Some thoughts on the logic of 'Heaven would be boring' arguments

Just one more reply for @nbtruthman. 

If I am to engage with you then I need some clue as to what you think. You talk about your logic but don’t describe what that logic tells you other than it apparently tells you to dismiss New Age speak and to conclude that ancient wisdom is probably not worth a damn either. You clearly don’t want to entertain one of the major philosophical doctrines which is materialism (at least we agree on that) yet it seems that you also reject the counter argument from the other major philosophical doctrine which is idealism. I’m not a philosopher in the academic sense but I believe that idealism is a non-dualist position, is it not? 

So I’m at a loss to know what you consider acceptable to your logic. I'm guessing that you are a dualist of some kind but, again, I'm no philosophy scholar so am not able to argue the merits of idealism over dualism. I just take on board what makes sense to me and that seems to fit with idealism. By the way, I spent my working life with computer technology which, I would suggest, is every bit as logical as your electronics engineering.

I'll talk a little about what my logic tells me.

I thought that by now it would be clear that my view in the philosophy of mind is as an interactional dualist. My primary attention is to the empirical evidence and what it implies, which I think is a better basis for deciding between mind-body theories than either philosophical argumentation which can be endless, or the venerableness of certain ancient teachings, or even the personal revelations described by some charismatic mystics. This dualism is clearly bolstered by a large body of empirical evidence (including evidence for reincarnation) which I deeply respect.

I realize that at some higher level of existence there really may be a High Self or soul which contains in itself all of my previous incarnations and is an entirely higher level of consciousness. This seems to make some sense of the evidence for reincarnation in the context that the different reincarnated personalities are entirely distinct and unique, with different memories starting in early childhood, and different physical bodies. These were different people. But despite this there must be some sort of underlying continuity. However, this continuity is clearly not at any human level. It is at the soul level. There are many implications of this observation, especially ones relating to the ancient theological problem of suffering, which I won't go into here. 

At the level of the issues of human experience, the question of the ultimate nature of the soul especially whether there is literally no separation with the highest Spirit, is of relatively little interest to me. Because as long as we are human persons in this world, as long as I am "me", we are in truth of experience separate beings. And because there are many reasons (some of which I and others have explained) to dispute the claim that ultimately "all is one", all beings are one.

Our nature as souls is of beings that are something else, not human, not "me" at all. How this relates to ancient teachings is also not of much interest to me. The nature of the often deplorable human condition lived here and now is much more important as far as I am concerned.

It wasn’t so much the difference of opinion as the feeling that my trying to introduce a direction of thinking which is admittedly new to me was somehow not welcome. I don’t yet know what to make of Spira but his talks have caused me to rethink some long-held convictions. A few months ago I would have been agreeing with those who have dismissed his worldview because it likewise disagreed with mine. Now I’m not so sure and I was trying to express that doubt and the reasons for it. Yet that expression was dismissed with comments like “New Age-speak” and “yuck”.

Maybe I’m just being over sensitive but I remember the reason I joined the other founders of this forum because of negative reactions from the Skeptiko establishment to posts which challenged the views we were all seemingly expected to adhere to. I was banned for such a challenge but I won’t hang around in the face of intolerance again. However, to put that in context, I still have the utmost respect for the views of everyone here and this forum remains just about the only place I can come to discuss such subjects without being vilified but I still don’t want to be part of a talking shop where challenging ideas are chased out. Of course it is not that yet but be careful, please.

I don't think it's that challenging ideas get "chased out" but that one or more people stand up to the challenge and then the challenger sort of slinks away. It's certainly been my experience being on both sides of that. Usually, my willingness to continue despite sometimes vicious resistance slowly changes the given community over time. And since this has happened in more than a couple places at this point I can definitely say it's not the fault of those on the other side if new ideas are "chased" away. Half the reason I started posting my incredibly crazy experiences here was because I know how crazy they are and know that I'm not the only one to have such experiences. I'm amazed no one's commented on any of them to just say they think I'm nuts and that it's all very clearly a fantasy. Less surprising is the overall lack of engagement, despite my explicit invitation of it.

I think I can answer both Laird and nbtruthman in this reply, if you'll forgive my laziness. But first, nbtruthman, I'm sorry that I had not remembered your personal philosophy. I've been away for a while and my memory is not what it used to be. 

I had gathered that I was conversing with dualists here and that I have somehow become a somewhat reluctant defender of idealism and non-duality. I am NOT a philosopher, either by formal training or self-taught. I adopt ideas and if they seem to fit a label, I use that. So I usually say that I'm a monist-idealist but I would not be able to give an in-depth description of what a monist-idealist should believe.

Having said that, I have always thought that, for all practical purposes and certainly when it comes to the human personality operating in this life or the immediate afterlife, I am probably content with a dualist view. I think that what Spira describes and what the Buddhists and Hindus have taught for millennia is a level of spiritual development that transcends the individual and separate personalities and the enlightenment is that knowing that any experience is part of a continuum that is ultimately experienced by a single, composite awareness. In simple terms, my experience is God's experience localised. God can experience what I experience but I, being localised, do not have access to the experience of others.

Also, as I suggested above, I am pretty much convinced that there are gestalt entities which are "lesser" composites and encompass the reincarnational experiences of the soul. Again, that would be the higher self which is probably identical with that gestalt with awareness of all experiences of all of the lives lived.

As to the nature of non-duality or non-separation, I am far less comfortable. I was troubled by listening to Spira describe it because it seemed to me to be annihilation by another name. I just didn't see the point of awareness without thoughts or feelings or discernment. I still don't and am tempted to write to Spira but, when I have watched the videos of him answering similar objections, he seems to sidestep the definitive and rely on terms like "shining" and "joy".

I don't think it's that challenging ideas get "chased out" but that one or more people stand up to the challenge and then the challenger sort of slinks away. It's certainly been my experience being on both sides of that. Usually, my willingness to continue despite sometimes vicious resistance slowly changes the given community over time. And since this has happened in more than a couple places at this point I can definitely say it's not the fault of those on the other side if new ideas are "chased" away. Half the reason I started posting my incredibly crazy experiences here was because I know how crazy they are and know that I'm not the only one to have such experiences. I'm amazed no one's commented on any of them to just say they think I'm nuts and that it's all very clearly a fantasy. Less surprising is the overall lack of engagement, despite my explicit invitation of it.

Well, if it helps, I think you are nuts. 

Philosophers excepted, I've never understood why we have to set a definition for what we are or believe in ..in terms of a certain philosophical "ist".  Do any of us introduce ourselves in conversation by stating, " Hi, I'm a logical positivist and you ? 

We can stick any label we like on our heads; it's not going to make a blind bit of difference. But with research into NDE's, we can find some real (if ultimately limited) answers, surely ?

It wasn’t so much the difference of opinion as the feeling that my trying to introduce a direction of thinking which is admittedly new to me was somehow not welcome. I don’t yet know what to make of Spira but his talks have caused me to rethink some long-held convictions. A few months ago I would have been agreeing with those who have dismissed his worldview because it likewise disagreed with mine. Now I’m not so sure and I was trying to express that doubt and the reasons for it. Yet that expression was dismissed with comments like “New Age-speak” and “yuck”.

Hopefully at least some of the posts go into more detail rather than being merely dismissive, though I appreciate how unpleasant and frustrating such responses are.

Maybe I’m just being over sensitive but I remember the reason I joined the other founders of this forum because of negative reactions from the Skeptiko establishment to posts which challenged the views we were all seemingly expected to adhere to. I was banned for such a challenge but I won’t hang around in the face of intolerance again. However, to put that in context, I still have the utmost respect for the views of everyone here and this forum remains just about the only place I can come to discuss such subjects without being vilified but I still don’t want to be part of a talking shop where challenging ideas are chased out. Of course it is not that yet but be careful, please.

Thank you. Your comments are a good reminder of the direction of this forum, and where we, collectively could do better. Regarding this: "I won’t hang around in the face of intolerance again", I'd hope you might be helping in setting the direction of the forum. Your commenting in the forum is itself a great help. Thanks again.

Hopefully at least some of the posts go into more detail rather than being merely dismissive, though I appreciate how unpleasant and frustrating such responses are.

Thank you. Your comments are a good reminder of the direction of this forum, and where we, collectively could do better. Regarding this: "I won’t hang around in the face of intolerance again", I'd hope you might be helping in setting the direction of the forum. Your commenting in the forum is itself a great help. Thanks again.

I don't think it was that bad, Typoz, surely ? If everybody is going to be touchy about everything (I'm not specifically referring to what Dave said) what can anyone say anymore (about anything) ? 

Regarding Max's comment, it made me laugh at first so I gave it a "like", but it wasn't worth one, and I don't think that's being unfair to Max.  My own comments on Spira may have also been unwelcome. Maybe I shouldn't have said anything but then we're back to what can anyone say ?

I think the crux of the Spira view is non-duality but I'm not sure how far he takes this - all the way to solipsism? I will need to listen to more of his talks but the idea seems to be that there is no separation between the observed and the observer, between, in other words, the ND Experiencer and the encountered beings, be they beings of light or deceased relatives. All is illusion of separation. I kind of go with that but I'm not really grasping its full implications. Trying to project our limited understanding of reality based upon this physical experience is just not going to cut it when it comes to the larger reality of which we can only be aware through some form of enlightenment. At least, that's what is starting to become apparent to me at the moment.

I have to admit I am curious about non-duality as a contrast/opposition to NDEs b/c I swear at least some NDEs do talk about a fundamental one-ness?

Plato discusses an NDE in the Republic, but his inheritors - those we call Neoplatonists - also spoke of a return to the One from which we, the Many, come from.

Nonduality itself is a strange beast, admittedly. I don't believe - assuming I understand it - that it would be dissolution but neither would necessarily be akin to discrete souls in Heaven.

I really like the nondualist essays on this site, and from what I understand the goal is to go past the usual dichotomies that exist in our usual understanding of logic. 

IIRC the Buddha never actually says what Nirvana is like, and like Jesus never wrote anything down which in itself is interesting...

"Jesus was a Rabbi, Siddartha a Prince. Both learned, literate men. But neither ever wrote down their own teachings.

Why?

Because they were spellbreakers, not spellbinders."
 -AA Attanasio

I think this recent review of the book Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife might reflect some of the more cynical attitudes to the concept. The title alone implies it's going to be a bit reductionist...

https://m.jpost.com/jerusalem-report/oth...ssion=true

To those of us unburdened by belief in Jesus Christ, a popular Christian concept of heaven would seem to be nothing short of being like hell. There the souls of believers are, singing endless hosannas to the Almighty. And they do this reverently for all eternity. 

If that’s what heaven is like, you might as well fancy your chances in hell. 

This sounds reductionist but he does imply that it's just one concept. However, you can already tell this reviewer is very biased. This is made even more likely when he says this:

Then again, it’s not as if we had a choice in the matter, seeing as unbelievers are presumed to be destined straight for hell

I'm fairly certain many Christians don't believe this and I'm hoping he's not stereotyping/generalising. I can't think of many modern non-fundamentalist Christians who believe this is what happens to unbelievers. He then makes what I consider to be an embarrassingly uninformed and arrogant statement:

In the end, though, that counts for little since, going by the available evidence, hell no more exists than heaven. 

And there you have it. The reviewer is more biased than the author, and clearly isn't very aware of what many consider to be possible, plausible evidence for life after death. 

It was Hellenistic Platonism, which postulated the immortality of the soul and an otherworldly system of postmortem justice for deeds committed by people while alive, that gave rise to the idea of heaven and hell as respective spheres of rewards and punishments...

According to the reviewer, however, the author of this book glossed over Ancient Egyptian and Greek ideas, simply acknowledging them. As a result, I think Michael Prescott's research into the history of the afterlife on his blog might provide better insights.

Nearly two millennia on, untold millions still believe that when they die they will wind up either in heaven or hell before they are resurrected at the End of Days. Ehrman isn’t among them. Once a born-again evangelical, he is now a self-professed agnostic. “My sense is that this life is all there is,” Ehrman notes. 

The scholar clearly knows far too much about how ideas of heaven and hell changed over time to place much faith in them. 

Well, the statement in bold is rather condescending if you ask me. I also find it amusing how he criticises the author for glossing over and not exploring the entire history and yet still says he 'knows far too much'. And just because the ideas have changed over time doesn't mean you can't believe or 'have faith' in them? Ehrman is entitled to his position but I find it interesting the reviewer makes this statement in bold on the author's behalf rather than quoting him. 

All in all, this might be one of the most arrogant, condescending and downright smug reviews of a book I've ever read. I would be curious if it mentions anything on NDEs...

For those interested, here's Michael Prescott's blog post offering a shorter but fascinating explanation of the 'evolution of the afterlife':
https://michaelprescott.typepad.com/mich...rlife.html

I think this recent review of the book Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife might reflect some of the more cynical attitudes to the concept. The title alone implies it's going to be a bit reductionist...

The reviewer sounds like someone who genuinely fears going to Hell.

Could there be hellish places governed by demonic entities? Sure, I mean we can see people all to happy to delight in the torment of others in this world, so why wouldn't those with some greater power in the spiritual worlds set up similar horrors.

But I have trouble thinking that there could be a Hell, a specific place set up by the God of Gods for not picking Its ticket in what the philosopher/writer R.Scott Bakker refers to as the "Belief Lottery".

For I have seen the virtuous in Hell and the wicked in Heaven. And I swear to you, brother, the scream you hear in the one and the sigh you hear in the other sound the same.
  -R.Scott Bakker