Life after death

[Skeptical]

I am always amazed how the religico's can manufacture whole mythologies out of nothing. With a complete lack of evidence, our believers in reincarnation have a detailed model of how it works.

Pity such mental processes totally fail when you deal with something, like real science, that requires confirmation.

[Billy T]

I am always amazed how the religico's can manufacture whole mythologies out of nothing. With a complete lack of evidence, our believers in reincarnation have a detailed model of how it works....

You have a slight error here. I got two replies, totally different, to my questions. Thus they don't have a model, but each has their own mythology.

[Skeptical]

Each one has formed a unique and highly personal detailed mythological model.

As you implied, the lack of consistency casts deep suspicion on verity. (Not that this was needed. Bullsh!t is recognisably bullsh!t everywhere.)

[lightgigantic]

I am always amazed how the religico's can manufacture whole mythologies out of nothing.

I am always amazed how atheists can critique religion with a complete lack of philosophical discipline while simultaneously try and vouch for the intellectual high ground

With a complete lack of evidence, our believers in reincarnation have a detailed model of how it works.

the only way you can vouch that there is no evidence is to work out of the premise it is based on nothing (which in turn is based on the premise that there is no evidence) .... all of which provides a typical example of an atheists sorry attempt at checkmate or something ....

Pity such mental processes totally fail when you deal with something, like real science, that requires confirmation.

"real" science?

[Skeptical]

LG

Real science is based on empiricism and follows a clear cut method. The value of this approach has been proven repeatedly over the past 400 years, and our modern society, with its wonders, including a healthy and long lived population, are the proof of its verity.

Reincarnation, on the other hand, has zero empirical and credible evidence. It is the end result of wishful thinking and superstition.

[Billy T]

Make of that "RETURNS" what you wish in the year of the rabbit.
If so we may run short of souls for all the new babies.

[lightgigantic]

LG

Real science is based on empiricism and follows a clear cut method. The value of this approach has been proven repeatedly over the past 400 years, and our modern society, with its wonders, including a healthy and long lived population, are the proof of its verity.

Reincarnation, on the other hand, has zero empirical and credible evidence. It is the end result of wishful thinking and superstition.

on the other hand, it wouldn't even be logically feasible to expect reincarnation to appear within the (narrow) parameters of empiricism since the very things it deals with contextualize the workings of the senses ... Indeed, the notion that empiricism has a monopoly on all knowable claims is not only wishful thinking but also a claim that cannot be empirically validated ...

[420Joey]

Vote = LG

[Skeptical]

on the other hand, it wouldn't even be logically feasible to expect reincarnation to appear within the (narrow) parameters of empiricism since the very things it deals with contextualize the workings of the senses ... Indeed, the notion that empiricism has a monopoly on all knowable claims is not only wishful thinking but also a claim that cannot be empirically validated ...

The problem with this argument is that it applies to absolutely everything. I could postulate invisible leprechauns. Empiricism cannot disprove invisible leprechauns, or fairies that hide from people, or little green aliens who have space ships with cloaking devices beyond our ability to penetrate. Hey, let your imagination go!

Sorry, but the argument put by LG is kinda meaningless. A much more rational approach is simply to accept that those things we can detect and measure are real, and provisionally accept that those we cannot are not real.

If anyone tries to tell me that something undetectable is real, I assume one of the following.
1. He is hoaxing me
2. He is a liar
3. He is insane
4. he is sincerely deluded
5. He is a swindler with a financial motive
etc.

One thing I do not assume is that he is correct.

[420Joey]

I guess you are an extreme rationalist.
You exclude all metaphysical speculation?
Because you cannot "detect" it...

[Skeptical]

Joey

One of the problems with matters metaphysical is the human element. It is well known that people have a habit of 'adding' to what they perceive and remember. If we see a light in the sky, it becomes a flying saucer, and within a year or three we remember little grey men climbing out of that imaginary saucer.

For this and other reasons, scientists years ago decided that only things that can be detected and measured can be considered to have objective reality, and even then only if those are repeatable.

Sadly, there is just too much non reality generated inside the human brain to take subjective perceptions and memories too seriously.

[lightgigantic]

The problem with this argument is that it applies to absolutely everything. I could postulate invisible leprechauns. Empiricism cannot disprove invisible leprechauns, or fairies that hide from people, or little green aliens who have space ships with cloaking devices beyond our ability to penetrate. Hey, let your imagination go!

Once again, its not that empiricism has a monopoly on all knowable claims. If you accept a certain set of people as your mother and father and have never carried out a dna test on them, this is not even a foreign principle to you (and if you accept such persons as your parents while simultaneously holding the existence of leprechauns untenable you can quit pretending that philosophically all claims that stand outside empiricism are on the same platform)

Sorry, but the argument put by LG is kinda meaningless. A much more rational approach is simply to accept that those things we can detect and measure are real, and provisionally accept that those we cannot are not real.

Far from being rational, it is completely absurd the moment one attempts to cram a holistic world view into an approach only suited to professional scientific research ... and for that matter one can't even come to the level of a professional scientist unless they are prepared to turf such a world view in their formative years at university.

If anyone tries to tell me that something undetectable is real, I assume one of the following.
1. He is hoaxing me
2. He is a liar
3. He is insane
4. he is sincerely deluded
5. He is a swindler with a financial motive
etc.

One thing I do not assume is that he is correct.

So when you seek the assistance of a lawyer, doctor, mechanic or other professional who has skills way above and beyond your ability to comprehend at the level of the senses (IOW if you can't figure out which way to hold a diagram, its not because you need a pair of glasses or something) do they also land in one of these 5 categories?

[420Joey]

Sciforums needs a prop system on the forum.

[Skeptical]

LC

You said

"If you accept a certain set of people as your mother and father and have never carried out a dna test on them, this is not even a foreign principle to you"

In fact, I have very good empirical evidence that the man claiming to be my father is my biological Dad. He and I are both quite ugly, and ugly in exactly the same way. My mother I cannot judge. She is much better looking. However, there is no reason to doubt her statement that she is my mother, and so I will provisionally accept that she is. That is a rational approach.

LC

Your statement

"it is completely absurd the moment one attempts to cram a holistic world view into an approach only suited to professional scientific research "

is actually quite meaningless.

And yet another silly statement

"when you seek the assistance of a lawyer, doctor, mechanic or other professional who has skills way above and beyond your ability to comprehend at the level of the senses "

This statement is silly (and I am not calling you personally silly. For all I know, you may be very smart, in subjects separate from this one.) because no professional is beyond assessing. If I could not measure, in some meaningful way, how good my lawyer or accountant was, I would not use them. I have sacked professionals before, when they failed to meet the grade, and I will, no doubt, do it again.

[keith1]

Death is only a demmand for those who demmand it.

Death only demands you spend your hours on caring for life, on creation, on life extension, and life expansion. All else is naturally counter-productive, and clearly a direct violation of the edicts of any possible after-life composition (spelled out directly, by life and death itself).

Therefore, to believe or to lecture about an exact afterlife scenerio, such as heaven, hell, reincarnation, soul, nothingness-after-death, is clearly harmful to your lifeform. Not to mine, because I am not doing so. I pity your inate weaknesses, which just compound you more weakness.

[lightgigantic]

LC

You said

"If you accept a certain set of people as your mother and father and have never carried out a dna test on them, this is not even a foreign principle to you"

In fact, I have very good empirical evidence that the man claiming to be my father is my biological Dad. He and I are both quite ugly, and ugly in exactly the same way.

so these people are also intimately genetically related?



(as we all know, appearances are anecdotal and not empirical)

My mother I cannot judge. She is much better looking. However, there is no reason to doubt her statement that she is my mother, and so I will provisionally accept that she is. That is a rational approach.

rationalism is a broader philosophical discipline than empiricism. - one could also say that there is no reason to reject reincarnation, leprechauns or even that all pigs can fly (according to the premises one is utilizing to back up the claim)

LC

Your statement

"it is completely absurd the moment one attempts to cram a holistic world view into an approach only suited to professional scientific research "

is actually quite meaningless.

If you don't understand what it means you should simply ask for a reiteration.
I thought it was quite clear.

If one is prepared to entertain reality exclusively in terms of things that one can measure (ie require the use of an empirical unit of measurement for anything in order to categorize it as real) what units do you use for love, friendship, doubt, etc etc?

And yet another silly statement

"when you seek the assistance of a lawyer, doctor, mechanic or other professional who has skills way above and beyond your ability to comprehend at the level of the senses "

This statement is silly (and I am not calling you personally silly. For all I know, you may be very smart, in subjects separate from this one.) because no professional is beyond assessing.

true
however not everyone is capable of assessing them
assessment of professionals is done by other professionals

If I could not measure, in some meaningful way, how good my lawyer or accountant was, I would not use them.

if you step in to a professionals office, how do you assess their proficiency beyond the accreditation given by other professionals (like certificates etc)

I have sacked professionals before, when they failed to meet the grade, and I will, no doubt, do it again.

well yeah, after they have performed ... but intelligence in retrospect is kind of a dud - one could just as easily say that when you die your notion that reincarnation is a dud will fail to meet the grade .

[Skeptical]

In answer the the query "what units do you use for love, friendship, doubt", obviously no such units currently exist, though there is no reason to suggest that someone may design appropriate units some time in the future. However, the phenomena of love, friendship etc can be and are studied empirically through behavioural research techniques.

The idea of reincarnation must remain an unproven hypothesis. In science, for a hypothesis to gain credibility, it must generate testable predictions, which are tested, and fail to be falsified. The idea of reincarnation has not produced such testable predictions, and must remain highly problematic to say the least.

If you believe in reincarnation, that belief is no different in effect, to believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden or in the tooth fairy.

[lightgigantic]

In answer the the query "what units do you use for love, friendship, doubt", obviously no such units currently exist, though there is no reason to suggest that someone may design appropriate units some time in the future.

post dated rain cheques and empiricism are a poor marriage

However, the phenomena of love, friendship etc can be and are studied empirically through behavioural research techniques.

actually they are studied through soft science ...

The idea of reincarnation must remain an unproven hypothesis.

for as long as one works out of the premise that the real and the empirically derivative are the same thing ... which causes problem for the assessment of a range of issues that we usually categorize as "normal" life

In science, for a hypothesis to gain credibility, it must generate testable predictions, which are tested, and fail to be falsified. The idea of reincarnation has not produced such testable predictions, and must remain highly problematic to say the least.

as mentioned before , that's because the premise that you initially work of is to narrow to even entertain the possibility of testing it

If you believe in reincarnation, that belief is no different in effect, to believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden or in the tooth fairy.

or even that a certain set of people are indeed one's biological parents sans a dna test ... at least according to your logic

[Skeptical]

LC

I would be delighted to see a proper scientific test for reincarnation. Perhaps you might like to suggest a way this could be done?

[lightgigantic]

LC

I would be delighted to see a proper scientific test for reincarnation. Perhaps you might like to suggest a way this could be done?

If you relegate "scientific" to the empirical its an absurd ask at best and a loaded question at worst, since the very things it deals with (namely consciousness) contextualizes the workings of the senses.