Suppose It Was Revealed To Mankind There Is In Fact An After Life, What Then?

[maquiscat]

Just because the counter to this has to be done.

Pretty much the same situation. Something reveals, complete with irrefutable proof that we can verify, that an afterlife exists. Now we don't get the details, such as whether Heaven and Hell are separate destinations or it's more like Hades's realm or it's the Summerlands. Nor are we given any details as to whether or not there is a supreme being or what it's nature is. Simply revealed that when you terminate this mortal form, your move on to another form/life afterwards.

 

[WCH]

Just because the counter to this has to be done.

Pretty much the same situation. Something reveals, complete with irrefutable proof that we can verify, that an afterlife exists. Now we don't get the details, such as whether Heaven and Hell are separate destinations or it's more like Hades's realm or it's the Summerlands. Nor are we given any details as to whether or not there is a supreme being or what it's nature is. Simply revealed that when you terminate this mortal form, your move on to another form/life afterwards.

It still comes down to faith. Faith can't be proven.

 

[KevinKohler]

Assisted suicides among terminally old people would go up...but not much else would change. Something like 90% or more of the worlds population believes in an afterlife...this would only confirm something they already "knew".

 

[Andalublue]

As with the previous thread, my thoughts are that in addition to having to believe this revelation, one would first of all have to believe in revealed wisdom. I know that's not a stretch for followers of Abrahamic religions, but for the rest of us that would be a step too far. I couldn't believe in a message if I don't believe in any kind of messenger.

 

[lizzie]

I would still live the way I do now. I believe that life presents us with choices, and that we are to learn from the choices we make. Our choices don't condemn us, but facilate our understanding. Sometimes, it's like taking the scenic route, rather than the expressway.

 

[notquiteright]

Assisted suicides among terminally old people would go up...but not much else would change. Something like 90% or more of the worlds population believes in an afterlife...this would only confirm something they already "knew".

Actually according to a Ipsos/Reuters poll, 2011, 51% of the world believes in an afterlife. 23% is sure there isn't and 26% not sure.

Less than 40% of Americans believe in a heaven or hell scenario.

40% of Mexico believes in an afterlife but not heaven/hell.

41% of the planet believes evolution, 28% in creationism, 31% unsure.

I have always wondered how much influence the Church has on people's actions using the carrot of Heaven or the stick of Hell vs it is just a nice place to go and feel 'saved'.

 

[maquiscat]

Actually according to a Ipsos/Reuters poll, 2011, 51% of the world believes in an afterlife. 23% is sure there isn't and 26% not sure.

Less than 40% of Americans believe in a heaven or hell scenario.

40% of Mexico believes in an afterlife but not heaven/hell.

41% of the planet believes evolution, 28% in creationism, 31% unsure.

I have always wondered how much influence the Church has on people's actions using the carrot of Heaven or the stick of Hell vs it is just a nice place to go and feel 'saved'.

Does this account for those who believe that creationism and evolution are the same. I guess that would come under Intelligent Design.

 

[maquiscat]

It still comes down to faith. Faith can't be proven.

Which part of the irrefutable proof that can be verified did you not understand? The faith would come in the details and the "story" behind the afterlife. The proof only shows that there is an existence beyond what we call death, not which faith details it follows. Remember that this is a what if scenario.

 

[joG]

Just because the counter to this has to be done.

Pretty much the same situation. Something reveals, complete with irrefutable proof that we can verify, that an afterlife exists. Now we don't get the details, such as whether Heaven and Hell are separate destinations or it's more like Hades's realm or it's the Summerlands. Nor are we given any details as to whether or not there is a supreme being or what it's nature is. Simply revealed that when you terminate this mortal form, your move on to another form/life afterwards.

It would change Pascal's probabilities.

 

[notquiteright]

Does this account for those who believe that creationism and evolution are the same. I guess that would come under Intelligent Design.

Dunno, didn't see 'Intelligent design' as an option and pretty sure ID is not claiming Creationism and Evolution are the same. More like trying to dress-up Creationism with a fig leaf of pseudo science.

 

[rathi]

As an empiricist, I find both of threads terrible. Irrefutable proof isn't "revealed" by mysterious sources, it is gained through testable repeatable observations. If there were evidence an afterlife, that evidence would contain a mountain of nit-picky details that go beyond what people are comfortable with. For example, what actually ends up in the afterlife? It it only humans or does it include all animals? Does it include animals without a functioning nervous system like sponges? Given that the difference between one organism and another is merely the arrangement of atoms, what molecular structure determines the creation of a soul?

 

[maquiscat]

Dunno, didn't see 'Intelligent design' as an option and pretty sure ID is not claiming Creationism and Evolution are the same. More like trying to dress-up Creationism with a fig leaf of pseudo science.

That's at least one logical application of ID; guided evolution. There is nothing in evolution that eliminates the possibility of a guiding intelligence, nor (save by the most fundamentalist of interpretations) of creationism that doesn't allow for God (or whoever) to create through the evolution and other processes we scientifically describe to the universe's creation. That aside, (and I don't want to thread jack to for out) I was merely wondering if the poll allowed for anything other than the either/or viewpoint.

As an empiricist, I find both of threads terrible. Irrefutable proof isn't "revealed" by mysterious sources, it is gained through testable repeatable observations. If there were evidence an afterlife, that evidence would contain a mountain of nit-picky details that go beyond what people are comfortable with. For example, what actually ends up in the afterlife? It it only humans or does it include all animals? Does it include animals without a functioning nervous system like sponges? Given that the difference between one organism and another is merely the arrangement of atoms, what molecular structure determines the creation of a soul?

What molecular arrangement does light or gamma radiation have?

 

[notquiteright]

That's at least one logical application of ID; guided evolution. There is nothing in evolution that eliminates the possibility of a guiding intelligence, nor (save by the most fundamentalist of interpretations) of creationism that doesn't allow for God (or whoever) to create through the evolution and other processes we scientifically describe to the universe's creation. That aside, (and I don't want to thread jack to for out) I was merely wondering if the poll allowed for anything other than the either/or viewpoint

It had creationism, evolution and not sure.... so it wasn't either or.

The problem with ID is it has to throw out every failure in evolution and only look at the successes. It also has to ignore some very flawed methods of reproduction and anatomy.

ID would have had our wisdom teeth long gone, and ID can't deal with the examples that show predation/prey cycles driving a great deal of evolution. Blood types and genetic disorders are not intelligent. The very fact some genetic disorders come from mutations during reproduction seems counter to intelligent anything and certainly no guiding hand.

 

[rathi]

What molecular arrangement does light or gamma radiation have?

They aren't made up of molecules.

 

[maquiscat]

They aren't made up of molecules.

Then why do you assume a soul is?

 

[rathi]

Then why do you assume a soul is?

I'm not. I am pointing that if humans have souls and a tree doesn't, that means the specific combination of molecules in a human somehow have special properties that allow us to interact with souls. That implies we could manipulate a persons interaction with a soul by manipulating said molecules.

Lets posit a hypothetical mechanism. A "soul" is actually a specific form of particles which binds to dense neural activity you see in a human brain. Over time, the neural activity in the brain causes the soul particles to create distinct patterns which contain a persons personality. Upon death, the neural activity ceases, releasing the soul but allowing the pattern of the person's mind to remain. Such a scenario explains why humans have souls and trees don't.

The problem with my scenario is that it causes problems with the real reason souls were invented: quelling fears about human mortality. If the soul is based on neural activity, that means it could altered or even removed by brain damage. Having your eternal self be mentally ill is obviously horrifying. Perhaps the biggest flaw of religion is not even the claims it makes, but rather that it doesn't consider the implications of said claims.

 

[Mach]

I'd want to know how it occurred, why, how it relates to the rest of science, etc.
I would be thrilled for a second at the idea of something that huge being known.
I would be terrified a moment later know that the notion of eternal suffering or pain, or being trapped for eternity somewhere, is a reality that I cannot avoid.

Ever read Stephen King's the Jaunt?

 

[maquiscat]

I'm not. I am pointing that if humans have souls and a tree doesn't, that means the specific combination of molecules in a human somehow have special properties that allow us to interact with souls. That implies we could manipulate a persons interaction with a soul by manipulating said molecules.

Lets posit a hypothetical mechanism. A "soul" is actually a specific form of particles which binds to dense neural activity you see in a human brain. Over time, the neural activity in the brain causes the soul particles to create distinct patterns which contain a persons personality. Upon death, the neural activity ceases, releasing the soul but allowing the pattern of the person's mind to remain. Such a scenario explains why humans have souls and trees don't.

The problem with my scenario is that it causes problems with the real reason souls were invented: quelling fears about human mortality. If the soul is based on neural activity, that means it could altered or even removed by brain damage. Having your eternal self be mentally ill is obviously horrifying. Perhaps the biggest flaw of religion is not even the claims it makes, but rather that it doesn't consider the implications of said claims.

First off, despite religious assertions to the contrary, we don't know if trees or animals have souls or not. If we posit that the soul is some kind of coherent energy field, one we have yet to learn to detect, it would be logical to guess that it would be affected by the neuro-electrical properties of the brain. Or conversely, if the soul is in reality a energy based life-form, then its field may be affecting the brain's neuro-electrical properties. This energy field may also be a basis behind psionics, assuming one believes in them.

As to the issues you bright up, the interface between the body and soul could be as if the soul were a recording device or it could the equivalent of camera/microphone/sensors/whatever. In other words, damage to the brain results in improper input/output, but doesn't result in the soul itself becoming damaged.

The varity of potentials is vast especially when we review how much we have discovered that exists, that we were never aware of before. So then how much more is out there, affecting the universe around us, that we haven't even discovered, yet alone learn how to measure and/or manipulate.

I'd want to know how it occurred, why, how it relates to the rest of science, etc.
I would be thrilled for a second at the idea of something that huge being known.
I would be terrified a moment later know that the notion of eternal suffering or pain, or being trapped for eternity somewhere, is a reality that I cannot avoid.

Ever read Stephen King's the Jaunt?

By the OP, you wouldn't know that. For all you know there is no life after the next one, and/or the next one has a limited span like the current one does. You don't even know that you get to carry memories over from one life to the next, or maybe you do but you can't access them consciously. There is a wide range of potentials available by the way the OP is written.

 

[Dittohead not!]

How could such a thing be revealed?

We already have people who have died and returned, and told us that there is a life after death. That's not enough.
Scientific proof? Would that be enough? It isn't enough for evolution or for global warming.
Would God have to appear in the sky and tell the world, "Sure, there's life after death."?
People will believe what they want to believe regardless.

 

[maquiscat]

How could such a thing be revealed?

We already have people who have died and returned, and told us that there is a life after death. That's not enough.
Scientific proof? Would that be enough? It isn't enough for evolution or for global warming.
Would God have to appear in the sky and tell the world, "Sure, there's life after death."?
People will believe what they want to believe regardless.

We've also had many people who have died and returned and tell us there was nothing there. So which is it? An after life for some but not for others? Possible but somehow I feel rather unlikely.

You know sometimes I don't think people have enough imagination to truly answer a "what if" type of scenario, and to cover it up they have to come up with every reason why the situation could not happen. This isn't a direct shot at you Ditto. You're just the latest in a line.

 

[rathi]

As to the issues you bright up, the interface between the body and soul could be as if the soul were a recording device or it could the equivalent of camera/microphone/sensors/whatever. In other words, damage to the brain results in improper input/output, but doesn't result in the soul itself becoming damaged.

Your misunderstand. The souls would be perfect condition, having accurately captured the personality of the person even after the brain is damaged. The problem is that kind of truthful accuracy would horrify people. They want the soul of grandpa to be the kind smiling man they knew for most of their life. They don't want the incoherent rage filled monster he became in the last 6 months of his life after a major stroke altered his personality.

 

[Mach]

By the OP, you wouldn't know that. For all you know there is no life after the next one, and/or the next one has a limited span like the current one does.

That's a valid possibility given the OP, thanks for pointing out that it was broader than I judged it to be. Yet I'd still be terrified of the potential unknown of me being forced to be alive in some other aspect that I have no knowledge about.

You don't even know that you get to carry memories over from one life to the next, or maybe you do but you can't access them consciously. There is a wide range of potentials available by the way the OP is written.

That particular interpretation is logically contradictory and can be discarded. Compare to this: "you move on to another form/life afterwards." If I don't have my memories, I'm not me, and I wouldn't logically be "moving on" to anything in a reasonable context.

 

[Dittohead not!]

We've also had many people who have died and returned and tell us there was nothing there. So which is it? An after life for some but not for others? Possible but somehow I feel rather unlikely.

You know sometimes I don't think people have enough imagination to truly answer a "what if" type of scenario, and to cover it up they have to come up with every reason why the situation could not happen. This isn't a direct shot at you Ditto. You're just the latest in a line.

You're right. This is supposed to be a "what if" sort of speculation.

OK, then, I'll play along. Suppose that the dead actually came back and walked among us for a time, we could see them, talk to them, and know beyond any doubt that there is life after death. How would that change things?

First, some people still wouldn't believe it, as humans are too invested in believing what they want to believe, but most of us would lose our fear of death. People wouldn't fight so hard to survive cancer, for example, and would be more likely to risk their lives in other ways as well.

Soldiers would be easier to recruit, and wars more likely and bloodier.

The lonely and depressed would become even more depressed with the idea that suicide just leads to a different life, perhaps with all of the same problems.

 

[maquiscat]

Your misunderstand. The souls would be perfect condition, having accurately captured the personality of the person even after the brain is damaged. The problem is that kind of truthful accuracy would horrify people. They want the soul of grandpa to be the kind smiling man they knew for most of their life. They don't want the incoherent rage filled monster he became in the last 6 months of his life after a major stroke altered his personality.

I acknowledge that that is a possibility especially if the soul is a "recorder" of the person. But that is not necessarily the result if the body was the I/O interface of the soul with the corporeal world. Damage to the interface (the stroke in this example) while making it harder for the soul to interact properly with the world wouldn't necessarily cause any major alteration of the personality.

That particular interpretation is logically contradictory and can be discarded. Compare to this: "you move on to another form/life afterwards." If I don't have my memories, I'm not me, and I wouldn't logically be "moving on" to anything in a reasonable context.

Not necessarily. There are at least two possibilities. First is the one I said of you won't have conscious access to those memories. Which means that why you learned things from this life and they will influence the next, you won't realize it. Then there is the possibility that whatever it is that crosses over is a baseline personality/whatever and you basically start over and work through a new life developing new details. Now granted, I can't, at this moment, figure out what the point of this life would have been, well not for the second and the first is still rather iffy. But I also realize that there is plenty out there that we currently are just not developed enough to understand at this point in our collective development. So I can't say there wouldn't be a point.

You're right. This is supposed to be a "what if" sort of speculation.

OK, then, I'll play along. Suppose that the dead actually came back and walked among us for a time, we could see them, talk to them, and know beyond any doubt that there is life after death. How would that change things?

That is quite a different scenario than most are supposing, but well within the OP's vague suppositions. Interesting. However, this supposition would not be consistent with the concept that an after-life has always been there. This would be a new from-here-on-out type of after-life.

First, some people still wouldn't believe it, as humans are too invested in believing what they want to believe, but most of us would lose our fear of death. People wouldn't fight so hard to survive cancer, for example, and would be more likely to risk their lives in other ways as well.

Soldiers would be easier to recruit, and wars more likely and bloodier.

The lonely and depressed would become even more depressed with the idea that suicide just leads to a different life, perhaps with all of the same problems.

I can't really disagree with you based upon this particular version of life after death. I would say that there would probably be some variations in your results depending upon what happens with one's body between lives. If it is the same body that simply gets re-animated with the same soul again, people might not be as eager to engage in wars and such as one could eventually end up alive but immobile. But a new body every time....damn!

 

[Dittohead not!]

I acknowledge that that is a possibility especially if the soul is a "recorder" of the person. But that is not necessarily the result if the body was the I/O interface of the soul with the corporeal world. Damage to the interface (the stroke in this example) while making it harder for the soul to interact properly with the world wouldn't necessarily cause any major alteration of the personality.


Not necessarily. There are at least two possibilities. First is the one I said of you won't have conscious access to those memories. Which means that why you learned things from this life and they will influence the next, you won't realize it. Then there is the possibility that whatever it is that crosses over is a baseline personality/whatever and you basically start over and work through a new life developing new details. Now granted, I can't, at this moment, figure out what the point of this life would have been, well not for the second and the first is still rather iffy. But I also realize that there is plenty out there that we currently are just not developed enough to understand at this point in our collective development. So I can't say there wouldn't be a point.



That is quite a different scenario than most are supposing, but well within the OP's vague suppositions. Interesting. However, this supposition would not be consistent with the concept that an after-life has always been there. This would be a new from-here-on-out type of after-life.



I can't really disagree with you based upon this particular version of life after death. I would say that there would probably be some variations in your results depending upon what happens with one's body between lives. If it is the same body that simply gets re-animated with the same soul again, people might not be as eager to engage in wars and such as one could eventually end up alive but immobile. But a new body every time....damn!

If you speculate that life after death means reincarnation, then surely there would be a new body each time.

But, life after death does not necessarily mean reincarnation. Perhaps we just get one mortal life, then spend the rest of the time as spirits.

and the idea doesn't have to be a new sort of life after death. Just because we didn't know it existed, that doesn't mean it didn't. America existed before Columbus discovered it, in fact, even before the first mammoth hunters discovered it.