It's a curse, in a way, to have (be?) a brain trained to recognize and solve problems, optimize expected outcome, and see through bullshit when the popular solution to existential debilitating dread — religion — crumbles at the slightest analysis. Ignorance is bliss, to add to Puchner's ostensibly empty bromides.
There are a lot of very intelligent people who believe in an afterlife. They aren't ignorant about the reality of death, nor are they practicing "bullshit". They honestly and earnestly believe in what they advocate.
The disagreement is fundamental in nature. The afterlife was never demonstrated to be false. It was rejected because it contradicts naturalism. Believers didn't make some mistake in logic along the way, they started from a different set of assumptions.
To rephrase your original statement:
It's a curse, in a way, to have (be?) a brain trained in logical positivism, to only accept scientific answers, and reject out-of-hand any other possible answers which might provide hope rather than existential debilitating dread
They may earnestly believe in it, but they cannot provide a shred of evidence that it exists and all authority that claims that it does is inevitably found to be either a) mistaken or b) fraudulent.
Very intelligent, otherwise rational people believe in false propositions that make them feel happy, relieved or secure all the time. Unless there's evidence, that belief is as unfounded as the belief of most people that their husband is noble, their wife is beautiful, their child is special, that they deserve what they have, etc. It's a very human, completely fine thing to believe all of these things (even necessary for a healthy life), but when you look at them rationally, you cannot suppose that they are true.
An afterlife doesn't need to be proven false. There just has to be some evidence, (not even proof, just any evidence beyond 'I feel it') to make it a proposition worth considering. Until then, since so many have looked for evidence and failed to find it, the only rational view of the situation is to suppose (and behave) like it doesn't. You're made of meat, death is final, there is no do-over. Make this life count, try to bring about the change that you want to see, because there is no higher authority, there is no second chance.
If you only ever look at the fraction of the universe for which we have a plausible explanation that is passing scientific criteria, you're missing out on a lot of what is part of human existence all around the globe.
Science is a good tool for positive filtering (as in "hey, because of these observations I think how this works, and I think that by doing the following tests I can get some further confirmation of that") but as soon as you use it as a negative filter (as in "hey, there's no proof of it so for all practical purposes it doesn't exist, sorry"), you're just rejecting things based on a technicality.
Human testimony is evidence, especially if corroborated by multiple unrelated sources (i.e. countless mystics from many different backgrounds and eras, many of which are completely absolved of having a material interest). A collective conscience, i.e. the fact that practically all ancient peoples believed in God and an afterlife can be considered atleast a "shred" of evidence.
I think it's wrong to say that there isn't a "shred" of evidence.
Practically all ancient people believed in nature spirits, and several disconnected tribes have worshiped the sun. The majority of ancient peoples enjoyed slavery and showed overt racism, sexism and caste systems that caused unnecessary suffering and hardship.
It is said that Aristotle believed that women had fewer teeth than men. He never thought to check by counting them.
If this is your standard of evidence, then your standard of evidence as a way of differentiating any objective truth is useless.
Also, alternative explanation: we're all the same species, and all have the same mental "bug" which causes us to think it's plausible that there's a dude (obviously a dude) in the sky who knows our name. Human testimony is one of the single most fallible sources of information. I can't even remember what my doctor told me to do this morning, while that would actually run the risk of concretely improving my quality of life.
I have been visited by deceased relatives a few times in my dreams and for me these experiences were convincing enough to serve as evidence that death is not the end of things. Of course this is just personal, but it's good enough for me.
> Very intelligent, otherwise rational people believe in false propositions that make them feel happy, relieved or secure all the time.
Exactly. I too have found that many people like to have their "ears tickled". It feels like people don't want to put up with sound reason and instead believe in doctrines and beliefs that suit their own personal tastes.
>An afterlife doesn't need to be proven false. There just has to be some evidence,
Very true, many belief systems over the millenia have taught an afterlife scenario (commonly following a 'Good Afterlife' vs. 'Bad Afterlife' theme). This comes from many belief systems carrying the notion of a "part" of the human that carries on immortally beyond the physical body (believed to be an immortal soul by Christian groups -- interestingly, the bible carries no support of this notion).
Even people who believe in this immortality notion cannot provide evidence of it's existence, yet work on the assumption that it can't be proven false. (Although, depending on your authoritative scriptures, it sometimes can be.)
A political Jewish group in the days of Jesus were known for strongly believing in the Torah, but not in this immortality notion [0].
>You're made of meat, death is final, there is no do-over.
I agree. Humans cannot stop death on their own, if they were to ever have a hope of overcoming death it would have to be via some external force that was vastly more powerful and smarter than they. Many ancient belief systems attribute this power to either a God, multiple gods working in unison, or to 'The Universe' (as in: that is simply the ways thing are).
In summation, it's NOT okay to say: GOD EXISTS! or GOD DOES NOT EXIST! or whatever oversimplified nonsense you can angrily yell in under 5 seconds and proceed to use as the foundation of the ideals for your entire life.
It's hard to admit in scientific company, but I have a Masters degree in science, excellent academic results, IQ well above average and still believe in God, in spite of the supposed contradictions that should apparently entail. And I'm also a relatively firm believer in rationality (including the parts of science that occasionally gets me in trouble with other religious people), with the caveat that I sometimes criticize atheists of believing in the non-existence of God or any other extra-universal entities with a fervor that comes from the same place which religious zeal does.
christiangenco does not speak for everyone when he (apparently) claims that existential dread is an unavoidable curse of intelligence and rationality.
Great - I'm the same in the first 3 properties, but I don't believe in god (I'm agnostic). I'd like to ask you a few questions that I have wanted to ask intelligent self-proclaimed rationalist for a long time, regarding belief.
What kind of God do you believe in? Is it more of an omni-potent being (like the Abrahamic God), or just a being with supernatural properties (like a Roman god), or just "something out there" (like a "first mover" of the universe)? Do you believe in any single god, such as Alah/Jahveh/Christian God, or Vishna (Indian God), or any of the Roman, Greek, Pagan or other gods? If yes, how do you rationalize your belief in this particular god, and the exclusion of some/all other gods? Do you consider your belief to be the ultimate "truth" (i.e. the people who don't believe or believe in something else are wrong)? If not, then I assume it's a personal belief - is it not just a "good feeling" belief, not a rational and universal "fact"? Edit: are you open to renegotiating your belief (i.e. stop believing or believing something else)?
Sorry for the onslaught of questions, but I just can't see how one could rationalize an belief of some unsubstantiated "truth" no matter how hard I think about it, so I'm looking for someone to change my view - hopefully a rational person (as you claim to be) that presents rational, well-thought-out arguments.
> but I have a Masters degree in science, excellent academic results, IQ well above average and still believe in God
Academic results and IQ are mostly about solving puzzles quickly, though. That's what most exams are about after all [0]. But the problem we are talking about is different, since you have as much time to reason about it as you want and IQ and grades probably don't affect what you finally arrive at very much. What matters is thinking deeply and honestly.
[0] Depending on your field of study, memorization may also play a role.
If this is an invitation to debate whether there is a god (or even if the observable universe is all that exists), I'm not taking the bait. My point was about personal faith not being incompatible with most definitions of rationality.
You could of course define rationality to be only caring about what is observable, measurable and understandable with the currently accepted models, but the history of science would have been very boring if everyone always took that stance. You're free to do whatever you want with this, of course, my point is that it's a personal choice which is not directly related to whether you are a rational being. ("Thinking deeply and honestly" sounds like intellectual hand-waving to me, but I suppose a lot of people would agree with it).
What you are suggesting is a false dichotomy. The Romans had dozens of Gods as did the Greeks, not to mention the Gods of the Sumerians, the Phoenicians and the Celts among others too numerous to mention.
Thinking deeply and honestly starts with considering all the Gods and then considering their existence.
If you find that you can blithely dismiss the existence of all of these Gods except for the Christian (Jewish, Islamic) God and not be stunned by that hypocrisy then you have not yet begun the journey of understanding.
In regards to Greek Mythology (adopted by the Romans), the majority of people I know have learned about this in their public school curriculum (multiple years). So "blithely" is a fallacious argument.
>Considering all the Gods and then considering their existence
Many people do study multiple religions. I happen to be one of them. Everything from modern day Jewish, Mormon, and Scientology beliefs, to more Ancient Hindu, Buddhist, Mayan, Nordic, and Egyptian beliefs, etc., etc. There are a lot of similarities between these belief systems (too many to discuss here -- and probably more than most people who have never studied these belief systems would be comfortable admitting too).
It takes a lot of courage to call other people hypocritical, when dismissing ALL gods without sufficient study of various belief systems, no?
This was not an invitation to debate whether there is a god - a topic which I avoided on purpose - but a comment that also applies outside this context. The point is that good grades or IQ are not the same as being able and _willing_ to reason correctly and neither indicates that your beliefs or arguments are reasonable or likely to be true.
The disagreement is fundamental in nature. The afterlife was never demonstrated to be false. It was rejected because it contradicts naturalism. Believers didn't make some mistake in logic along the way, they started from a different set of assumptions.
To rephrase your original statement: