Shouldn't most religious people in theory be excited to die because then they get to experience the afterlife?
Shouldn't most religious people in theory be excited to die because then they get to experience the afterlife?
esp if you're one of the devout ones who think they've been really good
You're viewing a single thread.
Yeah. As someone who really likes thinking about metaphysics I'm really excited to die and see what it feels like. That being said I also really enjoy living and I'm not in a rush to die. It'll happen eventually and I want to try to do as much as I can while I can.
Everyone should be excited to die, not just religious people. Being excited to die means you lived a good life that you're satisfied with.
Being excited to die means you lived a good life
The problem is, most of the current generation is well aware they haven’t lived good lives. Not to mention, the conundrum of living longer implies a chance for an accumulation of more misdeeds. Personally, the most likely scenario is almost everyone becomes aware there is likely nothing afterwards at some point. Religion is more there like the bumpers for kids cosmic bowling, ensuring zero gutter balls. Keeping you playing, until the day you’re old enough to remove them and pay taxes, revealing life is a subscription, and childhood was a free trial all along.
Read the comment but laughed when I saw your user name.
Not everyone can live a "good" life by your definition of good, but they can live a good life by their definition of good.
Current generations realize that what older people are trying to sell them is a scam, and they're working on building a new better reality based on their fresh perspective on what reality is.
You can look at religion through many lenses, but at the end of the day religion is just an unprovable fiction we choose to believe because it's how we want the world to work. My belief that if you want to live a good life you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you is religious. Game theory and my life experiences support my belief, but it is ultimately an unprovable belief because of Hume's Guillotine and the fact that my definition of "good life" is subjective.
It's 100% possible that I'm just tricking myself into thinking helping other people is good and makes me happy, but I will still choose to believe.
Is there any reason to feel different after you've died than before you were born?
Nah. But reason and logic are just human constructs that you'll get to let go of when you die. The process of being born is indescribable for me. I think the process of dying will also be indescribable by definition.
The same reason why you feel different today than when you were just born? You don't even need dualism to have a basis for life after death.
I feel different today as my sensory as well as sensory processing organs have developed.
Being dead, just as before being born, I possess no such organs and expect not to "feel".
But my position isn't the interesting one, @RadicalEagle suggested something I interpreted as still having perception beyond life, and I was wondering if that excludes having perception before life, and how that ties into their metaphysics.
I feel different today as my sensory as well as sensory processing organs have developed.
There are a lot more changes influencing your perception of reality than just sensory development.
Being dead, just as before being born, I possess no such organs and expect not to "feel".
That's dependent on your consciousness being limited to your physical body. Who's to say that your consciousness wasn't limited so a pantheistic deity could interact with itself. Both theories are equally unscientific as you can't disprove what happens before or after life
Consciousness being tied to the physical body isn't "unscientific", it's the only option that can be tested and studied.
Read a bit about falsifiability and philosophy of science. Physicalism is a metaphysical theory, and not falsifiable.
There are a lot more changes influencing your perception of reality than just sensory development.
I'd agree, but those are enough to clearly demonstrate a mechanism for changed perception in the proposed time span. The underlying question is question begging and whataboutism, so I think I've provided an overly generous answer to a dishonest question.
That's dependent on your consciousness being limited to your physical body. Who's to say that your consciousness wasn't limited so a pantheistic deity could interact with itself. Both theories are equally unscientific as you can't disprove what happens before or after life
As we can reliably affect consciousness though manipulating the body, it's well established that it's contingent on the body.
And as we can map consciousness happening in the body down to individual neurons firing, where would a non-corporeal consciousness interact with a body?
You calling these reliably reproducible facts unscientific belies a fundamental misunderstanding of science.
Though naturalism might not be the only way to investigate the universe, we have yet to encounter any reliable other paradigms. And even if we would discover them, naturalism would still be part of science, we'd just add the other paradigms to the areas they're useful, like we've done with psychology, sociology, and even quantum physics.
A difficult question for unfalsifiable hypotheses is that if they're unfalsifiable, they are also undetectable, and as such no different from figments of imagination. Why should I believe your imagination when my imaginary friend says not to?
And as we can map consciousness happening in the body down to individual neurons firing, where would a non-corporeal consciousness interact with a body?
Did I mention dualism or substance monism? Materialism doesn't necessarily include physicalism.
You calling these reliably reproducible facts unscientific belies a fundamental misunderstanding of science.
Read up on why physicalism is not verifiable. Your imagination saying consciousness ends with death is equally verifiable as my imagination saying you're taken away by the flying spaghetti monster.
Though naturalism might not be the only way to investigate the universe, we have yet to encounter any reliable other paradigms.
Ever heard of ontological pluralism? Naturalism is not physicalism...
Your last response wasn't constructive, and this one does even less to further a discussion. I'll just end this here.
Have a nice rest of your existence.
Riiiight buddy, it has absolutely nothing to do with you being shown how limited your knowledge is about the philosophies of science and mind.
Was the fox and the grapes your favourite fable growing up?