Intro to "Lights Out" Theory

WARNING

If religion is a very touchy subject for you, I must warn you against reading the next few posts. No, I will not be abusive or intentionally disrespectful. Many of my readers are friends or family members. But while I don't like the idea of hurting people, considering the honesty I insist upon when examining this subject, it may be inevitable.

There. I've warned you.

Now, I encourage you to read the following. It may, believe it or not, provide comfort to you. If nothing else, it may prove a testing ground for your faith.

Ahhemm...


Introduction

If you read my last post in its entirety, you would understand that when it comes to death, I am a fan of the Lights Out theory. Literally, Lights Out means that you go nowhere.

That's it.

Done.

Finished.

Dead.

Figuratively, the Lights Out theory may also mean that we simply have no means of shedding light on what happens when we die, at least not beyond the purely speculative theological explanations which emanate from, shall we say, questionable sources.

But aside from the fact that I think you're too happy, why does this even matter? Even if there is no life after death, what's the harm in simply believing in a paradise, a heaven, or reincarnation so long as it helps people get through this life in a generally decent state? Death is a personal issue, right?

Well... not really. This is not simply a personal issue for the very reasons many of you are at this point feeling some level of discomfort. First off, you don’t like the idea of someone else’s actionable notions of death limiting your own perspective and experiences in life. Along these lines, evangelical types are proof positive that attitudes about the proper entrance to a given afterlife are inherently political. I am also evangelical in this sense: what you believe to be the best path to Heaven or Nirvana -- or whatever -- places an onus on everyone else who is living, whether they seek that same paradise or not.

So stop pretending you know where we're headed!

I, for one, am tired of people clinging (yes, in the face of all that science and philosophy have brought us, folks are indeed clinging) to essentially autocratic, theological perspectives that limit rights, limit increased individual and social access to greater human potential, and lead to improper, unjust uses of state power against otherwise innocent people. I am particularly weary of people claiming that conceptions of morality and justice are inherently tied to some notion of a God who's authority emanates from his part in deciding where you are placed in an afterlife.

On this basis I am sorry to conclude that, even if you are a good religious person, as a point of fact, your immortal fantasy harms people directly. Theological notions of an afterlife provide a basis for preventing otherwise intelligent people from realizing a higher degree of their potential human experience, for continuously granting people license to hurt and abuse, and for providing refuge to otherwise despicable, draconian power politicians.

Now, it may be that many people would do horrible things in a world without religion. I agree that this idea is not simply possibly true but nearly impossible to refute. It is also true that religious faith has been a very positive force in reversing oppression, and the practice of valuing education finds its roots in many ancient religious movements, Judaism and Buddhism in particular. However, while a world without a theological basis for notions of immortality and infallibility will certainly not be perfect, a world without religion provides fewer excuses, fewer loopholes for domineering, abusive, oppressive, and ignorant behavior. Most importantly, there are ways to fight oppression and value education that provide less gravity for the ensuing tribalism. Ironically, mine is the theory that leads to fewer negative consequences.

Yes, the Lights Out perspective is a theory. Can't say I've been completely dead before, so I can't really say where we go after we die, or that we don't go anywhere at all. That said, theory is not synonymous with opinion. I resent the idea that Lights Out theory is opinion. It is certainly not based on some notion of what I would like to have happen when I die. Instead, Lights Out theory derives its authority from honest, even dour examinations of what it means to die in light of our (verifiable) reality. If nothing else, it is a theoretical position employable as a means of questioning those who attempt convincing us to misplace our precious faith.

Still, many assert that notions of an afterlife operate entirely on the basis of mere opinion. If a matter of simple opinion, it should be stated that my opinion is still better than competing opinions. Why? Those who have formulated or simply conjured up competing opinions were also not dead when doing so. We are at least equal on these grounds.

From this point, my competitors begin enhancing the validity of my Lights Out theory. While making positive assertions, my competitors provide no valid or consistent reasoning to back up their belief that there is an afterlife, let alone their ostensibly factual account of what it's like or how to get there. Perhaps resulting from their lack of dying, they can give no examples. I on the other hand am not required to provide examples, because I make no such claims.

Further, there is a rather understandable, rather pervasive bias operating amongst my competitors. It is rather easy to see that most people believe in an afterlife, because they just don't want to die. While I've no desire for death, I have discounted my love of life in order to honestly consider this problem. Therefore, it is fair to say that I have done a great deal to dilute this bias where others have not even tried. As I have little or no reason to lie to myself about any of this, I have done a great deal towards preventing myself from giving you false information. I am therefore much less likely to parrot falsehood as truth.

This in mind, I ask that you not confuse my obvious distaste for religion with some similarly mindless worship of “Science and Logic”. This is perhaps the most crucial point of my introduction. Again, I am not trying to say that “Science” with a capital “S” has proven my theory. And while I may use logic and scientific methodology in my own treatment of the issue, I do not think these modes of thought are cure-alls. They are simply the best available salves. I do not wish to hide behind their ever thickening veil of truthiness. Science and Logic are in no way comprehensive methods for addressing the many problems inherent to human consciousness. So please understand that I am not a callous atheist (I prefer non-theological to atheist). I am not a fan of the ivory tower, Richard Dawkins set. My goal is simply this: to clear the table of the many dogmatic, fantastic, theological assumptions currently limiting our individual as well as collective ability to face the notion of an ultimate end.

The notion of an afterlife is the central promise of any religion. Personally, I draw the line for Buddhists when they speak of reincarnation in terms of immortality and literal rebirth. In adopting this notion of an immortal, the notion that there is no death, one crosses the line from philosophy to theology. So central is such a notion of immortality to religion that to believe in a religion without accepting its promise of an afterlife, without its promise of salvation, is to attempt driving a car without an engine; it is to believe you are going somewhere while admitting that, to the best of your knowledge, you clearly are not. Those of us outside the car are not sure where you are trying to go, and we are at a loss when we find your car parked on our front lawn.

We have an engine or two for you to try. Mine has been integral to running the distance our species has covered these last few centuries. My competitors, on the other hand, have sought to park or reverse our course. But my view, the negative, slate clearing act of defiant disbelief, is only half of hard science methodology, and it is only a fraction of the human art. Alone it would be simple nihilism. I must offer something as a substitute, lest you write me off entirely. Please accept that, as a matter of my positive faith, basing an understanding of your mortality on its truly stark terms is the most efficient, cleanest burning fuel for your future vehicle.

In Part 1 of this 4 post series, I will show religious "faith" little respect as I disprove a swath of theological perspectives, especially the silly, impotent notion of "Spirituality". As I have never met or in any way interacted with Gods, I will not attack Gods. I will, however, prove that no one else has ever interacted with a God or "higher power" of any kind. Therefore, I will help you conclude that religions are essentially bare opinion in the order of ridiculous fantasy, and that religious faith offers no authority on any subject, least of all the notion of an afterlife.

In Part 2, I will elaborate on why specific religious positions towards the afterlife are ridiculous and even self-contradictory to the point where they are clearly the result of human psychology.

In Part 3, I will introduce a few brief arguments to show you why I am in fact quite justified in so harshly requesting you update your millennium old social software for a less viral form of actually dealing with life!!!

In Part 4, the real thrust of all this, I will conclude by elaborating on the power of faith. Unlike a Protestant and more like a protester, I will ask that you to cut out the middle men and put faith directly into yourself.

Stay tuned for Part 1: Leave God Out of This