OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!

[QuarianRex]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Well, I think it's pretty obvious that the claim for the soul is for a 'substance' of some sort. Information cannot be 'immortal' after all. When the media it resides in is destroyed it goes poof.

Not as obvious as you might think. The idea of the soul being immortal is a relatively late conception. Among most ancient cultures, most notably the Greeks/Romans with Hades, and the Hebrews (grandaddy of christianity, a.k.a. the basis of modern western culture) with their Sheol, the afterlife was a place where souls gradually faded away until they forgot themselves and discorporated. The only thing that would maintain the identity of a dead soul was the devotion of the still living family. This is also the basis of most forms of ancestor worship.

This would imply that souls are stored within (or at least sustained by) the medium of human social memory.

[dogscoff]

This would imply that souls are stored within (or at least sustained by) the medium of human social memory.

If that's what a soul is- a meme- then I don't think any of us (even Fyron) would want to argue against its existence.

Of course it sounds to me (like most of religion does) like a nice, cozy little metaphor that people have taken too literally.

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by deccan:
I mean no offense to you in particular. After all, I know you mainly from your great work in keeping the FAQ here updated. But from my personal experience, theists tend to use the faith line when things get tough, but forget about it when it comes to disseminating their beliefs. This is what Carl Sagan called wanting to enjoy the Cachet of scientific respectability without being willing to pay its costs.

What do you mean by that statement? It is one thing to say that God exists, philosophically and logically. It is quite another to say "Why is [fill in the blank] happening in my life? And what does God have to do with it, if anything?" The actions of persons, at times, (and if theists are correct, God is a person) is not quantifiable by scientific means.

Again, to make things perfectly clear: I have no objections whatsoever if anyone says something to the effect that he believes souls exist because it's a personal, religious thing. I do object if anyone says that he believes souls exist and tries to convince others that souls exist due to some logical / scientific argument without properly spelling out that argument or properly defining "soul" in an unambiguous way.

May I ask a question - nothing personal intended, just trying to make a point. Have you ever taken a philosophy class? Like colllege level Phil 101 or the equivalent? I ask this because the way you keep coming back to "unambiguous" categories. Lots of things, even in scientific discourse, are "ambiguous". What, for example, *is* 'time'?

[dogscoff]

It is one thing to say that God exists, philosophically and logically.

I think the point he's making is that it's actually two things to say that God exists, philosophically and logically:
Number one is to say it exists philosophically (ie faith-based belief) and number two is to say that it exists logically (ie scientific proof-based belief).

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
I think the point he's making is that it's actually two things to say that God exists, philosophically and logically:
Number one is to say it exists philosophically (ie faith-based belief) and number two is to say that it exists logically (ie scientific proof-based belief).

Logic, as I am using it here, refers simply to the proper use of analogy and inference (i.e. the old "if P is Q, and Q is R, then P is R" stuff). Scientific inquiry uses logic, but logic is a much broader Category. You apply logic in philosophy (and yes, theology) just as you do in scientific experiements. So, to rephrase my original line, it is one thing to say that God exists philosophically, and make a good case of it...

[deccan]

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
What do you mean by that statement? It is one thing to say that God exists, philosophically and logically. It is quite another to say "Why is [fill in the blank] happening in my life? And what does God have to do with it, if anything?" The actions of persons, at times, (and if theists are correct, God is a person) is not quantifiable by scientific means.

Um, sorry I don't quite catch your point here. My point about the Carl Sagan statement is that often some theists (especially creationists) like to claim that their beliefs are supported with either empirical evidence or logical arguments that are comparable in quality to that of conventional scientific theories.

However the cost of bearing the scientific Cachet is that you have to be prepared to defend your arguments on a variety of fronts, i.e. the quality of your data, whether or not arguments are logically sound etc.

From personal experience, I've simply found that many theists who do make the claim that their arguments are logically and perhaps scientifically sound, when pressed, often fall back to the line that their beliefs simply don't have to be held to the same standard as the rest of science because they're based on faith.

May I ask a question - nothing personal intended, just trying to make a point. Have you ever taken a philosophy class? Like colllege level Phil 101 or the equivalent?

No, I've never taken a Philosophy 101. I've always meant to, but it isn't easy for me. I'm Malaysian and currently live in the Solomon Islands.

Last year, while on holiday, I'd met a fellow Malaysian who had done her Bachelor's degree in China and majored in philosophy. I tend to seek out people (especially females ) who are interested in philosophy to make friends with them. However, I was none too impressed with her aptitude.

Currently, I'm corresponding with a friend (female too ) who is doing a masters degree in Chinese Studies, with a heavy tilt towards philosophy at the National University of Singapore (which incidentally is considered a VERY good school). I'm not too impressed with what they teach her too.

I do read philosophy books. My standard reference on Western philosophy is Frederik Copleston's "A History of Western Philosophy", which I believe is still the most authoritative reference even today. I'm also a great fan of Daniel C. Dennett and I regularly read new entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I also greatly admire the articles on The Proceedings of the Friesian School. If you're interested, my own website is Calltoreason.org but I haven't bothered to update it in like forever. Too lazy I guess.

I ask this because the way you keep coming back to "unambiguous" categories. Lots of things, even in scientific discourse, are "ambiguous". What, for example, *is* 'time'?

Actually, what I meant was that when people use terms, especially terms that are so common and have so many varied meanings that they are prone to abuse, such as "love", "good", "soul" etc., they ought to define precisely and unambiguously what they mean when they are using that term. The fact that certain concepts may be innately ambiguous or fuzzy doesn't, in my opinion, exonerate one from that responsibility.

[ August 20, 2003, 11:52: Message edited by: deccan ]

[dogscoff]

I don't agree with the use of the word "philosophy" here. Sorry dogscoff. To put it another way, let's say that I greatly enjoy music by Britney Spears.

I only used that word becasue GW did. I think I'll relurk and let you two slug it out.

Before I go though- I've not met many atheists myself who use the "Why doesn't God solve X problem/ why does God let Y happen" argument.

Personally I look at the history of religion, the way it has evolved, the way it has been manipulated and adjusted and applied throughout the ages, and I came to the conclusion that it's either an entirely human invention (or more likely, misinterpretation- see my post earlier about souls as memes), or at the very least it has very little to do with what any real God wants/ wanted.

EDIT: Just had to comment on this-

questions of what God should be doing (in ones' opinion) are separate from whether or not He actually exists.

That's true, except where you dispute whether or not God is actually doing anything. After all, a universe where God never does anything at all is to all intents and purposes exactly the same as a universe where there is no God.

[ August 20, 2003, 14:36: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

[Suicide Junkie]

Slick: I think we are in agreement, we just don't realize it

[geoschmo]

Deccan, the attitude expressed by Mr. Sagan and held by you is that unless the creationist can prove the exsistance of God, a proof that few creationists will attempt and most acknowledge is impossible to do, that any alternative theories regarding the specific mechanics of life are invalid. The reason they fail your litmus test is not due to lack of support to their arguments. It's becuase you attempt to apply a specific argument to cover a general set of circumstances.

It is not neccesary for a creationists to be able to scientifically prove the exsistance of God to study creation any more then it is neccesary for an evolutionist to pinpoint the exact mechanism of evolution to study and believe the theory as a whole.

There are things that you and I are not able to understand about the universe despite our theories and hypotheses. Mr. Sagan on the other hand has found the answers, for better or for worse.

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
That's true, except where you dispute whether or not God is actually doing anything. After all, a universe where God never does anything at all is to all intents and purposes exactly the same as a universe where there is no God.

Well, that's the whole question, isn't it?

And that is what the cosmological and teleological arguments for God's existence covered. Until Kantianism and naturalism ruled the whole discussion out of bounds from square one...