Scottie wrote:As I see it, we are complex carbon based life forms which happened to develop a brain as an evolutionary niche. Conditions were right. All the right stresses occurred in all the right places at all the right times which cause our common ape ancestor to evolve into the species known as homo sapien.
We like to believe that after we die, our spirits live on. Where does this belief end? Are there trillions of dinosaurs in the afterlife? Lions? Mosquitoes? Algae? What about the family dog? All of these are complex carbon based life forms as well. They all have a brain which isn't quite as developed as the homo sapien brain.
Why are we so arrogant as to believe that we are anything more than a complex set of chemical processes that gives us consciousness, and when we die those chemical processes simply cease to function... just like every other creature on the planet?
I realize that it gives us great comfort to think that we will see our loved ones in an afterlife, but is it reality?
Scottie:
In the way you have phrased the OP, your unstated premise is that people who believe in an afterlife believe that only human beings have this kind of continued existence. You conclude that it is arrogant for people to believe that humans continue to exist in some way beyond this life, while lower forms of life presumably just turn off when they die.
That is not an accurate representation of what people in general believe about an afterlife. Whether you agree with that belief, or whether you believe there is any persuasive reason to entertain that belief, is a separate issue. However, as worded, the OP draws a faulty conclusion that people who believe in an afterlife are "arrogant." The conclusion is faulty because it mistakenly assumes that believers in an afterlife do not generally believe that lifeforms other than humans continue to exist in whatever way after they die. In fact, many people do believe that there is an afterlife for animals, not just humans. (The "fact" is that the belief exists. Whether the belief is true or warranted are separate questions.)
E.g.,
http://www.animalsandtheafterlife.com/a ... or_kim.htmhttp://animalcrackers.freedomblogging.c ... death/139/http://lifebeyonddeath.org/life-after-d ... pets-deathhttp://www.sophian.org/forum/viewtopic. ... b1393f0888People who believe in
reincarnation believe that animals have souls, too. That's because they believe that a soul can come back as an animal, a human, or whatever, depending on how it lived during its previous life. That would suggest that there is essentially no difference between an "animal" soul and a "human" soul, since it's only the form/identity the soul takes during mortal life that changes.
Mormonism also very strongly implies that animals have spirits that continue to exist after death. Mormonism teaches that all living things will be resurrected, and since resurrection means the reunification of a spirit with an immortal body, it stands to reason that animals have a life after death.
http://LDS.about.com/library/Brian Laundrie/faq/blanimals.htmJoseph Smith taught that animals are saved in a way that is similar to how humans are:
Says one, "I cannot believe in the salvation of beasts." Any man who would tell you that this could not be, would tell you that the revelations are not true. John heard the words of the beasts giving glory to God, and understood them. God who made the beasts could understand every language spoken by them. The four beasts were four of the most noble animals that had filled the measure of their creation, and had been saved from other worlds, because they were perfect: they were like angels in their sphere. We are not told where they came from, and I do not know; but they were seen and heard by John praising and glorifying God.Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 291I'm not going to find the quote for this right now, but Joseph Smith also said that he expected to be with his favorite dog, Major, in the afterlife.
It's one thing if you want to dismiss the belief in an afterlife on the basis of you believe there is insufficient evidence, that it is superstition, that it serves some psychological need, etc. But the premise of the OP as stated, and the conclusion drawn from that premise, are mistaken.