Can science not tell us what happens after we die?

[OccamsRazor]

In another thread Joe Blackbird made the following statement:

No one knows what caused life or what happens after we die, not science, not religion

Is this correct? I feel that science can tell us quite accurately what happens to our body after we die. Am I correct or am I unfairly dismissing the notion of a 'soul'?

Ultimately, it seems that both science and religion (specifically formal religion) each describe in very detailed terms what happens when you die. Does this make the statement invalid or do I misunderstand the nature of Joe's assertion?

The question is: Can science not tell us what happens after we die?

[harvey1]

That's an odd way of looking at. By many it is seen as always having existed, therefore it needs no reason.

That's a lot of physical phenomena that is outside the realm of science. Imagine if we lived on a rocket ship that was travelling through space. At first, we asked why we are on a rocket ship and the answers we discovered were that we originally departed from a planet, where we evovled from microorganisms, where our planet formed from a planetary nebula, where our galaxy formed from an artifact of the vacuum, and where it all originated from a singularity. Then we ask what happened before the singularity, and the atheists on board replied, "well, that's easy, the singularity happened inside a rocket ship travelling in space." It reminds me of when Charlie Brown yelled, "ugh!" All of those centuries of scientific explanation have been wasted just to tell us that we are travelling on a rocket ship which we already knew.

However, I think the problem is even worse than that. How could there ever be a reason for any event in that kind of world where there is no reason for the multiverse that we exist in? There would never be a first reason for any event, since every event would be the state that the Universe happens to be in. And, it is in that state for no reason.

That's not lucky though. If you keep picking lottery numbers for long enough, your number's bound to come up some time. It just seems lucky given our lifespans and the frequency of lottery draws.

The luck is not in the fact that time and chance will occur if the situation allows it, the luck stems from the fact that a universe exists having enough potential complexity to allow for structure to be the case. We have good reason to believe that nothing is more likely than something, especially something that has high enough potential complexity to allow universes, galaxies, and such.

[HughDP]

That's an odd way of looking at. By many it is seen as always having existed, therefore it needs no reason.

That's a lot of physical phenomena that is outside the realm of science.

I don't understand why you think that's 'outside the realms of science'. I'll grant you that observation will be tricky, if not impossible, but that doesn't put it entirely outside the realms of science.

Specifically what, in fact, is outside the realms of science?

If the combination of constants required to get our universe is rare, then one of the most logical assumptions is that it would take a number of attempts to hit on that combination. Either there is nothing extraordinary about the combination of constants in our universe, or the number of attempts at getting this combination is large, or - as you suggested - it's just incredibly lucky.

I'd be surprised if it was the latter, but if it is and if it's within the realms of science, then so what? Still no need to invoke anything supernatural. I think we need more than extraordinary coincidence to invoke the supernatural. If one day scientists declare that our universe is totally impossible, then we'd have to consider the supernatural to make the impossible possible, but I think we're a long way off that point now, don't you?

My point is that there's still a lot of science to do. Scientists do not have all the answers, but much work is being done to find them. They haven't all given up their jobs and become Elvis impersonators instead yet. I think we're considering the idea of a Creator way too early in our history.

Imagine if we lived on a rocket ship that was travelling through space. At first, we asked why we are on a rocket ship and the answers we discovered were that we originally departed from a planet, where we evovled from microorganisms, where our planet formed from a planetary nebula, where our galaxy formed from an artifact of the vacuum, and where it all originated from a singularity. Then we ask what happened before the singularity, and the atheists on board replied, "well, that's easy, the singularity happened inside a rocket ship travelling in space." It reminds me of when Charlie Brown yelled, "ugh!" All of those centuries of scientific explanation have been wasted just to tell us that we are travelling on a rocket ship which we already knew.

However, I think the problem is even worse than that. How could there ever be a reason for any event in that kind of world where there is no reason for the multiverse that we exist in? There would never be a first reason for any event, since every event would be the state that the Universe happens to be in. And, it is in that state for no reason.

(I'm a little worried at confusing 'reason' with 'cause', but ...)

If something has existed for infinity then there can be no first cause, but every event within it has a previous cause.

That sounds fine to me.

That's not lucky though. If you keep picking lottery numbers for long enough, your number's bound to come up some time. It just seems lucky given our lifespans and the frequency of lottery draws.

The luck is not in the fact that time and chance will occur if the situation allows it, the luck stems from the fact that a universe exists having enough potential complexity to allow for structure to be the case. We have good reason to believe that nothing is more likely than something, especially something that has high enough potential complexity to allow universes, galaxies, and such.

Correct. And nothing may well have been the outcome in 10^billions of times. So what?

Even if (and I don't really believe this, but ...) this is a one-off and it's against all the odds, so what? I can see how people might grasp at the idea of a Creator from that, but it's not strictly necessary.

Harvey, I think we both need to apologize to OccamsRazor. Particularly me, as despite recognising we were off-topic last time, I've proceeded to write more off-topicness. We should really pursue this in another thread.

Occam, I prostrate myself at your feet and beg forgiveness.

[harvey1]

Harvey, I think we both need to apologize to OccamsRazor. Particularly me, as despite recognising we were off-topic last time, I've proceeded to write more off-topicness. We should really pursue this in another thread. Occam, I prostrate myself at your feet and beg forgiveness.

Hugh, I opened this topic up for non-guilty debate here.

[OccamsRazor]

Occam, I prostrate myself at your feet and beg forgiveness.

I forgive you.....but just this once!

[veerar]

These two,SCIEMCE and RELIGION, are very vast fields.
In my oipinion,Religion,helped,form,certain,definitions,about , "MORALS",in their respective Societies,in ancinet times,and hence cannot be dismissed,for,its positive contribution to Humanity,in general.But,unfortunately,as in any fields,where,human beings are involved,PREJUDICE,had its share in forming and developing any idea,resulting in superstitions,atrocities,in the name of religion,etc etc.Mr William Wilberforce,was influenced,by Mr Isaac Milner,a religious person,and saved many Africans from the bonds of SLAVERY.Hence the power of RELIGION, to do "good",to fellow humans,cannot be denied.
Having said that,we cannot simply,be,superstitious.Science cannot be denigrated,just because,it cannot explain,certain things,or does so,against our firmly,entrenched beliefs.Science has many good things to its credit,which,are so huge,that there is no space or it will be boring to enumerate them here.But I cannot resist,giving one example,namely,BUT FOR SCIENCE,WE WOULD NOT BE COMMUNICATING,SO FAST,IN THIS VERY,CHRISTIAN FORUM!
While,not denigrating religion,my opinion is,that,one should change one's views as per facts,on a real basis.
So far there is nothing to prove tha there is a soul,if that is what you mean by this question!
As an eample,many animals,die,but there is no proof of their souls.Neither for HUMANS!