The Veritas Forum at Columbia University
Comments

Knowledge Beyond Science

How Can We Know Truth Outside the Material Realm?

October 26, 2010 at 08:00 PM
Roone Arledge Auditorium, Columbia University

Presenters:

David Helfand, Chair of the Department of Astronomy at Columbia University, Co-director of the Columbia Astrophysics Laboratory
Ken Miller, Professor of Biology, Brown University

Can science’s tools be of use when we step outside the realm of matter and into the realm of values, ethics and God? Or do we need another set of tools? What can we know once we’re “out there”? Dr. David Helfand is chair of Columbia’s Department of Astronomy, the creator of Frontiers of Science, and a committed atheist. Dr. Kenneth Miller is a professor of Biology at Brown University and a firm believer in God. To watch the FULL VIDEO, click Clip #2.

Invite a Friend Tweet This Post on Facebook

{{Text}}
Posted by {{UserName}} on {{DateCreated}}

of 1

Why the afterlife is always equated with god and/or religion. Why can't we leave religion aside to discuss this so important subject? Most people speak of god as though s/he knew him or his mind, if he in fact existed. Who is god after all? How do you know that? You say you believe in god! What does that prove? You say god created all things? I ask: Who created god and where does he come from if he was the one who created all things? What is "all things?" Why the great pool of minds of this great planetary system refuses to research life after the death of the physical body in a more realistic and intelligent way? Are we all afraid of the truth? Do we have to live our lives as believers of fairy tale, santa clause, god, jesus,etc? I think we will only be able to understand what life really is when we have evolved enough to removed this religion hold from our minds.
Posted by DeixoEmBranco on 1/14/2013 7:33:02 PM

For those of you interested in discussing life after death or other religions, let's create a new thread so we can streamline the discussion a bit more.

A response to this:

"We [humans] establish the rules based upon some combination of objective evaluation of available facts, historical conventions and precedent, prejudice and politics - not necessarily in that order."

I'm curious - by what standards, rules or values does one make such "objective" evaluations? And what do you mean by "objective"?
Posted by Sarah Ngu on 10/29/2010 4:25:09 PM

Another question from the feedback survey:

If we admit that there must be some such thing as faith in general, how do we then choose which God to believe in? Why the Christian God instead of the Hindu gods? Why not the invisible unicorn?
Posted by TheVeritasForum on 10/29/2010 4:18:20 PM

"Without God, everything would be permitted."

The above statement is true. Not because a God, real or imagined, effects moral laws, but because powerful representatives uses Him to promote their own moral laws, or rather to force them on societies. Indeed, if "God is dead," as Nietzsche conceptualized, moral laws would return to something similar to those of the pagans: strength, glory, power, et cetera...as opposed to the Christian, or religious, ideas of morality: charity, compassion, virtue. Again, would this mean that "everything would be permitted"? Indeed. But the more important question would be, Is this bad? If a man is willing to risk his life for, say, religion, or for that matter, to risk the lives of others as well, then this hardly differs from a situation where he risks his life for glory. The outcome is the same. The one difference, however, is significant. If man follows his own moral laws, that is, the moral laws that more closely agree with his will to power--whether that power be found in money, politics, family, or other such things--then that is true morality. (And yes, there is a true morality: it is man's will to power, which is innate.) As Nietzsche would have it, "Be what you are."
Posted by MrHypocrite on 10/28/2010 8:50:25 PM

This question came through the feedback survey:

How do you come up with specific religious beliefs when there are so many options and you can't test which ones are better?
Posted by TheVeritasForum on 10/28/2010 8:02:27 PM

“Nothing happens to us after death, other than rapid decomposition. We have one shot at life, good or bad. Judgment is rendered by history and by those we leave behind.”

I think this is one of the common beliefs people have about judgment after death. If this is true, what is the difference between Mother Teresa, Hitler, and my dog Spot after death? The three lived very different lives but the same fate of eternal nonexistence and physical decomposition awaits them all. If nothing happens to us after death, we are no different than a dog or a bug AFTER death. From the dead’s point of view, who cares about how history judges them? They are already dead! Do you think that any kind of “good” or “bad” judgment rendered by history has any affect on those who are already dead? Right now, do you think Hitler is regretting the life he lived because history has rendered him as “evil”? Besides, judgment rendered by history is always biased, incomplete and flawed anyway. Historical judgments after the fact (or death) are not always accurate or dependable.

If there is no ultimate judgment or an ultimate standard of “good” or “bad”, the only thing we are left with are different perspectives and points of views in which anything can be argued for or against anything using any reasonable means to justify whatever you want to justify. (I’m speaking from long experiences of writing papers :))))
Posted by PeterK on 10/28/2010 3:39:45 PM

The ultimate reality in life is death. The fact that we are all going to die is inevitable. If there is no life after death, what does truth matter anyway? If decomposition and eternal nonexistence is what is waiting for me after 70-80 years of life, who really cares about truth? I mean both professors had a very intelligent discussion on truth beyond non-material but what good is truth in the face of death? To be clearer, what I mean is that whatever truth we seek in our life, it only applies to us and affects us while we are alive. But once we are dead, what good is truth to anyone? Do you think rotting dead flesh cares about truth? Therefore if there is no life after death, the “truth” we are seeking is an infinite truth which can only affect us for short period of time while we are alive in the world. But after we die we are no different than a dead dog, decomposing tree, or a rock. What good is truth then?

Instead, because people believe death is the END, we seek to please ourselves while we are alive. People don’t care about the truth. We care more about what makes me happy and what will make me happy while we are alive. Because if there is no life after death, then life is all we have. And because life is all we have, seeking a happy life becomes more important than truth.
Posted by PeterK on 10/28/2010 3:19:41 PM

Truth outside the material realm exists only in consciousness. Prior to consciousness, who is asking?

And if David Helfand and Ken Miller were to remove the “word” God, what one “word” would they use to replace it?
Posted by celeste on 10/28/2010 1:50:01 PM

I think the phrase used above, 'objective evaluation' is regressive in that to make an objective evaluation you need to use rules again.So, if you're making rules based on rules, who makes the rules that makes the rules ?

If you say that it is only material benefit that makes our rules( I scratch your back, you scratch mine ), this is contrary to evolutionary studies that prove altruism exists even in animals, primates mainly.

Everyone knows that the body is subject to rapid decomposition, since that is what happens in the material world. But the question is what happens in the non material world ? If non material truths like beauty, justice, morality, mathematics(:O) live with us in this material world, isn't there every chance of a non material life after death ? The decomposition of the body is not evidence for the absence of a non material life after death.
Posted by sipaguy on 10/28/2010 5:55:20 AM

"And if they [moral laws] lack binding force, are we not left with the reality that, 'Without God everything is permitted'?"

"What is death? What do you believe happens to us after death? Do you think that we ever judged for wrongs committed during our lives?"

I offer the following opinion:

We [humans] establish the rules based upon some combination of objective evaluation of available facts, historical conventions and precedent, prejudice and politics - not necessarily in that order. So no, it is not the case that without god everything is permitted.

Nothing happens to us after death, other than rapid decomposition. We have one shot at life, good or bad. Judgment is rendered by history and by those we leave behind.
Posted by ChristieBlick on 10/28/2010 2:59:08 AM