Conversation In The Womb

[puddleglum]

Baby 1: And you, you believe in life after birth?

Baby 2: Absolutely. It’s obvious that life after birth exists. We are here to become stronger and to get ready for whatever awaits us next.

Baby 1: This is absurd. There is nothing after birth! What would life look like outside the womb!

Baby 2: Well, there are many stories about the other side. I’ve heard there is a blaze of light there, an intense and profound feeling of joy with deep emotions, thousands of things to live for… For example, I’ve heard that we’ll eat with our mouth there.

Baby 1: That’s silly. We have an umbilical cord and that is how we eat. Everyone knows that we don’t use our mouth to eat! And, on top of that, no one has ever come back from the other world. Those stories are all coming from naive people. Life just ends at birth. Period. That’s the way it is and we must accept it.

Baby 2: Alright, then allow me to think differently. That’s for sure, I have no idea what life after birth looks like, and I can’t prove anything to you. But I like to believe that in the next world, we’ll be able to see our mother and that she will take care of us.

Baby 1: “Mother�? You mean that you believe in “Mother�? Oh! So where is she?

Baby 2: Everywhere, don’t you see it! She is everywhere, all around us. We are part of her and it’s thanks to her that we are living right now. Without her, we wouldn’t be here.

Baby 1: This is ridiculous! I’ve never seen any mother so it’s obvious that she doesn’t exist.

Baby 2: I don’t agree. That’s your way of seeing things. Because sometimes when everything quiets down a little bit, we can hear her sing. We can feel her hugging our world! I’m pretty sure that our life will start after birth.

http://steverebus.com/2015/04/03/conver ... -the-womb/

[Haven]

In this ridiculous scenario, Baby 1 is right to be skeptical because they don't have any evidence of anything else beyond the womb. Belief without evidence is foolishness.

And this is a straw man argument anyway--atheism isn't the strong claim that there are definitely no gods, only the absence of belief in gods because of the lack of evidence for the existence of gods (and the evidence against the existence of gods).

[Zzyzx]

.

In this ridiculous scenario,

The more ridiculous a person's position the more ridiculous their defense.

Imaginary conversations between fetuses is akin to tales about animals conversing in human language or invisible entities speaking from the sky or from bushes.

[Bust Nak]

http://steverebus.com/2015/04/03/conver ... -the-womb/

Taking the scenario as stated, baby 1 is factually wrong but rational, baby 2 is factually correct but irrational. Which would you rather be? I'd still pick 1 over 2.

[A17]

This perhaps was trying to portray that, ideas that may seem to certain people outlandish are not incorrect.

[rikuoamero]

This perhaps was trying to portray that, ideas that may seem to certain people outlandish are not incorrect.

Agree, but what the story here leaves out and ignores is that with life-after-death, what happens to a person then depends on what they believe.
Life-after-birth happens to everybody (as long as they aren't miscarried/stillborn/aborted). There is no need to believe anything specific. Eventually the baby will be born and live its life in the world.
However, according to most branches of Christianity, what happens to me in life-after-death depends on what I believe. I must believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the resurrected Messiah and Savior of humankind, otherwise life-after-death is not going to be pleasant for me.
So the story in the OP leaves out that crucial detail. Baby 1 is being rational in rejecting what 2 is saying, since there's no evidence for it, but his non-belief in the world outside the womb won't play a factor at all in what that world will be like for him.

[tam]

I think I've seen that before and think it is sweet.

This would be evidence that baby (whichever number believes in life after birth) has, that would also support the stories that others have shared about life after birth or mother:

Because sometimes when everything quiets down a little bit, we can hear her sing.

That is my favorite part of that whole little story.


Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[jgh7]

That was a beautiful thought-provoking allegory. This belongs in the apologetics forum. This is a direct debate between theists and non theists, and it's important.

What most resonates with me is the part about hearing the mother sing. It's the embodiment of the struggle for evidence and the faith the people have or don't have. Truthfully I respect both babies opinions, and I hold fault in those who discourage either of their lines of thought.

They are unsure of the future. One baby has chosen one based solely off of the world around them, and the assumption that they cease to exist when this world ends. But one baby has hope of a seemingly unlikely future. Were either of them irrational. Ultimately I say no.

It is not irrational to hold the possibility that things are not as they may obviously seem, and to have hope in what may sound outlandish. We are ultimately not in a place with our limited knowledge to label certain things as outlandish and not worth considering.

To argue that the baby with hope is being irrational is literally to argue that they ought not to think that way. Shame on people for trying to encourage someone not to think that way. You're not in any position to make that kind of judgment on that individual.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 8 by jgh7]

It is not irrational to hold the possibility that things are not as they may obviously seem, and to have hope in what may sound outlandish. We are ultimately not in a place with our limited knowledge to label certain things as outlandish and not worth considering.

With all due respect, I have to disagree. We are in a place where we can say, with some confidence, what is likely to be true and what is likely to not be true. I label what Christianity teaches of an afterlife as being outlandish and not worth considering, precisely because there is no evidence for it and much evidence against it.
To be rational, one must consider as much evidence as one can obtain. If someone is telling me about an after life and keeps telling me things about it that I simply cannot observe or examine, it would be irrational for me to consider them as telling the truth, simply because I hope things aren't what they may seem. It would be irrational for me to place my desire for what I want to be true, over what actually is true.
It would be great if there actually is an after-life, and if that after-life was fun and pleasant and a myriad of other positive adjectives. However, as much as I want there to be an after-life, I will not let my desire for an after-life colour my perception of the world.

To argue that the baby with hope is being irrational is literally to argue that they ought not to think that way. Shame on people for trying to encourage someone not to think that way.

It would be very easy for me to flip this around and say "shame on people for trying to encourage someone to believe in things on false hope" and it would be just as valid as what you say. Here, we have to agree to disagree.

You're not in any position to make that kind of judgment on that individual.

Yes I am, as are you. You have just made a judgement that it's all right for one to believe in things on hope, whether true or not. That is your judgement, and not one I share. Obviously, I won't force someone to believe a certain way, such an act is immoral and unethical. I hope you share the same sentiment. But I will have my opinion on what is best for people to believe and do (just as you do) and I will express it.

[jgh7]

You have just made a judgement that it's all right for one to believe in things on hope, whether true or not.

No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's alright to believe in things on hope when we don't know what the real answer is, when the real answer is a complete mystery to us. We all interpret the clues to that mystery differently. And it's wrong to discourage one person's interpretation as irrational when you yourself don't know what the answer is.

Just like life after the womb and the mother may seem outlandish from the baby's perspective, so can God and an afterlife seem outlandish for us. But we're in the same positions as the babies. I won't destroy people's hopes in God or an aftelife. I'm in absolutely no position to do that, no one is.