carrot & stick

To date I will admit my reading on religion has been fairly limited, and mainly to the key religions, and the Gnostics (or lat least Tim Freke’s interpretation of Gnosis) so Iknow little or nothing about the more minor religions. But a thought struck me the other day and thought Id share it with you.Are there religions out there that don’t as a core concept offer some idea of life eternal? Be this in the form of an existence in a heavenly paradise, reincarnation, return to Gaia or some Universal Consciousness, bodily resurrection or some other concept that for want of a better description offers a second bite of the cherry?I can’t think of any but as I said my reading on the more diverse religions is minimal to nil.Now as the vast majority of religions (if not all) offer this carrot of eternal salvation [of one type or another], my thought was this if The vast majority of religions did not enshrine the concept of eternal salvation at the core of their belief, did not offer this carrot of hope of life eternal would religion have held sway over the world’s population to the same degree? Or put another way, without the stick of eternal damnation (an inseparable concept to the eternal salvation) would religion have had the power to control society in the way it has over human history?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hello, ohnhai. Good question. Here is what Websters says: Based on definition#4, there are many such beliefs as you describe. Perhaps better put as: Would people have allowed their religion to control them were there no fear of death?

I don't think there is any real afterlife in Judaism.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I saw a tv program once that said something like instead of white light that the christian near death experiences the jewish near death experiences see blue light.If there's no after life in Judaism, anyone know what's after life?

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

It apears that I was wrong. There is a belief in an afterlife in Judaism but it is not the primary focus or even clearly articulated.However, even in the Kaddish there is no real focus on the afterlife.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

How about Buddhism? Their afterlife isn't really an afterlife. It's just coming back to the world and start all over again and again and again.

I posted this in my Stanford University Conference Videos: Brain, Mind and Emergence thread, but since there's no response there, I'll assume nobody read it. So I'll re-post it here, because I think it's extremely relevant.In 2003, Dr. Robert Sapolsky gave a talk at conference on Cognition hosted at Stanford University (you can view the talk here for free). His talk discussed the differences between humans and non-humans. One of his major points was that, while humans clearly use the same basic systems as other animals, they often use them in ways that are novel and unique.Below is the summary of a subpoint of how the mammalian dopaminergic system works, and a proposal on how humans use it uniquely. This was discussed from 27:30 until 31:00 in the video, and I would highly recommend watching it. So I think this does 2 things:
- Provides some biological evidence that, yes, there is some 'carrot' reward system.
- Clarify the nature of the system, to show that it's not afterlife that has to be the reward. As long as there is always something in the future to strive for, the system of delayed reward and extended anticipation will work.Ben

What is incredibly clear - is that systems like engines etc, and all systems created, are only created by conscious beings.Only when consciousness is in place, are the purpose of systems, able to be made. I suggest a full reading of my Hypothesis of consciousness which actually proves God exists. Message #6 and #15 prove God exists. Here it is, un-refuted. Essentially the only suggestions were that the premises were weak, without the opposition saying why.

to the question:How about Buddhism? Their afterlife isn't really an afterlife. It's just coming back to the world and start all over again and again and again. it does however fall in to tha catagory of continued or extra life after death. the reincarnated person wont remember the previous life but is still clearly a life after death model.This message has been edited by ohnhai, 12-05-2004 06:21 PM

I suppose regarding definition #4 even Atheism could be defined as a religion, though many atheists would spit feathers at that, mainly due to those other definitions which are the more readily accepted definitions of religion. (frankly I would be among them)
But in the light of Def#4 Atheism would indeed be a religion that definitely didn’t enshrine any kind of afterlife.But also in the light of #4 things like support of sporting team qualifies as religion. If you look at all the symptoms it would be not too hard to agree. Most supporters have a strong faith in the future success of their team, even if they consistently lurk at the bottom of the lowest league. Ardour is also not in question, and frequently this ardour as with more traditional religious models can lead to strong conflicts with other religious models of the same type (other teams). Now though ‘Team Support’ is ‘religious’ by def#4, as it atheism they tend not have concepts of life after death. But this is not really the point, and it would be quite a stretch to get anyone to seriously consider 'team support', even if it borders on the fanatical, to be what is traditionally considered a religion.So I guess my first question are there any religions that don’t have a concept of some king of continuation after death? should be re stated slightly.Are there any religions, that would be recognised as such by the classically accepted definition, that doesn’t include a concept of continued life or continuation in some form after death?To Phatboy: You are correct, that would be a far better statement of the question.Would people have allowed their religion to control them, in the way they did, were there no fear of death?It would have been far more simple a question to answer if it has simply remained a question of fearing for your soul upon death, but as the religions gained power they became more powerful and held onto it because as well as fearing for their soul people began to fear the mechanisms, especially the punitive, of the very structures that were offering eternal salvation. The join us or die approach.But I’m guessing that is jumping the gun a little isn’t it. Because the religions would not have gotten into that position of absolute power with out being given it in the first place. Is it safe to assume that the primary reason people turned to the religions in the first place was the salvation of their soul (or whatever) or was it something else. Or did the rot with religion set in with the big monotheist religions when they started saying my god is the only god, and only through me will you reach salvation! Go smite the unbeliever .I know the Romans had a tradition of adopting local gods and such like Sulis-Minerva (neatly combining the British god of water and the Roman one.) But I’m not sure if the Romans actively persecuted people for simply not believing in the roman pantheon but instead favouring their own. Again my lack of reading hinders me.Somehow I get the feeling that pre-monotheism, though central to society, religion didn’t have quite the same iron clad grip on society that the major monotheist religions did and to a lesser extent still do. ( can any one suggest and book that details the start of religion in mankind? I have A History of God: by Karen Armstrong but that deals with the three key monotheist religions)Has a concept of life after death always been important to religions?This message has been edited by ohnhai, 12-05-2004 06:23 PM

cool stuff, also explanies the wonderfully delicious feeling of anticipation in the queue to a new rollercoaster.

Ben,I went to the site you posted in the other thread but it appeared I had to install Real Player to listen to the talks, I didn't see any transcriptions. I dl'd Real Player and tried to make sense of all it said but decided against installing it. The last time I installed it as Real One it messed with my computer and I couldn't get rid of all of it. I've since re installed the OS for other reasons, but was very reluctant to put Real Player on my computer again. The topics sounded very interesting. I'm hoping transcripts exist as I don't trust Real Player it appears to be a adware spyware scam.lfen

Lam,That is the popular view of Buddhism but the teachings of the Buddha are more subtle than that. The Buddha denied a permanent self. One fairly common analogy to reincarnation was lighting a candle at the beginning of the night. When the candle is about gone using it's flame to light another candle. The question is then asked is the second candle's flame the same flame as the first candles flame?I think of greater significance in Buddhism is the teaching that only that which was never born never dies. The awakening of the Buddha speaks of is an awakening to the unborn and hence deathless.lfen

lfen,RealPlayer is a competitor to Windows Media Player and Apple Quicktime. It's the free version of the player made by RealNetworks, a publicly traded company located in Seattle. So, the source is more credible than what I normally would deem 'spyware scam'...Then again, I just assumed everybody has RealPlayer; it's interesting to know not. There's the whole litigation between RealSystems and Microsoft trying to get Media Player removed from being installed with the OS and having access to 'hidden' programming interfaces that allow it to perform better with the underlying OS...By the way I noticed that the website is not just for that conference--they have MANY conferences videotaped on the website. I'm excited... anyway, thanks for the note.BenP.S. I searched a bit on the net for a written transcript, but I couldn't find anything.