Views on Heaven, is it real or a fantasy?

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

I think you're confusing traditions and beliefs....

Why should we respect beliefs? Sure, taking your hat inside a Temple or not talking during a service or showing up to a Catholic funeral even if your'e Muslim is the "right" thing to do...

But should we really respect that Mormons excluded blacks until 1978? Or that they baptize dead Holocaust victims? Should we respect that the Catholic church goes on trips to Africa and preaches abstinence and refuses to encourage condom use? How about churches that tell their members (which the sheep go on to tell others) that global warming is scientific speculation?

Stupid beliefs lead to stupid actions (or inactions). I refuse to respect someone who gives an inane reason behind a racist/stupid/unjustified/wrong act or thought. Pointing to a book and saying "this is why I'm saying/doing what I'm saying" deserves zero respect.

well put.  i thoroughly agree.

NotNow, that was a dreadfully ambiguous post.  you gonna jump in with us, or is the water to cold for you?

[NotNow]

I'll throw in with BT and Dare!.  Tolerance is a logical result of life experience.  Ben Says is a good young man who has many strong opinions.  His youth is obvious, and welcome.   

If you were to listen to those who are older and wiser than us, I believe you would find counsel to never ignore thousands of years of human history. 

I would also warn that we are not the mental giants that some would think.  There is a lot that we know we don't know.  There is almost certainly much, much more that we don't know we don't know. 

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

If you were to listen to those who are older and wiser than us, I believe you would find counsel to never ignore thousands of years of human history. 

thousands ov years ov human history have given us misogyny, homophobia, slavery, and all manner ov lesser unpleasantries.  they have yet to give us heaven.

[Cheshire Cat]

I think you're confusing traditions and beliefs....

Why should we respect beliefs? Sure, taking your hat inside a Temple or not talking during a service or showing up to a Catholic funeral even if your'e Muslim is the "right" thing to do...

But should we really respect that Mormons excluded blacks until 1978? Or that they baptize dead Holocaust victims? Should we respect that the Catholic church goes on trips to Africa and preaches abstinence and refuses to encourage condom use? How about churches that tell their members (which the sheep go on to tell others) that global warming is scientific speculation?

Stupid beliefs lead to stupid actions (or inactions). I refuse to respect someone who gives an inane reason behind a racist/stupid/unjustified/wrong act or thought. Pointing to a book and saying "this is why I'm saying/doing what I'm saying" deserves zero respect.

Goodness this thread is moving.  In the time it took me to type these words there were four more posts.  Interestingly, Stephen and I drew some of the same conclusions.  Here is my post.
Words and meanings can be a sticky thing, especially in discussions like this that can lead to the parsing of words.
Just for the sake of discussion consider this definition of "Tradition":

A tradition is a belief or behavior passed down within a group or society with symbolic meaning or special significance with origins in the past.

Now the definitions of Belief:

Belief is the "psychological state" in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

As you can see, both words are intertwined in some ways.  Words really do fail us in my opinion, when it comes to explaining some very abstract thought processes and ideas, especially in that the words we rely upon in a discussion like this can be charged with a variety of meanings, depending on the perception of those using them or even dependent upon their country and culture.  For instance, spirit, spiritual, religion, religious or belief can all mean very different things to different people.  I take the use of the word belief in the context of this conversation to represent the inner views that a person holds as true or sacred and those beliefs, no matter how reasonable or unreasonable to our own sensibilities they may be, are none the less the basis of core values another might adhere to.  Respecting their right to their own beliefs is just that.  No matter what we feel about their beliefs or traditions it is their right to believe what they might.  This does not however mean that you must agree with or embrace the others views, especially when those views are not inflicted upon others.  So let me be clear in what I am saying which is respecting a persons right to individual views does not mean agreeing with or embracing those beliefs. 

Now to the use of the descriptive "stupid" it's worth all of us remembering that what is "stupid" in our view or perception may make perfect sense to a person with a different view or perspective.  So is the view of another "stupid" or is it just a view that you do not agree with?  Sometimes for the sake of clarity it is wise to say, I don't agree with this view, tradition or belief.    It generally makes for a better discussion because the truth is none of us want our views called stupid.

As to Not Now's words about youth.  They are not meant to insult.  What is beneath them is the understanding that most of us when we are young, especially in our teens and twenties have very rigid beliefs about many things.  We are certain in our ideas and perceptions sometimes to the point of cockiness.  We image our life experience is sufficient and our intellect great enough to form an unbending opinion about an issue or idea that we are not only sure is correct but will never, ever change.  Then when you have lived more years and had more experiences in the grey areas of life, you wake up one day and realize that you had it wrong when you were younger. That once fixed opinion has changed and in some cases as older adults we are bemused by how those strongly held opinions now fail the test of experience.  Over time our perceptions can and often will change and that really is part of the human experience. 

[Cheshire Cat]

If you were to listen to those who are older and wiser than us, I believe you would find counsel to never ignore thousands of years of human history. 

thousands ov years ov human history have given us misogyny, homophobia, slavery, and all manner ov lesser unpleasantries.  they have yet to give us heaven.

lol.  Human history/experience has given us many things.  You have named a few of the unsavory gifts of human thinking but as to "heaven" whether or not we have gotten that depends upon who you are and if you believe in the concept.  For instance for some people, owning a home, having a great family and enough to live on is "heaven".    Besides as Stephen said "it gave us beer".

[NotNow]

If you were to listen to those who are older and wiser than us, I believe you would find counsel to never ignore thousands of years of human history. 

thousands of years of human history have given us misogyny, homophobia, slavery, and all manner of lesser unpleasantries.  they have yet to give us heaven.

Thousands of years of human history have also given us mathematics, art, music, philosophy, architecture, as well.  Perhaps in all of that is a little vision of, and perhaps a small part of heaven and hell.

There are so many things that can't be quantified, aren't there?

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

okay, so it's a mixed bag, and i should choose my examples more carefully.

several ov the examples NotNow and Stephen gave (mathematics, medicine, even architecture) have been improved as time wears on--we learn what works and what doesn't.  we've changed as we've learned, and the idea ov heaven hasn't (much--i'm not forgetting the fountains and virgins from a few pages back).  that could mean either that it's eternal (though it's been pointed out that the early jews didn't give it a second thought, so that's well out) or that it's an idea that we stopped building on when it stopped making sense, but that some ov us haven't quite let go ov yet--kind ov like dial-up internet.

Stephen said earliër that longstanding ideas give us as good a starting point as any.  if we want to start from the same place as those ideas, sure.  i like to think i'm a little past the bronze age, so ideas that have changed little and benefited noöne since then aren't really my cup ov tea.

which isn't to say that i disbelieve in heaven (though i do find the whole idea extraordinarily unlikely)--i simply don't believe in it.  after all, i can't well run around accepting everything that hasn't been disproven.

[Cheshire Cat]

How is it that you know those who had these experiences had malfunctioning brains?  I think that is a personal view is it not?

you seem to've read and quoted my post in the half a minute before i fixed it to avoid exactly this misunderstanding--in your typical near-death experience, one's brain is by definition malfunctioning due to lack ov oxygen, weird chemical levels, and other quirks ov a body on the way out the back door.

besides, most ov us can't take a nap without tripping balls--and we realize that what we see while sleeping isn't objectively real.  why should we consider the things people see at half past coma o'clock any different?

Alrighty then!  Since you have clarified what you intended about near-death experience I agree with much of what you assert but have something to add to the equation that may point to why there is such a divide in the scientific and religious community about what happens when we die. 

It makes perfect sense to point to the chemical changes in a dying brain as impacting how the mind perceives what is happening in and around it in the final stages of life.  Tunnel vision is experienced by folks with traumas who are not dying, so stating one might see a tunnel and light due to the brain struggling from lack of oxygen is completely reasonable and backed by science. Even hallucinations are expected.

I think some of the differences in views about the near-death experience has to do with how it is defined.  Over the ages of human experience there have always been situations where people have been thought dead only to return to life.  They describe a number of experiences similar to what we hear today.  I think defining some experiences as near death is not  accurate in all cases.  We know that with current technology, medical science can measure the activity in the brain.  We also know that people can be clinically dead for an extended period of time.  In some cases the time they are clinically brain dead goes from a few minutes to several hours, when the brain is no longer in the state of dying but now in fact dead. The explanation of a dying brain creating all experiences shared by those near death is one thing. It is however no longer applicable when the person is already dead without "any" brain activity and this confirmed by medical science.  If indeed some believe the brain is what drives consciousness, we are left to try and explain the many documented experiences of people who were able to discuss and describe what was being said and done around them while they were brain dead. Nor can we adequately explain the lengthy and involved experiences many share when revived from death which often include them traveling to visit living family members and friends, describing where those folks were, what they were doing and even what they were wearing when the person sharing the info was at that time clinically brain dead.  We have untold cases of experiences describing a white light that are shared by people who have not died in a hospital or even during daylight so it was not an operating light that they viewed while dying.  The light described envelops them and is not like any they have experienced on earth.

Let me share another personal experience with you.  Twenty years ago my mother died on Christmas day.  She was in a hospital recovering from an illness to soon to be released.  Christmas morning the entire family piled into the car and went to see mom.  When we came to the hospital's front desk, we were told that my mother had died a short time earlier.  We were dumbstruck by this news.  The hospital staff had told us they had called all the family emergency numbers to let us know and not one phone had been answered.  The fact is that we were all together Christmas morning, phones in tow and not one of them rang!  The staff asked if we would like to see her and we said yes.  She had been moved to another room and was lying on a hospital bed, her eyes wide open and looking up.  We all moved to her bedside.  My husband was carrying our youngest son who was just two at the time.  When he approached my mothers side, my son in his arms, my little guy looked over at my mothers face, gasped then smiled and said "Oh look, the light in gamma's eyes is booful"!  We were all blown away.  My little boy of two looked at his dead grandmothers eyes and saw a beautiful light beaming from within her.  For me there is no question of the light of divinity or it's presence around and within us at the moment of death and beyond.   

[Cheshire Cat]

First Diane, let me just say thank you for posting this thread because even if I wasn't writing it is still thought-provoking just to read others thoughts.

Thank you for participating in the discussion as well.  You have some compelling things to share.  I am sharing my thoughts regarding your comments in blue.

Indeed, it is your right to approach belief and this world reality in the way that not only makes the most sense to you, but also in a way that gives you comfort.  I have heard the comment about belief in the bible as a safe bet, almost a no harm done sort of position to take in case some part of us survives death.  The flaw I find in the statement is that is stems from fear and that comes from much of what the bible teaches about a wrathful god and afterlife. To me that belief does do harm to many.  It's a default position, a better be safe than sorry stance to protect oneself if indeed the bible were true and descriptions of an after life were accurate you would literally suffer a hell of a mess if you didn't believe in the bible prior to death.  I personally reject this notion based in fear.

True, however I would counter with the fact that I believe everyone is drawn to their belief in the afterlife (if they believe there is one) based on fear of death or of the unknown.  Once they begin to follow a faith and delve deeper into its meanings and gain an understanding, then they may lose that fear and instead take solace in the fact that they believe that is what the next stage will be.

And though it is a "default" position that brought them there, if they believe they believe.  It is my understanding, being raised Roman Catholic, that if you believe and have faith then you are rewarded with the kingdom.  Nothing about how one came to that belief.  I think you touched on that on a recent post that I just read.

Good counter and in many cases folks are drawn to beliefs of an afterlife because they fear death, but not always.  As I stated earlier for some people, including myself there has never been that inner fear of death but was inside an internal knowing that this physical life is temporary and not the entirety of what we are.

For believers and non believers in death they will find what they "believed" they would find at the time of their passing. Then they will awake to their own consciousness and what it means at the point they are ready to understand.  Some will experience oblivion until their physically unbound consciousness awakes, others will see Jesus, others will see Buddha, others will see relatives, others will see angels.  Whatever we perceive to be the realities of death will be what we initially experience but not the entirety of what is.  For any belief system that is predicated on consciousness as expressed in a single physical existence one might ask, how would a small child have any concept of what to expect after life?  The answer is that they (we) are not the product of a single experience but the extension of a consciousness that is not bound by our reality or our form and has existed before and after this world and beyond.  Knowledge is carried forward and eternal, so even a child will have a reference of "experiences" to apply after death as will those who are living this life and still remain "asleep" when it comes to knowing the reality of their unlimited consciousness and divinity.

Along the lines of "What if all the religions of the world were all right?".  I love history and I love learning new things.  I am forever the geek and constantly learning, I take classes online and at FSCJ just for fun and the experience of finding new worlds of knowledge.  However, one area I am highly naive in is theological studies.  My formal training came in a B.S. in Psychology, later a Masters with another Bachelors in Sociology.  I have been told, enough times to at least give it credence, by those whom have studied the Bible, the Koran, the Torah that is really "closely related stories told from a different point of view".  However, I also can see how that same "story" can be used by political or fanatical forces to control a large group of people.  For instance, a king who needs the peasants to keep him comfortable so by pushing this Bible on them gives them hope that even though this is not the life they planned, they'll be rewarded in the next one.

Sacred texts and myth are often intertwined, told and retold over the ages.  Some are altered and changed in order to fit a specific teaching or theology but at the core they are the same story.  This is particularly true of creations stories, Adam and Eve for example are sometimes called the sacred twins in myth.  Another example is Noah's ark and the floods.  There are innumerable similar flood stories throughout history, many told long before Christianity. The belief in a heaven or some type of experience after death is indeed worldwide. It is important to note that many people embrace the current ideas of science and have no difficulty interfacing those beliefs with their spiritual views of what it means to transcend death.

The answer is that they (we) are not the product of a single experience but the extension of a consciousness that is not bound by our reality or our form and has existed before and after this world and beyond.

This line is very much in agreement with those who study Buddhism, or whom believe in reincarnation.  Which gives credence to the theory that may be we are all right.  Maybe, just maybe, there is this "place" that we go to and stay.  Like a hotel.  Now to get in there, I need to pay.  I can pay with american money, euros, pesos, or fruits and berries but either way if I pay I will get in.  A rough analogy but hopefully you understand what I am trying to say.

It is similar to Buddhism but is actually more closely aligned with the views and understandings of indigenous cultures worldwide that have always understood that humanity is not separate from the world and universe around us but rather a part of all that is.  This is what I was speaking to in the comment above.  This innate form of understanding and connection all things does not always connect with a belief in reincarnation, which is another and very interesting belief.

Interesting post.

The question remains...does your dog have a "purpose"? Elephants? Monkeys? Trees? Air? Bacteria? In the scientific sense, yes, but not in the subjective sense you're looking at. What purpose do we have? Why do we NEED a purpose? If you were to suddenly find out humans have no purpose, what would you do? Kill yourself?

We must have a purpose.  A driving force if you will.  Otherwise, why do you do what you do?  Why get up in the morning? To go to work. Why work? To make money. Why do you need money? To buy food. Why do you need food? To survive. I don't mean purpose as in "Why I am here", I mean it as in everything we do has a purpose.  Every organism known to us has a purpose.  When we lose sight of that purpose, we begin to falter.  Now some can attach to faith and regain their focus by aligning with another (some say greater) purpose, others cannot and this is when they fall into depression. Which can result tragically in death by suicide, drug abuse, or abusing others.  Well, that is getting off track, but I was trying to say if you don't have a purpose than why are you still here? Because yes, when people lose that purpose of getting out of bed and striving for something, that is when they kill themselves.

Moreover, you mention reward...why do we need to be rewarded from just being? Seems foolish. Would you be a bad person if you were to find out there was no reward for living? Would you be "better" if there was a sure reward at the end?

Not foolish at all.  Even science defines our brain as a "reward-based cognitive system".  Everything the human brain is geared to do is based on rewards.  Think about it for a minute.  We work to get paid. We are charitable to feel good.  We eat to satisfy our desire (not hunger, otherwise McDonalds wouldn't be nearly as successful as it is if we just ate to survive). I remember a study in college that was about the rewards system for the human.  For 7 days they tracked every single action from sleep to work to eating to resting or recreation, even breathing and motor responses such as blinking (rewarded with sight) and swallowing (rewarded with breath).  For each they had to list what the reward was.  Everything we do is based on reward, so it is only natural that whatever we perceive to be the afterlife is also reward-based because we can easily comprehend that.

One of my favorite Twain quotes: “I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”

This exact quote hung in my dorm room for three years and now hangs on a wall in my home.  However, I interpret it to be more a "why worry about tomorrow when today is here and now" type of quote.

Just as your dog dies, and is put in the ground, and his/her consciousness ends, so will yours. I don't know why this makes everyone so uncomfortable.

I don't think this makes anyone here uncomfortable, they wouldn't be participating if it did.  And yes, just like our pets we will one day perish. I think everyone is well aware of that fact.  Whether or not conciousness ends though, well that is the unknown.  Unfortunately, those whom can answer with certainty can no longer communicate with us.  So I guess we will just have to wait and see.



Now, I am not a tinfoil hat wearing, X-Files junkie who listens to Art Bell like it is the gospel.  However, I agree with Jodie Foster's character in Contact, "if there is nothing else out there, that's an awful lot of wasted space".  I have heard tons of theories, everything from we are just a giant snow globe on some lifeforms' desk to we are actually an alien race that crashed on earth millions of years ago.  There are more eccentric stories about aliens and creationism than there are people here most likely. 

I do believe there is some "higher power".  Do I believe it as it is written in the Bible, no I do not.  Humans, though it can be proven with some degree of certainty that we evolved from the amoeba and eventually became homo sapien, are very unique.  There is no other life form on this planet that has that ... consciousness, I guess is the word I am looking for ... that we do.  Theologians will profess that this is proof of a God.  Science says this was the result of need to adapt millions of years ago and we "developed" to what we are today.  Lately, I have read several good books explaining how science actually proves the existence of God.  They have not been powerful enough to make me believe, however they do cause me to stop and think.  I always seek the logical explanation.  When people "die and come back to life" and talk of seeing the bright light, it seems logical that was the operating table lights.  When they speak of transcending this world and being in another, it seems logical that the brain could not understand what happened and that was the easiest way to comprehend it.  Our mind creates "parallel" stories so that we can deal with certain scenarios.  This is evidenced in how "eyewitness" reports vary and how people who suffered great traumatic injury or experiences can cope and move on.

I will say their is something "special" within us.  If anyone here has been/is a nurse or doctor or EMT than you may understand.  In NJ we have volunteer fire and ems and I volunteered on my local rescue squad because it looked great on college applications. It also led to me becoming a combat medic when I enlisted in the Army to pay for that college.  I have had three people "pass on" in front of me. I can remember each incident clearly, and the change in the eyes is most compelling.  Unlike when you go hunting and kill the deer and it dies after you've caught up to it, there is a ... vacancy or exit of some sort that I cannot describe with words.  Based solely on these three experiences, I personally believe there is something beyond this life as we understand it.

And in the end, maybe every one of us is right.  I am really not sure.  All I know is that I am still young and open to any ideas that seem logical.  And until I leave this world as I know it, I will always be curious to learn more and gain a greater or different understanding.

Thanks again Diane and everyone else who is posting here, this is truly an educational experience.  It is a pleasure to be able to read people debating thoughts without being immature or rude and condescending to those with different views.Again, thank you!

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

So do you think that the concept of Universal Love (Christian) is a Bronze Age idea?
Or how about Sartori?
Or perhaps the Cosmic Wheel of Creation?

Bronze Age ideas and concepts?

But even so, what would you suggest are improvements on these ideas?

And i do mean that sincerely.  Im curious as to your response.

i'm pretty sure the idea ov univeral love predates the bronze age, but i feel the same way about it as i do about the idea ov heaven:  it's changed little and done no real good (to quote Boyd Rice, "the verdict on love is both bad and good--the bad news is that love has turned the world into a sewer--the good news is, people have learned to love the smell of shit").
i'm thoroughly unfamiliar with Sartori and the cosmic wheel, so i've got nothing there.

as far as improvements on old ideas in general, we already have improvements.  the scientific method.  humanitarianism based on true altruism rather than fear.  looking at things objectively (which i admit i'm really not good at at all) rather than through the lens ov books that brook no disagreement.

though i admit i'm getting a bit off track here--these don't really have much to do with whether there is or isn't some sort ov heaven, except that i'm a lot more inclined to rely on the results ov scientific investigation than the claims ov a book written before there was anything we could meaningfully call science.

[Cheshire Cat]

Kuro,

With science as a measure for what is "real", what are your thoughts about the scientific declaration founded in physics that there are at least 11 other dimensions beyond our "reality" as well as a parallel universe? 

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

Kuro,

With science as a measure for what is "real", what are your thoughts about the scientific declaration founded in physics that there are at least 11 other dimensions beyond our "reality" as well as a parallel universe?

i don't know much about it, but i think it's meaningless until/unless we find a way to get to them.  if your implication here is that some ov that could be heaven, i really don't think that's likely.  mostly because the idea that a dimension or a universe would be set aside for human happiness after death is extraordinarily anthropocentric, and i tend to distrust anything that says or implies that the universe thinks we're special.

this discussion is bringing home to me that a lot ov my distrust ov religion and spirituality is rooted in my conviction that we're nothing special.

edited for clarity.  and you should've seen those run-on sentences!

[Cheshire Cat]

^ Just for clarification, you only find meaning in the existence of other dimensions if we can visit them or are you saying you don't believe they exist?  If you do the research you will see that some in science hold that it would likely be "impossible" to visit these other dimensions due to a variety of reasons from tears in dimensional fabric to outright explosive destruction of two unlike dimensions trying to come together.

Trying to figure out the comment you made about distrusting anything that says or implies that the universe thinks we are special.  I cannot remember any statements to that effect in the thread.

Please help me understand your view that science is a valid measure of all that is and how you then reconcile that with scientific declaration of other dimensions of reality or a parallel universe being meaningless?

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

i think (believe would be the wrong word) other dimensions exist, but i don't think their existence is meaningful to us in any way.

the idea ov heaven carries with it the idea that we're special--either that or there's an afterlife for every single thing that's ever lived, which i don't think i've ever heard anyöne suggest.

i think that the methods ov science (i got tired ov saying 'the scientific method' over and over again) are valid--but if we find out something that we can't do anything with and that has no effect on us, i can't help but consider that meaningless.

[Cheshire Cat]

Just because you do not see any value in a discovery that seems out of your reach does not mean it is meaningless.  If the existence of these other dimensions or universes are what keeps this one intact I think you might find their existence to have "great meaning"!    The fact is that some in science think this may be exactly what is going on, however scientific method is still not sophisticated enough to explain everything, including the existence of a heaven or what form a heaven might take. 

To your earlier statement about religion being problematic for you because it seems to say human beings are special, I can only conclude that you are making this statement based upon what you believe are "all" the views of religions worldwide.  Let me assure you that not all religions teach that human beings are special as in superior to other forms of life or conscience.  In fact there are religious disciplines that suggest the existence of humanity is insignificant as compared to all that exists in this world and beyond. 

Are you saying that human life has no greater importance than other living things on earth or that it is not special because in your view we are nothing more than a collection of stardust that just simply evolved like all living things on earth?  If so, are you also concluding that the ability of humans to think abstract thoughts is something shared by all living things or by human beings alone?  If the ability is indeed exclusive to human minds then I think most would consider that special.

How do you come to the conclusion that belief in a heaven or existence beyond what is physical points to humans being special?