Anyone care to help me out with an essay?

[RedSided]

Assess how far belief in an after life is based on convincing evidence

[drache]

that's your essay subject?
wow!
what do they consider evidence?
I don't imagine that there is any evidence that's scientifically admissible
isn't it all based on reports?
I do remember reading a book once
I think it was titled "the past lives of children"
it did mention some incidences of children being able to describe places they had not been to in this life-time
that really is the extend of evidence - people having knowledge that they couldn't have acquired this time around
of course this kind of evidence is more convincing to some people than it would be to scientific researchers who will reject any evidence that cannot be empirically proven and repeated in controlled settings - lmao
good luck with your essay

[Stefan-A]

Rhea already asked the most relevant question; What's considered evidence in this case? Anything that convinced someone to believe in an afterlife, or scientific evidence? Or should the essay be about evidence versus faith versus hope? Do those that believe in an afterlife do it because they have seen some evidence (by any definition) or do they believe in it because it offers them hope?

[RedSided]

The evidence can be Religious evidence(which is only relevant for believers of course, and can't realy be considered convincing to an atheist or a sceptic). It could of course be considered historical evidence too, assuming you believe our dating of the bible and other religious texts to be correct and belive that at least some religious teachings are true.

Then there is personal experience, ghost stories and the like, which so far have not be scientifically proven.Then again just because we can't see it it does not mean it is non existent.The oxygen in the air sustains us but we cannot see it with the naked eye. Yet it has been scientifically proven .Perhaps it is just a matter of time before science makes a breakthrough.

Very confusing topic, this is school work . A-level Religious studies.

Please excuse my punctuation, not an A-level english student.

[Stefan-A]

Awful lot of assumptions there.

You don't have to see anything to prove it exists, everything that does exist is detectable. But you have to prove it exists nonetheless.

Science doesn't exclude the possibility of anything except the supernatural.

[Cazador]

Tim,

I'm not a "believer." I used to be... I went to church (and paid attention) every week for about 20 years. With that said, my mother-in-law, who is a devout Catholic and whom I respect very much, had a near-death experience and is completely convinced that (as I recall), she spoke with someone who had already died while she was near death.

Now days, I tend to dismiss such stories as the subconscious relaxing and recalling what one wants or expects to see (similar to, but not the same as, a dream). Of course, I have no proof of this either... it's not something I've ever explored, but I think your report will make interesting reading, and wish you much success . I'll see if I can find the details of her story to support your assignment. Best,

Rick

[stonyloam]

Well that is a tough one. Most religions, and belief in the afterlife rely on faith. Faith being the belief in something without evidence. If someone were to show hard evidence of an afterlife, then you would have fact, and faith would not be necessary, and the afterlife would become a part of life. If faith is the foundation of belief than evidence is irrelevant (or maybe even destructive). Who the heck thought up that theme? My head hurts, I’m going down to see if the snakes are out!

[Stefan-A]

Originally Posted by stonyloam

Well that is a tough one. Most religions, and belief in the afterlife rely on faith. Faith being the belief in something without evidence. If someone were to show hard evidence of an afterlife, then you would have fact, and faith would not be necessary, and the afterlife would become a part of life. If faith is the foundation of belief than evidence is irrelevant (or maybe even destructive). Who the heck thought up that theme? My head hurts, I’m going down to see if the snakes are out!

I think afterlife would be theory rather than fact, if there were evidence.

[KITKAT]

There was a book on near death experiences that examines some of this. There are other books as well, but this one is the one I remember best. I cannot remember the title, but I think the author was Elizabeth Kubler Ross. She also does a couple of books on the PROCESS of dying, explaining many of the psychological aspects of it.

Most of the other books are religious in nature, so have their own slant, but Kubler Ross is a doctor, and examines the topic in as un-biased a manner as is probably possible in western culture.

[drache]

the fact is that even reduced to absolute scientific fact, we do not completely die, or we die all the time, whichever way you look at it

our cells die all the time
every seven years or so we have a complete turn-over

and when we die, that entity we were known as, ceases to exist, but according to the laws of physics, nothing gets lost

who knows?
perhaps traces of consciousness are embedded in the very molecules we consist of
but even if they're not, undoubtedly we're meant to be recycled and live on in other organisms that are nourished by our deaths

on an ego level we die, but in reality we just become something else

I do understand that in the religious idea of life after death, one lives on sort of as the person one is here, except often without bodies

everything lives on though in some way, because it's all comprised of particles spinning with energy, combining, breaking apart, recombining, shifting energy from one form to another

in a very true sense we dissolve back into the stream of life

perhaps our consciousness fractures into something truly holographic