Another shot at the case for ‘Natural Afterlife’ or ‘Scientific Spiritualism’. See also relevant Page on sidebar.
23h25-UTC Tuesday 04 December 2007-CE
Once I had left the womb, I cannot recall ever being interested any longer in what was happening back in there. When we “leave” this life (assuming there is an afterlife) is it likely that we would be interested in what happens back here? I think not, and I have not been convinced by any alleged evidence for “spirits” calling the flesh-dwelling folk.
There are those who convince themselves that there is an afterlife; that is to say that the consciousness continues after the body, including the brain, ceases to function. Some of these assume that for there to be a life after this one there has to be a creator. Others speak of ‘natural afterlife’ or ‘scientific spiritualism’ which happens whether we like it or not.
It seems to me that, to say that something exists, is the same as saying that it is material. So if a natural afterlife did exist (that is to say that the consciousness continued to exist after this life) it would have to be comprised of some sort of very thin matter. Nothing can exist, I would have thought, that is not matter, however thin. Furthermore, the consciousness would have to exist already, but tied to the dense material form.
I have, in my entire 67 years, experienced only a single case of a thought of mine (neither spoken at the time, nor previously discussed) seeming to be picked up by a friend (two metres away) and there being no explanation that I could see other than that the thought (or ‘bit’ of consciousness) traversed the gap between us.
If that is what happened, then it lends respectability (in my view) to the speculation that a pattern of consciousness, formerly dwelling in the brain, might be able to continue after the dissolution of that brain. Having “left the womb of the brain”, from what source might the ‘free-floating mind’ derive energy to sustain its being, if such beings indeed exist?
Perhaps, having left the dense-matter realm and joined the ethereal-realm, we lucky people might pause at a comfortable distance from fierce Sol to soak up just enough nourishing mother-like rays to energise our being until we grow older and stronger. Then, having found a community of soul-mates, off we may voyage into the deeps, first interstellar, and then intergalactic.
I believe in none of this but I do see it as a better opium of the people than theism. Religions, faiths or sects have caused far more cruelty, and for a vastly longer period, than non-theism. Ethics, if they are not bashed out of us as babies, are a function of natural, positive, constructive, creative and co-operative instincts that the vast majority are born with. We need no parasitic-poseur-preacher-men.
Indoctrination of children by theists with the idea that we are basically negative and need an unseen but (by some) inferred boss-being has reduced individuals from the best they could be, and generated vindictive (and effectively criminal) priesthoods certain of their own righteousness, convinced of their right to persecute competitors, and happy to share power with gangsters.
Let us indoctrinate folk of the less-intelligent kind, who cannot do without a creed, with a liberating faith that: (1) we are not guilty of original sin, (2) there is no thistle-sower in the sky, (3) we are not required to negate our ego and id but rather to harness these in service of flourishing health and life. Let ancient superstitions fade away like savage wild beasts do in a drought.
