The Atheist Afterlife: Introduction
Posted in Atheism, Books, The Atheist Afterlife on | 2 minutes | 13 Comments →
A few weeks back, I discovered a most pleasant surprise in the mailbox: a copy of philosopher David Staume's The Atheist Afterlife. If nothing else, it ought to catch one's attention for the title alone.
Like many other things, I first heard of Staume's book on Common Sense Atheism, which in my opinion is probably the best all-around atheist blog out. David also comments at CSA and on one occasion, I responded favorably to a comment of his that hit on some of the ideas in TAA, which led to him offering me a copy of the book. Much obliged, David!
168 pgs, 978-1-89743529-8, $9.00, Agio Publishing House
I've read about half the book so far, and while I obviously disagree with the subtitle, most of my objections are minor (so far). I'd like to list the contents of David's book by chapter, so that you can get a feel for where this might go. David's theory is called the inside-out theory and the book is divided into two parts:
PART ONE: THE THEORY
1) Everything That Is Born Must Die
2) Laws That Kill and Laws That Save
3) We Experience Two Realities
4) The Objectification of Inner Reality
5) The Geometry of Space and Time
6) The Elephant In The Room
7) The Fourth Dimension of Space
8) The Second Dimension of Time
9) When Separate Things Merge
10) But Wait, There's More…
PART TWO: THE RAMIFICATIONS
11) Pre-conception and The Laws of Physics
12) Show Me The Matter!
13) The Scenery of Our Dreams
14) The Geometric Model of Thought
15) The Viral Model of Thought
16) The Range of Potential Experience
17) The Way The Wheel Would Turn
18) The Mind-Brain Connection
19) So, What Are We Waiting For?
20) Extroduction
Wouldn't you say this sounds different than your typical atheist fare? While they all sound pretty interesting, I'm particularly curious about 13, 14 and 18.
Does anything in particular pique your attention?
Sung Jun
says...Well, 3 to me looks like a reformulation of dualism. I also agree with your focus on 13, 14, and 18, although I’d tack on 15 because I’m intrigued just how mind can be thought of as “viral.”
MS
says...I’d say #12…
david Staume
says...Sun Jun, part of the book presents a new – and importantly testable – support for dualism. Like all new ideas, especially in this field (philosophy) the grounds are contestable but what I really like about the theory is that it is falsifiable – and most philosophical theories aren’t. That’s why I can stand up and say that atheists (and I hate speaking as if they’re a group as we’re a disparate bunch) should probably be agnostic about the possibility of consciousness surviving death – rather than dismissing it as a religious concept, which many – perhaps most – do.
I might add what the purpose of the book is. It presents and argument that I think is worthy of discussion. It achieves it’s purpose if it encourages theists to think about something they probably take for granted (an afterlife) and be presented with a definitive statement about what an afterlife would be like if in fact it exists. And yes, while I think the question of whether or not there’s an afterlife is very open, what it would be like if it exists is pretty clear. While, on the other hand, I hope it encourages atheists to not follow the falacy of dismissing religious concepts – or what we may call ‘spiritual concepts’ – simply because they label them that way. I hope the book is challenging to both sides, and offer it for other people to make comment on the brilliance or lunacy of my argument.
cl
says...Sun Jung / MS — I figured people would find one or more of those chapters interesting..
David,
Thanks again for sending the book and dropping by. In case you were wondering, yes, I was going to extend you the courtesy of knowing about my reviews – you just beat me to it :)
I wholeheartedly agree with your position that atheists should remain agnostic about an afterlife. I like that you express distaste in speaking for atheists as if all think alike; this is an unpleasantry theists have been dealing with for years. Now that atheism is gaining in numbers, it’s interesting to note the introduction of some of the same problems inherent when any group increases in numbers.
I like that you describe the inside-out theory as both testable and falsifiable; I’ll have to dig into the book a bit deeper before I can comment on the extent I believe the theory retains those properties.
To get a feel of where we may differ, when you say,
..though I argue something more like tripartism (which we can discuss), and though I would probably agree with you that Cartesian dualism is not necessarily falsifiable, I see Cartesian dualism as testable. That is to say, I believe we can certainly test for instances of consciousness occurring outside of a brain. Along those lines, the Warwicks’ latest achievements near-prove that consciousness can literally be streamed (cf. “Kevin Warwick, Human Cyborg” on YouTube).
As far as falsifiability, I’d say that that Cartesian dualism – or more specifically, the claim that consciousness survives death – is inherently unfalsifiable, because the best we might hope for is an assumption of false based on vacuity of evidence. To contrast, with a claim like cathode rays, we were able to effectively falsify that no such thing existed. Anyways..
Kudos to you for towing the middle path, and thanks again.
David Staume
says...Since the book was written I realise i should have made the falsifiable thing clearer. The theory is testable in two ways. The first is pretty soft: the theory would be advanced if there was a correlation between the experiences of lucid dreamers and the expected experience of additional dimensions of space and time. That would show a correlation but not prove the theory by any means. The second is quite strong. I won’t go into the ‘why’ here but the theory predicts that dark matter/energy would be responsive to thought. Surprisingly, as weird as that sounds, that could be proved or disproved within a decade or two. It’s possible that even the Hadron Collider at Cern could advance our knowledge of dark matter/energy considerably within some years. If the prediction was true, the chances of consciousness surviving death would jump significantly. If not, an afterlife would be relegated to wishful thinking.
Anyone wanting a copy of the book that quotes ‘TWIM’can have a copy delivered, free, just email me at staume@optusnet.com.au … I would expect a short review on Amazon in return, however. Whether you like it or not though please support your reasons. If you just say “It sucks’ or ‘It’s brilliant’ that doesn’t help me understand where the theory fails or works. One last thing … it’s not the boring kind of philosophy that makes you think you’d rather stick pins in your eyes.
Dominic Saltarelli
says...I think I’ll pick up a copy then and toss my $0.02 into the fray. Just a warning ahead of time though, I’m not a person who finds the rationale for inferring the existence of Dark Matter/Dark Energy terribly persuasive. So I’ll be skeptical of anything that relies on assuming them.
cl
says...I appreciate the distinction on falsifiablity.
I absolutely agree.
I don’t think that sounds weird at all, and I agree such is testable, even provable. However, when you say,
..I’m inclined to be hesitant. I would say, if not, then an afterlife based on the necessity of thought affecting dark matter would be relegated to wishful thinking. It could still be that some other theory enables an afterlife, or, to say it differently, thought’s inability to affect dark matter doesn’t disprove all notions of an afterlife.
LOL! That’s for sure. As it happens, those are the type I like read.
MS
says...“Anyone wanting a copy of the book that quotes ‘TWIM’can have a copy delivered, free, just email me”
That’s a great offer, David. Thanks. I think, instead, I’ll order one through Amazon. You seem like a good sort, and I’m interested to read what you have to say.
Sung Jun
says...Oh, don’t get me wrong, I in fact am a firm believer in dualism (or any -ism that separates mind from matter, at that). It’s pretty much a prerequisite for my belief in reincarnation. I’m just making an observation, not a snide remark. :)
David Staume
says...Sung Jun, I certainly didn’t take it that way, the tone of conversation in TWIM is respectful, which is not the case in many other forums. Re your belief in reincarnation, I have come to the view that if there’s an afterlife, there must be a before-life. Consciousness can only exist after death if it can exist independently of our physical body; and if it can exist independently of our physical body, it can exist before our physical body is formed inside our mother. Put another way, if our inner reality isn’t extinguished at the point of death, there’s no reason to expect that it would come into being at the point of conception.
It seems to me that if there’s an afterlife there must be reincarnation. I can’t make any sense of an afterlife without it.
Dominic Saltarelli
says...For clarification (I’m still waiting on the copy I ordered, so haven’t read the book yet). Do you take a stand then on if or when consciousness gets conceived? If it exists before the body then when does it start? Or does it start at all?
I’m not sure if you’re saying that every consciousness that ever existed and ever will has some undefined origin in the past or can’t be said to even have an origin (namely, everyone has always existed).
David Staume
says...Dominic, no I don’t have a stand on that. I do know that IF there’s an afterlife there must be a before-life. I also can’t make any sense of an afterlife without reincarnation. But when you get to ‘So where did consciousness kick in then?’ the best I can do is suggest that it must have evolved over a very long time. Beyond that rather banal statement I can only say ‘I have absolutely no idea’. I’m content to let that remain a mystery or it would do my head in.
Sung Jun
says...I think it would be pertinent to point out that, even if there were an afterlife, that is still not a guarantee of one for everyone. So, therefore, death would remain a gamble, unless it can be logically proven that the afterlife is experienced whether one would like it to or not.
Reading an excerpt of the first portion of your book, you start off the argument for a possible afterlife with the first law of thermodynamics. It would imply that, just as a hammer has no choice but to smash something (or be smashed) when driven into something else with great force, so does a person’s awareness. But, I would still wonder if this “self” that separates from the body is itself indestructible. Forget dying for good in this life; dying for good in other lives remains a concern!
There are some people who hold that oblivion is ultimately preferable to awareness. Buddhists approximate this (although it has a more reverent flare) in the concept of Nirvana. I come close to those people, with one key difference: I want to experience perfection … at least one day, after I’ve had my fill of living and dying.