The Faith Column

4 comments from readers

gerryfranklin
17 April 2008 at 09:42

The number of people believing in an afterlife is of no consequence. You cannot determine facts by referendum. The reasons for believing, in this country at least, is as much tied up with custom and culture as anything, in the way that many people put down C of E when asked about ther religion on a form. I doubt many of those people have questioned seriously their belief in an afterlife. I think that the comfort of an afterlife in the face of death is a big factor in their belief, but I cannot prove it any more than the writer can prove otherwise, and it does all come down in the end to a matter of proof.

Carl Popper asserted that a theory had to be "falsifiable" before it can be considered a scientific theory. I cannot disprove that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden. I cannot disprove that there is an afterlife, or that there is a god. No one can. But the fact that there is no possible way that I can disprove, or indeed prove these things makes them not theories but merely opinions. The number of people holding these opinions might be comforting to other believers such as the writer, but in no way proves them to be a fact.

the writer attempts to inject an element of scientific discourse into his argument, in the same way that Creationists have done by the concept of "intelligent design". He suggests that "experiential evidence" makes the afterlife something worth considering. However, I would suggest that only actual experience of the afterlife would be valid evidence, and the very word"after-life" would make this impossible to achieve. When you are dead you are dead. The idea that people sense a presence following the death of a loved one is understandable for all sorts of reasons quite unconnected with proof, but perhaps connected with a willingness to believe that death has in someway been conquered and their loved one "lives on" somewhere else. But the mind is a funny and in many ways unfathomable thing, and I would have thought that the writer, as a psychologist, would have appreciated this

johannine
25 April 2008 at 05:34

It is funny how people demand 'proof' ,is not our very thought called by science enegy?

Does not that very science say energy can neither be created [nor destroyed] ,

our body is animated by an unseen form of animus, [an electrical charge makes my finger type this ] is not electricity a form of 'energy'?

So we are in debate about the science? ,

But lets bring in logus [logic]

,everyone dies [jesus big revelation to his people was not that of saving us from a loving loving god [but that god lives , sustains life into love [love god love neighbour]

Indeed we are all to live , eternally , according to our life loves [in heaven to those who love good [god] and hell for those who reject good[god]

,life is about sorting the wheat from the chaff [the goats from the sheep] the lovers of good from the lovers of the vile [evil veil]

That this form [body] [ie our spirit ''sewn into skin'' gen 3 , we [with gods help ] animate into life ,

that this life is eternal [on the same energy preservation principles as proven by mans science base]

Knowing that allows us to use free energy so hated and vilified by those who seek us to use energy they alone can control and sell to us , be it in churches or petrol [power] stations

Jesus died and was born again [as we all will]

Then all accend into heaven [or decend into hell] the lesson from this great teacher reveals we die and are reserected ,

[that the belief in a common end time 'reserection day is a fraud]

That each has their own individual judgment day at physical death [even jesus wandered in the hells for 3 days] [wandered in the deserts ; a passover theme], before accending into gods [good ] heaven.

But as both i think rightfully say neither can prove their belief [faith] , and both sides equally regard their fate on chance [or hope] ; [thus was jesus sent] we are free to believe as we chose .

[Those who chose to believe they die and have no afterlife live in delusional hope] [i say hope because many create debt hoping never to have to repay ,its basic human nature to want the free lunch.but every action has an equal and opposing reaction

[every good has an inherant evil [you just cant help some people [thus some live in this hope of an endtime messiah that will fix it all for us [again as decieved as much as decievers]

ok look here we go im dead [and your dead] so if number two [the respondant ] is right ..HE CAN NEVER TELL ME I WAS WRONG ,because if he is right we are both ,morte [dead]

But if i am right for eternity he will know he was wrong, life is here only as a sorting place [so each in the after being gets what they really want ], but if i enjoy telling him i told you so i put myself into the same hell his non belief puts him[hell is rejecting gods good]

jesus said my fathers house has many rooms [life is about our freechoice [faith] chosing into which of our fathers rooms we shall dwell [for those who love gold go to the gold lovers 'room' and those who 'love to' paint go to the painters room] murder-ors go to the murderors room, and so it goes

[it is said where our belief ends [our thinking stops] ,

ok if im wrong i have explored more of lifes possabilities just in imagining how the heavens [and hells are ]

but mr know it all stops [has his faith it all ends at anything after life [because his own logic says it isnt an area that can help live his oh so short life [because in ois mind it dosnt egsist ,he simply dosnt allow his thinking to go [waste time] there , thus limits his own thought

if wriers and philosophisers didnt allow their minds to go there [because their mind is made up it dosnt egsist [then it never will]

[one of the biggest problems in the heavens is convincing foold like that they arnt really dead [so many simply waste eternity in denial] ,open your mind to the possability [you dont even have to believe it just allow the possability you may be wrong [ok MAY be falable [only god [good] is perfect

[WHAT YOU REALLY AFRAID of ?, god is love [live with it]

whats maybe

[open your mind to the science [dont try to destroy energy [no need to get burnt ,

heaven/hell is full of fools in denial , thanks to fixed thinkers believing they really are dead ,

live now then prepare to live after [stop grieving [our grieving the eternally living is problem number two]

if they are really dead , let the dead tend the dead [if they live eternally let them get on with it ,

dont be 'grieving them [prayers are welcome, but dont asume sin

[god dont judge [we are all drawn to the room as per that we love to do , god loves each [He is as NON_ judgmental as any true loving parent.]

its just the goats have one room and the sheep another [same wheat and chaff., believers and unbelievers alike

all shall be born [into the spirit] again

but believe as you chose

you who chose to love evil will live with evil eternally [till you repent

god loves a repentant sinner

go and sin no more]

yolande de morgan
02 May 2008 at 19:49

When we die, our brain dies too; even if there is an afterlife how would we be aware of it? Maybe there is other dimension, but would we be capable of experiencing it as we do in our mere mortal life.

gerryfranklin
07 May 2008 at 10:44

When I saw the rambling jottings of Johannine it took me several readings of it to determine anything coherent in it, and I did hesitate before replying. There are, however, several points I think I can recognise so why not.

Once again we have the attempt to inject “science” into the god existence argument. We should now, it seems, add “spiritual energy” to the school syllabus along with creationism and experiential evidence. I suppose it does mean that deists, in order to counteract the arguments of reason, now feel the need to put something forward to shore up mere faith. The trouble is that the science is all bogus. So we are not in debate about the science, because the science in support of deism is non-existent.

Johannine then tries to recruit Logic to his cause, but the only truths I can discern from the next dozen or so paragraphs is the statement at the beginning “everyone dies” and at the end “…neither can prove their beliefs (faith)”, although I’m not sure who the “neither” refers to. I certainly do not have to prove the non-existence of god or the afterlife, he certainly does.

In fact, if we are looking at everything logically, what is logical about an omnipotent god creating a universe, putting humans with free wills on a miniscule part of it, making them pass a lifelong test, solely to have companions to live with him in heaven? And where is the logic in waiting for these people to appear on earth after the long random process of evolution? Where is the logic in any of the god beliefs?

His statement that those of us who disbelieve that there is an afterlife “live in delusional hope” is a breathtaking reversal of the truth. I do not live in hope I live in reality. He, on the other hand, lives his whole life in the “delusional hope” that all these beliefs, holy books, and proscriptions on the way he must lead his life (so much for free will), will all prove to be true when he dies. One of the galling things about this is that, as he rightly states, I will never be able to tell him and other believers they were wrong because when I’m dead I’m dead. He, on the other hand, if there were an afterlife would be able to wave me goodbye as I descend into hell. He can then get on with warring with all those others up there who were right about an afterlife but believe that only their beliefs qualify them for residency. It would be like Northern Ireland, the Balkans, the Middle East et al all rolled into one. I for my part would be glad to be down below out of it all. We’ve already had enough of that in this life, an eternity of it does not seem appealing at all

Again he is guilty of reversal when he describes me as “Mr Know it all”. I do not presume to know it all but I do not need to replace gaps in my knowledge with fable and myth. He says this is because I have not allowed my mind to go there. But I was not born an atheist. I was born a Roman Catholic, brought up and educated as one, and was completely uncritical of my beliefs. Then in my late twenties something happened to make me question a small part of that religion. I realised that I could no longer believe in it and like a house of cards the whole catalogue of beliefs tumbled down in the face of critical questioning. The relief was liberating. Try it.

I’m afraid that to engage with the rest of the ramblings would be like arguing with a Jehovah’s Witness on the doorstep, incomprehensible.