One of my favorite authors, Sam Harris, made a great point in a debate about whether or not there is an after life. While claiming the fear of having all four speakers reach the conclusion of "We simply don't know," he eventually chimed in with a point about how we actually do have a direction to lean toward from the point of view of science.
I will paraphrase. Science is not in principle against the possibility of an after life existing. If, in fact, we were able to scientifically verify, through ectoplasm or something we don't yet know, that there is an after life, that would become a part of our understanding of life and neurology. However, there are no good reasons to think this is true. What's more is that we have good reasons to think it doesn't exist. The brain and the mind are intertwined. We know this because if you damage a part of the brain, you lose certain faculties. For instance, you can forget to name colors or the name of loved ones. Going further, if you damage more parts of the brain, your mind loses even more. So if we are to consider that when you damage the entire brain at death, somehow consciousness is able to detach from the brain and you'll be able to speak English and recognize grandma.
This clearly is definitive proof, but it must be noted if we're going to have an honest discussion on the possibility of an after life. It may be a difficult truth to take in, but it seems likely that it actually doesn't exist.
Now how does this fit in with religion? Well, if we are to focus on Christianity, the concept of hell is not mentioned in the Old Testament. Only when Jesus comes along do we learn of eternal suffering for certain beliefs, among others, that Jesus was divine. I just simply don't see any good reason to assume there is an after life.
No comments:
Post a Comment