Contemplation of Death (Atheism applied to non-atheism)

During my walk today, I pondered about past thoughts I've had surrounding death and the afterlife. For about one whole month, I meditated deeply on the idea of the purely atheistic idea of death - that once the lights are out, the lights are out and all form of your conscious "you" is utterly gone, and that's the end of the story. No more loved ones to see, no more world to dwell in, no more universe to experience, no more awareness of anything. All conscious remnants of you are no more. This thought, as cold as it comes across to be for many people, I had found to be utterly motivating toward my look on life. Apparently, this is value that comes from the saying "You only live once", and the thought of this life being my one and only chance had a dramatic effect on how I see and feel about everything around me.

Since then, I've drifted away from the thought by itself and put my mind and heart back upon the original idea of death that I've pondered for a long time, which is that my consciousness does continue to exist, but no longer individually. Instead my consciousness is the "universal consciousness" after it is no longer isolated to the node that is my body.

However, there is something still about the "You only live once" view that had so much value in it, which was the motivation and realization of the value of my current life. I valued what I felt from that view a lot and so I have been thinking of some way to extract this idea from that point of view, and apply it to my original view in which I have been personally putting together over the years.

So I have three questions.

1. What is your belief about death and an afterlife?
2. Would you apply the atheistic view of death in some way to yours?
3. If you did, how might you apply it?

I look forward to discussing this in depth. I'm in the midst of a sermon / essay on this very subject. In the meantime here's a few thoughts.

This is from The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason
Copyright © 2004 by Sam Harris

Consciousness

Most scientists consider themselves physicalists; this means, among other things, that they believe that our mental and spiritual lives are wholly dependent upon the workings of our brains. On this account, when the brain dies, the stream of our being must come to an end. Once the lamps of neural activity have been extinguished, there will be nothing left to survive. Indeed, many scientists purvey this conviction as though it were itself a special sacrament, conferring intellectual integrity upon any man, woman, or child who is man enough to swallow it.

But the truth is that we simply do not know what happens after death. While there is much to be said against a naïve conception of a soul that is independent of the brain, the place of consciousness in the natural world is very much an open question. The idea that brains produce consciousness is little more than an article of faith among scientists at present, and there are many reasons to believe that the methods of science will be insufficient to either prove or disprove it.

Inevitably, scientists treat consciousness as a mere attribute of certain large-brained animals. The problem, however, is that nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, declares it to be a bearer of that peculiar, interior dimension that each of us experiences as consciousness in his own case. Every paradigm that attempts to shed light upon the frontier between consciousness and unconsciousness, searching for the physical difference that makes the phenomenal one, relies upon subjective reports to signal that an experimental stimulus has been observed. The operational definition of consciousness is reportability. But consciousness and reportability are not the same. [...] To look for consciousness in the world on the basis of its outward signs is the only thing that we can do. To define consciousness in terms of its outward signs, however, is a fallacy.

---

Some books I've read on this subject (only a few recent ones):




http://www.amazon.com/Atheist-Afterlife-afterlife-Reasonable-meeting/dp/1897435290



http://www.amazon.com/Immortality-Defended-John-Leslie/dp/140516204X



http://www.amazon.com/Brain-Mind-Structure-Reality-Nunez/dp/019534071X/

In Brain, Mind, and the Structure of Reality, Paul Nunez discusses the possibility of deep connections between relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and consciousness: all entities involved with fundamental information barriers. Dr. Nunez elaborates on possible new links in this nested web of human knowledge that may tell us something new about the nature and origins of consciousness. In the end, does the brain create the mind? Or is the Mind already out there?

p.s. You'll need to click on the link, not the graphic, to look inside.

1. There is only one life. Since I wouldn't consider myself less alive because half my body went missing but would if i couldnt do the things I like anymore, I think I wouldn't consider a "body goes, soul/spirit survives" type of death to be death at all.
Also, since there is no evidence of the afterlife having any effect on my current life, I don't bother speculating about it. If there is something, I'll discover it in good time, if there isn't, speculating about it would be a waste of my current, known-to-be-limited life.
As far as I'm concerned, I can directly observe the physical, and if my destiny is to become one with the force by being eaten by worms, then birds, then cats, then a human at a dodgy kebab place, then so be it.

2. Actually that's irreligious (probably?), not atheistic. It is possible to believe in reincarnation and ghosts and whatnot but not in deities. Atheism only means one thing: lack of belief in a deity. it implies no belief or lack of belief in any form of afterlife.

3. Uhhh. The obvious way?

There seems to be so many variations on what happens after death. I can't bring myself to logically believe in anything except that there is only one life, and once done your consciousness is done as well. Some of the other ideas seem nice but either have odd restrictions on them or just seem too nice.

The idea that there is a collective consciousness where your mind goes after death I don't see really stopping the idea of only one life. The way I see it, even if there is a collective consciousness that part of consciousness that is you is still gone. In a sense you only have one chance to be you.

Proteus wrote: So I have three questions.

1. What is your belief about death and an afterlife?
2. Would you apply the atheistic view of death in some way to yours?
3. If you did, how might you apply it?

Interesting idea, but not necessarily Atheism. In Ecclesiastes 5:18, the bible says...

Behold, what I have seen to be good and fitting is to eat and drink and find enjoyment in all the toil with which one toils under the sun the few days of his life that God has given him, for this is his lot (This word "lot" is interpreted to mean one's alloted portion.).

1. While it is said many times in the bible that there is "eternal life" and "life after death" this is for one's soul. This has never been said of one's mind unless a man interprets that their soul is their mind. It has certainly never been said that one's body will have everlasting life. While still a Christian to some extent and believing that my soul will go to heaven, I am in no way certain that I will be "aware" of my life after death, as I am with this current life I am living.

2. Yes and I have throughout most of my adult life.

3. For this reason, I have always lived my life similar to a quote by the late James Dean..."Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today." I do what I can to ensure that people will remember me after I am gone. Not for the date of my birth or for the date of my death that will be carved on my tombstone, but rather for the tiny little dash that has been carved in between them.

1. OK I've had some weird experiences, so for me, death is the body giving up the ghost. The ghost being an illusion that we are a seperate entity from the Force whilst alive. The illusion is just part of being physically incarnated. Life then might give us a chance to prepare a better transition to any afterlife by accepting the possibility of being seperate from the body. What happens afterward I'd guess to be some form of harmonious assimilation into timeless bliss who's topology is probably limited to resonance (light) or manifestation (dark)... which sort of in a roundabout way matches bits of Buddhism hence my interest into it. Specifically Tibetan Buddhism because all that thin air up there must have made for interesting dreams.

2/3. It hold little value to assume life ends with physical death, except to perhaps remind us how valuable the now is for ourselves and also everyone else, which can be done in either model for I'd imagine any number of reasons.

Adder wrote: 2/3. It hold little value to assume life ends with physical death, except to perhaps remind us how valuable the now is for ourselves and also everyone else, which can be done in either model for I'd imagine any number of reasons.

Eh...I see another, perhaps similar but slightly different view, on this. If we were to assume that all life continued after one's physical death, what would be the downside to killing someone? We could just start mowing people down in the street without feeling bad because they would just come back to life or live on elsewhere in another form. By assuming that we only have this one life to live, it makes everyone's, including our own, one life so much more valuable that murder becomes the physical act of ending one's existence. There would no longer be a concept of morality when it came to life and death without the value of a life. Again, just a slightly different view on it.

I'm not an Atheist, but using this reasoning I could see why there are far fewer Atheists in jail than any other religion (except maybe Jediism lol).

Resticon wrote: Eh...I see another, perhaps similar but slightly different view, on this. If we were to assume that all life continued after one's physical death, what would be the downside to killing someone?

I doubt someone without compassion would need such a reason. In your example I think everyone else (with compassion) would feel terrible for the loss suffered by those past and present (and future?) relationships that will be damaged by killing the person even if it was making them reincarnate.

Adder wrote:

Resticon wrote: Eh...I see another, perhaps similar but slightly different view, on this. If we were to assume that all life continued after one's physical death, what would be the downside to killing someone?

I doubt someone without compassion would need such a reason. In your example I think everyone else (with compassion) would feel terrible for the loss suffered by those past and present (and future?) relationships that will be damaged by killing the person even if it was making them reincarnate.

Perhaps but were you aware that humans are the only species in nature that find infanticide as morally wrong? Perhaps if humans no longer had the morality of life/death or cared about whether someone lived or died because they would just "come back" then fewer people would become attached or form relationships and their compassion for a person would become a moot point.

Resticon wrote: Perhaps but were you aware that humans are the only species in nature that find infanticide as morally wrong? Perhaps if humans no longer had the morality of life/death or cared about whether someone lived or died because they would just "come back" then fewer people would become attached or form relationships and their compassion for a person would become a moot point.

Are you suggesting humanity only stays together because of the belief in reincarnation or an afterlife? It's an interesting idea but I'd imagine there are plenty of individuals and communities without such a belief who are not killing each other. I'd guess it has more to do with empathy and compassion then fear of the afterlife.