Why having no afterlife doesn’t suck

Confronting our natural intuitions about the nature of the “self” and “time”. There is every reason to be happy about mortality.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Why having no afterlife doesn’t suck

  1. skupchin says:

    I’ve been very interested in the things you are interested in. in the beginning after reading “I Universe” and viewing quite a few of your videos I considered your thoughts and found them helpful on my own journey. However, I find that now I am actually a little turned off by where you are headed. I think it is the height of hubris to believe that you may have the answers to questions that have stumped some very capable minds. Scientists, for one, amaze me. Often we hear that one or the other of them are atheists. That isn’t amazing in itself but when I think of how much that has been discovered in the sciences, what is truly amazing is that after viewing the complexity of life across all disciplines that they can’t fathom how statistically improbable are the odds that everything we are and experience in the universe happened by chance. I have been very interested in the biological sciences and when I read of the intracacies of cells and cellular systems and know that we may have only been scratching the surface of what there is to know. I am quickly coming to the conclusion that chance is a very poor explanation for how what we experience and see. Neuroscientists for example are all but assured that they will be able with deep brain penetration control not only physical abnormalities like parkinson’s disease and alzheimer’s disease but even emotional conditions like depression. Neurologists have mapped out the various areas of the brain that control most everything we can think of. They don’t see the “wonder” in their midst and I think many are guilty of believing that they are going to prove that there is nothing really special about thinking and feeling because they can be controlled by stimulating the brain. You for one abhor the idea of a duality and are as guilty of preaching about your position as anyone preaching the opposite.

    I have no problem accepting that science has come a long way and that there may be a lot of surprises in store for us in terms of what we thought we knew. As a matter of fact I welcome it. However, I think pride in knowing these things sometimes may blind people to how incredible all of creation is. And I mean incredible in the literal sense.

    Words like God and Creator unfortunately are emotionally charged both for believers and non believers and that is unfortunate. If there is a creator that creator is more than likely infinitely far from the anthropomorphic descriptions some men use when thinking about a creator of all that is.

    Isn’t it just a little surprising that we know nothing about what happens when we die? your conjecture that nothing awaits us but oblivion is as good as any guess but it is just that a guess. It presumes that we are in a sense meaningless and have no further use than to get to the bottom of the unfathomable questions that science presistantly pursues. I don’t have answers either, however, I know, I don’t Know and now I am not sure that you can say that.

  2. Darryl says:

    Skupchin, I’m sorry you feel I’ve mis-stepped. Let me clarify my position. The relationship between philosophy and science is this: philosophy can and should speculate beyond the reaches of what can be proven scientifically. That’s what it’s for. But where science sheds clear rational light on an issue, philosophy must narrow its speculations to take account of new facts, The failure to do so means that we are indulging in pure wishful thinking in opposition to fact.

    I’m firmly aware of the mystery of existence, and I agree with you that the common pitfall with those who rely exclusively on science is that they fail to perceive the wonder of it all. However, belief in an afterlife is not part of this mystery. We now know, beyond reasonable doubt, that the personality does not survive death because it has a material basis. I have to let that knowledge affect my philosophy, and it is not arrogant to do so. In fact, I could not have grasped the mind-blowing stuff about the nature of the “self” and “time” if I had not let go of my emotional attachment to the idea of an afterlife.

    There is something hugely important I’m trying to communicate in this video, but you won’t see it if you insist of viewing yourself as a pilot inhabiting a vehicle.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: