Rational Explanations to Religions

[Ramaraksha]

Since there is no evidence of God or any super being and millions seem blind to the mistakes in religious books(sun circles the earth, life is 5,000 years old etc) we must conclude that there are natural, down-to-earth explanations to most religions

Clearly religions like Christianity and Islam made God in the image of the most powerful man when these religions were born - the local King. Their Terminology reflect their times - most people depended on the vagaries of agriculture, few had much hope for a good life, the one man who could make a difference in their lives was the King, hence a God who will take them away from this stupid earthly life of hardship and will give them the good life - the latter view is present in all religions

What does a subject/slave do when brought before the King? Well, get down on one's knees, swear undying loyalty of course. Because no King can afford to host a disloyal person however good that person might be - hence we have heavens that are closed for non-members, open only to those who believe(swear loyalty). The Slave then begged for mercy and protection - the good life in Heaven. Disloyal people were either cast out of the kingdom or worse - Hell

I find no fault with the ancients - that was the world they knew then and they came up with religions that reflected their present life style - weak, damsels in distress searching for the Knight in shining armor to come save them

What is distressing is that we continue to follow old-outdated ideas - today, we don't look for a King to give us the good life - today we Earn it! We are not damsels in distress anymore, we have democracy, freedom of speech, we don't live in Fear of the King's wrath

But the lure of a heaven is irresistible, it seems - who wouldn't want a nice easy life that a Sugar Daddy will provide? and to that the fear of death and old ideas continue to endure. Religions taking advantage of the fear of death and the lack of willingness to work hard and make a living - hence an easy promise of the eternal good life - just sit on your butt and take it easy for eternity - that's the Grand Plan

 

[abaddon]

You’re right about some religions that patterned their otherworldly metaphors upon the monarchist society from which they sprang. But still, most theists I know wouldn’t recognize themselves in what you’re describing. They like the idea of going to heaven after they die but it’s not the central fact of their life. They’re too busy working (and working hard!), raising kids, paying bills, shopping, watching tv.

So I wonder why you go on about this so much as if theism is somehow slackerdom when it's anything but?

The work ethic is the insidious influence of competitive economics in religious morality. It’s been fucking people’s lives and heads for centuries, and IMV needs much re-evaluation. We might all do better competing less and cooperating more, slaving for rich people/corporations less and living materially simpler but inwardly and socially more bounteous lives instead, and stopping the war of all against all that the work ethic engenders.

In short, fuck work! except the minimal that’s necessary (which is much less than we currently do). And everyone equal. No kings, no slaves… and no bosses, no slaves.

the eternal good life - just sit on your butt and take it easy for eternity - that's the Grand Plan

Sounds all right to me!

 

[skepticalbip]

You are right that the power systems of some religions are patterned after the feudal monarchy system. For instance the Catholic church:

Monarchy system = King – prince – duke – marquis – baron
Catholic system = Pope – cardinal – bishop – vicar – priest

However, I think that people are attracted to religion because it is a parental substitute. People like security and are uncomfortable with unknowns and unanswered questions. Parents provided security and answered all our questions when we were children. Religion offers security (god has a plan and is looking over you) and religion will answer any question anyone has even though most of the answers will sound like nonsense to those who do not accept that religion - but then a lot of our parents answers to our childhood questions would sound like nonsense to those not in the family.

 

[ideologyhunter]

And there's the illusion of righteousness. Christians think they have a franchise on morality. When, ages ago, I worked at a Presbyterian summer camp, we had a visiting pastor who contended that only in Christian circles was truly self-sacrificial love to be found. One of my fellow counselors was ballsy enough to ask him, then, if non-Christian soldiers had never fallen on grenades, etc. and given up their lives to save their comrades. Wouldn't that count as the ultimate in sacrificial love? The v. p. wouldn't budge on it -- he told us that only in the context of understanding Jeebus and his perfect sacrifice was totally selfless love possible.

 

[Ramaraksha]

You’re right about some religions that patterned their otherworldly metaphors upon the monarchist society from which they sprang. But still, most theists I know wouldn’t recognize themselves in what you’re describing. They like the idea of going to heaven after they die but it’s not the central fact of their life. They’re too busy working (and working hard!), raising kids, paying bills, shopping, watching tv.

So I wonder why you go on about this so much as if theism is somehow slackerdom when it's anything but?

The work ethic is the insidious influence of competitive economics in religious morality. It’s been fucking people’s lives and heads for centuries, and IMV needs much re-evaluation. We might all do better competing less and cooperating more, slaving for rich people/corporations less and living materially simpler but inwardly and socially more bounteous lives instead, and stopping the war of all against all that the work ethic engenders.

In short, fuck work! except the minimal that’s necessary (which is much less than we currently do). And everyone equal. No kings, no slaves… and no bosses, no slaves.

the eternal good life - just sit on your butt and take it easy for eternity - that's the Grand Plan

Sounds all right to me!

It's a discussion on where these ideas of heaven and hell come about - maybe not central to you - don't make it personal - back in the middle ages, if you were not christian, you could get killed and today many people kill in the name of religion and heaven is a big factor

As for sitting on your butt and taking it easy, the point was how foolish it is to expect such a God or a Sugar Daddy, not that it is real. You mean a Super being has nothing better to do than to just let millions sit around doing nothing? your own mother won't let you just stay home and watch TV all day, i bet you won't let your grown kids do that either. That's the thing - once we get to be adults, we are expected to stand on our own two feet - venturing out on our own is hard, scary - running back to the safety of the nest is tempting and that is what religions are exploiting by telling people that they can run back to mommy. It is exploitation of peoples fears that's all

 

[Ramaraksha]

You are right that the power systems of some religions are patterned after the feudal monarchy system. For instance the Catholic church:

Monarchy system = King – prince – duke – marquis – baron
Catholic system = Pope – cardinal – bishop – vicar – priest

However, I think that people are attracted to religion because it is a parental substitute. People like security and are uncomfortable with unknowns and unanswered questions. Parents provided security and answered all our questions when we were children. Religion offers security (god has a plan and is looking over you) and religion will answer any question anyone has even though most of the answers will sound like nonsense to those who do not accept that religion - but then a lot of our parents answers to our childhood questions would sound like nonsense to those not in the family.

Not just the Catholic church - take the Terminology - Commandments, Submit, beg, mercy, punish, wrath, Fear - all slave/servant words directed at the master. Kneeling to God just as subjects once knelt before the king

Was watching a nature documentary yesterday and it showed this little animal bravely venturing out of its home and then getting lost in the wilderness, barely escaping with its life, learning how to capture bugs and eat, and then by sheer luck, finding its way home. But right at the point when it can go inside, it hesitates, turns around and goes on its way, the little creature has become an Adult and has learned that it must stand on its own two feet

That is what we are all faced with at one time or other - we must become adults, stand on our own two feet, but the world is a scary place, it is tempting to run back to the safety of the nest and that is what religion offers with the concept of Heaven - run back to mommy - safe, happy

That's why the concept of Reincarnation fell out of favor - it teaches the opposite - that we must venture out, stand on our own two feet, make our own way in the world

 

[Ramaraksha]

And there's the illusion of righteousness. Christians think they have a franchise on morality. When, ages ago, I worked at a Presbyterian summer camp, we had a visiting pastor who contended that only in Christian circles was truly self-sacrificial love to be found. One of my fellow counselors was ballsy enough to ask him, then, if non-Christian soldiers had never fallen on grenades, etc. and given up their lives to save their comrades. Wouldn't that count as the ultimate in sacrificial love? The v. p. wouldn't budge on it -- he told us that only in the context of understanding Jeebus and his perfect sacrifice was totally selfless love possible.

As i posted, only the loyal members will be rewarded with the good life - disloyal members however good they may be must be cast out of the kingdom - at some point the slave attitude is so much that they even refuse to consider that the disloyal person is a good person. Only loyalty to the master matters, nothing else

 

[skepticalbip]

You are right that the power systems of some religions are patterned after the feudal monarchy system. For instance the Catholic church:

Monarchy system = King – prince – duke – marquis – baron
Catholic system = Pope – cardinal – bishop – vicar – priest

However, I think that people are attracted to religion because it is a parental substitute. People like security and are uncomfortable with unknowns and unanswered questions. Parents provided security and answered all our questions when we were children. Religion offers security (god has a plan and is looking over you) and religion will answer any question anyone has even though most of the answers will sound like nonsense to those who do not accept that religion - but then a lot of our parents answers to our childhood questions would sound like nonsense to those not in the family.

Not just the Catholic church - take the Terminology - Commandments, Submit, beg, mercy, punish, wrath, Fear - all slave/servant words directed at the master. Kneeling to God just as subjects once knelt before the king

Was watching a nature documentary yesterday and it showed this little animal bravely venturing out of its home and then getting lost in the wilderness, barely escaping with its life, learning how to capture bugs and eat, and then by sheer luck, finding its way home. But right at the point when it can go inside, it hesitates, turns around and goes on its way, the little creature has become an Adult and has learned that it must stand on its own two feet

That is what we are all faced with at one time or other - we must become adults, stand on our own two feet, but the world is a scary place, it is tempting to run back to the safety of the nest and that is what religion offers with the concept of Heaven - run back to mommy - safe, happy

Childhood is a time of absolute control by the parents. They give their rules and punish when the rules are broken. For some this is security even into adulthood - they have guidance in what to think and the "right" way to behave. They gladly obey authority (even if that authority is an imaginary supreme being) because it is "security" from having to think, from having to make decisions for themselves. Those who "become adults, stand on our own two feet ... leaving the safety of the nest" are called atheists.

 

[Ramaraksha]

Not just the Catholic church - take the Terminology - Commandments, Submit, beg, mercy, punish, wrath, Fear - all slave/servant words directed at the master. Kneeling to God just as subjects once knelt before the king

Was watching a nature documentary yesterday and it showed this little animal bravely venturing out of its home and then getting lost in the wilderness, barely escaping with its life, learning how to capture bugs and eat, and then by sheer luck, finding its way home. But right at the point when it can go inside, it hesitates, turns around and goes on its way, the little creature has become an Adult and has learned that it must stand on its own two feet

That is what we are all faced with at one time or other - we must become adults, stand on our own two feet, but the world is a scary place, it is tempting to run back to the safety of the nest and that is what religion offers with the concept of Heaven - run back to mommy - safe, happy

Childhood is a time of absolute control by the parents. They give their rules and punish when the rules are broken. For some this is security even into adulthood - they have guidance in what to think and the "right" way to behave. They gladly obey authority (even if that authority is an imaginary supreme being) because it is "security" from having to think, from having to make decisions for themselves. Those who "become adults, stand on our own two feet ... leaving the safety of the nest" are called atheists.

I do believe that Hinduism came up with the concept of Reincarnation to emphasis this point - we die, we come right back - no running away to magic land, no running back to mommy, no running back into the womb, childhood

 

[bilby]

Childhood is a time of absolute control by the parents. They give their rules and punish when the rules are broken. For some this is security even into adulthood - they have guidance in what to think and the "right" way to behave. They gladly obey authority (even if that authority is an imaginary supreme being) because it is "security" from having to think, from having to make decisions for themselves. Those who "become adults, stand on our own two feet ... leaving the safety of the nest" are called atheists.

I do believe that Hinduism came up with the concept of Reincarnation to emphasis this point - we die, we come right back - no running away to magic land, no running back to mommy, no running back into the womb, childhood

Which is just as dumb as the idea of going to heaven or hell.

When we die, we cease to exist. Our personality is a function of our living brains, and is inseparable from them. Dualism is demonstrably impossible; And so an afterlife and/or reincarnation are purely fictional. As are ghosts, telepathy, telekinesis, and spirit travel.

If your hypothesis includes personality or thought in the absence of a living brain, then it is fundamentally flawed, and cannot be true, because it is in direct conflict with the most well tested science in human history. Just as I do not need to know the details to know that a perpetual motion machine cannot be built; so I don't need to know the details to know that life after death is not possible.

Any failure to grasp that simple truth leads to error.

 

[Ramaraksha]

I do believe that Hinduism came up with the concept of Reincarnation to emphasis this point - we die, we come right back - no running away to magic land, no running back to mommy, no running back into the womb, childhood

Which is just as dumb as the idea of going to heaven or hell.

When we die, we cease to exist. Our personality is a function of our living brains, and is inseparable from them. Dualism is demonstrably impossible; And so an afterlife and/or reincarnation are purely fictional. As are ghosts, telepathy, telekinesis, and spirit travel.

If your hypothesis includes personality or thought in the absence of a living brain, then it is fundamentally flawed, and cannot be true, because it is in direct conflict with the most well tested science in human history. Just as I do not need to know the details to know that a perpetual motion machine cannot be built; so I don't need to know the details to know that life after death is not possible.

Any failure to grasp that simple truth leads to error.

Please don't jump to quick conclusions - the idea of a Heaven is the idea of a weak person - beaten down by life, finding life too hard has created magical lands up in the sky - God the Sugar Daddy will keep him in nice comfort - it is a Fantasy of the weak, the lazy

Against such an idea, Hindus came up with the idea of Reincarnation - no, you can't run away, there are no magic lands in the sky, you die, you come right back, so get a back bone and grow up - that's the idea

Fighting ideas with ideas - not that these things happen - just as Heaven is an idea, so is Reincarnation. Ancient Hindus were not dumb, their ideas were brilliant and well thought-out

 

[bilby]

Which is just as dumb as the idea of going to heaven or hell.

When we die, we cease to exist. Our personality is a function of our living brains, and is inseparable from them. Dualism is demonstrably impossible; And so an afterlife and/or reincarnation are purely fictional. As are ghosts, telepathy, telekinesis, and spirit travel.

If your hypothesis includes personality or thought in the absence of a living brain, then it is fundamentally flawed, and cannot be true, because it is in direct conflict with the most well tested science in human history. Just as I do not need to know the details to know that a perpetual motion machine cannot be built; so I don't need to know the details to know that life after death is not possible.

Any failure to grasp that simple truth leads to error.

Please don't jump to quick conclusions - the idea of a Heaven is the idea of a weak person - beaten down by life, finding life too hard has created magical lands up in the sky - God the Sugar Daddy will keep him in nice comfort - it is a Fantasy of the weak, the lazy

Against such an idea, Hindus came up with the idea of Reincarnation - no, you can't run away, there are no magic lands in the sky, you die, you come right back, so get a back bone and grow up - that's the idea

Fighting ideas with ideas - not that these things happen - just as Heaven is an idea, so is Reincarnation. Ancient Hindus were not dumb, their ideas were brilliant and well thought-out

Perhaps. But they are not conversant with reality.

That's not jumping to a quick conclusion - it's the result of the entire history of science.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Well, you need heaven and hell or else you can't have judgement day and if you can't have judgement day, believers can't have vindication and vengeance and if believers can't watch infidels cower before the Almighty and then fall into a pit and writhe in pain for all eternity, then what's the point?

Oh and BTW, you don't get to laze around heaven

You get to praise god, all the time, non-stop, no breaks, forever and ever, doling out praises and walking around the god's throne, telling god how much you love him, constantly, continually and in perpetuity.

Doesn't seem quite so heavenly any more, does it?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Not just the Catholic church - take the Terminology - Commandments, Submit, beg, mercy, punish, wrath, Fear - all slave/servant words directed at the master. Kneeling to God just as subjects once knelt before the king

Was watching a nature documentary yesterday and it showed this little animal bravely venturing out of its home and then getting lost in the wilderness, barely escaping with its life, learning how to capture bugs and eat, and then by sheer luck, finding its way home. But right at the point when it can go inside, it hesitates, turns around and goes on its way, the little creature has become an Adult and has learned that it must stand on its own two feet

That is what we are all faced with at one time or other - we must become adults, stand on our own two feet, but the world is a scary place, it is tempting to run back to the safety of the nest and that is what religion offers with the concept of Heaven - run back to mommy - safe, happy

Childhood is a time of absolute control by the parents. They give their rules and punish when the rules are broken. For some this is security even into adulthood - they have guidance in what to think and the "right" way to behave. They gladly obey authority (even if that authority is an imaginary supreme being) because it is "security" from having to think, from having to make decisions for themselves. Those who "become adults, stand on our own two feet ... leaving the safety of the nest" are called atheists.

I favor this being the genesis of religion proper, call it the big hug theory, then it evolved. Religion will always be group therapy first. Even when you are alone you can have as many invisible friends as you wish, or just one.

And because we were emotional organisms long before we were intellectual organisms it makes more sense than having religion come about as an intellectual exercise undertaken to explain natural phenomena.

Atheists may not always be alone in this respect owing to new age woo and the like, but it comes the closest to not being about invisible friends and the big reassuring group hug.

 

[Ramaraksha]

Please don't jump to quick conclusions - the idea of a Heaven is the idea of a weak person - beaten down by life, finding life too hard has created magical lands up in the sky - God the Sugar Daddy will keep him in nice comfort - it is a Fantasy of the weak, the lazy

Against such an idea, Hindus came up with the idea of Reincarnation - no, you can't run away, there are no magic lands in the sky, you die, you come right back, so get a back bone and grow up - that's the idea

Fighting ideas with ideas - not that these things happen - just as Heaven is an idea, so is Reincarnation. Ancient Hindus were not dumb, their ideas were brilliant and well thought-out

Perhaps. But they are not conversant with reality.

That's not jumping to a quick conclusion - it's the result of the entire history of science.

Believe i love Science and i am constantly mocking those nut jobs who show up whenever Science articles are posted - but Science has no clue what happens to us after Death - at best it can say that we don't answer any more - that this body died - but do we really know what really happens? I agree that Reincarnation is just speculation but unlike heaven and hell, it does hold itself up to scrutiny. As time goes by our record keeping gets better and better - if some child says i was born in x place in such and such a year and lived this way, we can now check. Of course skeptics dismiss it as nothing but the child hearing about such a person

And then there is the soul - Consciousness - what is it? What makes us conscious? How come Big Blue with the ability to crunch lots of lots of data not have consciousness? Are computers still primitive? If we build a quantum computer one day will it get conscious and start communicating with us?

 

[Ramaraksha]

Well, you need heaven and hell or else you can't have judgement day and if you can't have judgement day, believers can't have vindication and vengeance and if believers can't watch infidels cower before the Almighty and then fall into a pit and writhe in pain for all eternity, then what's the point?

Oh and BTW, you don't get to laze around heaven

You get to praise god, all the time, non-stop, no breaks, forever and ever, doling out praises and walking around the god's throne, telling god how much you love him, constantly, continually and in perpetuity.

Doesn't seem quite so heavenly any more, does it?

Just love your post - that is what i have been screaming all the time with people who talk glowingly about heaven - it is like even the best and brightest hear the word heaven and there is an instant brain-lock! Have you heard anyone discuss what really goes on in heaven? Any article, letter, editorial? - in the entire globe! NONE! None! It scares the hell out of me! It shows how religions have managed to brainwash even the best of us

 

[bilby]

Perhaps. But they are not conversant with reality.

That's not jumping to a quick conclusion - it's the result of the entire history of science.

Believe i love Science and i am constantly mocking those nut jobs who show up whenever Science articles are posted - but Science has no clue what happens to us after Death - at best it can say that we don't answer any more - that this body died - but do we really know what really happens?

Sorry, but you are out of date.

Science - specifically, Quantum Field Theory - has identified all of the particles and forces that can possibly have any effect at all on human scales; and we know how to detect all of those particles and forces.

None of them provides any mechanism to transfer information from a dying person to 'somewhere else', other than the bleeding obvious - we can see and hear a person die - and well known medical techniques (EEG, ECG etc detecting electromagnetic effects).

There cannot be any unknown forces or particles that interact on scales that could be relevant; So there cannot be an afterlife (or telepathy, or telekinesis, or a whole bunch of other mystical woo).

Of course, QFT could be wrong; but it is the best tested scientific theory in history; If it is wrong, then everything in science is up for grabs, and we know nothing.

It is significantly more likely that we will discover that NASA is wrong, and that the Moon actually is made of cheese, than it is that life after death is possible.

The gap has been closed; There is no mystery here - life after death, and/or consciousness in the absence of a living brain, and/or transfer of consciousness from one brain to another without a TON of very specialised equipment some of which is purely theoretical - is impossible.

It cannot occur naturally; and we can't (yet) do it artificially.

Few people seem to realise this, but it is true nonetheless.

I agree that Reincarnation is just speculation but unlike heaven and hell, it does hold itself up to scrutiny. As time goes by our record keeping gets better and better - if some child says i was born in x place in such and such a year and lived this way, we can now check. Of course skeptics dismiss it as nothing but the child hearing about such a person

Wisely so, given that no possible mechanism exists for it to be true. One should treat such claims as equally implausible with perpetual motion machines - they cannot be true without demolishing all of science, so they can be dismissed out of hand.

And then there is the soul - Consciousness - what is it?

It can only be electrochemical activity in the brain, because there isn't anything else that can interact with brains; and we know that brains interact with consciousness.

What makes us conscious? How come Big Blue with the ability to crunch lots of lots of data not have consciousness? Are computers still primitive? If we build a quantum computer one day will it get conscious and start communicating with us?

We don't know. But we DO know enough to rule out dualistic explanations.

The 'soul' cannot be a separate thing from the physical activity in the brain; because if it was, there would be no way for the two parts to affect each other - and we know that simple changes to the brain DO have an effect on consciousness (at least, we do if we have ever been drunk, used drugs, or been anaesthetised.

All the various sects who want a 'soul' to be real - whether to go to heaven or hell; or to be reincarnated; or to hang around haunting people/houses/places/objects - all of these are wrong. The gaps in our knowledge, into which they used to wedge the idea of the soul have been closed. There is no way for souls to exist as a separate entity from the physical brain. Anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong.

Particle Physicist Sean Carroll, of Caltech, is something of an expert in communicating the details of why this is so to non-physicists; certainly he is better able to explain it than I, particularly without resorting to complex mathematics; so if you want more information I can recommend his blog at: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/05/23/physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul/

If you prefer video, this pastiche of Carroll explaining his position is worth a look:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQNnvfMJd_Y[/YOUTUBE]

Or if you have a little more time, or prefer an unedited lecture, this 2012 TAM presentation is well worth a look:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5Fel1VKEN8[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Underseer]

Since there is no evidence of God or any super being and millions seem blind to the mistakes in religious books(sun circles the earth, life is 5,000 years old etc) we must conclude that there are natural, down-to-earth explanations to most religions

Clearly religions like Christianity and Islam made God in the image of the most powerful man when these religions were born - the local King. Their Terminology reflect their times - most people depended on the vagaries of agriculture, few had much hope for a good life, the one man who could make a difference in their lives was the King, hence a God who will take them away from this stupid earthly life of hardship and will give them the good life - the latter view is present in all religions

What does a subject/slave do when brought before the King? Well, get down on one's knees, swear undying loyalty of course. Because no King can afford to host a disloyal person however good that person might be - hence we have heavens that are closed for non-members, open only to those who believe(swear loyalty). The Slave then begged for mercy and protection - the good life in Heaven. Disloyal people were either cast out of the kingdom or worse - Hell

I find no fault with the ancients - that was the world they knew then and they came up with religions that reflected their present life style - weak, damsels in distress searching for the Knight in shining armor to come save them

What is distressing is that we continue to follow old-outdated ideas - today, we don't look for a King to give us the good life - today we Earn it! We are not damsels in distress anymore, we have democracy, freedom of speech, we don't live in Fear of the King's wrath

But the lure of a heaven is irresistible, it seems - who wouldn't want a nice easy life that a Sugar Daddy will provide? and to that the fear of death and old ideas continue to endure. Religions taking advantage of the fear of death and the lack of willingness to work hard and make a living - hence an easy promise of the eternal good life - just sit on your butt and take it easy for eternity - that's the Grand Plan

Christianity and Islam are based on other older religions, which are in turn based on other older religions.

If you want to get to the bottom of it, there has been some fascinating research done on this very topic in recent years. Here is a lecture covering mostly relevant research from evolutionary psychology:

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Well, you need heaven and hell or else you can't have judgement day and if you can't have judgement day, believers can't have vindication and vengeance and if believers can't watch infidels cower before the Almighty and then fall into a pit and writhe in pain for all eternity, then what's the point?

Oh and BTW, you don't get to laze around heaven

You get to praise god, all the time, non-stop, no breaks, forever and ever, doling out praises and walking around the god's throne, telling god how much you love him, constantly, continually and in perpetuity.

Doesn't seem quite so heavenly any more, does it?

Heaven is the source of evil, at least according to the big bible story. That's like everyone wanting to come visit me when I'm Ebola ground zero. Strange thing that religion.

 

[Ramaraksha]

Believe i love Science and i am constantly mocking those nut jobs who show up whenever Science articles are posted - but Science has no clue what happens to us after Death - at best it can say that we don't answer any more - that this body died - but do we really know what really happens?

Sorry, but you are out of date.

Of course, QFT could be wrong; but it is the best tested scientific theory in history; If it is wrong, then everything in science is up for grabs, and we know nothing.

It is significantly more likely that we will discover that NASA is wrong, and that the Moon actually is made of cheese, than it is that life after death is possible.

I agree that Reincarnation is just speculation but unlike heaven and hell, it does hold itself up to scrutiny. As time goes by our record keeping gets better and better - if some child says i was born in x place in such and such a year and lived this way, we can now check. Of course skeptics dismiss it as nothing but the child hearing about such a person

Wisely so, given that no possible mechanism exists for it to be true. One should treat such claims as equally implausible with perpetual motion machines - they cannot be true without demolishing all of science, so they can be dismissed out of hand.

And then there is the soul - Consciousness - what is it?

It can only be electrochemical activity in the brain, because there isn't anything else that can interact with brains; and we know that brains interact with consciousness.

What makes us conscious? How come Big Blue with the ability to crunch lots of lots of data not have consciousness? Are computers still primitive? If we build a quantum computer one day will it get conscious and start communicating with us?

We don't know. But we DO know enough to rule out dualistic explanations.

The 'soul' cannot be a separate thing from the physical activity in the brain; because if it was, there would be no way for the two parts to affect each other - and we know that simple changes to the brain DO have an effect on consciousness (at least, we do if we have ever been drunk, used drugs, or been anaesthetised.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5Fel1VKEN8[/YOUTUBE]

I am sorry there is a lot that we do not know - you are dismissing concerns just because the label says religion - that is a problem

You do realize that we have 2 brains? One is the old reptilian one and the other the neo-cortex? They do things differently? And then we also have the left brain and the right brain? Different parts of the brain do different things - control different things? The brain is not just one unit - we have not yet discovered the soul - consciousness - you have not yet explained why Big Blue with all the electrical activity is not conscious - what is missing in the Big Blue and other computers? Why is a dog that is so much less than Big Blue have consciousness and is aware of itself? A lot of animals are also

" One should treat such claims as equally implausible with perpetual motion machines - they cannot be true without demolishing all of science, so they can be dismissed out of hand" - that's crazy thing to say - something like what Einstein said when he heard that particles can be at two places at the same time! Nothing demolishes Science - it just adds another layer just as the quantum world has done