The kind of evidence would depend upon the kind of afterlife. One notion of an afterlife that ought to get at least a little respect around here is this:
We exist within a simulation.
Within our simulated universe, reductionism works—our minds can be reduced to a computational process taking place within our brains.
When our brains deteriorate after death, our minds disappear—at least within our simulated universe.
Nevertheless, Omega, the dude who runs the simulation, is in the habit of making copies of the information in the simulation, including the brain information of certain favored simulated entities.
When people die in our (simulated) universe, Omega creates ‘reincarnated’ NPCs into a different simulated universe—using the copies of our brains as the information source. Therefore, these NPCs have our personalities, and our memories (up to the point in time when our brains were ‘backed up’). But they get new (immortal?) bodies. A completely naturalistic afterlife.
However, whatever “near death experiences” really are, they are not evidence for an afterlife as speculatively described here. Information about Omega’s activities doesn’t flow into our naturalistic universe. Instead, information about our universe flows out. The kind of afterlife I have described leaves no evidence.
So, what kind of afterlife does leave evidence? I find it hard to imagine an afterlife scenario in which the Omega in question is so sloppy as to allow information to leak back into his simulation.
ETA: Hmmm. Now that I think about it, my speculation described two universes—a completely naturalistic ‘first-life’ universe, and a less naturalistic ‘after-life’ universe. Information clearly does flow into the after-life universe. The origin of each reincarnated mind requires a miracle. So, I guess what I am saying is that I doubt the existence of evidence that there will be an afterlife. But I suspect that evidence for an prior life should be pretty overwhelming once you get to the afterlife. So, I’m pretty much ruling out Hinduism—at least as I understand it.
It depends on the nature of the afterlife. In that regard “afterlife” is like “God” in that there are so many different versions of what the term means that making the belief pay rent in any reasonable amount of time can be difficult. But if one looks at most traditional afterlife claims, then those which pay rent fail pretty miserably. at their expectations Take for example classical Spiritualism or Roman Catholicism as useful examples.
Could you expand on how they fail in their expectations? I’m not sure what exactly it is you’re referring to.
Honestly, I would say that the idea of an afterlife is much harder to assail than one of God. Definitions of God that excuse it from providing evidence we don’t observe tend to be incoherent, unsatisfying, or morally reprehensible, whereas it’s not clear that the definitions that excuse an afterlife from providing evidence make it any less satisfying.
Could you expand on how they fail in their expectations? I’m not sure what exactly it is you’re referring to.
To use the example of Spiritualism the entire claim revolved around the ability to talk to the dead and for the dead to easily manifest themselves through mediums. That fails miserably (hence the very long history of mediums being caught engaging in fraudulent behavior often involving cheap magic tricks.) But, just as with God, the solution has been to move to less and less testable hypotheses, so that instead of forming actual entities that speak and interact many modern mediums claim only to be able to get vague feelings and images.
Honestly, I would say that the idea of an afterlife is much harder to assail than one of God.
That seems like a valid point. There’s a difference in degree here. I’m not convinced that it is a difference in kind.
Given the existence of an afterlife, what other sort of evidence would you expect to be forthcoming though?
The kind of evidence would depend upon the kind of afterlife. One notion of an afterlife that ought to get at least a little respect around here is this:
We exist within a simulation.
Within our simulated universe, reductionism works—our minds can be reduced to a computational process taking place within our brains.
When our brains deteriorate after death, our minds disappear—at least within our simulated universe.
Nevertheless, Omega, the dude who runs the simulation, is in the habit of making copies of the information in the simulation, including the brain information of certain favored simulated entities.
When people die in our (simulated) universe, Omega creates ‘reincarnated’ NPCs into a different simulated universe—using the copies of our brains as the information source. Therefore, these NPCs have our personalities, and our memories (up to the point in time when our brains were ‘backed up’). But they get new (immortal?) bodies. A completely naturalistic afterlife.
However, whatever “near death experiences” really are, they are not evidence for an afterlife as speculatively described here. Information about Omega’s activities doesn’t flow into our naturalistic universe. Instead, information about our universe flows out. The kind of afterlife I have described leaves no evidence.
So, what kind of afterlife does leave evidence? I find it hard to imagine an afterlife scenario in which the Omega in question is so sloppy as to allow information to leak back into his simulation.
ETA: Hmmm. Now that I think about it, my speculation described two universes—a completely naturalistic ‘first-life’ universe, and a less naturalistic ‘after-life’ universe. Information clearly does flow into the after-life universe. The origin of each reincarnated mind requires a miracle. So, I guess what I am saying is that I doubt the existence of evidence that there will be an afterlife. But I suspect that evidence for an prior life should be pretty overwhelming once you get to the afterlife. So, I’m pretty much ruling out Hinduism—at least as I understand it.
It depends on the nature of the afterlife. In that regard “afterlife” is like “God” in that there are so many different versions of what the term means that making the belief pay rent in any reasonable amount of time can be difficult. But if one looks at most traditional afterlife claims, then those which pay rent fail pretty miserably. at their expectations Take for example classical Spiritualism or Roman Catholicism as useful examples.
Could you expand on how they fail in their expectations? I’m not sure what exactly it is you’re referring to.
Honestly, I would say that the idea of an afterlife is much harder to assail than one of God. Definitions of God that excuse it from providing evidence we don’t observe tend to be incoherent, unsatisfying, or morally reprehensible, whereas it’s not clear that the definitions that excuse an afterlife from providing evidence make it any less satisfying.
To use the example of Spiritualism the entire claim revolved around the ability to talk to the dead and for the dead to easily manifest themselves through mediums. That fails miserably (hence the very long history of mediums being caught engaging in fraudulent behavior often involving cheap magic tricks.) But, just as with God, the solution has been to move to less and less testable hypotheses, so that instead of forming actual entities that speak and interact many modern mediums claim only to be able to get vague feelings and images.
That seems like a valid point. There’s a difference in degree here. I’m not convinced that it is a difference in kind.