Quote:
Why has it been so important for people that we don't go anywhere when we die? I'm not saying I'm sold one way or the other, I'm kind of in between, but I can see this question asked in both ways.
I can see the conceptual draw of both. Something of that nature is what the Japanese refer to as Yuugen (forgive the Romanji, but I'm not fighting with posting the kanji on this forum lol). Basically it's the idea of the "unknowable" in the universe. So with that as our preface, understanding that from a demonstrable perspective the only thing you can know is that you don't know (if you ask Socrates apparently that's how it is with everything, but I digress), then if you choose to ascribe to one side or the other its because either the nature of the outcome appeals to you, or because the answer is core to your operational assumptions (and all of us have some). The draw for me of the notion of a past/future/separate life is a few fold. The first is that I will often have moments where I remember events that I know I've never witnessed, or have very violent dreams right before a friend's passing or significant loss, or for that matter have a gut level premonition that this is probably my second or third go 'round, but probably the last for my brother and my mother (both incredibly bright, nuanced, centered people). On a more immediate level, were I to believe in hell I'd imagine it would probably be a conscious perception of nothingness. To be self-aware only enough to know that there is nothing; no thought, no imagination, no space, no existence, for all eternity. On the other side of things, I imagine the draw of not believing in another existence is bound to the notion of freedom, of not feeling enslaved by what, for all intents and purposes, is a scientifically unfounded, unprovable belief that seems to controvert the very nature of scientific positivism. Of course, in my mind, it is as much enslavement to unquestioningly follow proclaimed religious dogma as it is to put unquestioning faith in humanity's perceptive or analytical capacity. If you think about the nature of theoretical physics, for example, a great deal of our mathematical and scientific constructs are premised on tenuous inferences designed to help us transcend our profound physical and observational limitations. At the core of every logical or theoretical system, there is a tacit somewhere, even in systems that are premised on physical observations. You have to assume something is so in order to deduce thereafter. So really, it's just a matter of what you decide to accept as a given. From there, the academic deductive mistake aside, you can come to nearly any "logical" conclusion.
