Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian,alt.christnet,alt.homosexual,alt.sex,rec.humor,alt.sex.stories,talk.origins,talk.religion.misc,alt.fan.jesus-christ,alt.atheism.satire,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news.bu.edu!news3.near.net!plato.simons-rock.edu!karl
From: karl@plato.simons-rock.edu (Karl A. Krueger)
Subject: Re: See me, hear me, feel me, touch me.
Message-ID: <D8IDFn.Fyo@plato.simons-rock.edu>
Reply-To: karl@simons-rock.edu
Organization: Disorganization
References: <3n651q$qro@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca> <9505010008.AA001en@abarnett.demon.co.uk> <D7z1up.G5u@jack.sns.com> <shingleton.2.112.2FB2B28F@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Sat, 13 May 1995 08:40:35 GMT
Lines: 47

In article <shingleton.2.112.2FB2B28F@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
The Snake <shingleton.2@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>I've thought about the religion thing many many times. I consider myself to an 
>open minded inividual. I don't believe in a God of any sort, so I guess that 
>would make me an athiest, or agnostic. I don't think that a person's 
>consciesness(sp?) ceases to exist when the body dies though. I'm not saying 
>that there's a heaven or hell, perhaps just another state of being that our 
>minds transcend to. The next step in evolution maybe? What a person makes of 
>this next state may determine if it's a "heaven" or a "hell"

Well, hmm.

Science -- that body of human understanding that created such words as
"evolution" and "consciousness" -- requires that we have a way to conduct
experiments upon whatever it is we are being scientific about.  And science
guarantees to us that if we're as smart as we think we are, we'll keep
guessing right and will not blow ourselves up or starve or something dumb
like that.

(You have to admit that blowing oneself up or starving, given another
choice, are not remarkably preferable alternatives.)

However, the idea of "Is there a Heaven and a Hell?" cannot be grappled with
scientifically, unless we have a way of conducting experiments about it --
that is, a relatively reliable way of gathering experiential data pertaining
to the subject.

(You see, we know that gravity works the way it does because someone looked
at an awful lot of falling things and said "You know, that looks like a
parabola."  And sure enough -- they *do* look like parabolas, and you can
rely on the fact that if you build a cannon like such-and-such, you'll get a
parabola like so-and-so out of the path of its projectile.  Believe me.  You
can.  Or if you don't believe me, go try it.  Throw some junk in the air and
see if it goes like a parabola.  *THAT'S science*.)


So ... hmm, the scientist says, are there any data about life after death? 
Well, sorta.  Some people say they've been there and back.  Okay, are there
consistent reports of the same sort of phenomena?  Sure.  So, from a
scientific point of view, we construct a rule of thumb -- a hypothesis --
that attempts to summarize the observations.  Then we try to find *more*
observations, and see if we can refine our hypothesis.


Well, I dunno about you, but what I see in the data points I've been given
is that there's SOMETHING out there, and it's generally a lot better for the
nice people than for the nasty ones.
