For those who don’t believe in God, what happens after we die, then?
No matter what your beliefs, you will surely decompose. It is written.
Try and inveigle Death into a game of gin rummy first.
Well, Beethoven certainly did. 
It is and it isn’t. If you define a Leprechaun as a specific thing, you can gather evidence for and against its existence. And the more specifically you define it, the more aspects of its existence you can test. If we ‘know’ that Leprechauns are little men with red hair, six inches tall, all dressed in green who live under rainbows with pots full of gold coins and smoke corncob pipes, we can safely say there’s much more evidence that they don’t exist.
For us to continue to exist after we die, you have to posit that our ‘self’ is non-corporeal in some way and could keep sensing and experiencing things without our sensory organs, which are physical. If you propose an afterlife without any further definitions of what that life is or what exactly is living it, it’s open because it’s probably impossible to disprove something like that. (Ditto god.) But we have a few specifics here, and I don’t think anything supports them. There’s no explanation of how any of those things would occur, for example.
Even Lenin is looking a little ratty these days.
Other than trivial truths such as “the moon appears to be a whitish circle in the sky” could we have an example of a true belief than isn’t useful?
It seems to me to cling to beliefs that have no real basis is to build on a foundation of sand.
Me? I expect to frolic with 72 virgins in heaven for all of eternity.
Unfortunately, I’m afraid a dark void awaits the rest of you. Sorry.
I’d call that a sort of intellectual puritanism. The rationalist succumbing to a faith: if it’s true, it must be useful and if it’s false it must be harmful. I don’t find that a particularly logical assumption. Clearly utility and accuracy are distinct qualities. They may correlate, but they’re not the same thing.
Offhand examples - an ill person with a 5% chance of survival may be better off believing they have a 50% chance if it motivates them continue treatment. A person with a 2% chance of receiving a job may be better off believing they have a 90% chance if it makes them more confident in the interview. A person who is immersed in grief and depression may be better off believing their loved one is in heaven. The whole concept of “fake it till you make it.” You could go on all day.
If you complain that in some cases these are not useful beliefs, I counter that there are precious few beliefs which are useful in all circumstances. I could probably think of a case for any belief where it would be detrimental. Obviously utility always depends on the circumstances.
And leave their survivors worse off if the false optimism delays making proper provisions in advance.
A more certain method that I think is more reliable is to get help in learning how to present yourself in a favorable way.
Possibly. Of course, there is always the nagging fear, probably unexpressed, that maybe the loved one isn’t in heaven. It can get awfully scary when you wake up at night if you deal in irrationality on a routine basis.
You’ve just made up arbitrary cases in which it’s a false benefit. But you have to concede there must be cases in which it’s not a false benefit. It’s like believing in magic to say that it always somehow turns out that believing the truth is a good thing.
[QUOTE=uglybeechIt’s like believing in magic to say that it always somehow turns out that believing the truth is a good thing.[/QUOTE]
You don’t need to believe the truth. What you’re talking about is ignoring it or avoiding it.
I don’t think it matters whether we’re talking about a belief or just a working model. The utility of a concept or belief or model is always a distinct quality from its validity. They correlate in general, but not always.
May I point out - I think the belief that falsehoods are always harmful and truth is always useful, is in itself a false, but useful belief. It’s just a helpful guideline to say that we’re better off believing the truth - because more often than not we can’t know beforehand what will be better to believe, so having some faith that the truth will set you free is useful. But not always true.
I agree with Anaamika, that the question in the OP is something of a non-sequitur.
The “God” mentioned is presumably the Judeo-Christian Lord, and there are many belief systems that do not involve that deity, many of which feature just as vivid an afterlife as that espoused by Christians.
I myself think that the notion of a soul comes from pre-mechanical notion of death: Dead people seem to be missing something compared to living people, leading one to the obvious question, “Where did it go?” We hope that it lives on somehow, and the various religions put forth some system, perhaps overseen by some deity, wherein you get to have a good time in the afterlife and your enemies don’t.
I think now, however, in this day and age, to wonder about what happens to our “soul” after we die makes no more sense than to think that when I turn off my car and then start it up again, I’ve engaged in some form of resurrection.
Eventually our bodies can not support the complex interaction of systems that gives rise to our conscious selves. The notion of a “soul” that lives on presumes some mechanism by which this complex system can maintain itself intact without a body. Not saying that it can’t possibly happen, but I don’t think any plausible mechanism has been put forth. Of course I admit I don’t keep up with the news in this area of study…
I agree to an extent. However, the practice of believing in false things because they are useful is hard to control. When do you stop believing in fairy tales and start investigating what is really going on? That latter method has demonstrated a much higher probability of formulating useful beliefs that are reliable and predictable in more cases than the alternative.
And I really must confess that I just don’t know the proper response when someone who formulated hypothetical cases complains about getting back hypothetical responses.
I agree, it’s a useful guideline - and when in doubt, explore the truth. But that’s an act of faith and may not always turn out for the best. I’m not a big believer in self-deception, but *because * I don’t like to deceive myself, I have to admit that my preference for honesty may not appropriate for everyone in all circumstances, and may even be inappropriate for myself in certain circumstances.
We had different burdens of proof. My burden was to come up with a hypothetical example in which a false belief could be useful. Your burden of proof was *not * to come up with a hypothetical example in which a false belief was useless, but to show that a false belief could not be useful. It’s a greater burden of proof - but that’s because your claim (that false beliefs *could not * be useful) was somewhat extraordinary. And altering my hypotheticals (for instance providing unprovided for “loved ones” for my sick person) does not meet your burden, or disprove my hypothetical. Clearly, as I stated, there are *cases * where excessive hope IS useful. And that meets my burden.
I don’t find my statement that relying on factual beliefs is always superior to relying on fanciful beliefs any more extraordinary than your claim. Relying on false beliefs might be comforting but that’s about all it is, to me.
I guess we’ll have to part company on this. I maintain that the use of false beliefs to be comforted is inimical to my ultimate well-being.
I think you just stop. No void, no pearly gates, no nothing. Cessation of consciousness.
I don’t know why people think they need to believe in an afterlife for a sense of transcendence. Your body becomes part of the earth, eventually the atoms that made you up will spread out all over the world and be incorporated in millions of different life forms, and in the fullness of time you’ll become part of a star. How much more transcendent can you get?
I also think that atheism is a more life-affirming belief than most religions anyway. After all, if you don’t believe in an afterlife, you’ll certainly be motivated to use the time you do have to the fullest.
Only from the perspective of logic is it extraordinary and requires a different standard of proof. Hypotheticals were not appropriate to proving your case is all. But I didn’t mean to say it’s an unusual or outrageous claim. I think self-deception is bad too.
I would like to return to your first example, “an ill person with a 5% chance of survival may be better off believing they have a 50% chance if it motivates them continue treatment.”
We have medical people here and I’m willing to be corrected but I don’t think that the current practice is to give the patient false hope in order to increase the chance that they will want to continue treatment.
I think that the procedure is to give as honest assessment as is possible at each step along the treatment path. Giving the patient the most accurate information possible is the best method, and maybe the only one, to get the best patient input to the treatment process.
If building up hope on the basis of false information were useful, I would think that would be the preferred medical route.
I don’t believe that it is.
perfect.
“Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”
-Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
I agree totally with your assessment of atheism as a belief (/nonbelief) as well… since I became atheist, I feel much more complete than when I thought I had an afterlife and a judgment ahead of me. now I know that I can create my own destiny, independent of any deity’s “plan” and without fear of falling out of favor. I take advantage of every second I have in this life, because this is all there is, and all that matters. at the same time I am perfectly happy knowing that at some moment my consciousness will blink out of existence forever, because on the level of fundamental particles, I am literally one with the universe and will never cease to be.