An analogy

Homepage Forums Small Talk An analogy

This topic contains 46 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  TheEncogitationer 2 weeks, 5 days ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 47 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #46432

    Belle Rose
    Participant

    I saw this analogy on Facebook today about life after death. The imagery was they used a picture of twin babies in utero facing each other. And it was written like a parable. One twin asks the other, “ Do you believe in life after delivery?….” End it goes on as a dialogue between the two twins whether or not “life after delivery” exists and whether or not (ahem) “Mother” exists. What do you think about this analogy?

    #46433

    Autumn
    Participant

    Conversation in the Womb – A Parable of Life After Delivery

    Assuming foetuses had the capacity and means to conduct research, then life outside the womb and the existence of ‘mother’ are both things that could be determined through examination of the material universe around them. The same cannot be said for an afterlife.

    The analogy may work as a means of illustrating how some people conceive of their god and life after death, but it doesn’t add any evidence for them.

    #46434

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Yes, the babies can hear muffled sounds, including voices, and see light and dark from the womb.

    People who don’t believe in life after death say there is literally no evidence that would convince them.  They also say, it’s impossible, because it doesn’t fit any known scientific paradigm.  All in all, the evidence against life after death amounts to a lot of dogmatic shouting.

    I think the only reasonable position is to say we don’t know.

    #46435

    _Robert_
    Participant

    Yes, the babies can hear muffled sounds, including voices, and see light and dark from the womb. People who don’t believe in life after death say there is literally no evidence that would convince them. They also say, it’s impossible, because it doesn’t fit any known scientific paradigm. All in all, the evidence against life after death amounts to a lot of dogmatic shouting. I think the only reasonable position is to say we don’t know.

    The default is that dead is dead. It is the claim that there is life after death requires evidence, and there is no case that can be made. Common wishful thinking or “recollections” from a dysfunctional brain are not evidence that we “go on” but it is evidence that once again we are childishly irrational. So many walking around, claiming to know what they do not.

    #46436

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Robert and Autumn are spot on.

    I think the only reasonable position is to say we don’t know. SAYS SIMON.

    Utter certainty is not within our scope. On the other hand it is an error in conceptualization to posit matters like god and life after death as fifty/fifty propositions. The you can’t prove it versus the you can not disprove it dichotomy is misleading. When it would fulfill our deepest wishes and allay our greatest fears be extra skeptical. However penetrating one’s ratiocination those sentiments may erode our baseline intellect. There is nothing about life and its cessation to suggest that it continues. It is not a real or reasonable hypothesis.

    People who don’t believe in life after death say there is literally no evidence that would convince them. SAYS SIMON.
    Who the hell says that? That would be the atheist equivalency of dumbass theism which is all theism.

    #46437

    Unseen
    Participant

    How would a fetus, even one possessing a high degree of intelligence, even have enough information to ask a question about life after birth? Indeed, how would a fetus even become aware of the entire concept of being born? Such a notion would be needed for the ruminations to even begin. Where would the needed information come from?

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by  Unseen.
    #46439

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    People who don’t believe in life after death say there is literally no evidence that would convince them. SAYS SIMON. Who the hell says that? That would be the atheist equivalency of dumbass theism which is all theism.

    You’re right, I should have said, no second-hand evidence.  Atheists have said that to me.

    #46440

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Belle Rose,

    One thing to remember about analogies is that no analogy is 100 percent perfect. If an analogy were 100 percent perfect, it would be a tautology.

    Also, fetuses, amniotic fluids, umbilical cords and sacks, and mothers are beings that exist within the Natural Universe. Being born is just moving from one place to another within the Natural Universe.

    Thus, there is zero comparison between a Natural Mother and a Supernatural God and zero comparison between Natural Life and Supernatural Afterlife. There is evidence for the Natural, but no evidence for the Supernatural.

    I hope that addresses the analogy well.

    #46441

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    I’m calling it a fallacy, that you can be so certain about it while not actually knowing.  It’s the fallacy of scientism.

    It’s a logically different uncertainty from knowing whether or not God exists.  The case for God is riddled with logical flaws, as well as being redundant.

    #46442

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Simon, how are you using the fallacy of scientism? In what sense?

    Please make a case for life continuing after death. Any indications or arguments for its continuation? Cuz if what you are asserting is on a par with other unfalsifiable wish fantasies then it is pretty much worthless. Just because we can not know with hermetic certainty that it ain’t so does not remove it from disbelief.

    #46443

    Davis
    Moderator

    Ehhhhh Simon, I wouldn’t accept second hand evidence for ANY serious argument let alone an incredible one. Hearsay is simply what other people have said. That is not sufficient evidence for any claim. I don’t give a shit if someone says they saw an afterlife while nearly dead, believe they saw a ghost, reported an experience with bigfoot, or their Brother’s girlfriend’s boss knows a guy who has undeniable evidence that God is real. Where is the evidence? What someone said is not enough. Hearsay is enough to say, accept the argument that indeed a street has been closed off for the day or that a local subway no longer sells meatball sandwiches. It is not enough to accept that someone has committed gross fraud, that a dog talked to them or that some invisible entity in the sky controls all. Why would it? That we somehow magically exist in some fundamentally different way for eternity after brain death? I expect some seriously strong evidence for that. If I were presented with it, I’d accept there is an afterlife. Hearsay will NOT do.

    #46444

    Davis
    Moderator

    Twins speculating about “life after birth” is not the same as life after death. For numerous reasons:

    Life after birth simply means continuing to live. There is no change except instead of being surrounded by fluid and receiving oxygen, nutrients via a chord you life in the open air, breathe oxygen and eat/drink. That may seem like a relatively cataclismic change for the baby, in reality it is a trivial change in the scheme of just how much things can change in the universe. Life after death entails some magical transformation from corporeal form to some not very well explained “other” form. The mechanisms behind it are, ehhh…”somehow”. Just what that is depends on either a complex set of mostly absurd beliefs your parents had or some religious/spiritual idology you like for whatever reason.

    This should be obvious but: babies cannot speculate about things. We can. While we can always go: what if they can, a better analogy is say, those who speculated what planets and stars were. At first it was sheer speculation, over time theories were developed based on evidence and knowledge was gained. The afterlife hasn’t passed the stage of sheer speculation nor does it seem reasonable to think this will change any time soon if ever.

    As August said, if beings were trapped in a certain environment, over time and with the right resources, they could be able to make a lot of reasonable assumptions based on their investigation. This goes with knowing a lot about the core of the Earth without ever seeing it, knowledge of the cosmos before gaining tools that properly confirmed it and making reasonable theories and finding ways to test them. We cannot test ANYTHING about an afterlife. Please someone describe ANY way we can currently test if there is an afterlife, let alone what it is and how it works.

    #46445

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Simon, how are you using the fallacy of scientism? In what sense?

    I take it to mean the idea that what science can’t currently explain, logically therefore doesn’t exist.

    I’m not coming up with an argument in favour of life after death.  I don’t need to, because the degree of uncertainty is so great, that something or nothing could be the case.

    There is such a thing as the logic of reality.  If a story is logical and checks out with known other details (is both internally and externally consistent) – that’s good evidence in favour of something.  It wouldn’t necessarily be proof.

    #46446

    The analogy is like the story of Plato’s Cave. The fetuses are the prisoners in the cave who thought that the voices of prison guards were the voices of the shadows being cast onto the cave wall by the fire. This was their reality until one escaped the cave (the womb) and realized that their perception of reality was a delusion up to that point (but still their reality).

    The fetuses would only consider the womb (cave) they existed in as their only reality. They would have no concept of any other possible dimension. It would be like one prisoner asking the other if he believed in a world existing outside of the cave when living in the cave, chained to the rock, was all they ever knew.

    If the fetuses had some a priori knowledge that they were going to be delivered, they would not have “to believe in life after delivery”. They would know it was to happen.  If they did not have this knowledge then they would not have the concept of “life after delivery”. So for me the analogy does not work.

    #46447

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Plato’s cave first came to my mind too. But the a priori is another story.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 47 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.