If the 'afterlife' (heaven, nirvana,summerland, etc) is so good

[wizard69]

Then why dont we congratulate people who have got terminal illnesses..."congratulations, im so glad to hear your good news.Your cancer (aids,heart condition,brain tumour or whatever)means that you are going straight to a perfect place where there is no more pain,suffering or sorrow.I'm so pleased for you"?
Maybe its because we all ,deep down, know that its a pile of cr@p ...

[Lonnie]

I have to, upto a point agree with you. I find it totally impossible to feel for someone who has died, if there's a God, then they've gone to a better place, if there's no God, then whatever they died of, there's no more suffering.

I do feel for the people left behind, loved ones, family etc, but never for the deceased.

[luna-tic]

Obviously the emotional connection comes first if it is a family member or friend who maybe passing away.We all would like to think that the spirit of the "to be" deceased is content where ever they go but who really knows? Whether we believe in a spirit world or not, how do we know that the life we think we're living now is real ?

[ludwig]

I must admit, I found the outpouring of grief when the pope died a bit strange.

[Ethmer]

�
Because we are really skeptics and without proof aren't really certain of what lies beyond death's door. We just don't know whether it's a pile of cr@p or not.
�

[Theland]

We don't know what was "before" the "Big Bang".
We don't know what lies beyond observable space.
We don't know the nature of the ultimate sub atomic particle, or even if it is indeed a "particle."
We have never observed life forming spontaneously, and can't re-create it in the laboratory, although we've tried.
Yet, we can deny the possibility of an afterlife
with such certainty?
Does that not defy logic and reason?

[LazyGun]

No Theland, it doesnt defy logic and reason.
Just because we don't know now , does not mean that we will not know next year, or in 5, 10 or 100 years time.

Lets look at this abiogenesis thing (since as a biological scientist this is the area I feel most comfortable in).
You comment that we have tried and failed to recreate the conditions within which life might spontaneously arise.... and that this failure somehow invalidates the whole notion. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We know that such an incident would be an extremely improbable event. As such, it might take 1000's of scientific laboratories 100's of years to find, by recreation and elimination of probable scenarios, the right one. A few laboratories have been trying for a couple of decades to simulate this, so we have barely scratched the surface.

What completely defies logic and reason is to have faith in the possibility of an afterlife without any empirical evidence of same, and without any credible hypothesis as to where in the universe such an afterlife might exist.

[Theland]

Afterlife would not exist in the universe, but outside of it.
Even you scientists consider the possibility of extra dimensions - and that as a part of our physical universe.
If you fall back on the least chance of life spontaneously happening, and accept it, then how come you are comfortable with abiogenesis, for which no proof exists, but uncomfortable with an afterlife, for which, by your own same standards, no proof exists.
It seems that both positions carry equal weight in your burden of proof, or lack thererof.

[LazyGun]

Theland... once again, the theist answer is the easy, logic-lite way out. God, and now the afterlife, exist outside the universe, so require no explanation, no rationale, no mechanism by which they might interact with the universe... and somehow this is an example of a more logical and reasonable explanation?

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis... one that can be tested, experimented with, observed, and amended or even discarded. Theism offers nothing except belief in the absence of evidence.

Just because two positions may have a lack of proof does not mean they are both equally valid.

[Theland]

So we came from nothing, for no reason, and go back there for the same reason?
It's this business of something from nothing that demands an explanation.

[LazyGun]

Theland, you are right that it does require an explanation. But thats a different topic from abiogenesis, lets be clear on that.

What explanation does Theism offer? God done it. There you go... thats it. What sort of explanation is that? How can that sort of explanation be even remotely intellectually satisfying? What was the mechanism of "something from nothing"?

Now science on the other hand, tries to find out the mechanisms of such things. Ever heard of the Higgs-Boson particle? Try googling it for an interesting read :)

[Theland]

Thanks for that, I will. But, maybe a bit premature, where did that come from?

[LazyGun]

Theland, you mean where did the Higgs- Boson particle come from? I have no idea, but there is a reason that its popularly called "The God Particle" :)

And on that subject, if you find something from nothing difficult to understand... where did God come from then? It seems much ,much more unlikely for this uber intelligent omnipotent divinity to just appear than a mere particle.......

[Theland]

Wow! I had a quick look, but I think I'll have to devote some serious time to getting an idea of what it's all about. I'll try.
But, God did not "come" from anything anywhere, He simply "is".

[LazyGun]

Theland... once again, the concept that God simply "is" seems like logic lite to me. It defies all logic and reason. If a theist can simply state that God "is" and expect to be believed, why can't a non theist simply state that God "is not", with equal validity, or that abiogenesis simply "happened"?

It seems illogical to me that theists demand all sorts of proofs from science to explain the theory, but just expect people to believe that God "is", without any evidence. And, presupposing there is a God, how do you know its the one you worship? What if its Allah, or Zeus, or Wotan?

Nothing just "is". Everything came from something.

[dawkins]

Because the exact origins of life are not well understood, scientists rightly state that they do not know yet. This is why science is not a faith position. However, just because nobody has managed to start life in a laboratory it doesn't mean that there are not significant experiments that give scientists clues as to how life might have started. The same principles apply to the origin of the universe. Scientists may speculate how a universe might form (e.g. through a blackhole) but without a testable hypothesis they are unable to verify their theory However, lack of knowledge in one area can never be used to prove something else. This is the exact problem with the god hypothesis, it cannot be tested (although people have tried). My big worry is why people of faith want to disprove science. Surely, knowing how the universe works would give a religious person a greater understanding of god.

[Theland]

I personally do not want to disprove science, and I don't believe that any reasonable Christian would.
I welcome any new information that comes from science, and look forward to the results from the new accelerator being built by the E.U.
Yes, belief in God is a matter of faith, but I think it is also reasonable to ask scientists to recognise that some of their beliefs are also faith based, in the absence of hard evidence.

[dunwerkin]

I am fascinated by your discussion and I hope that you will permit me to continue to be an interested observer in your informed debate. I have just started an Open University course "Introduction to Religion" and its like attending a tutuorial to have the privilege of witnessing the development and range of your intellectual opinions. I also looked in at the "What did the Jews think of Jesus" to see the passionate opinions expressed by Lighter and Wizard. I note that you, Theland, had an input there too. Thank you for opening up a terrific vein for my education.

[LazyGun]

dunwerkin - glad to see that people are getting some benefit out of the discussion... enjoy your course.

Theland - Any scientist worth their salt will not ( or should not) have faith in anything, since faith is belief in the absence of evidence, and that is ( or should be) anathema to any credible scientist. What they very well do have, and this is seen time and time again, is often a passionate belief in a particular hypothesis ( a model of how something might work, with observable evidence to point to it). That is why you will often see fierce debates between rival camps of scientists, who have differing hypotheses about a phenomenon. It is precisely these debates that give science its edge, since comparison of the evidence in support of rival hypotheses, based upon experimental observed data will eventually lead to one or more hypotheses being discarded in favour of the one that best fits the available evidence. This is how scientific theories arise ( and remember there is a deal of difference between a scientific theory , which is more like a Law, and a laymans understanding of the word) where a common consensus is adopted.

Science therefore is both progressive and self correcting....hardly something that religion can claim.

God as creator, as active player in our individual destinies has been receding for some while now as science and rationality shine a light into the mysteries of origin, and there are very few places where sufficient mystery remains... the biggest of which is probably the big bang. and what was there before, if indeed there was a before.

[Theland]

A hypothesis of how something might work with observable evidence ....
God fits the bill!
The evidence is all around us!
How many scientists, passionately engaged in their chosen subject, have had their faith in God reenforced by their discoveries, or become believers in God after coming to a scientific dead end?
You certainly speak for some scientists, but certainly not all.