deeper and deeper
Now that everyone can spell aficionados and has discussed the intricacies of the subject, i think it’s time we dealt with the next big question; life after death. I have been thinking about a draft of this post for some time, hence it’s length. I originally didn’t post it due to the relatively controversial subject matter.
Warning: this could get a bit deep, if you would like a laugh, try this post instead.
I don’t know about you, but I think that life is a pretty amazing thing - crazy in fact. One of the best things about thinking this is that other people think this too, and humankind has been amazed by it (life) throughout history.
The first problem we have in discussing life after death is to define ‘life’ (and probably also ‘death’). Dictionary.com has about 20 different definitions for ‘life’. For the purposes of this discussion I think that we can stick to no. 4,
“The physical, mental, and spiritual experiences that constitute existence”.
As for death, I think we can stick to
“the termination of life”.
The second problem is to work out where you stand. If you went to a private Anglican boys school, this might be difficult. As a student of Barker College I sat through more chapel services than I care to remember. But, I must say that it didn’t really grab me. No one seemed to really know what the deal was with Anglicanism and it wasn’t taught in any sort of structured way, so you didn’t really know where you stood at any one time, it seemed like a bunch of ideas all thrown togther; with a bible reading or two for good measure. The reason for this confusion seems to be rooted in the history of the faith and the complex relationship with the Church of England.
So basically, you had to work it out for yourself. The whole chapel thing seemed a little silly when I could go surfing and pull into a large barrel and feel much more spiritual! So now, I would describe myself as an athiest (that much I’m sure of) leaning towards modern humanism, defined by Corliss Lamont as;
“a naturalistic philosophy that rejects all supernaturalism and relies primarily upon reason and science, democracy and human compassion.”
The problem is that this view is very anthropocentric and the whole ’spirtuality’ side of things gets a bit of a raw deal. Also, there is the problem of defining supernaturalism: i.e. does God count as supernatural - or does this mean ghosts etc…?
Nonetheless, if you blend this with parts of Zen Buddhism, especially the teachings that relate to rivers;
One day Chuang Tzu and a friend were walking by a river. “Look at the fish swimming about,” said Chuang Tzu, “They are really enjoying themselves.”
“You are not a fish,” replied the friend, “So you can’t truly know that they are enjoying themselves.”
“You are not me,” said Chuang Tzu. “So how do you know that I do not know that the fish are enjoying themselves?”
…I think you end up with the following view.
I don’t believe in God, but I do have faith in people. In this sense I am essentially an optimist. However, humans can be awful and generally walk around with their heads-up-their-asses 95% of the time (particularly in Townsville where this disorder seems to be at an all time high right now), they (the humans) often work to erode my faith in them and increase my faith in nature’s setient beings - at which point I return to the water to say hello to them.
“That’s all well and good Tom, but what about this discussion?” I hear you say. Well, the crux of this matter is that just as you start to work out what the hell you’re doing ‘here’ (whatever here is), you have the sticky subject of death to deal with.
People have very different views from what I’ve expressed above (heck, I’m still working it out myself) and people have different views on what happens when you die. I think that there is nothing. Not the sort of open empty space that one imagines as ‘nothing’, but actually nothing. A good metaphor is scientists trying to describe what there wasn’t before the big bang. Well, that’s what there is when you die.
Actually, there isn’t ‘nothing’, there’s only nothing for you. I think this is a rather scary proposition, but at the same time very freeing. I also don’t think it’s a cop-out from responsibility (you know, if you don’t have to pay for it in ‘hell’ then you can do whatever you want), because you’re going to live on in others.
Let the commenting begin. Remember that: not everyone has had the same experience as you; you need to define what you’re talking about; it’s ok for someone else to have a different opinion; and, the critiqued shall inherit the earth.
March 15th, 2005 at 1:52 pm
I think this requires a response from “Uncle Dave”
March 15th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
i think so
March 15th, 2005 at 5:44 pm
is andy f like the god of this page. lovingly supporting from afar..
March 15th, 2005 at 10:45 pm
Re your comments on Anglicanism, Tom. The Anglican church is one of the denominations where it is easier to have practically any belief and still call yourself a ‘Christian’ - it’s possible in any denomination but easier in certain Anglican churches. The Anglican church is very wide ranging in it’s beliefs which is probably why the teaching came across as unfocused. Or maybe you just had bad teachers! There are some Anglican churches where Theology is important. There are other Anglican churches where regular Sunday attendance, wearing the right clothes and whether the head Alto in the Choir is in tune is far more important. This is because the Anglican church is a state church. That said there are ‘Pew fillers’ in a lot of churches - ‘only here for beer’ in a sense. Except it’s not beer it’s fair-trade tea or coffee with fair trade sugar or sweetners.
As far as the big bang - if there was absolutely nothing there then where was the matter to make the explosion. “Nothing was there - then something happened” - that’s not good science. For an explosion to happen there had to be something there - anti-matter, proteomatter something ‘other’ than the matter we have now, but not absolutely nothing.
I’d agree that the idea of absolutely nothing is scary. Whether it is more or less scary to think of the chance that you could spend eternity in a very bad place or not is a whole other matter of discussion. Suffice to say that those who think Christianity is an easy option for people who don’t want to face reality obviously hasn’t read the Bible closely enough!
I find it interesting that Humanists reject the Supernatural. They usually cite that it is scientific to do so. Which is strange because science is supposed to set forth theories not absolutes. You write a theory based in part on the evidence and then test it against all the evidence it can to see if it adds up. As the absolute empirical proof of an absolute higher power who is beyond human understanding is an impossibility by it’s very nature and the absolute disproof falls under the same category it would be just as unscientific to negate a theory due to it’s reliance on the existence of God as it would be to negate a theory due to it’s reliance of the non-existence of God.
My own view is what would be described as the Biblical view - reached after a long search in my early Twenties which started with the question “Am I just believing all this Christian stuff because my parents taught me to” progressed onto “Partly, yes” then to “I’d better look into lots of stuff to make sure this still makes sense” and finally back to where I am now which is as a Christian with a lot of knowledge about other beliefs - which I respect but don’t credit (if you get my meaning).
Got there before Dad did
Do you wish you never started this?
March 16th, 2005 at 7:59 am
I am going to take this to Water Resources Engineering for 3 hours, comprised of not interesting water dynamics but the overall boring processes of the global water cycle.
The point being, it will ensure much thinking to be achieved, not on engineering subjects, but Toms latest blog entry.
Hmmmmmm…….
March 16th, 2005 at 8:26 am
I love. God is love. I am God.
simple
March 16th, 2005 at 9:38 am
timtim, yes Andy is the god of this page.
——
Lock, if you had said that a couple of thousand years ago, you would’ve been in serious trouble. In John 8:58 Jesus says “Before Abraham was born, I am!”.
Not only was he saying that he existed before Abraham, who lived some 1800 years before Jesus was born, but he was applying God’s sacred Hebrew name (’Yahweh’, meaning ‘I am’) to himself. The Jews knew what he was saying, because their outraged reaction was to try to stone him to death for blasphemy! (Poole 1994)
——
Cousin Tim, thanks for your comment. Nice and well thought out, unlike some others (*see above*). Your bit about “fair-trade tea or coffee with fair trade sugar” is a classic, LMFAO. Here, ‘fair trade’ and sugar are touchy subjects, as the US and Australia just made a fair-trade agreement that controversially left sugar cane out of the equation - it was a big deal in North Queensland, where most of the sugar is produced.
As for your statement re: the big bang, “For an explosion to happen there had to be something there”. Well, matter and time were created at that point. As stated here, it wasn’t a “cosmic explosion at a point in time in empty black space, but the beginning of space and of time itself (space-time).”
Religion v. science: There are/were many scientists who belive in God. However, I think it’s best summed up by the judge in the Simpsons who rules, “religion must stay 500 yards away from science at all times”.
March 16th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
“We are here and it is now. Further than that, all human knowledge is moonshine” HL Mencken.
March 16th, 2005 at 1:18 pm
http://www.io.com/~gibbonsb/mencken.html
March 16th, 2005 at 4:25 pm
But he also states in his creed, “I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race”. Seems like a contradictory, misogonist, bigoted, nutcase if you ask me.
Although, I do like this one, “Democracy is the theory that holds that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” ahaha, so true…
March 17th, 2005 at 12:44 am
Re: the ‘we are here and it is now’ comment. In terms of empirical proof even that statement falls down. If you are a true rationalist you will realise that at some point in everyone’s world view faith is involved. Don’t believe me? If you have records of your checking that the floor is there EVERY morning before you put your feet on it to get out of bed then you still won’t get anywhere close to proving me wrong on this point. Assuming you exist. Assuming _I_ Exist.
Which brings me to my most important point: does this blog support HTML?
Interestingly enough at around the point that you started this thread a bunch of my friends (a mate of mine and all of his friends from his Theology course!) started a discussion-by-email about cremation vs burial and the xtn view on it. Quelle coincidence?
March 17th, 2005 at 10:33 am
of course we support html
March 17th, 2005 at 6:49 pm
Good