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]

I'll give you my own speculative view... when the body dies, the brain dies too and that sense of self/personailty disappears.

That's an interesting speculation as well, but let's try to keep our speculations in the realm of realm possibilities...

Because all that's now left is our body, we can come full circle and say that there is, in fact, a continuation. Our body's constituents don't disappear when we die, they just rearrange.

I don't see that as a very comforting notion in a funeral service. Do you think that caskets are actually delaying this process, and therefore ethically wrong in that case since it delays someone's atoms being mixed in with nature? That might give strong argument for cremation and being plowed into a field of wheat so that their atoms are recycled into other people. (I don't say this factitously since some people actually do want their ashes thrown in space, the ocean, etc., for exactly this purpose.)

I think science backs up that proposition so, in answer to the original question: yes, science can tell us what happens after we die. The only fuss there has ever been about the question is because we've started off on the wrong foot with certain premises about personality, identity and self.

Certainly science can provide an account as to what happens to our atoms of our body once we cease to exist. But, I don't think that presently science can offer an account of personhood, identity, ontological realities existing after death, etc., since we lack so much information as to what the universe actually is. I would say that your account is a speculation--just like mine--until we can answer many more scientific puzzles that beset us.

Yes, I see mathematical structures in nature. I don't find this surprising because we use mathematics to describe nature.

True, yet we could also use contradictory axioms to describe nature, but that wouldn't net the accurate predictions that mathematics described by those who had no interest in nature was able to provide. Besides, the mathematics doesn't require that physics equations (like E=mc^2, mass (photon)=hv/c^2, delta p * delta q ~ h, etc.) which describe so much of nature in so few words be so accurate in their depiction of nature. I think that strongly, and quite convincingly, suggests that nature is mathematical and not that we see it as mathematical.

[harvey1]

I keep getting this idea from Harvey that the universe (God) is mathematics in principle. It is like you are saying nature is trying to follow mathematical rules in some platonic sense. You seem to have an assumption of dualism.

I think that God is woven into logic and math. If you advocate the existence of propositions, then you need something which cognizes why a mathematical proposition is true versus false or meaningless. If you didn't have that, then there's no way to obtain any truth value for a proposition since the proposition has no meaning. But, if an omni-God could comprehend and agree that the proposition is true, then the proposition would exist. Hence, logic and mathematics find reality by the use of God's mind. As the brilliant mathematician Ramunjan said, "An equation means nothing to me unless it expresses a thought of God."

You don't see mathematical structures in nature? The sunflower has the fibonacci sequence, do you think it's a coincidence?

We chase or follow reality (sunflowers) with our mathematics. If they did not conform to the structure we would abandon our mathematics and create one that did follow the rules.

Sure, but that doesn't explain why this doesn't ever occur. It's actually an extraordinary situation you think about it. Here are these primates coming out of a forest who in a few million years later use their capacity for math (which primates have been shown to possess) to understand the workings of the universe using a few letters that could fit on the back of a napkin. Just comparing that feat to this post, I could have typed most of those equations using the same number of letters that I used in typing this response to you. That doesn't even consider how many equations that I could type using the number of letters that I use in my replies to Bugmaster!

What strikes me as odd is how the ontological argument, after it has been narrowed down to “the” organizing principle, is equated to God therefore eliminating atheism while turning it into a person that becomes the triune God. Plato’s God is not the same as YHWH or Christ as God incarnate. Even if Western thought is helplessly caught in Plato’s grip.

I don't see how we could not but make this comparison with the Christian God. Symmetry (truine relation) becomes a central factor in this symmetry breaking God that I am discussing. But, that's another topic...

[HughDP]

I'll give you my own speculative view... when the body dies, the brain dies too and that sense of self/personailty disappears.

That's an interesting speculation as well, but let's try to keep our speculations in the realm of realm possibilities...

Sorry, I'll run future speculation past my sapient hat!

Because all that's now left is our body, we can come full circle and say that there is, in fact, a continuation. Our body's constituents don't disappear when we die, they just rearrange.

I don't see that as a very comforting notion in a funeral service. Do you think that caskets are actually delaying this process, and therefore ethically wrong in that case since it delays someone's atoms being mixed in with nature? That might give strong argument for cremation and being plowed into a field of wheat so that their atoms are recycled into other people. (I don't say this factitously since some people actually do want their ashes thrown in space, the ocean, etc., for exactly this purpose.)

I don't think there is an 'ethical' issue at all about atoms being mixed back with nature. They just are.

Neither do I think there's any reason to assume they will be mixed back in with other people. Some may but it's not a 'requirement' and it doesn't mean or indicate anything.

I think science backs up that proposition so, in answer to the original question: yes, science can tell us what happens after we die. The only fuss there has ever been about the question is because we've started off on the wrong foot with certain premises about personality, identity and self.

Certainly science can provide an account as to what happens to our atoms of our body once we cease to exist. But, I don't think that presently science can offer an account of personhood, identity, ontological realities existing after death, etc., since we lack so much information as to what the universe actually is.

Well I believe that personhood is just an illusion, so it cannot exist without the brain to provide that illusion.

I cannot, of course, say that science has absolute proof that there is no afterlife, but I can say that science has not yet found proof that there is.

I would say that your account is a speculation--just like mine--until we can answer many more scientific puzzles that beset us.

Yes, it is speculation. It's all I've got!

Yes, I see mathematical structures in nature. I don't find this surprising because we use mathematics to describe nature.

True, yet we could also use contradictory axioms to describe nature, but that wouldn't net the accurate predictions that mathematics described by those who had no interest in nature was able to provide. Besides, the mathematics doesn't require that physics equations (like E=mc^2, mass (photon)=hv/c^2, delta p * delta q ~ h, etc.) which describe so much of nature in so few words be so accurate in their depiction of nature. I think that strongly, and quite convincingly, suggests that nature is mathematical and not that we see it as mathematical.

If we take away all knowledge of mathematics from the human race, I'll bet nature still exists. I see mathematics as an extremely enlightening tool, but I do see it at a tool. I'm happy to accept that you see it as something more; Platonic perhaps.

[QED]

Do not stand at my grave and weep;
I am not there, I do not sleep.
I am a thousand winds that blow.
I am the diamond glints on snow.
I am the sunlight on ripened grain.
I am the gentle autumn rain.

When you awaken in the morning's hush
I am the swift uplifting rush
Of quiet birds in circled flight.
I am the soft stars that shine at night.
Do not stand at my grave and cry;
I am not there, I did not die.

It's not every day I quote a prayer, but I find this one very touching. I doubt if the author knew it, but it's a reasonably good scientific account of what happens to the atoms that make up our bodies as well. Certainly within a thousand years or so we get back into the Carbon Cycle. And I never tire of mentioning the statistical marvel that suggests we all have atoms in us that were once a part of every living thing on Earth. Too bad the uniquely organized structure is obviously lost when the atoms get recycled.

[harvey1]

QED, I'm deeply offended that you would reference a site that is sacrilegious about Jesus. I think the Christians on this site deserve better than being directed to websites that show blatant disrespect to their religious beliefs on the divinity of Christ.

[QED]

QED, I'm deeply offended that you would reference a site that is sacrilegious about Jesus. I think the Christians on this site deserve better than being directed to websites that show blatant disrespect to their religious beliefs on the divinity of Christ.

Your mock chide has no value in this debate. I don't want to throw the rule book at you but it looks as though you're meandering into frivolity here. We all need a break form dead-pan debate now and then but if something is going to be posted that doesn't relate to the subject matter, then let it not be a dig at another debater.

I think this is a serious question for us: why is it so obvious that we continue on after death, that it causes so much apartment frustration in the religious mind? The following tongue-in-cheek exchange...

I'll give you my own speculative view... when the body dies, the brain dies too and that sense of self/personailty disappears.

That's an interesting speculation as well, but let's try to keep our speculations in the realm of realm possibilities...

...suggests to me that even Harvey has a sense of the inevitable finality of death. If anyone is to be frustrated I would have thought it would be those of us who choose not to take the giant leaps of hope that characterise people like the readers of "Innerchange Magazine - exploring the new age, spirituality, spirit, and metaphysics to guide you on a purpose driven life"

[harvey1]

Your mock chide has no value in this debate.

Huh? I made a comment about the danger of straying far from God, and I get reprimanded. You post a link that is sacrireligious, and I get reprimanded again for saying honestly that I was offended by it.

if something is going to be posted that doesn't relate to the subject matter, then let it not be a dig at another debater.

I think that we ought to be as civil as possible despite the deep disrespect that we have for the accuracy we have for each other's views of the world.

I think this is a serious question for us: why is it so obvious that we continue on after death, that it causes so much apartment frustration in the religious mind?

I don't think it is obvious that we continue on past death. What is obvious, though, is that we live in a universe that greatly favors us being here and understanding the universe, and I find it extremely naive to continue on with the view that everything is contingent.

...[this] suggests to me that even Harvey has a sense of the inevitable finality of death.

Then you have misinterpeted my lol emoticon. I laughed because I wasn't being serious that the finality of death is logically absurd. That doesn't mean that I sense that death is the end. How could you possibly come away from that view given everything that I've said on the topic?

QED, let's try to get on track again with each other. I realize that we are offending each other more so lately, but I think it is helpful if rather than belittle our sensitivities that we try and acknowledge them and be apologetic as much as is possible (i.e., without moving to the point to where we have our emotions on our sleeve).

[QED]

Your mock chide has no value in this debate.

Huh? I made a comment about the danger of straying far from God, and I get reprimanded. You post a link that is sacrireligious, and I get reprimanded again for saying honestly that I was offended by it.

I see. So that I can gain a better understanding your sensitivities, perhaps you could tell me what in particular it was about that link to a website offering a collection of funeral poems...

The selection includes everything from an old Irish toast, to the poem read by her eldest sister at Princess Diana's funeral.

...that so offended you? I first saw that poem at the side of a narrow country lane while out on a Spring walk earlier this year. It was in a plastic pouch with some flowers and a couple of teddy-bears at a spot where, presumably, somebody had lost their life. I felt that the sentiment of the poem was highly relevant to this discussion.

I think that we ought to be as civil as possible despite the deep disrespect that we have for the accuracy we have for each other's views of the world.

I agree, and I would add that we should be as honest as we can with each other. According to you a few posts back, people who identify themselves as being in opposition to God are in a ditch in some wasteland. I wonder if you honestly think that or perhaps it's all you've really got -- you frequently seem to get very close to "appealing to consequences" in your arguments.

I don't think it is obvious that we continue on past death. What is obvious, though, is that we live in a universe that greatly favors us being here and understanding the universe, and I find it extremely naive to continue on with the view that everything is contingent.

And just how can this be obvious in the light of the Anthropic principle?

WAP: The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable, but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.

You could very easily be reacting to appearances that are themselves consequences of the self-selection factor imposed on our observations by our own existence. Of course it could all be as you suggest, but the point is, it's ambiguous.

QED, let's try to get on track again with each other. I realize that we are offending each other more so lately, but I think it is helpful if rather than belittle our sensitivities that we try and acknowledge them and be apologetic as much as is possible (i.e., without moving to the point to where we have our emotions on our sleeve).

I come here to debate about ideas -- not to get involved in mind games, so let's be as sincere as we can in our exchanges.

[harvey1]

So that I can gain a better understanding your sensitivities, perhaps you could tell me what in particular it was about that link to a website offering a collection of funeral poems...

Not that link, it was this link that you posted which I found great offense:

How many atoms of Jesus you eat every day... Jesus' body became part of the biomass (i.e., he did not bodily ascend into Heaven)... Density distribution of Jesus' remains (Is 2000 years enough time to do complete distribution?)... Jesus' daily excretions for 33 years (The question isn't "how many atoms of Jesus' feces," after all

I find all of that deeply offensive, and I'm at a loss as to why you think I shouldn't be. I wonder if you would post the same kind of link on an Islamic website with regard to Mohammed and think that Muslims wouldn't be deeply offended too.

I agree, and I would add that we should be as honest as we can with each other. According to you a few posts back, people who identify themselves as being in opposition to God are in a ditch in some wasteland. I wonder if you honestly think that or perhaps it's all you've really got -- you frequently seem to get very close to "appealing to consequences" in your arguments.

I've given you many arguments that I've never received a reply that answers the objection. However, I do believe that the natural mind is at enmity with God, and that this does put them in a spiritual no man's land that I think should be pointed out to them from time to time. It's not something that I should do if it offends you, but you also try to point out that religion is misguided and leads to an intellectual wasteland.

You could very easily be reacting to appearances that are themselves consequences of the self-selection factor imposed on our observations by our own existence. Of course it could all be as you suggest, but the point is, it's ambiguous.

Which we've discussed, and this leads back to problems of contingency that I pointed out a number of times. I'm still waiting for replies to those issues.

I come here to debate about ideas -- not to get involved in mind games, so let's be as sincere as we can in our exchanges.

I am being sincere when I say that link was offensive. Actually, it was the most offensive link that I've ever been asked to read in this forum. I can't remember anything more offensive from memory. I'm sorry you see it as a mind game.

[QED]

Not that link, it was this link that you posted which I found great offense:

How many atoms of Jesus you eat every day... Jesus' body became part of the biomass (i.e., he did not bodily ascend into Heaven)... Density distribution of Jesus' remains (Is 2000 years enough time to do complete distribution?)... Jesus' daily excretions for 33 years (The question isn't "how many atoms of Jesus' feces," after all

I find all of that deeply offensive, and I'm at a loss as to why you think I shouldn't be. I wonder if you would post the same kind of link on an Islamic website with regard to Mohammed and think that Muslims wouldn't be deeply offended too.

I had missed that -- but we must bear in mind that this calculation applies to every living person or thing that's been dead for 1000 years or so -- including the prophet Mohammed. That Jesus did not bodily die is listed under "assumptions" and is respectfully left open as far as I can see. The rest is purely matter-of fact. If I could have found a link citing some other well-known historical figure I would probably have chosen it instead, so I apologise for giving in to the convenience of it.