Would you prefer an afterlife, nothingness, or reincarnation after death?

As far as we can tell we are the only species that is aware of our mortality. It is our rationality and intelligence that leads us to questions of our existence. If we didn't we wouldn't actually fear or even wonder about death as a concept. Those type of questions cannot be answered empirically so that is where faith comes in.

 

On this particular planet, in this particular part of our galaxy, in this particular part of the universe, yes....

So, by virtue of our rationality and intelligence that leads us to questions of our existence... we indulge random illogical "faith" based ethereal contemplations in search of answers to those questions because they're readily, empirically observable....?

I fail to see how this demonstrate why this is an important part of understanding our existence... on equal footing with an actual scientific, logical, well-reasoned, empirical approach to those questions...

 

they're not readily, empirically observable*

 

Because it can't really describe or answer the fundamental questions of meaning or being alive.

The process itself doesn't necessarily define our existence.

A purely rational person would not spend time or emotional effort watching other people run around in a big rectangle to throw or stuff a specially crafted leather ball down a metallic rim.

 

Consider that, as far as we know, cows have no sense of their mortality. If one cow just lays down and dies among other cows they aren't really aware of how that even applies to them. Humans though are aware of mortality. We realize that we exist for only a very limited time. Humans are also curious so it is logical to try to seek to understand if there is something more than our physical existence. The fact that we fear death shows that this is a very important question regarding human existence.

The terms "logic", "rational", and "empirical" are frequently used interchangeably when there are important distinctions. "Rational" pertains to thought and as such thinking about an afterlife, soul and etc. are completely rational. "Logic" pertains to a structure of thought and since we are aware of the passage of time and mortality it is also logical to speculate about what happens after we die and even draw conclusions about that. "Empirical" applies to the sense and what can be sensed. Logic and rationality are not dependent on empiricism.

Anyway the point is that because we are thinking beings aware of our mortality the process is logical. The problem is that scientific method cannot resolve that process. This is isn't a knock on science or saying that we should substitute the faith process for science but pointing out that they deal with very different subject matter.

 

The terms "logic", "rational", and "empirical" are frequently used interchangeably when there are important distinctions. "Rational" pertains to thought and as such thinking about an afterlife, soul and etc. are completely rational. "Logic" pertains to a structure of thought and since we are aware of the passage of time and mortality it is also logical to speculate about what happens after we die and even draw conclusions about that. "Empirical" applies to the sense and what can be sensed. Logic and rationality are not dependent on empiricism.

Anyway the point is that because we are thinking beings aware of our mortality the process is logical. The problem is that scientific method cannot resolve that process. This is isn't a knock on science or saying that we should substitute the faith process for science but pointing out that they deal with very different subject matter.[/QUOTE]

The process... which you've explained as being sourced in human fear, something I've been pointing out here.. is logical... but, as we all know, human response to fear rarely yields a positive outcome other than individual survival... and tends to be a detriment to our progression as a society...

The "truths" this initially logical process fabricates and propagates around the world and are embraced without question... to the point of believing and arguing that it's conclusions are as soundly founded as anything uncovered, revealed, and learned through science... that in fact, in this particularly area of the human experience and human existence, is much more viable than science.... is NOT at all logical, or rational...

The fact we are discussing otherworldly preferences that were and are but mere human fabrications/concepts with no basis in reality, in a breath of likelihood or even remote possibility.... demonstrates this...

I just don't understand why such things have so much influence on people's lives today... I can't help but feel we should've progressed past this by now... It's fine to wonder what exactly happens in death... and wonder why we're here... After all, a very innate trait of being human is the ability to apply meaning... but why be so obsessed with the fear ...? In the end it's us and us alone that are applying meaning to everything around us.... take control of it... We may not be able to conquer death, as no living creature can, but as human beings, we certainly can conquer it's significance and meaning....Let's apply more of that to people or things we love in life and things that will benefit our fellow man beyond our individual lifespan... and less to everything after... It makes a hell of a lot more sense....

 

Although nothing can be concluded by this study, it does show that some animals do mourn - Animals mourning. If an entity mourns for the death of an individual even after years, doesn't that imply that they understand mortality?

 

People often say this to be nice to religion and to avoid controversy - but here I think Richard Dawkins probably has it right, there's really there's no logical reason not to use science to assess claims of magic men in the sky/supernatural creators that underlie most religions etc.

Also, there's an assumption of "disproving" - why should science have to disprove religions. IMO it's up to religions to prove that there's some merit to their claims to the extent they attempt to explain the physical universe.

 

Actually human response to fear is one of the main reasons why we've survived. Further if you are talking about the progress of a society fear has driven much of the development of our institutions and technology.

I think you are focusing too much on the answers rather than the process. I'm not arguing whether we should believe in a sky father or that we might come back as a turtle but that it is rational to wonder about what happens when we shuffle off the mortal coil.

That is part of the nature of rationality that we attempt to understand our existence even beyond what we can perceive. That is why I feel it is limiting and reductivist to just say that our existence is only bound by the physical.

I am not argue about how much influence religion has in people's lives and if you are saying that it has too much I would be inclined to agree with you. That said there is reason why we should consider death significant or ponder what may, or may not happen after it. This is more than just about fear but a question that is fundamental to understanding our existence whether we can answer it or not.

 

I think like Hmmm you're focusing more about the answers and about the level of influence that religion plays in society rather than about the process itself. I am not arguing for those but arguing about why this issue is important.

Except in your first sentence you are calling for science to disprove. I said the means of one shouldn't be used to prove or disprove the other. What is important though is recognizing the context that each play. I'm not going to rely on prayer to design a new airplane but at the same time I'm not counting on science to prove what sort of being I might (or might not) be reincarnated as.

 

Is that why you said it, or is it because the two aren't reconcilable and you want to avoid controversy or havign to take a side.

 

Take a side on what? I see no problem accepting both science and religion. You are perpetuating the view that they need to be in conflict. I don't see it that way.

 

Does the afterlife have strippers and or hot wings?

 

When religion tries to address the empirical, they are in conflict.

 

Which is why it needs to be understood that they deal with very different subject matter.

As much as I think it is a mistake to apply religion to science, such as in regards to Evolution, I also think to believe that empiricism is the end all and be all of existence is to. Too often these debates end up with those claiming to champion the side of science bashing the religious as being backward. Certainly many are but at the same time there are many who are religious who understand the roles that science and religion play.

 

They are fundamentally in conflict. One posits a supernatural - the other is set on defining the natural. You can try to get namby pamby and spin religion as more of a philosophy, but at its core, for all his down-to-earthness - Pope Francis has his top men investigating whether supernatural acts of magic can be deemed to have occurred in order to promote the next batch of saints. That's science, through and through.

 

Pope Francis might but the Catholic Church isn't all religions.

 

That's true concerning many who understand the roles but it's certainly not the majority as evidenced by polls asking questions concerning this topic. 64% of Americans believe the Noah's Ark fable is real and 73% believe in the virgin birth fable. A stunning number of people don't even believe in evolution. If anything, religious people's beliefs are regressing into a kind of dangerous religious fundamentalism.

 

Yes... greater and more sophisticated forms of social disconnection... reduced freedoms... cynicism, apathy towards our fellow man... To say nothing of racism, Christian/Jewish conservatism and socioeconomic entitlement... Muslim - and in-general religious - extremism... Senseless murder of unarmed youths and other atrocities fueled by human distrust and egoism... Worldwide backwards thinking sourced in and sustained over centuries by religious doctrine as often referenced in support of such regressive mentality... Sexual and emotional repression... Even self-deprivation in pursuit of spiritual ascension isn't entirely harmless... as it's actually prioritizing otherworldly enlightenment in neglect of what's physically made available to us here... by existence...

Why would existence (if it had a conscious identity) produce a physical conscious, sentient extension of itself... so it could deprive itself of itself in favor of it's non-existent state...?

Honestly, I could go on and on... I'm not saying anything new here... Human fear is great for individual survival (to an extent), but it's hardly contributed to our progression as a society... if anything it's been an obstacle...

Death isn't significant... it's the absence or loss of life that's significant... There is a difference... That's the all-too-human application of meaning...

It is reductivist and limiting to dismiss our physical existence as but a mere half to a whole...