Valuing life

[_beefcalf]

Although the methods and strategies employed to uncover these truths were admittedly used by men who conversed with heavenly beings, the resulting explanations can be easily grasped by any man or woman who is honestly willing to listen.

Say what?

GR33N is attempting to have fun with a previous post of mine, wherein I offered to help him/her understand why the proof of evolution is so compelling. He/she rewrote my offer, replacing 'evolution' with 'creation' along with other swaps, to turn the tables.

My original offer to GR33N:

GR33N,

Seriously, there are many proofs of the truth of common descent and we have an excellent understanding of the method by which the species currently found on Earth have diverged from our shared common ancestors.

Although the practical scientific methods and strategies employed to uncover these truths were admittedly used by men with advanced degrees, using advanced technology, the resulting explanations can be easily grasped by any man or woman who is honestly willing to listen.

Although a lay-person in the realm of molecular biology, I have a good grasp on the incredibly persuasive line of argumentation and evidence which compels us view common descent as absolute fact, and that it is completely incompatible with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Accepting the absolute fact of common descent does not, however, compel one to discard a belief in god or gods.

If the god you worship is real, I have a difficult time believing he would approve of his children closing their eyes and covering their ears so as to avoid hearing or seeing evidences and explanations of how the world really works.

If you care to read, I can elucidate just one of the many, many incredibly powerful proofs of why either evolution is true, or the God who created us has employed deceptive and dishonest practices to hide his creative efforts.

Let me know if you are interested.

[_schreech]

Please do. I am ready to read the powerful proofs. I am ready to read how God has honestly revealed his creative efforts.

I am sure the entire religious world would love to read these "proofs" if they are really that convincing and "powerful"...I have read plenty on the subject and have yet to read anything that would convince of the existence of a creator...

[_schreech]

GR33N is attempting to have fun with a previous post of mine, wherein I offered to help him/her understand why the proof of evolution is so compelling. He/she rewrote my offer, replacing 'evolution' with 'creation' along with other swaps, to turn the tables.

My original offer to GR33N:

GR33N,

Seriously, there are many proofs of the truth of common descent and we have an excellent understanding of the method by which the species currently found on Earth have diverged from our shared common ancestors.

Although the practical scientific methods and strategies employed to uncover these truths were admittedly used by men with advanced degrees, using advanced technology, the resulting explanations can be easily grasped by any man or woman who is honestly willing to listen.

Although a lay-person in the realm of molecular biology, I have a good grasp on the incredibly persuasive line of argumentation and evidence which compels us view common descent as absolute fact, and that it is completely incompatible with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Accepting the absolute fact of common descent does not, however, compel one to discard a belief in god or gods.

If the god you worship is real, I have a difficult time believing he would approve of his children closing their eyes and covering their ears so as to avoid hearing or seeing evidences and explanations of how the world really works.

If you care to read, I can elucidate just one of the many, many incredibly powerful proofs of why either evolution is true, or the God who created us has employed deceptive and dishonest practices to hide his creative efforts.

Let me know if you are interested.

Ahh...no wonder it made absolutely no sense...its funny that people actually try to compare evidence for creation with evidence for evolution...

[_mikwut]

The only empirical data I am aware of are the many examples found in NDE's and the research done on those who have experienced a NDE. The vast majority of those that have return with an appreciation and value for this life they did not have prior to their NDE. These people by and large due to their experience believe in an afterlife.

my regards, mikwut

[_beefcalf]

The only empirical data I am aware of are the many examples found in NDE's and the research done on those who have experienced a NDE. The vast majority of those that have return with an appreciation and value for this life they did not have prior to their NDE. These people by and large due to their experience believe in an afterlife.

my regards, mikwut

Empirical? Gosh... I woulda said 'completely subjective'.

NDE's don't really fit in with LDS theology, though. Neither do those oft-heard stories about young toddlers who 'remember' grandpa who died three years before they were born. That whole 'you lose yer free-agency when ya know fer-shore' thing...

[_mikwut]

Hi Beefcalf,

Empirical?

Yes, empirical, as in, - derived from or guided by experience or experiment depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine, and provable or verifiable by experience or experiment. - Dictionary.

Gosh... I woulda said 'completely subjective'.

Well, I take psychology as an actual discipline that provides us with empirical data to digest and find meaning in. I might be weird that way. But since the beginning of near death experience research starting when Raymond Moody published his book Life after Life certain changes in attitudes and values were among the characteristic features listed and studied. Many researchers have conducted empirical research since that time. This was done for many reasons but one, contrary to your assertion, was these effects could be more easily studied prospectively and verified by independent observation. Kenneth Ring for example developed a measure of NDE depth and an instrument to assess change after a NDE, the Life Change Questionaire. It included an enhanced value and appreciation for life. There have been several others that have improved on this research. All of the studies show an increase in the value and meaning the NDE's have for THIS life. Even the famous skeptic of NDEs Susan Blackmore acknowledges these results and the data in her book Dying to Live. It is data and research that directly answers the question of the OP, those that believe in an afterlife (those that have experienced a NDE) tend to value this life more than they did before the experience.

NDE's don't really fit in with LDS theology, though. Neither do those oft-heard stories about young toddlers who 'remember' grandpa who died three years before they were born. That whole 'you lose yer free-agency when ya know for-shore' thing...

?!?!?!?!?? I was responding to the OP, remember it? It went like this:

Is life of more value to one who does not believe in afterlife or one that does?

my best, mikwut

[_beefcalf]

mikwut,

Yeah, I didn't formulate my post well.

I don't disagree with you that the evidence for NDE's is empirical. I'm not suggesting that it isn't. I'm simply saying that as long as we're applying adjectives to Near-Death Experiences, it does the subject well to note that the very nature of an NDE must certainly be entirely subjective. At least until science has a way of tracking and recording brain activity and interpreting it to a high level of detail. Until such a time, the experiences of someone who's brain has been starved of oxygen or has experienced some form of trauma must remain in the realm of subjective.

I do not disagree that such experiences can have profound effects on those who experience them. Even to the point of causing someone to drastically alter their world-view, beliefs and attitude.

I don't refute anything you said. I simply think it's worth noting that NDE's cannot yet be analyzed objectively for content or meaning. Sorry to stir the pot. :-/

[_mikwut]

Hi Beefcalf,

No problem. I wasn't posting it to prove the meaning behind NDE's. But, just the empirical data I am aware of (other than our own opinions one way or the other) regarding an answer to the OP.

by the way, Dr. Bruce Greyson, et al. in "Explanatory Models for Near Death Experiences," Handbook of Near Death Experiences (Praeger, 2009), 219-220 has conclusively shown that the starved oxygen of "anoxia" hypothesis of explanation does not explain the phenomenon which occurs in many patients tested who never experience "anoxia".

my best beefcalf, mikwut

[_Simon Belmont]

We live in the present moment, Simon.

The moment you thought that, the very nanosecond that idea crossed your mind, it was gone. "The moment" is undefined. It's gone before we can measure it. What we're really measuring are many moments, possibly approaching infinity, but they all go away. They all pass into the past.

How is that depressing? I just blinked and I am still not 90 years old. I've actually blinked multiple times while typing this and I am still not 90 years old.

That will not always be true. When you are 90, it will seem like you've always been 90. You will only have biochemical reactions to the past -- "memories." The past and future don't exist, and moments are immeasurable and undefined.

Eternity is found in the present. That is the beauty of it.

That sentence is meaningless.

Here is the funny thing about your "then what" questions. The "then what" is exactly the same for you and me. You enjoy a lightbulb the exact same way I do.

I just think more about it. I think about the moment I am enjoying it, then I wake up the next morning and realize that moment didn't exist at all, it's just a biochemical recreation that I'm thinking about.

You don't enjoy a lightbuld more because you think your awareness will survive the death of your body.

Yes I do. I most certainly do.

[_Tchild]

Is life of more value to one who does not believe in afterlife or one that does?

If you believe in an afterlife that will be better than this, why would a "life cut short" not be a windfall for the one who died early?

I have always thought all sentient life was very valuable both while a believing member and as an atheist/agnostic (not sure I ever fully entered the atheist camp). That is why I was very disturbed at the reality of the LDS church owning and promoting a hunting reserve.

No matter how hard I try I cannot see myself harming others with this idea that since life will end at in a geological blink why bother? Why not just selfishly waste life for my own selfish purposes?

If anything, life is much more precious to me now as a non believer and not knowing if this most special of gifts called life only lasts for this brief moment or not.