Here’s an article arguing against eternity (life after death), essentially a reflection based on Yale lit prof Martin Hägglund’s This Life: Secular Faith and Spiritual Freedom:
A systematic articulation of the atheistic world view, the one Marilynne Robinson may have been waiting for, is provided by an important new book,’s “This Life: Secular Faith and Spiritual Freedom” (Pantheon). Hägglund doesn’t mention any of the writers I quoted, because he is working philosophically, from general principles. But his book can be seen as a long footnote to Pliny, and shares the Roman historian’s humane emphasis: we need death, as a blessing; eternity is at best incoherent or meaningless, and at worst terrifying; and we should trust in ourselves rather than put our faith in some kind of transcendent rescue from the joy and pain of life. Hägglund’s book involves deep and demanding readings of St. Augustine, Kierkegaard, Marx, and Martin Luther King, Jr. (with some Theodor Adorno, Charles Taylor, Thomas Piketty, and Naomi Klein thrown in), but it is always lucid, and is at its heart remarkably simple. You could extract its essence and offer it to thirsty young atheists.
His argument is that religious traditions subordinate the finite (the knowledge that life will end) to the eternal (the “sure and certain hope,” to borrow a phrase from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, that we will be released from pain and suffering and mortality into the peace of everlasting life). A characteristic formulation, from St. Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians, goes as follows: “Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth, for you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.” You die into Christ and thus into eternity, and life is just the antechamber to an everlasting realm that is far more wondrous than anything on earth. Hägglund, by contrast, wants us to fix our ideals and attention on this life, and more of it—Camus’s “longing, yes, to live, to live still more.” Hägglund calls this “living on,” as opposed to living forever. James Wood, “If God Is Dead, Your Time Is Everything” at New Yorker
Perhaps this is why the raging Woke would prefer to smash things rather than study them.
If time is a line that runs in one direction, eternity is the dense reality that lies outside the line. If a person thinks that nothing lies outside the line, they are not only wrong but diminished as a result.
Whether life beyond this life is a blessing or a curse has traditionally been held to depend largely on what we do with this life. It is a magnification either way.
Wood tells us that Hägglund hopes that more socialism will result from adopting his view.
See also: Disproofs of God’s existence are falling on hard times these days Omnipotent means the power to do any possible thing. Christians, for example, say that God “became man and suffered for us under Pontius Pilate.” So the answer to McGinn’s questions (“does he have the power to sneeze or digest food or pick his nose”) is yes, though it requires incarnation in a human body.
and
Religious Nones: The bigger picture shows increasing polarization The rise of the Nones means something important: Those who care about the Big Questions are more VISIBLY polarized. In politics, the Religious Nones are the largest group in the Democratic Party (30%) and 70% of declared Republicans believe in the “God of the Bible.” The “religious left” seems to be largely an artifact of thinkmags today, although it was an important force decades ago.
The Confused World of Modern Atheism (Mosaica Press, 2016)
Follow UD News at Twitter!
As usual, the materialist numb skulls manage to argue the exact opposite of what the evidence demonstrates. That our transient thoughts and actions, not to mention our very selves, could have eternal implications imbues those those thoughts and actions, not to mention our very selves (which, I know, I do keep mentioning notwithstanding; so sue me), with meaning that, as mere chemical reactions sparked by chance and necessity on Carl Sagan’ “speck of dust,” they could in no wise attain.
It was ironic to the point of everlasting hilarity to me, listening to an interview with the NASA engineer who initially analysed the image that Sagan waxed so eloquent upon, to learn that the “sunbeam” in the photo is actually an artifact of the camera lens.
Phil Ochs song, “When I’m Gone”, performed by Ani Difranco
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rn_fwE4SFg
And a famous Dylan line, from “Visions of Johanna”:
“Wood tells us that Hägglund hopes that more socialism will result from adopting his view.
This has always been the fatal flaw of the left’s utopianism, their religion of salvation in this life through our own works. For socialism has always been a feeble attempt to justify Christian ethics without resort to God.
And that is all it ever has been and all it ever will be. It is feeble because, of course, it simply cannot be done.
To note just one obvious parallel, Jesus Christ says that he and the father are one, and prays that we all also might be one.
The man who claimed to be bigger than Jesus, John Lennon, sings his paean of hope that one day we’ll all join his godless dream and the whole world live as one.
I know who I’m betting on.
How surprised will those people be who apparently crave their own deaths to be permanent to find that their own life does not end at the grave after all?
Will there be much bargaining on their part with the God that they railed so vehemently against while here on this earth? Perhaps like the rich man tried to bargain with Abraham?
Folks,
A case of looking through the telescope from the wrong end.
We need to start with logic of being and its link to the root of the world if eternity is to be made sense of. (And yes, I know many will want to express lack of interest and do a walkaway or ignore at this point. That does not alter the weight of the matter on its merits, so do bear with a few thoughts on matters ontological.)
First, we can conceive of possible worlds as sufficiently complete descriptions (in propositions joined together by various logical connectives) of how this or a world could be; including of course abstract mathematical domains. This allows us to think in a very broad way about being. First, some things are impossible of being as core characteristics stand in mutual contradiction, e.g. a square circle. There is no possible world in which x could be if x is a square circle. If some y by contrast is possible of being, it would exist in at least one possible world, say W, were it instantiated. If y is such that in another possible world “neighbouring” W, i.e. W’, y would not exist, then y is contingent, causally dependent on some factor c in W but not in W’. Think of the enabling factors for a fire. However, if some z is such that in ANY possible world W, it would exist, z is independent of external enabling causal factors c, and indeed can best be understood as being part of the framework for any world W to exist.
As we can see by using the fire, contingent entities often begin, are supported and may cease from being depending on what is happening with the cluster of enabling factors. Similarly, no y’ that is a composite constructed from proper separately existing parts c1, c2 . . . cn can be necessary, as y’ depends on presence and correct assembly of the parts. No material entity made up from atoms etc can be a necessary being. By contrast, a proposed z that is a serious candidate will either be impossible of being (an x in disguise) or else it exists without beginning or end once any world is. Where, a genuine nothing or non-being o, is such that it cannot have causal powers. If ever there were utter nothing, such would forever obtain, as a direct result.
Accordingly, once an actual world is (such as we inhabit) at least one SOMETHING is a case of z and is framework for our world. Considering necessary abstracta such as domains of numbers starting from {} –> 0, {0} –> 1 etc, in fact utterly transfinitely many things are necessary.
We also see that an eternal entity is either a necessary being in itself or is coeval with it. We have a concept of eternity connected to necessary being. Obviously, we can see that something q may begin but thereafter be sustained as a sort of forward eternal. Indeed, we can see a limitless succession going forward that is potentially transfinite in the sense that as time (or an analogue to time) rolls forward, at any T, however large there are onward valid times in which q is or will be as sustained in being. In this context, we may envision a causal-temporal succession of finite stages that once begun continues without upper limit. We can also contrast temporally bound beings that begin, are sustained, cease, e.g. a fire. But by contrast there is no possible world W or stage W_T where the number 2 does not exist. 2 being a necessary, abstract entity, part of the logical framework of structure and quantity in any world.
In this context, we can see ourselves as finite, contingent beings who conceivably can be semi-eternal in the forward going sense as outlined. We may then reckon with our being morally governed, starting with undeniably known duties to truth, right reason, prudence, sound conscience, justice etc. As such can only be grounded in a necessary being root of reality who is inherently good, we can see a concept of God as eternal being. Namely, God is the inherently good, utterly wise creator who is also necessary of being and the maximally great being. This instantly reflects a familiar picture.
One consequence of this is, as God is a serious candidate necessary being, that either God is impossible of being or else is actual. And yes, those who deny the existence of God (however they may dress it up), imply the claim that God is impossible of being. A pretty strong though implicit claim, and one that I daresay no one has met. Especially, after the problem of evil has collapsed as a serious claim, given the force of Plantinga style freedom based defenses.
KF
ba writes, “How surprised will those people be who apparently crave their own deaths to be permanent to find that their own life does not end at the grave after all?”
I don’t see anyone “craving” that death is permanent, any more than I might “crave” that the sun is going to go down. It’s just a fact of life that death happens. And yes, I would be very surprised to find that my life doesn’t end at the grave, although of course I, while living, will never know if that surprise happens. And if it (the surprise) doesn’t happen, I’ll never know that, either.
Well Hazel, you waxed poetically in post 2 as if you are sure life ends at the grave, so ‘craving death’ is certainly an appropriate observation of your position.
Then there is also your position on abortion that leaves one wondering just how much you really do love life over death.
But regardless, I am sure I could also wax poetic with thousands of songs about life after death and the joyous reunions of those who have passed on before us, and of being in the unspeakable blissful experience of God’s presence,,,
,,, but instead of waxing poetic I prefer to be a bit more, shall we say, scientific and to thus reference the actual structure of physical reality itself, as well as the evidence from quantum biology which supports the reality of a ‘soul’, as well as reference the millions of testimonies of those who have died for a short while and returned to tell us about life after death.
But hey, its only science right?
Verse:
ba writes, “You waxed poetically in post 2 as if you are sure life ends at the grave, so ‘craving death’ is certainly an appropriate observation of your position.”
Actually I didn’t wax poetically: Phil Ochs and Ani Difranco did. But more seriously, why does being sure, or at least living my life as I am sure, that life ends at the grave “craving death”. I don’t see at all why you think my attitude about accepting death is the same as craving it.
Hazel,
Dang those lyrics are depressing! You shouldn’t be here replying to our posts! You should be out there having a good time, QUICK!!! Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you di–never mind; don’t think about it! Run! Your actions have no consequences (long-term anyway–remember the heat death of the universe). So expand the ways in which you allow yourself to have fun. Quick! Time is running out! As you get older, the number of ways in which you can enjoy life only diminishes. Don’t worry about what other people will think of you; that doesn’t matter either. Just get to it! You could be incapacitated in a car accident tomorrow, and then what meaning will be left in life?
(Yes, I’d really rather you’d turn to God instead. But I’m trying to see life from your perspective…and as you can tell, I’d make a mess of things trying to live from that perspective.)
Hazel, contrary to what you and other atheists believe, because God exists, and because your life does not end at the grave, your life has far more meaning, purpose and value than you can possibly imagine right now. Moreover science, our best science at that, backs up this fact.
Whether you are even aware of it or not, you have been sold a big fat pack of nihilistic falsehoods.
That God is really real, and that there really is life after death, is the greatest news that could possibly be for mortal humans.
Why atheists fight tooth and nail against such a wonderful truth is beyond me.
It is simply insane to do so. It is as if the greatest mansion in the world was freely offered to someone living in a garbage dump, and he chose to continue living in the garbage dump instead. Preferring morsels of trash to the untold riches of heaven.
Boy, EDTA, that’s not what I get from those lyrics, and I don’t find them depressing.
A few threads back I spent some time describing a humanist perspective on life, which I think is the context of “When I’m Gone”. I’m not interested in revisiting that that, or starting up the whole “you can’t have real meaning in your life” argument.
But I think the song does a good job of expressing a humanist viewpoint because even if there is life after death (the song doesn’t mention that), the only opportunity we have to exercise our humanity is when we are alive.
Some lines:
“And I won’t know the right from the wrong when I’m gone”: this life is where we need to make judgments about what is right and what is wrong
“All the pleasures of love will not be mine when I’m gone”: the ability to love is one of our most important attributes
“Won’t be asked to do my share when I’m gone”: we need to help others in our joint efforts to have good lives
“Can’t say who’s to praise and who’s to blame when I’m gone”: again, it is up to us to make judgments about how we want ourselves and others to live
“Won’t see the golden of the sun when I’m gone, And the evenings and the mornings will be one when I’m gone”: we experience the beauty of nature (and the beauty of art)
“Can’t be singing louder than the guns when I’m gone”: we need to be a voice for peace, not war
“Can’t add my name into the fight while I’m gone”: again, here and now is where we need to make our contributions for the things we think are valuable and right.
Thread on humanism: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jerry-coyne-insists-that-secular-humanism-is-not-a-religion/#
Hazel,
You may not have intended to start up the “meaning in life” discussion, but I think that song would bring it up in many people’s minds. In particular, the continual reference to being gone, and not being able to do anything after one is gone, can only refer to a humanistic view of death as the complete end of every act and every opportunity.
We would agree it seems, that what we do in this life is important, and the things mentioned in the song are of course good things that we should do while we are here. But my perspective goes so much further, to include the fact that the next life is important also, and and that the wrong things here get set right there. (I don’t see any way humanity can set things right on its own. I just don’t.)
So a question: For you, does life have any transcendent meaning? Or is meaning all individual? If transcendent, what if humanity goes extinct before getting off the planet, reaching the singularity, etc.?
You’re right, EDTA, I did bring up the subject of, to use a convenient term, humanism, by posting “When I’m Gone”
And I understand, very well I think, that many people believe in life after death, and, as you say, “that the next life is important also, and and that the wrong things here get set right there.” I don’t believe that, but I also know that that perspective is very important to those that do.
I pointed out that we discussed all this recently on the thread on humanism that I linked to in post 12: in fact, you posted something there at post 4 that moved the conversation along. I don’t know whether you continued reading that thread, but some of my thoughts were at posts 15, 18, 23, 24, and 32, before the thread veered off into some interesting metaphysics. If you haven’t already, you might read those.
You ask, “For you, does life have any transcendent meaning? Or is meaning all individual? If transcendent, what if humanity goes extinct before getting off the planet, reaching the singularity, etc.?”
I don’t think that either/or question is adequate to capture my beliefs, in part because I think essential parts of the subject of it are unknowable. I can say with some certainty that I don’t believe in any transcendent meaning about or for human beings that exists separate from human beings, so if human beings go extinct (which I am virtually certain will happen before the universe ends), then all human meaning will be gone.
Hazel states:
Again Hazel, you have no scientific basis for your beliefs other than your own atheistic/nihilistic preference for how things should be.
Science could care less how you personally prefer things to be.
One of the primary places that atheists try to ‘scientifically’ claim that our lives have no meaning is with the Copernican principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity. Specifically, the ‘principle of mediocrity’ assumes that nothing is special about humanity’s situation
Stephen Hawking, via the Copernican Principle and/or The Principle of Mediocrity, once stated “The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can’t believe the whole universe exists for our benefit.,,,”
And yet, despite the fact that practically everybody, including the vast majority of Christians, hold that the Copernican principle, and by default “The Principle of Mediocrity’, are unquestionably true, the plain fact of the matter is that the Copernican Principle has now been overturned by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Which happen to be two of our very best, most precisely tested, theories ever in the history of science:
Einstein himself stated that, The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems].”
Fred Hoyle and George Ellis add their considerable weight here, in regards to General Relativity overturning the Copernican Principle, in these following two quotes:
As Einstein himself noted, there simply is no experimental test that can ever be performed that can prove that the earth is not the center of the universe:
Even Stephen Hawking himself, who once claimed that we humans are just chemical scum on an insignificant planet, stated that it is not true that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong,,, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.”
In fact, in the 4-Dimensional space-time of Einstein’s General Relativity, it is left completely open for whomever is making a model of the universe to decide for themselves what is to be considered central in the universe:
Even individual people can be considered central in the universe in the four-dimensional space-time of General Relativity,,,
,,, Moreover, when Einstein first formulated both Special and General relativity, he gave a hypothetical observer a privileged frame of reference in which to make measurements in the universe.
Whereas, on the other hand, in Quantum Mechanics it is the measurement itself that gives each observer a privileged frame of reference in the universe. As the following researcher commented, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”
And as Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
Because of such evidence as this from quantum mechanics, Richard Conn Henry, who is Professor of Physics at John Hopkins University, stated this “It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe.”
There is also evidence from Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) anomalies, as well as evidence that we live at the geometric mean, (i.e. ‘the middle’), of all possible sizes in the universe, that further falsifies the Copernican principle. But the main point being is that you Hazel, whether you even realize it or not, no longer have any scientific basis for your belief that our lives have no ultimate meaning and purpose.
And as was pointed out in the later half of this video I referenced previously,
,,, there are many more lines of powerful scientific evidence that can be brought to bear in overturning your atheistic belief in nihilism.
So to repeat, “you have no scientific basis for your beliefs other than your own atheistic/nihilistic preference for how things should be.”
i.e. You may very strongly want and desire your nihilistic opinion to be true, but without any scientific evidence to back up your claim, indeed with many lines of scientific evidence directly contradicting your claim, you belief is simply unwarranted, and even worse than that, your belief is an exercise in self-delusional since you have simply refused to accept reality as it really is.
Verse:
Generally I am skeptical of accounts of out of the body NDE’s. Because they are so subjective they don’t prove anything though I am willing concede that many, if not most, of the people who report these kinds of experiences are being sincere.
However, I find the following Youtube clip from a recent movie, based on a real life stranger-than-fiction incident (Dec. 2011) about a young girl, Anna Beam, who falls head first 20 feet down inside an old hollow Cottonwood tree to be very compelling. But it’s not her experience but what happened afterwards that gives me pause. After the fall Anna was miraculously cured from a serious digestive tract condition (pseudo-obstruction motility disorder and antral hypomotility disorder) that her doctors, including one of the country’s top specialists, had diagnosed as both life threatening and incurable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXiVw3hiyWk
The following are a few of the news accounts and articles which document the incident:
https://www.wfaa.com/video/features/miracles-from-heaven-star-jennifer-garner-and-author-christy-beam/287-1894184
https://insider.foxnews.com/2015/04/14/miracles-heaven-near-fatal-fall-cures-sick-little-girls-symptoms
http://www.historyvshollywood......om-heaven/
Nevertheless, The History vs. Hollywood article suggests that this all could be a hoax.
However, if you take the time to look at this incident objectively you’ll find that if this is a hoax it’s got to be one of history’s greatest hoaxes. Frankly, if you honestly think through everything that this family would have to fabricate and manipulate that’s just not credible.
John
Hoaxes do exist, and therefore any story is either (A) true, or (B) not true (i.e. hoax).
Unbelievers have been crying “Hoax!” over every account of Christian history since the very beginning of human history:
“Did God really say … ?”
The thing I find of interest, when confronted with the hoax-cryers today, is to ascertain the criteria they use to accept or reject any historical account. What I have invariably found is that their criteria are not consistently applied and they readily accept as truth accounts having a minuscule fraction of the supporting evidence of those they reject. Such double-standards are the coin of a bankrupt philosophy.
John_a_designer you state,
As to you writing NDEs off because they are “so subjective”, it might interest you to know that all of empirical science is 100% reliant on the subjective observations of people and the accurate reporting of what they saw in their subjective observations. In fact the first step in the scientific method is “observation” itself:
And quantum mechanics now proves that subjective ‘observation’ is not just something that we can rely only on our scientific instruments themselves to make.
As John von Neumann explains, as far as quantum mechanics is concerned, “we must always divide the world into two parts, the one being the observed system, the other the observer.”
And as was already referenced in post 15, quantum mechanics has now verified that “measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”
Thus science itself is 100% dependent on subjective observation.
But I know what you are really getting at John_a_designer when you are saying NDEs are “so subjective”. It is that they are not making accurate, repeatable, measurements with scientific instruments during their NDEs. And thus we have no way of knowing whether or not the NDEs were imaginary or whether they were actually real. But I hold that there is a way to ‘scientifically’ know that the NDEs are actually real.
In order to do this we must first take a look at what we know to be true from special relativity.
As we know from special relativity, time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop for a hypothetical observer travelling at the speed of light.
To grasp the whole concept of time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the very same ‘thought experiment’ that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into special relativity. Here is a short clip from a video that gives us a look into Einstein’s breakthrough insight.
That time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, and yet light moves from point A to point B in our universe, and thus light is obviously not ‘frozen within time, has some fairly profound implications.
The only way it is possible for time not to pass for light, and yet for light to move from point A to point B in our universe, is if light is of a higher dimensional value of time than the temporal time we are currently living in. Otherwise light would simply be ‘frozen within time’ to our temporal frame of reference.
And indeed that is what we find. “Hermann Minkowski—once one of the math professors of a young Einstein in Zurich—presented a geometric interpretation of special relativity that fused time and the three spatial dimensions of space into a single four-dimensional continuum now known as Minkowski space.”
One way for us to more easily understand this higher dimensional framework for time that light exist in is to visualize what would happen if a hypothetical observer approached the speed of light.
In the following video clip, which was made by two Australian University Physics Professors, we find that the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape as a ‘hypothetical’ observer approaches the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light.
OK now that we have outlined the basics of what we know to be true from special relativity, It is very interesting to note that many of the characteristics found in Near Death Experience testimonies are exactly what we would expect to see from what we now know to be true about Special Relativity.
For instance, many times people who have had a Near Death Experience mention that their perception of time was radically altered. In the following video clip, Mickey Robinson gives his Near Death testimony of what it felt like for him to experience a ‘timeless eternity’.
And here are a few more quotes from people who have experienced Near Death, that speak of how their perception of time was radically altered as they were outside of their material body during their NDEs.
As well, Near Death Experiencers also frequently mention going through a tunnel to a higher heavenly dimension:
In the following video, Barbara Springer gives her testimony as to what it felt like for her to go through the tunnel:
And in the following audio clip, Vicki Noratuk, who has been blind from birth, besides being able to see for the first time during in her life during her Near Death Experience, Vicki also gives testimony of going through a tunnel:
And in the following quotes, the experiencers both testify that they firmly believed that they were in a higher dimension that is above this three-dimensional world, and that the reason that they have a very difficult time explaining what their Near Death Experiences actually felt like is because we simply don’t currently have the words to properly describe that higher dimension:
Thus in conclusion, the validity of NDEs while being “so subjective”, none-the-less, matches exactly what we would expect to be true beforehand from one of our most accurately verified theories in science, i.e. special relativity.
And while it is certainly true that one cannot place too much emphasis on just one Near Death Experience as being undeniably true, none the less, since the experiences are verified repeatedly by millions of different people who have died for a short while and have come back to tell us of the experiences, then the ‘subjective observations’ of these people, (of a timeless eternity and of ‘going through a tunnel’), are, none the less, reliable in that they do indeed exactly match the characteristics of what we would expect to be true beforehand from what we know to be scientifically true from special relativity.
I would even go so far as to say that such corroboration from ‘non-physicists’, who know nothing about the intricacies of special relativity, is a complete scientific verification for the overall validity of NDE testimonies.
Of supplemental note:
I just read BA77’s comments on NDEs, and I think that I just had one. 🙂
LOL!