Lib said:
Well, I’m glad I wasn’t able to get to the board yesterday – that allowed you to respond, get everything sorted out, and apologize all before I saw it. 
But I’m not sure what piece of advice you’re talking about. You said lots of things in the response and then responses to others, so I just wanted clarification.
Oh, and Gaudere’s and tracer’s words above about instinctual love are mine as well. They beat me to it.
Lib: sure, call me Xeno; that’s much quicker to type.
Certainly it’s been true for many famous people (and some not so famous – Dionysius Exiguous comes to mind) that their influence on events continues and even strengthens long after their passing, although these influences might not accurately reflect their intentions, character and will. For most people, I would think their direct influence would immediately diminish upon their death, and would continue to do so for generations afterward, as those whose lives they’ve affected begin to die off and their words and deeds begin to be misrepresented and forgotten. If you will allow me to elaborate on my somewhat hasty definition, I think the strength of my “spirit” would be dependent not only on continued influence, but also on how closely the character of those influences matches the character of my influence while alive. (This would be analogous to a radio signal being interfered with by other EM radiation. The closer you are in time to the source of the signal, the higher the clarity; even if the signal is boosted, information may be lost in the distance.)
I admit that my definition is paltry and of little comfort when compared to the concept of an immortal spirit, or to the direct manifestation of God that you described. My definition, however has the advantage of compatibility with the universe which I observe and which Science describes.
Metaphysics
(I always like to take a deep breath before plunging into metaphysics, so bear with me. -Here we go!)
Your axioms:[ul][li]Love is manifested in [at least] three different ways; romantic love, brotherly love, and selfless or unreasonable love (agape).[]Agape is “unnatural”, in that it cannot be accounted for by instinct.[]Agape transcends nature (i.e. time and space).This transcendent Love is God, or the spirit of God, and lives in those who exhibit it yet is independent of them. “It is . . . a gestalt.”[/ul][/li]I’m completely comfortable with your separation of the types of love, and with your description of agape as “unreasonable” (I, too have a child). While I can accept the idea that agape can’t be accounted for by instinct, I disagree that this makes agape “unnatural.” After all, though my instincts as a male (to propogate my genetic material by impregnating every possible female) do not include child rearing, the prevailing social structure prompted me to contribute to the raising of my son, and other personal inclinations, produced through social intercourse and my own family background, prompt me to establish a close relationship with him and to love him as unselfishly as I can.
Whether agape is itself transcendent of nature is a separate issue from whether it springs naturally into the human breast. “Transcendent” is a denotative term that is more frequently used connotatively to mean “separate from” some other thing, but actually means “having gone beyond.” I could make a good argument that agape, where exhibited, can transcend the individuals involved, but this would still be within the boundaries of time and space. However, for the purpose of further discussion, I can agree to consider things from your viewpoint when addressing your statements.
Your “gestalt” statement is very interesting to me, since it echoes the most seductive aspect of Catholicism, that, where the spirit is manifested through agape (in this case love for Jesus), there exists a relationship between God, the Spirit, and the individual that is greater than the sum of its parts, yet separate from material reality. However, this axiom (“God is Love, Love is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit lives in the hearts of Good persons.”) hinges on the acceptance of a Supreme Being, and we’re back to a theism/atheism discussion.
In order to forestall that, and to turn back in the direction of the OP (Remember Alice? This is a song about Alice.) let me delay further comment until you can say what your understanding of awareness is, as associated with the immortal spirit. You said you’ve experienced awareness separate from your physical being, so I’m quite keen to see your thoughts on this. (And no, I don’t assume that you’re crazy or deluded. I may, however, disagree about the meaning of what you experienced!)
Philosophy
Well, I try not to label myself, as I find labels to be at least as restrictive as they are descriptive. But to be fair, I’ll try. I’m learning to be a pan-critical rationalist. Pan Critical Rationalism (PCR) is based on the premise that all positions are criticizable and none are justifiable, by which we mean that we hold all positions open to criticism, including our own most fundamental standards, goals and decisions. (In practice, however, we may be convinced of certain truths, without exempting them from future revision.) If I have any strong political leanings they are anti-reactionary and anti-dogmatic; I register as a Democrat for convenience, but this has more to do with some of my social and environmental concerns than with any party affiliation. I suppose you could label me as an Independent. And I am an atheist.
I hope that paragraph was sufficiently descriptive for you to see where I’m coming from.
<passes the ball back to Lib>
Kimstu wrote:
We’ll try and avoid arguing about axioms — maybe we can temporarily adopt each other’s viewpoint for the sake of argument, eh Lib? Whatever the case, Kimstu, I hope you (and everyone else) will join in whenever the spirit moves you (so to speak!)
There are documented accounts of people who have been on their deathbed and experienced the afterlife. E.G. Dwight Moody, the great evangelist, was lying on his deathbed and minutes before he died, heard angels and bells while no one else heard this. There is a website that tells about an atheist’s experience with a man who went to hell that transformed him. When I find it, I will post that website.
Our very own Cecil weighs in on NDE’s:Do near-death experiences prove there is life after death?
The fact that NDEs have scientific explanations is not proof that there is no life after death. However, I don’t think NDEs can be considered to be evidence of an afterlife. 'Sides, I kinda have to wonder about a God that sends you to heaven/hell before you’re actually dead. I expect an omniscient being to be a little more on the ball than that.
And yet there are also cases of people on their deathbed who have not experienced the afterlife. My grandfather is one. He has “died” and been brought back on at least one occassion, and reported experiencing nothing. No lights, bells, angels, voices, nothing. Is this evidence that there is nothing after death?
pinqy
I dare you to check out the following websites WITH AN OPEN MIND and then see how you view eternity after that
http://www.av1611.org/hell.html
This lie that there is nothing after death is the same lie that Satan has been feeding humans since the creation of the world.
Well, I read that article with an “open mind,” the second link didn’t work.
Here’s my conclusion: If there is any truth to it, than mankind must declare war on this vicious, evil, and small-minded God who tortures humanity at the center of the earth for his own pleasure.
I suggest we start by digging down into Hell, and releasing all the poor human beings who are suffering there. These liberated souls would surely join us in the front lines of our battle to overturn this tyrant God, and his evil frontman Jesus Christ.
I have a skid loader, where should we start digging?
Yeah! Don’t you remember? There was this really ambitious project in the late 1960s/early 1970s called “Project Mohole” which sought to drill all the way through the Earth’s crust to the mantle. Funding to Project Mohole must have been cut because we were afraid we’d drill all the way into Hell!
thanks, Lib, good to be back. Thanks for the self-analysis. I understand where you’re coming from.
CollegeStudent, I read your links. With an open mind.
I disagree with their interpretations of Scripture. I disagree with their theology. And I disagree with their “scare tactics.”
And before you immediately assume I didn’t really have an open mind, remember this–in my mind, Christianity, true Christianity, is a religion of love. As Lib put it, “the ethic of Christianity is agape.” “For God so loved the world.” “The greatest of these is love.” “Love they neighbor.”
Christ taught love. He did not teach “love me or burn.”
Love under duress is no love at all.
-andros-
Well the link sure convinced me. I’m shopping for religion right now.
(Anybody know where there’s a Mithraist congregation in No. GA?)
Unbelievable.
CollegeStudent wrote:
By golly! Those cute little animated pictures and MIDI music sure convinced me! Hell must be real with production values like that!
Boy those posts sure were funny.
Do you think these near death experiences prove a Christian after life, because Buddhists believe that your sole ascends a white tunnel before reincarnation. Logically then because Buddhism specifically states this, then NDE would prove Buddhism.
I was not in any way attempting to be funny, College Student. I am open to all forms of witnessing but threat.
Well, I (not being as nice a guy as andros) actually was trying to be funny. I will apologize for that now, and pose the following entirely serious question:
College Student, just exactly what information contained in either of those sites is supposed to so forcefully appeal to an intellectually open minded person as to change their conception of eternity?
I can believe I am about to discuss Near-Death Experiences and Hell, but heregoes:
In reference to NDE, let it be clear that these have neither been proven nor disproven to have anything to do with the afterlife. Yes it is possible that O2 deprivation could bring on hallucination. But the quality of NDE hallucinations is generally different from other hallucinations brought on by fever, illness, schizophrenia, or, say dabbling with pharmaceuticles. From what I understand NDE tend to be fairly clear and organized, and easily remembered…all things you would not expect from an o2 deprived brain. Interestingly enough, (and I almost hate to mention it) but there have been some (about 5%) documented cases of individuals having NDE that involved Hellish themes. That said, I don’t think it is time to ring the clarion and say that NDE mean there IS an afterlife. But dismissals of them tend to be rather pat and fascile.
In reference to Hell: I generally find the concept of a Hell to be…uh…inconsistent (if you will) with reason. I can fit the concept of an afterlife into my understanding of reality and science, but not Hell. you’d have to provide a logical ontology for why hell would fit into the grand scheme of things.
avalongod:
You bring up some very good points. Here’s a dismissal that’s neither pat nor facile (in my mind): our evidence of NDE hallucinations/visions are entirely self-reported and not replicable. But we do know the human mind plays funny and as-yet-unexplained tricks on us (I had a nasty bout of deja vu a couple hours ago, for instance). And we know, from replicable experiment, that the mind is very open to suggestion. We don’t know the mechanics of NDE, but we do know of clinical situations in which the symptoms associated with NDE are replicable.
Since we have evidence that the mind can produce the effects associated with NDE in non-NDE situations, and none of any sort that there is an afterlife, Occams razor demands that NDE is a physiological phenomenon and not a spiritual one.
YMMV.
-andros-
Andros,
you bring up good points as well. I am not defending NDE by the way, just keeping an open (and suggestible???) mind. I am not sure that I agree, however, that NDE type stuff has been replicated…I believe you are referring to the false repressed memory stuff? Keep in mind those sorts of phenomenon usually involve a third party planting the suggestions…“Do you remember your father touching you. Was he molesting you…” I am not sure that process is in effect in NDE. Generally the reinforcements are not there either (victims of molestation get sympathy, people who report NDE usually get ridicule). I think more examination of the phenomenon is required before any declarative statements can be made.
In reference to Occam’s razor, OR does not DEMAND anything. It is simply a rule of thumb. Incidently OR implies that if two theories explain a phenomenon EQUALLY WELL, then the simpler ought be adopted. In this case, I don’t think either theory is explaining the phenomenon adequately well to apply OR.
A couple of questions about “The Truth About Hell”:
1.) So we are supposed to take the fact that a dying man was scared out of his wits as proof that hell exists? You think maybe someone who had spent his whole life hearing and believing in a fiery place that you go when you die might be inclined to “see” such a thing in that situation?
2.) About halfway down–the article from the “Respected Finnish Newspaper”. (“Researchers Record the Screams of the Damned”) If it’s a “Respected Finnish Newspaper”, why is the scanned headline in English? And why is the font of the headline and the prose of the article so reminiscent of that of the Weekly World News? Methinks that Mr. Terry Watkins is not very picky about his sources, somewhat dishonest, or had his leg pulled by someone.
3.) Scare tactics like this lean on good old Pascal’s Wager. If you’ll search around, you’ll find about 857,398 threads all about why PW doesn’t hold up.
Dr. J
Threll wrote:
So that’s why my shoes get thinner right before I throw them into the recycling bin!
(Okay, I’ll shut up now.)