Actually, I’ve made it clear that I don’t see anyone who does hold this position, or rather, I’ve only met a couple of people who do.

My point is that there’s no rational reason not to hold to this position if there is no afterlife

With all due respect, do you hold many positions that are irrational in your mind? If your rationality tells you it is a valid position, why do you not hold it? I would argue it is an irrational position.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

If your rationality tells you it is a valid position, why do you not hold it?

I don’t hold it because I fully believe in an afterlife, and Heaven and Hell, and God who loves me. I believe that life has meaning because God created us to have meaning and to be with Him forever.

However, if I were to stop believing in God, and if I were to suddenly decide that there is no afterlife, then yeah, that is the position I would hold.

 

[tafan2]

Ok, I think I understand now. You are saying that for an atheist it is the only rational position. ie, They have no rational reason to think there is meaning in life or to do good.
If so, then you and I disagree. I find that wrong, as I do see how they have a rational reason to do good, even though they are unbelievers and they likely find much meaning in life, in the world in general.
And I believe to hold this position and espouse it with regards to atheists is not helpful at all as an argument for faith. It is actually harmful. It comes very close to justifying those atheists who say " the only reason Christians do good is out of fear of hell".