Well, Protestantism had a particular perspective on it, based on 'sola scriptura' and the relationship of the believer and Jesus Christ as Saviour. But I can't see how anything to do with religion and spirituality can be divorced from the idea of aspiration - the sense that there is a higher or better or more complete way of life, which is what the religion in question is said to codify. What else could it be? I mean, the OP typically sells it short, but then in a secular world, very few have any grasp of what it is they're purportedly trying to explain away.

As soon as faith takes on a personal character, aspirations take the form of divine grace. The particularity of the relationship with the divine imbues the believer with an orientation towards their own relationship with divinity - which is realised through a person's actions. In the grace of God or in contravariance to it. Personal failures can then be interpreted through the relationship as not just impediments to aspiration in the secular sense - obstacles, square pegs forcing themselves through round holes - but within a mythopoetic narrative of cosmic significance. What is cosmic is also instantiated into the believer as a work in progress - personalised relationships with the divine allow reclaiming the etymology of kosmos as worldly order. In this sense, the meaning of all decisions is enriched in the same manner as secular self-transcendence as returning to what is fundamentally yours.

It's not an irony, it's a paradox. I's expressed in the verse, for example, 'He who saves his life shall lose it, he that looses his life for My sake will be saved'. That is kind of the central 'koan' of Christianity, perhaps. — Wayfarer

Perhaps; but my point was that he who "feels himself in danger of missing out on this Higher Life of true happiness" is not the one who "loses his life for My sake" but "he who saves his life" and "shall lose it".

I like Becker's analysis in his Denial of Death:

Religion, then, gives the possibility of heroic victory in freedom and solves the problem of human dignity at its highest level. The two ontological motives of the human condition are both met: the need to surrender oneself in full to the rest of nature, to become a part of it by laying down one's whole existence to some higher meaning; and the need to expand oneself as an individual heroic personality. Finally, religion alone gives hope, because it holds open the dimension of the unknown and the unknowable, the fantastic mystery of creation that the human mind cannot even begin to approach, the possibility of a multidimensionality of spheres of existence, of heavens and possible embodiments that make a mockery of earthly logic — and in doing so, it relieves the absurdity of earthly life, all the impossible limitations
and frustrations of living matter. In religious terms, to "see God" is to die, because the creature is too small and finite to be able to bear the higher meanings of creation. Religion takes one's very creatureliness, one's insignificance, and makes it a condition of hope. Full transcendence of the human condition means limitless possibility unimaginable to us.—

A very enticing fantasy indeed.

Finally, religion alone gives hope, because it holds open the dimension of the unknown

Not really. One can arrive at many types of spiritual ideas and evidence simply by practicing and studying spirituality. It's like billiards, if you don't practice, you can't learn.

The promise of life after death is religion's lure. — CuddlyHedgehog

Actually, it is transhumanism that is promising the conquest of death.

Freedom from religious dogmas originates from acceptance that there is no life after death. — CuddlyHedgehog

Freedom from dogma would mean accepting reality.

This is reality: none of us knows for sure what happens to us after we die.

Denying the possibility of an after-life is as equally nonsensical as affirming it.

Think about what could possibly be meant by an "after-life". Aren't we merely imagining another potential within-life experience?

If the human brain is only capable of imagining within-life experiences, then it is impossible for a human brain to deny the existence of an after-life.

And no, the "denial of an after-life" doesn't win by default of the premise being meaningless.

:100:

(sorry, I do agree, just sampling the new wares)

we don’t know for sure but there are some pretty good indications if we are to believe science and not hocus-pocus.

the human brain can only function because of the neuron activity inside its circuits. Consciousness is the result of such activity. When we die the brain disintegrates back to its building elements, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon etc that get recycled and reused by nature. The “spirit” cannot exist without matter. This theory makes sense to me and is easily explainable by simple physics and medical science. Everything else is speculative and unfounded wishful thinking, in my opinion.

the human brain can only function because of the neuron activity inside its circuits. Consciousness is the result of such activity. When we die the brain disintegrates back to its building elements, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon etc that get recycled and reused by nature. The “spirit” cannot exist without matter. This theory makes sense to me and is easily explainable by simple physics and medical science. Everything else is speculative and unfounded wishful thinking, in my opinion. — CuddlyHedgehog

Yes. I am merely following that logic even further. If the thoughts of a person are reducible to their memories and their current environmental stimulus, then this must also be the case for a person's thoughts concerning an "after-life". Hence what is being referred to by talk of "an after-life" cannot be of anything transcendent of memory and the immediate environment.

For a behaviourist, the only meaningful reaction to a person asking "is there an after-life" is to understand the physical circumstances that provoked their question. For example, perhaps on further investigation it is determined that the questioner is recalling a scene from a movie they have seen and are wondering if they might find themselves in a similar scene in the future after having witnessed a funeral held in their name. In which case the answer might be " it is potentially possible that you witness a reconstruction of this movie scene in the future having witnessed a funeral held in your name".

What the behaviourist cannot say is "no, there isn't an after-life" under the pseudo-scientific assumption that the person is literally referring to a transcendental idea that isn't reducible to their current state of mind and physical circumstances.

If we understand all metaphysical ideas as being reducible to our current state of mind and interactions with the world, then questions about an after-life should dissolve, rather than being answered in the affirmative or the negative.

May I remind you of the definition of metaphysics? “abstract theory with no basis in reality.”

With regards to your statement “under the pseudo-scientific assumption”, they’re not assumptions, they’re facts based on physics, anatomy and physiology.

May I remind you of the definition of metaphysics? “abstract theory with no basis in reality.”

With regards to your statement “under the pseudo-scientific assumption”, they’re not assumptions, they’re facts based on physics, anatomy and physiology. — CuddlyHedgehog

if the meaning of the word "metaphysics" really is "an abstraction with no basis in reality", then how is it possible that you uttered this sentence?

I think you misunderstand me. For the behaviourist, any verbal utterance of a so-called "metaphysical principle" is reducible to stimulus-response usage. To think anything else is to assume the falsity of behaviourism, and hence to assume the falsity of physics, anatomy and physiology.

It is certainly pseudo-scientific to assume that either a believer in the after-life, or non-believer in the after-life, can literally reference their self non-existence.

Imagine two people Bob and Alice discussing life after death; Bob has a definite understanding of what it means to say that the world continues to exist after the destruction of Alice. And likewise, Alice has a definite understanding of what it means to say that the world continues to exist after the destruction of Bob. Yet this doesn't imply that Bob can meaningfully say of himself that the world continues to exist after the destruction of Bob, or that Alice can meaningfully assert of herself that the world continues to exist after the destruction of Alice.

There'd be less risk of misunderstanding you if you abandoned the use of pompous, self-asserting, idiosyncratic deductions, for the sake of clarity.

The promise of life after death is religion's lure. Freedom from religious dogmas originates from acceptance that there is no life after death. — CuddlyHedgehog

I'm confused on this issue.

On one hand it appears as though religion feeds off of our deepest fears (meaninglessness) and hopes (meaning/purpose).

On the other hand there's truth. We're all born with a thirst for truth and may be, just may be, the afterlife is a truth.

So, while present knowledge doesn't accomodate an afterlife it also doesn't preclude it in any way. Does it?

Yes, Fear of Death is only one of the reasons Religion is around. Justice is another reason. The horrible things that happen in this life will be justified in the life to come.

There'd be no such chance if there was no "life to come". Another supporting idea that the absence of afterlife would negate the need for religion.

Correct, IF there is no afterlife, no Justice. You're stating there is no afterlife. Do you feel you have sufficient evidence to make this claim? Wouldn't it be fairer to say we don't know what happens after we die?

Religion also helps people that have a Fear of Life.

There is no way to show "evidence" for something like this, either in support or against. It can only be a conclusion one arrives at after considering the logic behind the assumptions. We don't have concrete evidence that pigs are not capable of singing, however, we have a pretty good idea that this might be the case. The absence of evidence to the contrary indicates that they probably can't sing.

The promise of life after death is religion's lure. Freedom from religious dogmas originates from acceptance that there is no life after death. — CuddlyHedgehog

"Man becomes aware of the sacred because it itself, shows itself, as something wholly different from the profane. To designate the act of manifestation of the sacred, we have proposed the term hierophany. It is a fitting term, because it does not imply further; it expresses no more than is implicit in its etymological content, i.e., that something sacred shows itself to us. It could be said that the history of religions - from the most primitive to the most highly developed - is constituted by a great number of hierophanies, by manifestations of sacred realities. From the most elementary hierophany - e.g., manifestation of the sacred in some ordinary object, a stone or a tree-to the supreme hierophany (which, for a Christian, is the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ) there is no solution of continuity. In each case we are confronted by the same mysterious act - the manifestation of something of a wholly different order, a reality that does not belong to our world, in objects that are an integral part of our natural "profane" world.
The modem Occidental experiences a certain uneasiness before many manifestations of the sacred. He finds it difficult to accept the fact that, for many human beings, the sacred can be manifested in stones or trees, for example. But as we shall soon see, what is involved is not a veneration of the stone in itself, a cult of the tree in itself. The sacred tree, the sacred stone are not adored as stone or tree; they are worshipped precisely because they are hierophies, because they show some thing that is no longer stone or tree but the sacred, the ganz andere.
It is impossible to overemphasize the paradox represented by every hierophany, even the most elementary. By manifesting the sacred, any object becomes something else, yet it continues to remain itself, for it continues to participate in its surrounding cosmic milieu. A sacred stone remains a stone; apparently (or, more precisely, from the profane point of view), nothing distinguishes it from all other stones. But for those to whom a stone reveals itself as sacred, its immediate reality is transmuted into a supernatural reality. In other words, for those who have a religious experience all nature is capable of revealing itself as cosmic sacrality. The cosmos in its entirety can become a hierophany.
The man of the archaic societies tends to live as much as possible in the sacred or in close proximity to consecrated objects. The tendency is perfectly understandable, because, for primitives as for the man of all pre modem societies, the sacred is equivalent to a power, and, in the last analysis, to reality. The sacred is saturated with being. Sacred power means reality and at the same time enduringness and efficacity.The polarity sacred-profane is often expressed as an opposition between real and unreal or pseudoreal. (Naturally, we must not expect to find the archaic languages in possession of this philosophical terminology, real-unreal, etc.; but we find the thing.) Thus it is easy to understand that religious man deeply desires to be, to participate in reality, to be saturated with power."
-Mircea Eliade, "The Sacred and the Profane", p. 11 - 13.

"For our purpose it is enough to observe that desacralization pervades the entire experience of the nonreligious man of modem societies and that, in consequence, he finds it increasingly difficult to rediscover the existential dimensions of religious man in the archaic societies."
Ibid. p. 13.

The logical/factual irrationality of most religions would still be an irresistibly emotivated dysfunctionally functional psychological crutch to many as long as any fear(s) at all could be "felt", individually proportional to degrees of 'feeliness' and ignorant rationalization in those susceptible, vs practiced informed rationality.

I hate to break it to you, but there are plenty of religious denominations that don't believe in life after death. — Joshs

"Plenty"??? Name three!

The promise of life after death is religion's lure. Freedom from religious dogmas originates from acceptance that there is no life after death. — CuddlyHedgehog

I am given to understand that religion also provides a context for social interaction. though the same can be achieved with pop music and football team supporting.
I was talking to an ex-patriot Welshman the other day who was talking about how the local Capels had been taken over for property development and turned into houses.
In his 'village', there is now one Church (C of E) still opening every Sunday to a small audience and 19 ex-Capels - all now converted into housing. Villages are small, so to have 20 religious buildings in a village meant that every Sunday only the sick or infirm stayed home.
The Capel was a place for gossip and socialisation.
It would seem that TV and other entertainments have taken the place of that particular "religious" function.

The promise of life after death is religion's lure. Freedom from religious dogmas originates from acceptance that there is no life after death. — CuddlyHedgehog

Topic Title: Would there be a need for atheism if there was no fear of responsibility & accountability?

The promise of the end of life with the coming of death is atheism's lure. Freedom from responsibility & accountability is achieved through the acceptance that there is no life after death.

:snicker: :kiss: :fire: :rofl: :lol: :100: :ok:

Reading this thread honestly made my day.

Topic Title: Would there be a need for atheism if there was no fear of responsibility & accountability? — Agustino

Atheism does not absolve anyone from responsibility or accountability .
Atheists are good without the promise of an afterlife, or the threat of eternal punishment.

Atheism does not absolve anyone from responsibility or accountability .
Atheists are good without the promise of an afterlife, or the threat of eternal punishment. — charleton

So what happens if you commit serious immoralities and then commit suicide? Don't you escape punishment according to the atheist view?

So what happens if you commit serious immoralities and then commit suicide? Don't you escape punishment according to the atheist view? — Agustino

No more or less than a religious person. Break the law and risk getting caught. Behave badly and risk the censure of the public.
Suicide is painless, and an answer to some problems. Why mention it?