Thoughts on an afterlife

[NativeSon]

In a discussion with some friends after work recently, we discussed the idea of an afterlife. These were some of the points of two facets of discussion: the possibility of nothingness after death, and the hooplah about heaven.

1. What if there were no afterlife? What would really be so terrible not feeling anything? Was it so terrible before we were born, when we felt nothing, because there was nothing?

2. What is so credible, and, even then if it is given credence, great about the idea of heaven? What makes anyone think life in heaven would be so much different than life on earth? Would humans capacity to stab each other in the back, gossip, or make fun dissappear in heaven? What is so great about experiencing the good in heaven for eternity if you do not have any of the opposite to esteem it with?

Thoughts?

[Michael]

In a discussion with some friends after work recently, we discussed the idea of an afterlife. These were some of the points of two facets of discussion: the possibility of nothingness after death, and the hooplah about heaven.
Interesting thread topic! :thumbsup:

1. What if there were no afterlife? What would really be so terrible not feeling anything? Was it so terrible before we were born, when we felt nothing, because there was nothing?
The key problem with this theory is the fact that it tends to reinforce the idea of nihilism and suggests that humans are no more significant than any other animal. The thought of this is apparently insulting to some human beings.

It also eliminates the "God will punish you for your acts" bogeyman, that for many people, is the baseline for morality.

Thus, "nothingness" doesn't dovetail well with human aspirations of immortality, specialness and morality-abiding goodness. Humans tend to prefer their fantasies to reality. :shrug:

2. What is so credible, and, even then if it is given credence, great about the idea of heaven? What makes anyone think life in heaven would be so much different than life on earth? Would humans capacity to stab each other in the back, gossip, or make fun dissappear in heaven? What is so great about experiencing the good in heaven for eternity if you do not have any of the opposite to esteem it with?
The concept of heaven is meaningless without hell.

But again, as I noted above, 'humans tend to prefer fantasy to reality', and so, hell is generally rejected. Heaven is the reward that people believe that they deserve, so they like it. Indeed, if heaven exists, that proves that human beings are special and we all know how much some humans are enamored of that idea!

Heaven must exist or humans are not special. Humans like to believe that they are special, therefore heaven must exist. That seems to be the operative process here.

[Donkey]

Mortality is a tough pill to swallow, and probably a major reason why people cling so dearly to a theology that will allow their soul to persist indefinitely (whether it be by heaven, transcendence, reincarnation, whatever). It's not a lot of fun to come to the realization that when you die, that really is it. It does open a big wide door to nihilism, but I think it's a testament to the human spirit that most atheists are not nihilists.

[partofme]

For the religious not having any life after death really is hell. In that sense it is them that will be in hell after they die.

[Margot]

"Dad. Dad. Hey, Dad?"
"Yeah?"
"Come look at what I made!"
"What'd you make, Son?"
"A REALLY BIG POOP!"

Ok, pretty much everyone had moments like that in their life (except maybe the Romanians, but they're a different sort of fish). Dad, look at what I did, and aren't you so proud?

I think the belief in God stems from that. Look at what I can do, and be proud, and then reward me. Love me eternally and give me your undivided attention! There's a child-like need for approval in it. People feel need positive reenforcement, and the threat of something bad if they do something naughty.

Heaven is Daddy's love and complete approval. "Your poop, Son, was the best poop around." Your life was worth something, and I'm proud.

[Americano]

For monetary consideration there are numerous televangelists who guarantee immortality in heaven, if the check or credit card clears. If that quick fix doesn't sate one's needs, most Christian forms of worship will accept 10% of one's gross income each Sunday and along with firm adherence to specific dogma heaven can be achieved by the faithful. For those in a rush to test immortality, there is the Jim Jones Disciples of Christ option.

[Greendruid]

I'm really surprised at the responses so far, in that they remained fixed on the concept of heaven as the only alternative to nothingness. I suppose that was the dichotomy presented in the OP but the OP didn't seem so narrowly structured as to say this was the only alternative. So I'll explore another.

Most pagans believe in something we call the Otherworld and some are very specific about this and call it the Summerlands and it is pretty different from the concept of heaven. First of all, it doesn't start and end with a monotheistic sky-daddy that rewards you for a good life. Everyone goes to the Otherworld and it is essentially just like this world in many, many ways. What's more, there is no specialness to the human spirit, so I suppose the starting point concerning that is missing as well. Much of paganism is predicated on a concept of animism or something akin to it. All living things have spirit or anima. All living things go to the Otherworld when they die. Though there are gods who are the gatekeepers of the Otherworld, Cernunnos specifically, his job is to keep the living out and let the dead in and vice-versa headed in the other direction. Some of the dead can see the living on the other side of "the veil", some of the living can see the dead as well. No judgement, no happy, happy, joy, joy at the end of all things. Just the end of one thing and the start of another. Beyond that, there isn't much that has been theologised along this vein of thinking except among the Norse tradition, which is specifically not considered pagan to its modern practitioners, the Asatru.

[Zarquon]

As for Q1, this quote by Bertrand Russell sums up my position pretty well:
I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive. I am not young, and I love life. But I should scorn to shiver with terror at the thought of annihilation. Happiness is none the less true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting. Many a man has borne himself proudly on the scaffold: surely the same pride should teach us to think truly about man's place in the world.
As for Q2, I can't decide which would be worse; the afterlife of one of the religions being 'true' or something even more nasty.
Cessation of existence, on the other hand, though terrifying, is also oddly comforting as a closure and a motivator to get on with life at the moment.
I'm also secretly hoping for a Transhumanist Revolution that would prevent/preclude/negate a natural death, but not in any earnest way, only as a possibility.
I'm more or less resigned to Russel's view and intent on living this life to the fullest.
And I intend to leave a legacy both genetically memetically, and professionally.

[The Drunk Girl]

For monetary consideration there are numerous televangelists who guarantee immortality in heaven, if the check or credit card clears. If that quick fix doesn't sate one's needs, most Christian forms of worship will accept 10% of one's gross income each Sunday and along with firm adherence to specific dogma heaven can be achieved by the faithful. For those in a rush to test immortality, there is the Jim Jones Disciples of Christ option.

They also will try to sell you holy healing water in a 20 oz. bottle at $50 a piece. I saw a commercial for that and could not believe the ignorance of the whole thing. Fake testimonies or not, anyone that would proclaim that this bottled water cured their cancer or gave them money is stupid.

[Michael]

... Beyond that, there isn't much that has been theologised along this vein of thinking except among the Norse tradition, which is specifically not considered pagan to its modern practitioners, the Asatru.
You've piqued my curiosity here... how are they non-pagan?

[Greendruid]

You've piqued my curiosity here... how are they non-pagan?

Yeah, I'm just repeating their stance on themselves. The short answer is, I don't know. :shrug: I can't figure out for the life of me why an intact polytheistic religion that emerged among ancient Germanics is any different from a reconstructionist religion based on those that emerged among ancient Celts. Both farmed, both were over-run by the Roman hordes ;). For all intents and purposes they seem pretty much the same to me. The continuity may be the singled out factor but I'll have to check into this for you. People like to create categories of "us" and "them" as you well know and this may simply be a case of that.

[Margot]

Yeah, I'm just repeating their stance on themselves. The short answer is, I don't know. :shrug: I can't figure out for the life of me why an intact polytheistic religion that emerged among ancient Germanics is any different from a reconstructionist religion based on those that emerged among ancient Celts. Both farmed, both were over-run by the Roman hordes ;). For all intents and purposes they seem pretty much the same to me. The continuity may be the singled out factor but I'll have to check into this for you. People like to create categories of "us" and "them" as you well know and this may simply be a case of that.

I'm taking a class called Witchcraft in the Early Modern Era this semester. My professor insists that Paganism isn't just "anyone but the Christians" but rather the specific deification/spiritualization of natural ~stuff~ as opposed to going out and creating new gods.

Two questions:
1) Is that accurate? (I like the guy, I really do, but I don't trust him as far as I can throw him [not far at all... I could probably just shove him over]).
2) Wouldn't a definition like that account for the distinction between the Norse mythology and general paganism?

[SMadsen]

I'm taking a class called Witchcraft in the Early Modern Era this semester. My professor insists that Paganism isn't just "anyone but the Christians" but rather the specific deification/spiritualization of natural ~stuff~ as opposed to going out and creating new gods.

Two questions:
1) Is that accurate? (I like the guy, I really do, but I don't trust him as far as I can throw him [not far at all... I could probably just shove him over]).
2) Wouldn't a definition like that account for the distinction between the Norse mythology and general paganism?
I've always been convinced that "pagan" simply denoted rural life and therefore originated as a religious term by denoting "them out there on the countryside, away from us, worshipping false gods". Much the same way that words like profanity and heathen originated; to denote people who do not believe in the same that people who use those words do, therefore symbolically being rural (astray) to the urban community (true faith). Or, as is literally the case with the word 'profanity', being outside of the temple.

The dude who converted the Gothic tribes to Christianity, Bishop Ulfinas, allegedly used the word "heathen" in that way. With 'pagus' being the latin antonym of 'urbanus' and Roman writers being the main sources of Gothic history, I don't find it far fetched that the word 'pagan' has the exact same origin as the word 'heathen', i.e., denoting a non-Christian. It's merely a word that among many others was (and is) used to identify people with what some think is poor religious taste (a.k.a. worshipping false idols).

That it's used by the very same people it was originally designed to demean is a typical reversal of effect (where words once denoting a non-value or a negative value become words denoting a positive value).

[Michael]

First of all, I'm not using word origins here, I'm only using logic of common usage.

On that basis, I don't think "non-Christian" is a valid translation of "pagan" since no one would call a Muslim a "pagan", even though a Muslim is clearly 'non-Christian'. Same for Buddhists.

"Heathen" however does seem to have the same meaning as "infidel". Christians do refer to non-Christians as 'heathens' and Muslims do refer to non-Muslims as 'infidels'.

Ergo, I'm inclined to use the term of pagan for any/all polytheistic religions of any variety. African 'animists' for example, I'd call pagan.

Heathen seems to be a specific term for 'non-Christian'.

[SMadsen]

With todays common usage I don't think it's a problem to discern pagan religions since what makes a religion pagan is determined by how distinctly the adherents to it refer to themselves as pagan, rather than the degree by which others refer to it as pagan.

[Daktoria]

In a discussion with some friends after work recently, we discussed the idea of an afterlife. These were some of the points of two facets of discussion: the possibility of nothingness after death, and the hooplah about heaven.


For starters, the existential-essential dichotomy.

If life is existentially bound, then life never ends since we always exist as matter or energy.

If life is essentially bound, then life never ends since essence of our identities is transcendentally independent of existence.


1. What if there were no afterlife? What would really be so terrible not feeling anything? Was it so terrible before we were born, when we felt nothing, because there was nothing?

2. What is so credible, and, even then if it is given credence, great about the idea of heaven? What makes anyone think life in heaven would be so much different than life on earth? Would humans capacity to stab each other in the back, gossip, or make fun dissappear in heaven? What is so great about experiencing the good in heaven for eternity if you do not have any of the opposite to esteem it with?

Thoughts?

Both of these questions can be taken in so many directions. Does innocence matter? Does society have an objective identity? Is betrayal connected to sensation? I'll just answer the first order questions and let you take it from there.

A world with no afterlife would be extremely depressing because our lives occur for only an instant of all eternity which effectively means that we, and our actions, are valueless. Aesthetic hedonism is not a viable escape either because eventually, our constitution wears down from realizing that physical sentiments are not set according to our own definition. They're defined according to nature which means that pain and pleasure are random experiences.

The idea of heaven relieves us from this because it presents an opportunity for our identities to have value. Even if heaven is just an illusion, it's a concept comparable to eastern ancestral worship in how legacy is an admirable achievement which future generations must recognize in order to cohere with society.

[Non Sequitur]

In a discussion with some friends after work recently, we discussed the idea of an afterlife. These were some of the points of two facets of discussion: the possibility of nothingness after death, and the hooplah about heaven.

1. What if there were no afterlife? What would really be so terrible not feeling anything? Was it so terrible before we were born, when we felt nothing, because there was nothing?

This question needs a little more explanation. When you say "no afterlife" does that also mean 1) there is no god/gods/some kind of transcendent moral force in the universe or 2)just that there is no afterlife, but a transcendent moral force still exists? You see, 1 gives me an entirely different outlook on the universe where as two i could probably work around because it looks similar to very early Judaism.

2. What is so credible, and, even then if it is given credence, great about the idea of heaven? What makes anyone think life in heaven would be so much different than life on earth? Would humans capacity to stab each other in the back, gossip, or make fun dissappear in heaven? What is so great about experiencing the good in heaven for eternity if you do not have any of the opposite to esteem it with?

several good questions here, remember that my answers are from a Christian perspective

What is so credible, and, even then if it is given credence, great about the idea of heaven? What makes anyone think life in heaven would be so much different than life on earth? Would humans capacity to stab each other in the back, gossip, or make fun dissappear in heaven?
well, Christian theology (and this is true across the board) understands a difference between being justified (having your sins forgiven) and being sanctified (being holy before the throne of God). To boil down sanctification it is being in a relationship with God that makes you want to obey his will entirely. All people can be justified in life, but people cannot be fully sanctified till after death. After death, the Holy Spirit completes the work of sanctification begun when one is justified. Now I go into this seemingly obscure discussion because heaven is the abode of all those who are sanctified and the sanctified will not sin because they want to follow the will of God and so they will not do all those horrible things listed above.

What is so great about experiencing the good in heaven for eternity if you do not have any of the opposite to esteem it with?
the great part of experiencing heaven would be experiencing the fullness of God himself. Heaven is a place a very special place mind you, but still just a place. It is the seat of the throne of God. On this side of death, humanity does not experience God in his fullness. In heaven, however, those who reside there experience God without limitations. It is more than just experiencing something good, but experiencing perfection.

[Daktoria]

Nonsequitur, I think the explanations you just provided motivate many to dislike having religious faith. Even if God is going to be given the benefit of the doubt for being real, it can be perceived as extremely arrogant to only reward those who comply with his conventions and surrender to his power. Morality doesn't seem to actually be proscribed, so instead, the faithful are only faithful because they're hedonists like the rest.

In other words, God can be perceived as a selfish power politician, and Heaven can be perceived as an exclusive club for only the people he likes. Furthermore, since he created the world and is all powerful, a degree of predestination seems to be in order in how he seems to only be relishing in how he's winning his own game.

Ergo, the value of forgiveness seems to entirely be a sham because in reality, what would be asked for is a pledge of allegiance (hence religion's success under feudalism and feudalism's balance of power with churches).

[Non Sequitur]

Nonsequitur, I think the explanations you just provided motivate many to dislike having religious faith. Even if God is going to be given the benefit of the doubt for being real, it can be perceived as extremely arrogant to only reward those who comply with his conventions and surrender to his power. Morality doesn't seem to actually be proscribed, so instead, the faithful are only faithful because they're hedonists like the rest.

In other words, God can be perceived as a selfish power politician, and Heaven can be perceived as an exclusive club for only the people he likes. Furthermore, since he created the world and is all powerful, a degree of predestination seems to be in order in how he seems to only be relishing in how he's winning his own game.

hmmmm where to begin...

I did not mean to give the impression that "obeying the conventions" is needed to be justified or sanctified. In fact, the message of the gospel is that justification and sanctification are free.

Also, my personal theology behind heaven or hell is that God gives a person what they want. some people, for the above reasons you listed, don't want a relationship with God and some do.

Ergo, the value of forgiveness seems to entirely be a sham because in reality, what would be asked for is a pledge of allegiance (hence religion's success under feudalism and feudalism's balance of power with churches).

Christianity worked with feudalism because theology was expressed in a feudal way, but one cannot argue that Christianity is state friendly. The only allegiance that God asks for is a loving relationship.

[SMadsen]

Christianity worked with feudalism because theology was expressed in a feudal way, but one cannot argue that Christianity is state friendly. The only allegiance that God asks for is a loving relationship.
It depends. Religion is accommodating of power. So, if by state you mean power then religion is state friendly. If by state you mean people then religion is only friendly to "one state" at a time and not at all friendly to others.

[Americano]

It depends. Religion is accommodating of power. So, if by state you mean power then religion is state friendly. If by state you mean people then religion is only friendly to "one state" at a time and not at all friendly to others.

Would US Southern states being forced to recognize US Constitutional separation of government and religion be considered accommodation?

[Non Sequitur]

It depends. Religion is accommodating of power. So, if by state you mean power then religion is state friendly. If by state you mean people then religion is only friendly to "one state" at a time and not at all friendly to others.

well, that wasn't really my point. Daktoria made it sound like Christianity fits well within the state structure, or power as you put it. My point was that this can only happen after some mental gymnastics with theology. Christianity is not always state friendly because the state wants a person to think the states priorities are the ultimate end and historically the big three monotheistic faiths have said that is not true in various ways. This does not mean Christianity is subversive, just it views the established secular power with suspicion.

[Americano]

well, that wasn't really my point. Daktoria made it sound like Christianity fits well within the state structure, or power as you put it. My point was that this can only happen after some mental gymnastics with theology. Christianity is not always state friendly because the state wants a person to think the states priorities are the ultimate end and historically the big three monotheistic faiths have said that is not true in various ways. This does not mean Christianity is subversive, just it views the established secular power with suspicion.

Municipalities, counties and states challenging the US Constitution separation of government and religion seem to be far beyond what I'd define as suspicion.

[Non Sequitur]

Municipalities, counties and states challenging the US Constitution separation of government and religion seem to be far beyond what I'd define as suspicion.

Well notice I said you have to do some theological gymnastics. I did not say it does not happen. The people who do advocate a unity between church and state (or at least a closer relationship than we presently have) are trying to fight for something that is dying. For a good thousand years the Western world has been united under the guise of Christendom. Christendom (usually defined as the established religion in connection with the state/and or the culture at large) began under Constantine and really didn't stop until recently. The end of Christendom is a frightful thing for many within the Christian world because it provided a measure of comfort for those who were Christians. Life was easier as a Christian because culture at large protected them. The death of Christendom marks an end to this easy going and some don't wish to see it end. Personally, I think it's a good thing, but many do not agree yet.

[SMadsen]

Ecclesiastical power is dying because the prevailing state construct in large parts of the world is one of secular, decentralized authority. However, we'll never let go of the need for authoritarian constructs and, since religion is based on nothing but authority, religions will always be there to exploit any such need.

[Non Sequitur]

Ecclesiastical power is dying because the prevailing state construct in large parts of the world is one of secular, decentralized authority. However, we'll never let go of the need for authoritarian constructs and, since religion is based on nothing but authority, religions will always be there to exploit any such need.


That's not really what I was getting at. I was trying to explain why there are certain groups within the Christian faith, especially in America, that advocate actions that seem to argue for a more "Christian nation" (whatever that means).

I'd be curious to know what you mean by "religion is based on nothing but authority." Could be a good arguement :)

[SMadsen]

That's not really what I was getting at. I was trying to explain why there are certain groups within the Christian faith, especially in America, that advocate actions that seem to argue for a more "Christian nation" (whatever that means).

I'd be curious to know what you mean by "religion is based on nothing but authority." Could be a good arguement :)
Well, I admit that I have to be more specific since religion is a more varied concept than that *): Theisms are based on nothing but authority. Which simply means that they don't work without the theistic deity/deities.


*) although I'm sure all spiritual ideas, including those in the outskirts of what can be said to define religion, can reasonably be argued to contain a concept of guidance.