posted on May, 13 2014 @ 12:17 AM
I see now what you mean by "based on science." Due to the empirical nature of scientific study we cannot posit the existence of a soul, life after
death, or anything non-material for that matter. As a result, you jump to the conclusion that we don't have a soul, and there is no life after death.
You point to matters of fact, and deny the existence of anything that is not a matter of fact. While this is not necessarily my viewpoint, it is a
fairly common one, in line with most scientists and philosophers of science who believe in a Physicalist view of our existence.
Where my confusion stems from is how you deny the existence of a soul or life after death, yet maintain the existence of consciousness. While we have
more hope for scientifically reducing consciousness, we are nowhere near doing so. At this point, consciousness has eluded scientific
explanation just as much as "the soul" and "life after death." Instead of science, you appeal to our universal subjective belief in consciousness
as: something we can't explain, but know we have.
My problem with this... since you posit the existence of consciousness, it deserves a scientific explanation, does it not? If you can't provide a
scientific explanation for consciousness, it seems unreasonable to expect me to arbitrarily reject a number of immaterial phenomena such as "the
soul" and "life after death," yet accept the existence of a potentially immaterial consciousness. As far as I know my subjective belief in "the
soul" and "life after death" is just as valid as my belief in consciousness.