17 ms·

"Most mainstream Judaeo-Christian postulates the immortality of the soul. But it seems to come up against mainstream history and science." Does it? Science do

"Most mainstream Judaeo-Christian postulates the immortality of the soul. But it seems to come up against mainstream history and science." Does it? Science does not answer questions that defy empirical inquiry. I have been told that we are spirits first and that we are having a temporary in-body experience. We don't currently remember our time before because this period of our eternal existence is a special test. It's a time of development and preparation. After death we will resume our real lives and eventually get our bodies back, permanently, thanks to Jesus Christ. My whole life I've been considering ways to either prove or disprove that narrative, but it turns out to be strictly unfalsifiable thanks to the part about forgetting our previous experiences. Does that mean the narrative is false? Certainly not. Does that mean it's true? Again, certainly not. Should I discard that narrative because it's unfalsifiable? Well, I can't prove empirically that my mother loves me, but I hold on to that belief anyway because I think it's right. It's wrong to burden science with every important question. When we torture science into answering unfalsifiable questions, we change its definition and confuse everyone. I love that the domain of science is constantly expanding and more questions are becoming empirically answerable every day, but we need to maintain our humility and recognize that science still has little to say about the basic questions of our existence. I wholeheartedly agree that if this life is all there is, there's something seriously wrong. My wife, my children, my parents, my family, and my friends deserve more than just this. I see evidence of their infinite potential. What can I do to help them reach their true, immortal potential? I don't think I'm the first person to recognize the infinite potential of others. I think more intelligent people figured this stuff out long before I did. I think some of those smart people decided to do something about all the wasted potential in the universe. I think we are all beneficiaries of those smart people and that life isn't anywhere near as bleak as it seems. If not, someone somewhere is eventually going to be in the right place at the right time and they will set things in motion so that future people will have eternal lives. They will probably decide that eternal beings should have extraordinary experiences such as 100 year long blind tests in planet-sized classrooms. Oh wait. :-) Anyway, forgive my ramble. Life is extraordinary and hard to pin down.

EGreg 10y ago
I mean like for example the archaeology and genetic tracing of native americans building cities 5000 years ago, Egyptian pyramids built 4500 years ago, vs the story that everything on earth got wiped out by a giant flood 4100 years ago. They can't both be true. Similarly if the Exodus happened Egypt would have been devastated and overrun by Hittites etc. Or Herod's killing of all the children. Or the mass resurrection of the saints in Matthew. It would have left behind some independent accounts. Where is all the evidence? That's what I mean. It can all still be true theologically. But who wrote these books and if it happens that at least some of stories are embellished then doesn't that kind of throw a monkey wrench into it? On what basis are you sure about what to believe?
- hathawsh 10y ago
  If this life is a classroom, as I have been told, then there are teachers and test administrators. The administrators withhold certain evidence of the past in order to help us focus on more important things. They want to help us grow in faith, charity, and other values, not just analytical ability. People are not perfect and prophets are people. I know of a prophet who said Jesus was born in Jerusalem. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not Jerusalem. Does that invalidate that prophet? No, he was addressing a people who didn't know the eastern lands very well and he was simplifying. Context is everything, even though we don't always know the full context. If I were sure about what to believe, it wouldn't be belief anymore; it would be knowledge. If I only acted on things I am certain about, I would do almost nothing, since there is very little I am absolutely certain about. Life became more fulfilling and interesting when I learned to act on not only things I know, but also things I believe. Acting on belief leads to growth and ever increasing certainty that I am making choices that benefit me and my family.
- md224 10y ago
  I think it's more productive to look at the question of consciousness and immortality outside the context of religious doctrines and narratives. Religion provides answers to this question, as does Science, but they don't exhaust all of the possibilities. There's a deeper epistemological issue here about what we know about consciousness and what we can say with certainty about first-person experience.

EGreg 10y ago

I mean like for example the archaeology and genetic tracing of native americans building cities 5000 years ago, Egyptian pyramids built 4500 years ago, vs the story that everything on earth got wiped out by a giant flood 4100 years ago. They can't both be true. Similarly if the Exodus happened Egypt would have been devastated and overrun by Hittites etc. Or Herod's killing of all the children. Or the mass resurrection of the saints in Matthew. It would have left behind some independent accounts. Where is all the evidence? That's what I mean. It can all still be true theologically. But who wrote these books and if it happens that at least some of stories are embellished then doesn't that kind of throw a monkey wrench into it? On what basis are you sure about what to believe?

hathawsh 10y ago
If this life is a classroom, as I have been told, then there are teachers and test administrators. The administrators withhold certain evidence of the past in order to help us focus on more important things. They want to help us grow in faith, charity, and other values, not just analytical ability. People are not perfect and prophets are people. I know of a prophet who said Jesus was born in Jerusalem. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not Jerusalem. Does that invalidate that prophet? No, he was addressing a people who didn't know the eastern lands very well and he was simplifying. Context is everything, even though we don't always know the full context. If I were sure about what to believe, it wouldn't be belief anymore; it would be knowledge. If I only acted on things I am certain about, I would do almost nothing, since there is very little I am absolutely certain about. Life became more fulfilling and interesting when I learned to act on not only things I know, but also things I believe. Acting on belief leads to growth and ever increasing certainty that I am making choices that benefit me and my family.
md224 10y ago
I think it's more productive to look at the question of consciousness and immortality outside the context of religious doctrines and narratives. Religion provides answers to this question, as does Science, but they don't exhaust all of the possibilities. There's a deeper epistemological issue here about what we know about consciousness and what we can say with certainty about first-person experience.