The terrifying thought of no afterlife

[Cycel]

Okay, let me give you a different perspective, Cycel. Faith is what you put your trust is, the lens by which you see the world.

You see the world through the lens of what you can only sense.

I see the world through Christian understanding.

I am going to play the old dictionary game again.  The Oxford Dictionary of English (ODE) offers two definitions for faith:

i) complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

ii) strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

When you admit to seeing the world through Christian eyes your are admitting, it seems to me, seeing the world through the doctrines of a religion.  I would think you might also acknowledge basing your beliefs on spiritual convictions, thought I think you are less likely to admit not having proof.  This latter point, I think, is where you might have the biggest hang-up for the definition.  This 2nd definition, for me, is the one that immediately comes to mind when I think of the word faith.  You can see, then, why I would probably object myself to any assertion that I possess faith.

Though I do see the world through a lens based on evidence constructed from the physical world, I don't recognize this as a matter of faith.  Your faith, it would seem to me, precludes change.  You might correct me on this if I am wrong.  Because of spiritual convictions I imagine you are locked into believing the same things over time.  New evidence doesn't cause you to modify your beliefs about God, or does it?  Those, like myself, who rely on physical evidence from the world to establish our perceptions of it, change our views when conflicting evidence comes available.  I don't think that anyone who maintains views of the world based on physical evidence would ever insist they had complete trust in any scientific claim, as per the 1st definition.  My world view prevents me from having complete trust and so is the opposite of having faith.

Faith is something you believe in. It's the precursor to a philosophy. I talk about the Christian faith, that is the beliefs, the theology of our Church, etc. Faith is dogma, and everyone has a certain dogma they live by, whether it be atheists or believers.

Dogma is tied closely to claiming possession of absolute truth.  Let's look at the dictionary again.

dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

That -- incontrovertibly true -- part, is an integral part of dogma.  This is what sets scientific theories apart from religious doctrine.  The demand that something is incontrovertibly true is never heard in science.  Conservative Christians frequently make much of the observation that hypotheses in science are often here today and gone tomorrow.  They perceive change in science as proof that scientists don't know what they are talking about.

I recognize that dogma is tied up with faith which is another reason I object to the assertion that I possess faith.  I hold that one species may evolve into something different, but  give me good reason to believe this view is wrong and I will change my mind.  I am not locked into an incontrovertible truth.  My views are not dogmatic.

[McQ]

Message here is requesting that people remain civil.

If you think I'm referring to you, I probably am, but I'd just like to remind everyone that we are trying very hard to make this forum elevated above the standard internet sandbox forums, where people use veiled or overt sarcasm and attacks during what would otherwise be productive discourse. Please give others the benefit of the doubt. Ask to clarify rather than assume things.

This could be an awesome thread, but it is devolving. Also, try to keep in mind that non atheists who come here are already outnumbered, and may feel like people are ganging up on them. Take the high road.

(yes, we get trolls and spammers and jackasses in here, and when we do, feel free to be more "blunt" with them!)

Achronos has been extremely civil, and has remained much calmer than I would have the patience for in this thread.

He has not asked for my input here, but I have read this whole thread from the time it started, and it is not going in a positive direction as far as civility goes.

I'm not asking for anything here other than future posts step it up several levels on the manners and civility scale. Drop the old stuff, and move forward.

Thank you. No one needs to respond to this in the open forum, so let's just get going in a positive direction please.

Just to clarify, not all posts have been bad, and most of this has been ok. Just parts of many posts, some entire posts, and more and more jabs are starting to appear.

[Cycel]

Are there any agnostics present who could way (sic) in and lend their view?

agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

most of us know that we can't be 100% sure of anything regarding God

As far as I am concerned Achronos is Agnostic

Except that Achronos appears to believe in the existence of God.  He is a Catholic, yes?  He is not an agnostic.  An agnostic would assert that we cannot know if God exists.

[Stevil]

Except that Achronos appears to believe in the existence of God.  He is a Catholic, yes?  He is not an agnostic.  An agnostic would assert that we cannot know if God exists.

I am very new at these labels, but as far as I have learned agnostic and believing in god are not mutually exclusive. Remember that belief is not based on proof otherwise it would be fact. Achronos is an Orthodox Christian, not Catholic. I can't speak for him so don't know if he would go so far as to say he was Agnostic but I see his statement as fitting perfectly within the Agnostic description.

I personally don't see it as a bad thing or anything negative on Achronos if he is agnostic I don't see it as contrary or weakening towards his belief in his god. So I certainly hope this isn't seen as a dig! But if he is agnostic then his statements would be relevant to an Agnostic viewpoint. I just thought it would be worth pointing that out.

[LegendarySandwich]

Are there any agnostics present who could way (sic) in and lend their view?

agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

most of us know that we can't be 100% sure of anything regarding God

As far as I am concerned Achronos is Agnostic

Except that Achronos appears to believe in the existence of God.  He is a Catholic, yes?  He is not an agnostic.  An agnostic would assert that we cannot know if God exists.

Agnostics can still believe in God, they just recognize that they cannot be one-hundred percent certain that he actually exists. So, honest theists.

[Achronos]

Thanks for your reply Achronos.  The time you took is appreciated.  I have chosen to respond to your discussion on faith in a later post.  One problem we have here is that we work from different definitions.  I use a different definition for the words faith and agnostic than you do.  I've decided to address agnostic first, simply because its a bit quicker to answer.

True agnostics see the world through no particular understanding necessarily. They doubt a strict materialistic worldview, but they also doubt transcendant worldview.

I think you have reshaped the meaning of agnostic.  You see it as a middle ground between our two positions, accepting neither one: expressing skepticism on botIT Ih the transcendent and materialist world views, agnostic to both; but that is not the original meaning, nor is it the Oxford dictionary definition.
 

agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

To my way of thinking the word agnostic implies skepticism toward the legitimacy of the sources of knowledge used to prove the existence of God.  That is its meaning.  It does not imply skepticism to anything else.  The agnostic may be skeptical of other things, but the only thing you can know for certain is that he remains unconvinced that anything can be known for certain about God. Agnosticism does not imply skepticism toward science, the scientific method or those things examined by this method.

I think you have taken the word agnostic and modified its original meaning so that it implies skepticism toward all things.  I suspect most who call themselves agnostic have no difficulty perceiving materialistic explanations as trustworthy.  I don't think they doubt the 'materialistic worldview.'  I suspect most agnostics see the material world as the only certain source of knowledge that we possess.

So you are saying that you have embraced inconsistency: the scientific method is just a method, one which Kuhn has shown has led to often contradictory results. But the agonstic, so you say, will swallow that and put away his doubt, while criticizing the theologians.

By the way, I first came interested in Orthodoxy coming across the statement that Orthodoxy teaches that agonosticism is the natural religion of man, since finite man cannot comprehend the infinite God. But Orthodoxy does not lead to agnotiscism, because God has revealed Himself.

As for reshaping "the meaning of agnostic," perhaps it would pay to look at its creator.

I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objections to the doctrine. No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble himself about a priori difficulties. Give me such evidence as would justify me in believing in anything else, and I will believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter...It is no use to talk to me of analogies and probabilities. I know what I mean when I say I believe in the law of the inverse squares, and I will not rest my life and my hopes upon weaker convictions...

That my personality is the surest thing I know may be true. But the attempt to conceive what it is leads me into mere verbal subtleties. I have champed up all that chaff about the ego and the non-ego, noumena and phenomena, and all the rest of it, too often not to know that in attempting even to think of these questions, the human intellect flounders at once out of its depth.

I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school. Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel. I cannot see one shadow or tittle of evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe stands to us in the relation of a Father [who] loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts. So with regard to the other great Christian dogmas, immortality of soul and future state of rewards and punishments, what possible objection can Iâ€"who am compelled perforce to believe in the immortality of what we call Matter and Force, and in a very unmistakable present state of rewards and punishments for our deedsâ€"have to these doctrines? Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them.

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"â€"had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.

So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.

In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticis ... nry_Huxley
Was Huxeley's physics the same as Einstein's?

As I'm typing, in the background I have "The Story of Us," another "History Channel" production, but better than most. They are now talking about Prohibition, and have Bill Maher speaking on it, of course saying "anyone can tell you that you cannot legislate morality." Though he has a BA from Cornell, they couldn't find anyone with more authority (say a historian, ethicist, social scientist, etc. rather than a stand up comedian) to speak on the subject, or did they just need someone to deliver a line?

[Sophus]

Does this discussion have a goal or endpoint in sight anymore? I mean it's all very interesting but I don't think we're talking about "the terrifying thought of no afterlife" anymore. Seems to keep branching out into more and more subjects.

So you are saying that you have embraced inconsistency: the scientific method is just a method, one which Kuhn has shown has led to often contradictory results. But the agonstic, so you say, will swallow that and put away his doubt, while criticizing the theologians.

If this is the Kuhn's I think you're referring to that was some number of years ago and he was looking at the broad history of science. Though I'm curious about what contradictions you think there are in the method itself.

Was Huxeley's physics the same as Einstein's?

Huxley was a biologist. Do you mean metaphysics?

[Achronos]

Does this discussion have a goal or endpoint in sight anymore? I mean it's all very interesting but I don't think we're talking about "the terrifying thought of no afterlife" anymore. Seems to keep branching out into more and more subjects.

I've been trying to bring this up every so often, but it seems the discussion of my own beliefs are far more important than the OP. Which is fine and all but perhaps we should move our discussion to another thread? The afterlife is a fascinating topic all its own in my opinion.

If this is the Kuhn's I think you're referring to that was some number of years ago and he was looking at the broad history of science. Though I'm curious about what contradictions you think there are in the method itself.

I didn't say there there was any contradictions in the method itself. Just in the claims made for it.

Huxley was a biologist.

Yes, I know that. Largely self taught too.

Do you mean metaphysics?

No. Physics.  Einstein didn't specialize in metaphysics.The conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter can come under metaphysics, but I believe Huxley meant physics.

[Ihateyoumike]

Wow. A whole post by achro without using the word sophomore. Impressive.  

[Cycel]

Except that Achronos appears to believe in the existence of God.  He is a Catholic, yes?  He is not an agnostic.  An agnostic would assert that we cannot know if God exists.

I am very new at these labels, but as far as I have learned agnostic and believing in god are not mutually exclusive. Remember that belief is not based on proof otherwise it would be fact. Achronos is an Orthodox Christian, not Catholic. I can't speak for him so don't know if he would go so far as to say he was Agnostic but I see his statement as fitting perfectly within the Agnostic description.

I personally don't see it as a bad thing or anything negative on Achronos if he is agnostic I don't see it as contrary or weakening towards his belief in his god. So I certainly hope this isn't seen as a dig! But if he is agnostic then his statements would be relevant to an Agnostic viewpoint. I just thought it would be worth pointing that out.

I was wrong about his being Catholic it would seem.  Not sure where I got that notion.  While I can accept that a person who calls himself an agnostic may lean toward believing, or not believing, in God, I cannot imagine that anyone who declares specific truths about God can justifiably use that term.  I will have to look back to see whether Achronos has made any such declarations, but it seems out of place in my mind that anyone who calls himself orthodox would not make specific claims. The definitions seem at cross-purposes.

[McQ]

Wow. A whole post by achro without using the word sophomore. Impressive.  

Please read my previous post referring to conduct.

[Inevitable Droid]

Science is a method, not a faith to me.

It's a method to me too.  But it rest on an epistemology, logical empiricism, which I think you would classify as my faith.  Since I place my trust in it, it would be tediously pedantic for me to split semantic hairs with you, so I won't.  Certainly I place my trust in logical empiricism.

When science becomes a faith, it makes sense as to why character improvement is not in the picture.  They instead would like to analyze what it is that leads one to believe in character improvement, but they already assume its falsehood from the beginning, and so they've convinced themselves not to be "ensnared" into this "garbage" concerning the validity of things that improve success and character, but understand, let's say, how it sociologically and neurobiologically works, which literally defeats the purpose out of anything really.

Scientists, and I along with them, would claim a distinction between utility and truth.  A concept can be true yet lack utility in a particular circumstance.  Likewise, a concept can be false yet in a particular circumstance be highly utile.  If a lie is the only, or the best, tool currently available, one may legitimately employ it, but one would hopefully retain some reservations about doing so, and be on the look-out for a truth that one could employ instead, one with equal or greater utility.  After all, lies can be found out, at which point their utility evaporates.  I'm having this exact discussion on my thread about atheism and the 12 step movement.

Humanity has logic, but it also has emotion. Science by definition is only logic.

True.

When humanity follows science alone, you pretty much seek to destroy the emotion out of anything.

I would say instead that logic and emotion govern separate domains.  Aesthetics is largely emotional for most people, and certainly for me.  Arguments as to why it's illogical for me to like a particular song will fall on deaf ears.  I don't care about logic when listening to a song.  Likewise, I don't care about emotion when assessing a proposition about causality.    

Slowly, we turn pretty much into programmed robots.

You may have noticed that I'm a big fan of robots.

I also happily view myself, and you, and all living creatures, as automotons, programmed by chemistry and history.

I suspect sapient robots, if they ever emerge, will have logic and will, but no emotion.  Thus happiness will be alien to them.  But purpose and its fulfillment will be front and center in their mental apparatus.  They will do what they must because they must, and in that, they won't be so very different from you and me.

You've probably heard the adage before, "science seeks to ask how, religion seeks to ask why." Those who are rigid in following science as a faith say there's no such thing as a why. It just is.

The stream of causality stretches backward into what might as well be infinity, and forward, likewise, into what might as well be infinity.  The difference between past and future is this: the past can be known, whereas the future can only be guessed.  The present, meanwhile, can sometimes be controled.  Science, in its most actualized state, permits us to know the past, control the present, and guess with some confidence the future.  Interestingly, science has always assumed the stream of causality flowed only in one direction, from the past through the present to the future.  Recent experiments in quantum mechanics have yielded data suggestive of backward causality, the reversal of the stream, so that it flows from the future through the present to the past.  I mention this because backward causality is implied in Christian eschatology as some would interpret it.  The Parousia, being foreordained, reaches backward into the past to ensure its own present.  An interesting correlation between the underpinnings of theology and the latest findings in science.  Source regarding the science: Understanding Time and Causality is the Key to Understanding Quantum Mechanics - http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/faculty/wharton/time_and_causality.pdf

In any case, when you talk about why, you mean purpose, hence will.  You want the universe to have a will, so you assume it does.  I don't have that particular desire, but if I did, and if I decided to fulfill it by fiat; I.e., by simply saying it was so; I would figure the will of the universe was mutation and natural selection, flux and struggle, innovation and competition, abundance and annihilation, diversity and brutality, since those are what I see around me.  But since those things I see around me would be there any way, willed or unwilled, I am apathetic as to whether will is present.

That's terrifying. Instead of making sense out of why, the why in us is sought to be destroyed.

Terrifying to you, trivial to me.  The universe may or may not have a will, but you have a will, and I have a will.  You have reasons and I have reasons.  If the universe has a will, my own must align with it, since I'm part of the universe, so my most logical course would be to fulfill my own will, as this would likewise fulfill the universe's will.  If the universe doesn't have a will, then my own is as good as any other, so my most logical course would be to fulfill my own will, as this will make me happiest.  Thus, once again, as is always the case, the question of God's existence is irrelevant, and I am therefore apathetic toward it.
 

So, it is this "why" that scientists call a self-deception. But if the why is always nagging at me, then I call the rejection of the why a delusion.

Yet the Earth abounds with purpose, and scientists acknowledge it.  I mean the purposes of earthly creatures.  Everywhere living beings pursue their goals.

I don't know how scientists see this as self-deception. Of course this goes both ways, but I wonder at people like CS Lewis, Francis Collins, Ann Rice, all who were atheists, all who understand what this is, and yet they decided to reject that this is a case of self-deception, that there is validity to asking the question "why."

Usually what happens is a tap on the shoulder from death.  Suddenly mortality is brought into sharp focus, and up pops fear.

I didn't ignore your question about my previous experiences with atheism. I decided not to respond because I'm not sure why it matters to you, are you trying to get me to convince you of my Christian beliefs?

No.  I'm trying to understand you.  Not your Christian beliefs.  You.

Even atheists agree that there are a certain set of morals to follow when interacting with others.

I don't.  But I think we humans can agree to be good to one another for practical reasons.

So, I'm not really convinced by subjectivity.  It is extremely inconsistent to me.

That's because very few people are willing to admit that there is no such thing as objective morality, and so they project their subjective preferences onto the universe. and imagine their own wills to be the will of God.  The only reason Christianity makes sense to you is because selflessness makes sense to you.

Doctors do much practical good in the world, but they can be a bunch of arrogant self-worshippers sometimes. They too can be saints and heros in at least the work they do, but a lot of people can agree that they are necessary, but not necessarily good.

You mean morally good, which to me is irrelevant.  Practical results are what matter.  Help me for selfish reasons and you have still helped me.  I don't need you to be selfless.

[Stevil]

The only reason Christianity makes sense to you is because selflessness makes sense to you.

Are you saying that Christianity is selfless? I have the feeling that Christianity assumes everyone is selfish and hence dangles the carrot of eternal love and happiness for being good and eternal torment for being bad.

With this hanging over a person's head how can they perform selfless acts?

My understanding is that to be selfless you have to have no incentive, no gain from performing your actions.
By my logic (lol) only Atheists therefore can be selfless, this by the way also includes rocks and puppies!

[Inevitable Droid]

Are you saying that Christianity is selfless?

No.  I'm saying it preaches selflessness, different denominations to a greater or lesser degree.  Preaching and praxis can differ and often do.  Achronos is some sort of Orthodox, Greek if I recall correctly.  His denomination, similar to the Roman Catholics, is one that preaches selflessness to a great degree.  His posts certainly glorify selflessness as a virtue.

I have the feeling that Christianity assumes everyone is selfish and hence dangles the carrot of eternal love and happiness for being good and eternal torment for being bad.

This is largely accurate, so long as you add belief in the Atonement as at least equally important, if not more so, depending on the denomination.  Being good, from a Greek Orthodox or Roman Catholic perspective, is largely selflessness.

With this hanging over a person's head how can they perform selfless acts?

The usual teaching would be, "Believe and try.  At first your attempts may be inwardly false, but habit will start to make the inside match the outside; plus, more importantly, the Holy Spirit will go to work within you.  Eventually the part of you that is in the divine image will have its Resurrection, and genuine selflessness will begin to manifest."

I don't defend the logic of any of that.  I merely report it, as an anthropologist might.
   

My understanding is that to be selfless you have to have no incentive, no gain from performing your actions.
By my logic (lol) only Atheists therefore can be selfless, this by the way also includes rocks and puppies!

Rocks are selfless because they lack the capacity to be anything else.  Puppies, meanwhile, can manifest an instinctive loyalty to the pack, such that, in certain situations, self-sacrifice can occur.  Some humans will demonstrate something similar.  Both atheists and theists are theoretically capable of it.  Moreover, an atheist could preach selflessness without engaging in contradiction.  Lack of belief in a deity doesn't stop us from believing in the moral good, and our concept of the moral good might incorporate selflessness as a proposed virtue, perhaps the central or even the only one.  Whether our praxis matched our preaching would be a separate question, as it is for theists.  I personally don't propose selflessness as any kind of virtue, moral or practical.  I don't propose moral virtues at all.  I propose practical virtues, such as self-discipline, balance, and caution, called out for their utility both to self and to society.  Practical virtues bring earthly benefit to earthly creatures and their earthly neighbors.

[Cycel]

Achronos is some sort of Orthodox, Greek if I recall correctly.  His denomination, similar to the Roman Catholics ....

Achronos, just to clarify, are you Greek Orthodox?  You may have provided this information earlier, but I'd appreciate if you could clear this up.