Life experience and the soul

What if heaven is a state of unconsciousness? After all, when you're having a bad day, sometimes all you want to do is go to sleep. So would an "eternal sleep" really be such a bad thing?

We prefer that right now, but do we prefer it while we are sleeping? Think about someone or something waking you up in the morning from a deep sleep. You probably get annoyed, and wish you could stay in bed for just a few more minutes. Similarly, during our lifetime we may enjoy being alive, but what's to say that when we die we realize that nonexistence is much better? This poses something of a dilemma. If, as was previously mentioned, you go to heaven as a 2-year-old or an Alzheimer's patient, you would probably rather take some other form than the one you died in. Also, if you keep your original human form when you go heaven, some people would be smarter, stronger, or more virtuous than others, which could lead to conflict (after all, being admitted to heaven doesn't necessarily mean you're perfect and won't ever get angry or jealous). So perhaps to avoid these problems, people are returned to their "pre-fall state," or perhaps they are even returned to their "pre-existence state," which would be a state of non-being.

This is basically asking, "Why are we here?", which might be the most-asked philosophical question of all time. If we haven't come up with a satisfactory answer in several millenniums, I have a feeling that I'm not going to be able to come up with a good one right now. But if I had to give my opinion, I'd say that all of us have been thrust into a situation - life - that may or may not turn out to be good, and that in the years we spend in this situation, we should try to make the best with what we've got. Perhaps this came about completely by accident (abiogenesis), perhaps some divine Creator put us here to test us, or perhaps some jokers in a higher dimension created humans just to laugh at us doing silly stuff. This warrants the question of what the definition of "you" really is. For example, if in heaven my hair color changed from black to red, would I still be me? Or does hair color even exist in heaven? The most common answer is that only the soul ascends to heaven, which then leads us to ask what a soul is. And the answer to that . . . well, once again millenniums of thought have produced no good solution. Perhaps there is no such thing as a soul, or perhaps by its nature the concept of a soul simply eludes definition.

What I was trying to say is that maybe not being able to experience anything (even if that means not being able to enjoy the non-existence) is better than having to experience the world we live in now. In other words, it's possible that we may not be able to think to ourselves after death, "Boy, this is sure better than being alive," but it will be better anyway.Hmm, that turned out more confusing than I meant it to be . . .

---

"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Douglas Adams

Asking why we are here naturally leads to asking whether there is a "there," i.e., any existence before or after this one. You don't have to call it "heaven," but the concept isn't easily avoidable. Millions of other creatures on this earth have minds too, yet only a tiny fraction of them (bottlenose dolphins, elephants, gorillas, etc.) possess self-awareness, or the ability to recognize who "me" is. So what sets that tiny fraction of self-aware beings apart from all the rest?

A by-product of intelligence? Maybe. Not a reality? Maybe. But worthy of consideration? Definitely. Acting as if there is a heaven, whether there really is one or not, can give hope and comfort where there was none before, make people act virtuously to try and obtain entrance to paradise, etc. And if it turns out there is no afterlife, then it won't matter because you won't be conscious of the fact that it's not there! So perhaps it's best to humor the people that do believe in the afterlife. They take their benefits from that approach to existence, and you take your benefits from yours.

---

"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Douglas Adams

One could extend the same argument to other fields, such as astronomy. For example, researching nebulae, galaxy clusters, or pulsars has virtually no effect on our lives here on Earth, does it? So why do we engage in such pursuits?I believe that human beings are curious, and we simply can't help it. Think about how you would react if I put a large machine with a big red button on it in your bedroom, and told you not to touch it until April 17, 2039. It would be pretty hard not to press the button, or examine the machine, or look up the date to see if anything is special about it. Similarly, we humans tend to try and find out as much as we can about concepts and phenomena that don't directly affect our everyday lives, just out of curiosity. One of these concepts is heaven.

---

"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Douglas Adams

"We" don't necessarily need to give practical credence to any of these options. As I said before, the point is not to specifically determine which idea of the afterlife is correct and which measures need to be taken to prepare for that afterlife. The point is for each individual person to decide whether or not they want to believe in an afterlife, and if so, what sort of afterlife they want to believe in. When I say that the afterlife is worthy of consideration, I mean that it has the ability to influence some people's experience in this world for the better, and that those people should by all means accept the prospect of the afterlife if doing so benefits their life.

If I got it into my head that I was going to hell, I would do one of two things:1. Try to change my ways so that I could go to heaven instead.
2. Decide that I don't believe in hell, thereby avoiding the worry that comes with considering it.I would not, however, incessantly beat myself up about the possibility of going to hell.

Ah, you didn't mention that earlier. Yes, I agree that it's never good for people to force their beliefs onto others. I can think of two reasons that this would be done with beliefs about the afterlife:1. An altruistic desire to help others realize the true nature of the afterlife and ensure passage to heaven rather than hell.
2. An effort to gain entrance into heaven for oneself through the good deed of helping others to get into heaven as well.In the first case, the person broadcasting his or her beliefs will probably recognize when others are getting upset or angry with him or her, and, not wanting to do any harm to them, will stop dictating those beliefs.In the second case, though, the broadcaster of beliefs is driven by a personal desire to get into heaven, and so he or she will probably not be stopped by the ire or protests of whom he or she views as "unbelievers." This second case is what causes the conflicts over heaven and hell. However, it's impossible to resolve these conflicts: letting everyone believe what they want to believe will just result in argument, making everyone believe in the afterlife will anger the nonbelievers, and prohibiting anyone from believing in the afterlife will anger the believers. The only reason I prefer letting everyone believe what they want to, regardless of the arguments that may result, is because I believe that freedom of religion should be preserved as much as possible.

---

"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Douglas Adams

Well, if you convince yourself that Eliza and Winona are coming to visit you, then once a couple of days pass and you realize that they're not coming after all, you'll probably be disappointed. However, if there is no afterlife, it won't be possible to be disappointed because you won't exist!

Well, to be technical, which is more rational: thinking without any evidence that there are cookies in the kitchen cabinet, or thinking without any evidence that there are goblins in the kitchen cabinet?But despite that, you're right in that neither the cookie-believers nor the goblin-believers can claim that their beliefs form the "one true way" until they actually look in the kitchen cabinet and get some evidence.

As I said before, shouldn't this make them either change their ways or change their beliefs?

---

"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Douglas Adams

By "freedom of religion" I mean both freedom of religion and non-religion.

All right, I agree you've established that in the case of a few people who have acted in a very bad way at some point during their life, the concept of an afterlife is disturbing, not comforting. But how many people do you really suppose:
join a religion that involves an afterlife,
commit so much sin that they feel they are doomed to go to hell,
refuse to try to repent or change the course of their life in order to be "saved,"
revisit their sins so much that their life starts becoming miserable,
and still don't take any action to resolve this guilt?