Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

[carpedm9587]

I think theism in general would make sense of the world to me. As far as Christianity - well it is the person and teaching and resurrection of Christ. Think about it, this nobody from the backwaters of Palestine, whose public ministry lasted only lasted a short three years, became, arguably, the single most influential person of human history. There is something quite attractive about Him and His message. It simply rings true to many of us...

I do recall having many of those feelings. And I frankly still admire the man, and much of the teaching that is attributed to him. People like him serve as an example for me - and I find many of the moral ideals you and I discussed find their roots in the words of men like him, Mandela, King, Gandhi, the DaLai Lama, and others of their ilk.

Life, the possibility of everlasting life in the company of my God, Christ and fellow human beings...That death is not the end...

Yeah - death is a major factor for us humans. Its inevitability drives us in many ways. When I first shifted to atheism, a process that was much slower than my previous conversion to Christianity, death was a major problem for me. I used to have panic attacks about it. I find, as I have gotten older, those fears have lost their grip on me. The primary force in my life related to death is the desire to hit a few things on my "bucket list" before I meet mine.

I continually wonder just how much this one issue - death - is a causal factor in the origination of religions. It is probably a question we will never have an answer to.

Did I dream it - or did you say you live in New England somewhere? I am in northern Vermont. If you're nearby, we really DO have to grab a beer someday!

[Tassman]

So what is your point? I am no supporter of Robertson...

And yet "more and more I found myself listening to him".

[seer]

And yet "more and more I found myself listening to him".

Right Bevis, it was the Gospel that was attracting me, not Robertson. The Gospel, for the fist time in my adult life, was starting to make sense.

[seer]

I do recall having many of those feelings. And I frankly still admire the man, and much of the teaching that is attributed to him. People like him serve as an example for me - and I find many of the moral ideals you and I discussed find their roots in the words of men like him, Mandela, King, Gandhi, the DaLai Lama, and others of their ilk.

I'm not sure why you would admire Christ, you know the whole CS Lewis trilemma thing.

Yeah - death is a major factor for us humans. Its inevitability drives us in many ways. When I first shifted to atheism, a process that was much slower than my previous conversion to Christianity, death was a major problem for me. I used to have panic attacks about it. I find, as I have gotten older, those fears have lost their grip on me. The primary force in my life related to death is the desire to hit a few things on my "bucket list" before I meet mine.

I continually wonder just how much this one issue - death - is a causal factor in the origination of religions. It is probably a question we will never have an answer to.

See death was not a factor in my conversion, but the idea of being reunited to God and possibly loved ones and friends has become more important to me over time.

Did I dream it - or did you say you live in New England somewhere? I am in northern Vermont. If you're nearby, we really DO have to grab a beer someday!

Sorry, I don't travel that much out of my county nowadays. But if you plan on traveling through Litchfield county, Connecticut, let me know.

[carpedm9587]

I'm not sure why you would admire Christ, you know the whole CS Lewis trilemma thing.

I am not big on C.S. Lewis' trilemma. He creates a falsely bounded set of possibilities. There is a fourth possibility not captured in his graph: that the authors of the NT stories, writing decades after the events they relate, are actually writing from the perspective of a maturing theology, and simply are attributing things to Jesus that Jesus himself did not actually say.

When I said I admired Jesus, I meant to say I admire many of the teachings attributed to Jesus in the NT writings. The teachings attributed to him, many of which I suspect originated with him, included caring for the poor, loving those who hate you, turning the other cheek, and the importance of not being bound to "things." These are the kinds of teachings that easily pass a mature person's reasoning tests. They make sense.

See death was not a factor in my conversion, but the idea of being reunited to God and possibly loved ones and friends has become more important to me over time.

I understand, Seer. I didn't gather that death was your motivator. I frankly don't know what your motivator was and wouldn't presume to tell you. Only you know that. And I can understand how the idea of an afterlife with your god would be a comfort to you. It was a great comfort to my Dad when he passed three years ago. His faith was a very important part of his last days. The same for my wife's uncle, who passed a couple of months ago. He was a catholic priest and knew of my beliefs. He and I always had a bit of an odd relationship. His last words to me before he died were, "I guess I'm going to find out first which of us is right." Made me chuckle, actually.

For myself, I don't find the idea of an eternal afterlife attractive, so it doesn't speak to me.

Sorry, I don't travel that much out of my county nowadays. But if you plan on traveling through Litchfield county, Connecticut, let me know.

That's down near Waterbury and New Haven, right? I go by there now and again. I'll keep that in mind.

[seer]

I am not big on C.S. Lewis' trilemma. He creates a falsely bounded set of possibilities. There is a fourth possibility not captured in his graph: that the authors of the NT stories, writing decades after the events they relate, are actually writing from the perspective of a maturing theology, and simply are attributing things to Jesus that Jesus himself did not actually say.

Well you have to be consistent Carp, if you don't believe the things you object to are attributed to Christ, why the things you like?

I understand, Seer. I didn't gather that death was your motivator. I frankly don't know what your motivator was and wouldn't presume to tell you. Only you know that. And I can understand how the idea of an afterlife with your god would be a comfort to you. It was a great comfort to my Dad when he passed three years ago. His faith was a very important part of his last days. The same for my wife's uncle, who passed a couple of months ago. He was a catholic priest and knew of my beliefs. He and I always had a bit of an odd relationship. His last words to me before he died were, "I guess I'm going to find out first which of us is right." Made me chuckle, actually.

I can't wait to meet them! To bad you won't be joining us..

For myself, I don't find the idea of an eternal afterlife attractive, so it doesn't speak to me.

Probably because you are looking at eternal life as a mere extension of time as we know it.

That's down near Waterbury and New Haven, right? I go by there now and again. I'll keep that in mind.

Those are south of me, we are up in the northwest corner. But let me know.

[carpedm9587]

Well you have to be consistent Carp, if you don't believe the things you object to are attributed to Christ, why the things you like?

Where do you see an inconsistency? I admire the teachings I listed (and others) that are attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. Since he was very likely a rabbi, they were couched in the language of his faith. I don't have to think that the faith itself is valid to admire the teachings. As for the rest, I have not said that "he definitely didn't say those things." I said there was a fourth possibility that C.S. Lewis ignored: that some of what is attrributed to Jesus was never actually said by him. IS that what happened? I have no idea. It is also possible he was a religious "lunatic," or that he was lying. I think the latter is VERY unlikely, because it doesn't square well with the other things attributed to him.

If I were to be asked what I think is the "most likely" scenario, I suspect the following: Jesus was a rabbi in the judaic tradition. He taught some pretty "out there" things for the Judaism of that age. His teachings captured a spirit of "goodness" that was comparatively rare for that age and time. He was executed for it, and his followers, after some time, began to take up these teachings and found what was initially a cult within the judaic church. But there was enough of a difference for this cult to be rejected by the powers that be, and these followers were persecuted. Still - the message resonated so well, the chirch continued to spread and gain adherents. 30+ years later, the first of these teachings begins to be written down - and by then the person of Jesus has taken on a "divine" attribute that is reflected in the writings. I suspect no one would be more dismayed to find that Jesus had been deified than Jesus himself.

That being said - that's a suspicion. It's not something that I can prove any more than anyone can prove that the things attributed to Jesus were actually his spoken words. Be that as it may, when something strikes a chord, I admire it. Many of the teachings attributed to Jesus strike a chord - so I admire them. If they were actually Jesus' words, then I admire him too.

I can't wait to meet them! To bad you won't be joining us.

I'm not concerned. I figure I'm covered either way.

Probably because you are looking at eternal life as a mere extension of time as we know it.

So how are YOU looking at eternal life?

Those are south of me, we are up in the northwest corner. But let me know.

Will do. Would be fun to have a beer and talk at a rate faster than posts of TWeb can support.

[seer]

Where do you see an inconsistency? I admire the teachings I listed (and others) that are attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. Since he was very likely a rabbi, they were couched in the language of his faith. I don't have to think that the faith itself is valid to admire the teachings. As for the rest, I have not said that "he definitely didn't say those things." I said there was a fourth possibility that C.S. Lewis ignored: that some of what is attrributed to Jesus was never actually said by him. IS that what happened? I have no idea. It is also possible he was a religious "lunatic," or that he was lying. I think the latter is VERY unlikely, because it doesn't square well with the other things attributed to him.

Or He was the Son of God...

If I were to be asked what I think is the "most likely" scenario, I suspect the following: Jesus was a rabbi in the judaic tradition. He taught some pretty "out there" things for the Judaism of that age. His teachings captured a spirit of "goodness" that was comparatively rare for that age and time. He was executed for it, and his followers, after some time, began to take up these teachings and found what was initially a cult within the judaic church. But there was enough of a difference for this cult to be rejected by the powers that be, and these followers were persecuted. Still - the message resonated so well, the chirch continued to spread and gain adherents. 30+ years later, the first of these teachings begins to be written down - and by then the person of Jesus has taken on a "divine" attribute that is reflected in the writings. I suspect no one would be more dismayed to find that Jesus had been deified than Jesus himself.

Jesus was not executed for preaching to be nice. It was for blasphemy... And there is no reason to assume that Divinity was a later addition.

I'm not concerned. I figure I'm covered either way.

OK, if you say so

So how are YOU looking at eternal life?

Kind of like an eternal now - no sense of the passage of time.

Will do. Would be fun to have a beer and talk at a rate faster than posts of TWeb can support.

I'm in!

[carpedm9587]

Or He was the Son of God...

I am aware that was one of the three options Lewis limited himself to. It is not one I consider likely. Indeed, I pretty much eliminate it as a possibility. Of the four possibilities, I think the fourth, omitted one, is the most likely.

Jesus was not executed for preaching to be nice. It was for blasphemy... And there is no reason to assume that Divinity was a later addition.

I am aware, Seer. But his general teaching was in opposition to the "legalese" of the existing Judaic hierarchy, and he was beginning to generate a following, so he was a threat. A charge of blasphemy is the only one, that I know of, that would result in a death sentence. And while he was charged with blasphemy by the Judaic authorities, he was executed by Roman authorities - who would do so only if he was shown to pose a threat to the Roman state. The accusation for which he was executed was that he was raising up a following against Rome, IIRC

OK, if you say so

Well, I sort of do. Here's my thinking. The Christian god either does or does not exist.

If this god does not exist, then you and I will reach our death, and our existence as persons will simply end.

If this god does exist, then this god created me to be who I am, with reasoning faculties he/she/it (I suppose "he" is better since the Christian god is depicted as male) must have intended for me to use. Lacking the kind of divine revelation you have apparently been made privy to, the best I can do is to follow moral reasoning to the best of my ability, and follow "truth" as best I perceive it. If this god chooses not to reveal himself to me, there is not much I can do about it. If I live as morally as I can, and follow truth to the best of my ability, I have to believe this god (if existent) will value these qualities.

If he doesn't, then what we have is a god who would prefer I function as a hypocrite, claiming belief in things I actually do not beleive in, rather than functioning as an imperfect, but honest, human being. If THAT is the nature of the Christian god, then (with all due respect) this is not a being I want to spend eternity with. I think I'd rather be true to my mind and heart, and take my place in hell then pretend to believe something I do not actually believe to gain admission to heaven.

Kind of like an eternal now - no sense of the passage of time.

This is a great example of the kinds of things that led me away from christianity. "Eternal now" sounds so cool - and is ultimately so utterly meaningless, I cannot bring myself to express it. When you begin to look at the words - and truly ask yourself, "what the heck does it mean?" you have to conclude that it DOESN'T actually mean anything. Time is not a thing - it is the relationship of event. An "eternal now" is a condition of stasis - with no events that can be related to one another. There cannot even be "thought" because thought is event-based and would establish a timeline. How on earth is that in any way different from non-existence?

I'm in!

Me too. It would be a very interesting meal/beverage indeed!

And it has happened before. I have made several very good friends online. Indeed, I invited one of my better ones, an irrascible, deeply right-wing old coot from the west coast to come and join this site - but I have not yet seen him. I thought this might be a good place for him to socialize, given how closely his views align to many expressed here, and especially given that he is newly alone in his abode. I'll keep trying to get him to visit.

[seer]

I am aware that was one of the three options Lewis limited himself to. It is not one I consider likely. Indeed, I pretty much eliminate it as a possibility. Of the four possibilities, I think the fourth, omitted one, is the most likely.

Lewis was simply taking the texts at face value. And there was no reason not to.

I am aware, Seer. But his general teaching was in opposition to the "legalese" of the existing Judaic hierarchy, and he was beginning to generate a following, so he was a threat. A charge of blasphemy is the only one, that I know of, that would result in a death sentence. And while he was charged with blasphemy by the Judaic authorities, he was executed by Roman authorities - who would do so only if he was shown to pose a threat to the Roman state. The accusation for which he was executed was that he was raising up a following against Rome, IIRC

Right, but though the Jews had other motives the charge was blasphemy, a charge Christ did not deny, but actually agreed with - that He was the Son of God. And I have no reason to suppose that that was a later addition.

Well, I sort of do. Here's my thinking. The Christian god either does or does not exist.

If this god does not exist, then you and I will reach our death, and our existence as persons will simply end.

If this god does exist, then this god created me to be who I am, with reasoning faculties he/she/it (I suppose "he" is better since the Christian god is depicted as male) must have intended for me to use. Lacking the kind of divine revelation you have apparently been made privy to, the best I can do is to follow moral reasoning to the best of my ability, and follow "truth" as best I perceive it. If this god chooses not to reveal himself to me, there is not much I can do about it. If I live as morally as I can, and follow truth to the best of my ability, I have to believe this god (if existent) will value these qualities.



If he doesn't, then what we have is a god who would prefer I function as a hypocrite, claiming belief in things I actually do not beleive in, rather than functioning as an imperfect, but honest, human being. If THAT is the nature of the Christian god, then (with all due respect) this is not a being I want to spend eternity with. I think I'd rather be true to my mind and heart, and take my place in hell then pretend to believe something I do not actually believe to gain admission to heaven.

OK, I will leave all that in God's hands. But is it possible that you are not as honest with yourself as you suggest?

This is a great example of the kinds of things that led me away from christianity. "Eternal now" sounds so cool - and is ultimately so utterly meaningless, I cannot bring myself to express it. When you begin to look at the words - and truly ask yourself, "what the heck does it mean?" you have to conclude that it DOESN'T actually mean anything. Time is not a thing - it is the relationship of event. An "eternal now" is a condition of stasis - with no events that can be related to one another. There cannot even be "thought" because thought is event-based and would establish a timeline. How on earth is that in any way different from non-existence?

I'm not speaking of stasis, but the fact that there is no sense of the passage of time, like going from young to old , from strong to weak, from gain to loss, memories fading, etc... We would take no notice of days or weeks or years.

Me too. It would be a very interesting meal/beverage indeed!

Cool..

And it has happened before. I have made several very good friends online. Indeed, I invited one of my better ones, an irrascible, deeply right-wing old coot from the west coast to come and join this site - but I have not yet seen him. I thought this might be a good place for him to socialize, given how closely his views align to many expressed here, and especially given that he is newly alone in his abode. I'll keep trying to get him to visit.

Are you calling me a deeply right-wing old coot? I plead guilty!

[carpedm9587]

Lewis was simply taking the texts at face value. And there was no reason not to.

To you. For me - there are mamy reasons not to.

Right, but though the Jews had other motives the charge was blasphemy, a charge Christ did not deny, but actually agreed with - that He was the Son of God. And I have no reason to suppose that that was a later addition.

Again - I do. I realize you do not.

OK, I will leave all that in God's hands. But is it possible that you are not as honest with yourself as you suggest?

If I am not being honest with myself, I am not aware of it - so I really cannot answer your question. So that leaves us basically where we started: I'm doing the best I can with the facilities I have. I do not have access to the direct contact you apparently have experienced, so I have to work with what I DO have access to.

I'm not speaking of stasis, but the fact that there is no sense of the passage of time, like going from young to old , from strong to weak, from gain to loss, memories fading, etc... We would take no notice of days or weeks or years.

Seer, you still are not saying anything that makes sense to me. "No sense of the passage of time" means no experience of the relationship between events. I suspect most of us have experienced a time when "time" did not seem to flow normally, either passing more quickly or more slowly than the clock on the wall suggests. But "timelessness" in the sense you are describing suggests an eternal absence of a sense of time. The very expression is oxymoronic. If we are not experiencing time at all - then there is no relationship between event - ergo there is no event to be related, unless you're suggesting all events happen simultaneously - which is odd in the extreme.

You remember I earlier noted that I began my journey away from Christianity when I began to take many of the statements I regularly uttered and subjected them to critical scrutiny? This is one of them. I'm sure it means something to you on a religious plane. Practically speaking, it simply impacts me as nonsensical. I have no frame of reference for making "events" and "lack of time" live together in the same sentence.

Cool..

Are you calling me a deeply right-wing old coot? I plead guilty!

Not in the least - though I will accept your own self-evaluation but my friend, Craig, whi I also met on a religious chat site, definitely (and self-admitedly) fits the bill. I love the man dearly, but he is so far right that the signs read, "here there be dragons."

[seer]

To you. For me - there are mamy reasons not to.

Again - I do. I realize you do not.

I'm not sure why, in the oldest known Christian records, the early Gospels, letters of Paul, we have the claim of Sonship.

If I am not being honest with myself, I am not aware of it - so I really cannot answer your question. So that leaves us basically where we started: I'm doing the best I can with the facilities I have. I do not have access to the direct contact you apparently have experienced, so I have to work with what I DO have access to.

This is what I struggle with from my worldview - can there be an honest atheist when it comes to the question of God?

Seer, you still are not saying anything that makes sense to me. "No sense of the passage of time" means no experience of the relationship between events. I suspect most of us have experienced a time when "time" did not seem to flow normally, either passing more quickly or more slowly than the clock on the wall suggests. But "timelessness" in the sense you are describing suggests an eternal absence of a sense of time. The very expression is oxymoronic. If we are not experiencing time at all - then there is no relationship between event - ergo there is no event to be related, unless you're suggesting all events happen simultaneously - which is odd in the extreme.

You remember I earlier noted that I began my journey away from Christianity when I began to take many of the statements I regularly uttered and subjected them to critical scrutiny? This is one of them. I'm sure it means something to you on a religious plane. Practically speaking, it simply impacts me as nonsensical. I have no frame of reference for making "events" and "lack of time" live together in the same sentence.

That may not make sense to you, but I don't think it would be far off from the B-theory of time which many physicists embrace. Not that I have it all figured out, nor could I since my (our) knowledge of these things would be severely limited.

Not in the least - though I will accept your own self-evaluation but my friend, Craig, whi I also met on a religious chat site, definitely (and self-admitedly) fits the bill. I love the man dearly, but he is so far right that the signs read, "here there be dragons."

He sounds like someone I would like...

[carpedm9587]

I'm not sure why, in the oldest known Christian records, the early Gospels, letters of Paul, we have the claim of Sonship.

Seer, all of those writings post-date the events they describe by a matter of decades. They are the writings of a community looking back at the events they describe through the lens of a theology that had been developing for many years. They make fantastical claims about the person of Jesus that simply don't match up with how the world works. There is a simpler explanation than "he was god." I tend to lean to simpler explanations.

This is what I struggle with from my worldview - can there be an honest atheist when it comes to the question of God?

I can imagine that is true. It's sad that a worldview leads one to immediately question the integrity of someone not of their worldview, but that is basically how religions work: they create us/them camps, in general, to preserve their own internal consistency. Many religions have gone so far as to discourage, or even prohibit, marriage and/or socialization outside the faith.

For myself, I do not think anyone expressing a faith-based belief is lying, to themselves or otherwise. I assume your beliefs are founded in your experiences, and are your interpretation of the events of your life. I have had different experiences, so I have a different belief. We all tend to function, in life, somewhat like the blind men exploring the elephant: each with a piece of the puzzle, none of us seeing the whole picture. I have encountered very few people sitting on the floor in the corner of the room making up astuff about the elephant they aren't even touching.

That may not make sense to you, but I don't think it would be far off from the B-theory of time which many physicists embrace. Not that I have it all figured out, nor could I since my (our) knowledge of these things would be severely limited.

And there it is again, that universal disclaimer when we run up against something non-sensical: we just can't know it - god understand and that's enough - it's a mystery (you didn't say all of those - but they are of the same ilk, IMO)

While there are fairly well known objections to the B-Theory of time, the biggest problem, even if it turns out to be true, is that this is not how time is experienced. Time is experienced linearly. If your suggestion is that death will somehow transform our perception of time to be aligned with the B-Theory, and everything will be experienced as a universal "now" (setting aside all of the issues that raises with determinism and free will), then I go back to my original observation: doesn't sound like something I would want.

He sounds like someone I would like...

Oh I suspect you would definitely like him. As irrascible as he is, and as much as he likes to tug on my political chain, he has a heart as large as all outdoors. I value good people - whatever their beliefs may be. And if we all believed the same, the world would be infinitely more boring.

[seer]

Seer, all of those writings post-date the events they describe by a matter of decades. They are the writings of a community looking back at the events they describe through the lens of a theology that had been developing for many years. They make fantastical claims about the person of Jesus that simply don't match up with how the world works. There is a simpler explanation than "he was god." I tend to lean to simpler explanations.

See there is your real problem, anti-supernatural bias. And may be a particular theology developed because that is what Christ actually taught, after most of these were written when many original followers of Christ were probably still alive.

I can imagine that is true. It's sad that a worldview leads one to immediately question the integrity of someone not of their worldview, but that is basically how religions work: they create us/them camps, in general, to preserve their own internal consistency. Many religions have gone so far as to discourage, or even prohibit, marriage and/or socialization outside the faith.

For myself, I do not think anyone expressing a faith-based belief is lying, to themselves or otherwise. I assume your beliefs are founded in your experiences, and are your interpretation of the events of your life. I have had different experiences, so I have a different belief. We all tend to function, in life, somewhat like the blind men exploring the elephant: each with a piece of the puzzle, none of us seeing the whole picture. I have encountered very few people sitting on the floor in the corner of the room making up astuff about the elephant they aren't even touching.

OK...

And there it is again, that universal disclaimer when we run up against something non-sensical: we just can't know it - god understand and that's enough - it's a mystery (you didn't say all of those - but they are of the same ilk, IMO)

But that is not unusual. We for instance would not have a clue what a fourth or fifth dimension would look like or function like, but that does not mean they don't or can't exist. Again remember Carp, what we find sensical or not is limited by the information we have - which is severely limited.

While there are fairly well known objections to the B-Theory of time, the biggest problem, even if it turns out to be true, is that this is not how time is experienced. Time is experienced linearly. If your suggestion is that death will somehow transform our perception of time to be aligned with the B-Theory, and everything will be experienced as a universal "now" (setting aside all of the issues that raises with determinism and free will), then I go back to my original observation: doesn't sound like something I would want.

OK...

[carpedm9587]

See there is your real problem, anti-supernatural bias. And may be a particular theology developed because that is what Christ actually taught, after most of these were written when many original followers of Christ were probably still alive.

Seer - I absolutely confess to an "anti-supernatural" bias. I am naturally biased against things for which I have no credible evidence. If someone comes to me claiming to have seen a unicorn, my bias will kick in. The evidence I have suggests unicorns are beings of mythology. So if someone is going to gain my credulence, they are going to have to provide adequate evidence to counter that perspective. That is essentially high ideologies are formed: they take the course of the preponderance of evidence.

Some people say, "extraordinary claims require extroordinary evidence." That's not exactly right. In general, a claim that is counter to my existing beliefs (assuming they are evidence-based) will require adequate evidence to defeat my existing body of evidence. If that evidence is not forthcoming, my beliefs will remain as is.

The Christian scriptures describe a wide array of "miracles" attributed to the person of Jesus of Nazareth. My experience is that such miracles are either eventually explained as a natural phenomenon, or are debunked. I have zero personal experience of "miracles," and a huge body of evidence that shows that what some people call "miracles" are actually statistically predictable outcomes. So claims that the miracles attributed to Jesus are "real" are going to have to overcome that body of evidence. No one has ever made that case.

As for attribution of authorship, your statement is more absolute than the actual case. Paul was not a contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth. Some of the authors of the gospels are believed to be, but the earliest confirmed dating we have of any of the texts is from the 60s (AFAIK), which dates these elements three decades after the events they describe. This would be akin to you relating events that occurred for you in 1987, even going so far as quoting the actual words of the players. Given the broad research that now exists on the malleability of memory (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3402138/), both personally and collectively, this makes these "first person" accounts somewhat suspect.

So I accept the general tenor of Jesus teaching as "most probably true." I accept the specific words he spoke as "probably not spot-on." I accept the recounting of "natural" events as "most probably true" to the degree that they exist in parallel in multiple sources, and "unknown" for those that occur in only one source, and I hold the supernatural claims as "most likely untrue" for the reasons I cited above.

But that is not unusual. We for instance would not have a clue what a fourth or fifth dimension would look like or function like, but that does not mean they don't or can't exist. Again remember Carp, what we find sensical or not is limited by the information we have - which is severely limited.

That there are physics models out there we do not completely understand, I accept. That we do not know everything there is to know about the universe, I accept. To take that "lack of knowledge" and use it as the basis for a belief system is, to me, an irrational act. Why do I believe that our person ends at death? Because that is what the evidence tells me. The evidence tells me that our "self" is a construct of the organ we call "the brain." We can see that in the significant changes that happen to "person" when this organ is messed with. Harm select parts of this organ and we can see anything from loss of memory to complete personality change. When this organ ceases to function - we fairly universally accept that as a clinical death.

I have no credible evidence that thing called "soul" exists or transcends this organ. The evidence I have seen shows that the demise of this organ marks the end of the person (or animal). Now, if someone can actually provide evidence that can overcome this existing body of evidence, I would certainly look at it.

So that leads me to a simple question: why is this notion of life after death so universal? I think we find that answer is psychology, not physiology. You touched on it earlier. Death is an inevitable terminus. It is a phenomenon that is difficult to grasp. We are, AFAIK, the first self-aware species that has the ability to reflect on its own death. There is a dissonance between "I exist" and "someday I will not exist." The idea of our own nonexistence runs counter to every survival gene we contain. The inevitability of it creates a discord. That discord can be fairly easily resolved by adopting a belief that we do not actually end - that we continue on after the monet of death in some spiritual plane.

I suspect this theme was part of how religions began when we were still in caves (along with the need to explain the unexplainable), and became so universally commonplace, that it become the generalized human belief. The emergence of philosophy in the millenium befor Jesus of Nazareth, and a formal scientific process in the past few centuries, has provided tools to examine these beliefs more thoroughly. We live in a new age, Seer, when these ancient beliefs are beginning to be challenged and are systematically shifting under the weight of evidence.

Man - I really DO get wordy...