The Atheist Afterlife: p1-17
Posted in Atheism, Consciousness, Philosophy, The Atheist Afterlife on | 6 minutes | 5 Comments →
Today’s post covers the Introduction and Chapter 1 of The Atheist Afterlife, by David Staume. In a nutshell, the book aims to demonstrate the plausibility of, well.. an atheist afterlife (as if you needed my review to tell you that, right?).
As stated, my initial reactions about the book are largely positive. Overall, I’d say the author takes the road less traveled, and tends towards conservatively stated beliefs and secure premises. I guess when one is used to online (a)theist discussions, those virtues tend to stand out more. As an example of some statements I appreciated or agreed with,
This book is the result of prising the concept of an afterlife out of the grasp of religion and applying rational thought to the subject without prejudice; that is, neither accepting it on faith, nor dismissing it as a religious fiction. (3)
..lack of sensory evidence for something does not guarantee that it doesn’t exist. (6)
..the discipline in the best position to prove or disprove the existence of an afterlife could be mathematics. But even if a mathematical proof of an afterlife was forthcoming, it’s hard to imagine that there would be a consensus that it expressed a physical truth. (12)
Our senses tell us that life disappears at the point of death, but our senses also tell us that the sun disappears at the point of sunset. (14)
Each of these comments suggests open-mindedness and fairness. I like that Staume is willing to think outside of the box by disassociating “afterlife” and “religion.” I like the sentiment about mathematics, particularly because it reduces to a theortically answerable question. I like the “sun” analogy quite a bit, and I honestly wonder why most atheists don’t seem to care for the open-minded approach when it comes to consciousness and afterlife concepts. More, each of these are what I like to call conservatively stated, and I honestly believe (a)theist debate would improve overnight if more (a)theist writers took the time and consideration to state things conservatively.
That said, I imagine most of my objections to Staume’s arguments will center upon beliefs or claims that aren’t so conservatively stated. For example,
Although the balance of evidence and reason make the existence of an afterlife doubtful.. (3)
Rational theories, such as Big Bang Cosmology and Evolutionary Theory, are far more extraordinary and beautiful – when comprehended – than any of their theist counterparts. (11)
These statements are purely subjective, but their phrasing suggests objectivity. Of course, I understand that Staume is likely just expressing his own opinions here, his own take on things, but I fear many readers don’t catch those sorts of things. Especially when they are impressionable, readers tend to “dogmatize” things at times, and every statement not stated conservatively is another potential misunderstanding. Many readers simply accept whatever a writer says at face value, and that’s why we have to be careful.
Enough with generalities, though. Let’s move on to some specifics.
Chapter 1 is titled Everything That Is Born Must Die, and Staume launches his argument wisely from the premise of death’s certainty, suggesting two options: either consciousness extinguishes at death, or continues in some form. He seems to imply that the existence of afterlife is an either-or proposition, and I would agree with Staume here. A third option seems hard to conceive of.
After he dismisses various religious explanations as “imagination,” Staume introduces his Inside-Out theory, which he describes as “requiring nothing more than physics,” and [potentially] testable:
The Inside-Out theory paints a detailed and explicit picture of what a rational afterlife would look like, including its geometry, and it is this exactness that could be testable. (12)
If nothing else, it already sounds like we’re talking about “something more” than your standard, non-prediction-making, non-evidence-referencing afterlife fare, and hopefully this distinction will be further emphasized.
I like that Staume stops to ask good questions:
..if there’s no evidence for something, shouldn’t we just dismiss it? (13)
About that tomes could be written. Staume seems to raise the question in response to those who, as a sort of epistemological rule of thumb, claim that lack of evidence for a proposition is grounds for its dismissal. Staume seems to be distancing himself from that crowd, which I like.
On a note of disagreement,
Any mechanism of an afterlife must be based on the assumption of mind-body dualism.. (15)
Staume attempts to support this by appealing to the brain-mind question, arguing that,
If they’re the same thing, we can be confident that there is no aspect of us capable of continuing our consciousness when our current vehicle of consciousness – our body – dies.
Ironically, I actually agree with that statement, that is, that no aspect of us is capable of continuing our consciousness past death, but I don’t think this fact justifies a priori assumption of mind-body dualism.
I would disagree that any mechanism of an afterlife requires the assumption of mind-body dualism. While most theists and most “Christians” seem to believe in a spiritual resurrection, thus qualifying as mind-body dualists, I see nothing in the concept of a physical resurrection that requires mind-body dualism. A physical resurrection as [arguably] described in the Hebrew scriptures has no need for the human mind to exist separate from the human brain. Rather, consciousness simply extinguishes along with the body until the agent is physically resurrected by God. Such a scenario – if true – would not require an assumption of mind-body dualism of any sort. It could be that Staume was simply speaking in an atheist context here, in which case, yes, any atheist afterlife would seem to require that mind can exist aside from brain, but such is not true of all species of the genus afterlife.
As Chapter 1 draws to a close, Staume suggests that we put the concept of the soul aside for the purposes of examining his theory. I’m content to do so, of course, only after stating that I think souls are nowhere near as confusing or expendable as today’s philosophers imply.
Foreshadowing Chapter 2, Staume writes,
I believe that the theory that death is extinguishment has competition. With the description of a rational afterlife that requires nothing more than physics, supported by a new and probably testable support for mind-body dualism, the extinguishment theory can no longer win the logical argument about whether or not there’s an afterlife simply by turning up.
All in all, things seem promising.
Jayman
says...(1) I am interested in seeing how mathematics can be used to prove or disprove the existence of an afterlife. I would have expected a philosophical argument of some kind (not that he can’t do both).
(2) What religious explanations are dismissed as imagination and on what basis are they labeled imagination?
(3) Unless your mind immediately entered another physical body after death I don’t see how the kind of physical resurrection you envision would be a true resurrection of the person who died. If your mind is annihilated upon physical death, then is it really you who is resurrected at a later date in a physical body or is it a clone (for lack of a better term)? It seems that there would have to be some continuity between the mind in your present physical body and the mind in your future physical body to say that you survived physical death.
(4) Does Staume believe that evidence for the afterlife must be empirical or is he open to a philosophical argument for the afterlife?
Dominic Saltarelli
says...Speaking of arguing possibilities, wait till you get to the Broadcaster/TV analogy. It is so similar to your lightbulb analogy that you may suspect Staume of plagiarism.
And regarding physical resurrection, I believe Jewish doctrine has this covered. Don’t quote me on this, just operating from what I’ve read in the past, but Jewish doctrine states that God basically remembers who you were and recreates you at the appointed time.
cl
says...Jayman,
1) Me too.
2) Well, he writes,
As far as I could see, no basis was given, but he alludes to some of the typical atheist arguments here: “..lack of evidence and high improbability of a Heaven, Hell and God..” (14)
3) You asked,
I don’t know. My only point in bringing up “physical resurrection” was to argue against Staume’s claim that an “externalised inner reality” is the only “rational” or “possible” afterlife scenario. Although, regardless of the duration of the “gap” between bodies, I’d wager that it would certainly feel “immediate” to us, so if we were to pursue this question I’d note that any resurrection would effectively be “immediate” from the agent’s perspective.
4) You asked,
Well, hopefully he’ll show up to answer that, because I’m reluctant to speak for him, but from what I’ve gleaned, it seems he is open to philosophical arguments for the afterlife. His own Inside-Out theory seems to take a little from both: it’s a philosophical argument he attempts to support with empirical observations. I like that.
pine
says...cl:
You wrote: “3) You asked,
If your mind is annihilated upon physical death, then is it really you who is resurrected at a later date in a physical body or is it a clone (for lack of a better term)?
I don’t know. My only point in bringing up “physical resurrection” was to argue against Staume’s claim that an “externalised inner reality” is the only “rational” or “possible” afterlife scenario. Although, regardless of the duration of the “gap” between bodies, I’d wager that it would certainly feel “immediate” to us, so if we were to pursue this question I’d note that any resurrection would effectively be “immediate” from the agent’s perspective.”
If I were to travel away from home I would find myself wanting to speak to my family. To accomplish this let’s say I set up a video chat so that I could speak and see my daughter and she the same with me. I, the intellect and real person, would be communicating and relating to my daughter through the ‘body’ of the computer. Now suppose someone came and smashed the computer I was using. I would instantly be cut off from communication with my daughter. Without a new computer (or some other vehicle through which I could communicate) I would no longer be able to interact with my daughter.
Upon examination of Genesis, and other Biblical texts, I find it very elementary to understand death as “ceasing to exist” or life as “continuing to exist”. After all, do not Christians believe the unsaved ‘exist’ in torment eternally? Yet this is described as ‘death’. Death must then mean something other than annihilation, what I will argue is seperation.
The computer smashing means simply that the vehicle through which we previously communicated has been cut off, physical death is the cutting off of the vehicle through which we have expressed our ‘self’. We can no longer interact with those same living souls in the way we used to. The difference lies here, when the computer smashes my daughter will not believe I have stopped existing as a person, whereas with death we do make that assumption. Why? In the cases of mental retardation or people who have suffered brain loss through disease or injury, we come to evaluate the person based upon the vehicle. You would not question the intellect of the person on the other line simply because they came to an area of poor coverage with their cell phone, would you? This is an error in thinking. We have allowed the biologists to conflate in our minds the person with the vehicle through which that person is expressed. Certainly a flawed vehicle will not fully express that person as well as an unflawed vehicle would, but that makes them a person no less.
The great hope in the bodily resurrection is not simply the restoral of the old phone line, but is an introduction to a new vehicle through which we will be much better equipped to communicate. We are currently on a system using our old rotary dials as though they were the latest in technology. But a rumor is spreading. One day soon we will be upgraded to a digital system which isn’t encumbered by the cords the old system depended upon. But before the new installation can take place the old system must be removed… for a time we will be cut off from communication only until the new system can be properly installed, then we will wonder how we ever got by with the first system in the first place.
David Staume
says...Hi all
Re: ‘Does Staume believe that evidence for the afterlife must be empirical or is he open to a philosophical argument for the afterlife?’
Completely open to a philosophical argument, and make one in the book. The essence of the argument is: ‘There is reason to believe that we dream in additional dimensions of space and time to the dimensions of waking experience. If this is so, an afterlife is guaranteed.’
Re: ‘Speaking of arguing possibilities, wait till you get to the Broadcaster/TV analogy. It is so similar to your lightbulb analogy that you may suspect Staume of plagiarism.’
I’d love to hear the lightbulb analogy, but … I’m quite sure I could recreate it. I doubt the Broadcaster/TV analogy is original but I can’t attribute it. It’s quite likely I read it – or the essence of it – in one of the many philosophical books I’ve read, but the reference has gone from memory. Even so, I suspect that anyone who thinks about this issue would come up with a version of their own set in a context that occurs to them. Regardless, it seems to me to be an argument that carries some weight. It supports the view that ‘evidence’ put forward to disprove mind-body dualism (such as physical drugs affecting the mind) may not be the proof some people think.
Re: ‘I am interested in seeing how mathematics can be used to prove or disprove the existence of an afterlife. I would have expected a philosophical argument of some kind (not that he can’t do both).’
This is a really interesting point. I can see how different things can support or not support the existence of an afterlife, but ‘proof’! Even if an afterlife had a mathematical proof I doubt that this would suffice for most people as I suspect there’d be a great discussion of just how real many aspects of mathematics actually are. The closest I can get to proof is: 1/ if dark matter/energy was proved to be responsive to thought, ie moved and shaped by thought as opposed to physical forces, I think you’d be pretty damn close, and 2/ proof of the existence of additional dimensions of time and space get you close but not all the way. Unless there’s mind-body dualism, there would be no mechanism by which consciousness could avail itself of these dimensions.
Re: ‘”physical resurrection” was to argue against Staume’s claim that an “externalised inner reality” is the only “rational” or “possible” afterlife scenario.
I do currently hold the view that an externalised inner reality is the only rational and possible afterlife scenario. That is, if an afterlife exists, it’s THIS. 1/ I can get my head around an externalised inner reality, it’s the dream world as a reality rather than just an epiphenomena of the sleeping brain; 2/ I can envisage a mechanism for an afterlife based on this that doesn’t contravene physical laws. Sure it’s based on two big assumptions (that we dream in additional dimensions and mind-body dualism), but you can reason your way through it. 3/ I CAN’T get my head around physical resurrection (a failing possibly) but I can’t make sense of it without invoking a God, and while there MAY be a God … well, I can’t disprove it … bringing God into the discussion doesn’t actually help you move an argument forward.
Anyone interested in a copy of the book is welcome to a complimentary one, you just have to put a sentance or three (or more if you’re eager) on Amazon as a review. You find me at staume@optusnet.com.au and a copy will arrive from the nice people at Amazon. … See, I’m not just on this blog to flog a book! :-)