Agnosticism/Atheism in life after death

Citizeninsane said:
What I consider myself to be is irrelevant in my opinion, I don't speculate on the metaphysics of some arbitrary entity that is just another entity among entities that has equivalent existence insofar as it can be related as an entity. In other words, god is just another entity among entities that has qualities that resemble the human ontological status but are just extrapolated to infinitude, e.g. omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, etc. I regard this view as naive insofar as I have never met a religious individual who bases their faith on the ontological argument for the existence of god, the epistemological argument for the existence of god, the argument from design, the kalam cosmological argument etc. These arguments are only ever postulated after the fact and presuppose the said individual's existential reasons for believing in god(s). What is at heart here is the structural qualities of human existence that influence or direct us in positing a great Other. An Other who cares about us in some fashion or allows us to get up in the morning. Or directs our moral dilemmas. It resembles the statement that God is Dad, in the sense that God functions as an moral and existential guidance that can either be deleterious or positive to society as a whole. Nevertheless, to disregard such as view as just idiotic, is an act of superficiality as it disregards the more fundamental roots of religion e.g. teleological(purpose-oriented), axiological(value-laden) or existential reasons, over and against the metaphysical aspects. There was a period in time where Islam functioned as the heart of scientific, mathematical, and philosophically rigorous study. The same can also be said about movements within the Judeo-Christian belief systems. This phenomena of fundamentalism within America is something that I would consider as a modern phenomena, not a movement that strands the whole of religious history.

However, I also don't regard the view, as some have on this post, that postulates the human being as reducible to a function of its parts, e.g. a computer as somehow getting at the heart of reality comparatively to the religious. We fundamentally don't experience ourselves as such, we don't comport ourselves to the world as a computer, we don't treat other human beings or even animals as just a function of a computer system. It contradicts our whole world in our approach to science, as we approach neuroscience, as we approach any field, we are assuming the structure of how we care about our existence and the goals we want to achieve. For example, If we take a neuroscientist who is investigating another's brain for the sake of understanding what constitutes this individual, he is presupposing a whole lot, since it is only on the basis of our concern for the fact that we are, that we can pose questions such as, "What is it about human consciousness that allows us to function in X way?" That isn't to say that we have a soul, or have some weird metaphysical way of existing. What I am getting at isn't adjusting itself to be supernatural or theological claim. Instead, I am trying to convey how we expose ourselves, how we comport ourselves, how we appear in our day to day existence, and why we do the things we do. In essence, my argument is that the human being isn't reducible to what some others have said, e.g. the claim that we can account for every human emotion, experience, logical operation through reducing the brain to its parts. That isn't to say neuroscience is useless, or that I am just being hyper-skeptical to the point of ridiculousness, I am merely attempting to get at the core structural aspects about human existence and taking them at face value philosophical, rather than attempting to reduce them into oblivion.

Anyways, don't get the impression I believe in an afterlife, or a soul. I am strictly what may be called an atheist, or an agnostic atheist, but honestly, I don't give a shit anymore. My world does not revolve around claiming myself to be a theist, atheist, agnostic, agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist etc. I don't comport myself on those beliefs, and find them to be irrelevant positions in the way that I am the way that I am.

Citizeninsane said:


To a certain degree I agree, however, if we look at the function of the science and the implications of science in general, I think I might be able to express my point in a more convincing fashion. I ask, what has science changed about human existence that has radicalized the way that we value the things we value? I consider myself a student of physics and philosophy, however I would never say that physics has changed what it means to be in a relationship with another. Or what it means to be in love. Also, don't think because I invoked such an emotional language, that this only applies to some sort of mystical, gushy, experience. Rephrasing it more abstractly, science has not changed how experience things as temporal or spatial, it has, however, changed the accessibility in predicating phenomena temporally and spatially. However, it has never risen to answering why it is that way as such. It has not redefined the structural requirements in how we convey ourselves rationally, e.g. logic. It has not somehow challenged the logical operations that are utilized in our use of language. Science has, more specifically the study that I am much more familiar with, physics, created models of reality that provide predictable utility. However, that is where it stops. The Newtonian paradigm was created on the basis, and therefore Nature was thematized, to ascertain the motion of the planets through the invention of calculus. However, several paradigm shifts have occurred since then to address new issues within classical mechanics. Namely, the problem of black-body radiation lead the postulation of quantization, and lead to the birth of quantum mechanics; the assumed postulate of an ether, which was disapproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment, lead to the need of relativity and how light functioned as a constant without the need of a medium. All this progress, however I ask again, what has changed about the human condition? Granted, we have cellphones, better access to medicine, etc. Nevertheless, do not think I am claiming that science isn't useless, on the contrary, it is the very definition of utility. However, what does that change about me?

You brought up Albert Camus, so I think you would appreciate the following passage. "Yet all the knowledge on earth will give me nothing to assure me that this world is mine. You describe it to me and you teach me to classify it. You enumerate its laws and in my thirst for knowledge I admit that they are true. You take apart its mechanism and my hope increases. At the final stage you teach me that this wondrous and multicolored universe can be reduced to the atom and that that the atom itself can be reduced to the electron, [you can add elementary particles, the point still stands]. All this is good and I wait for you to continue. But you tell me of an invisible planetary system in which electrons gravitate around a nucleus. You explain this world to me with an image. I realize then that you have been reduced to poetry: I shall never know..I realize that if through science I can seize phenomena and enumerate them, I cannot, for all that, apprehend the world."

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable.[1][2][3] Agnosticism sometimes indicates doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.[2]

A person calling oneself 'agnostic' is stating that he or she has no opinion on the existence of God, as there is no definitive evidence for or against. Agnosticism has, however, more recently been subdivided into several categories. Variations include:
Agnostic atheism
The view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist.[21][22][23]
Agnostic theism
The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.[21]
Apathetic or pragmatic agnosticism
The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest.[24][25]