Afterlife Analogy

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Saw this little story the other day. Thought it was kinda funny. Not sure if this is the right place to post it.

In a mother's womb were two babies. One asked the other: "Do you believe in life after delivery?"

The other replies, "why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later."

"Nonsense," says the other. "There is no life after delivery. What would that life be?"

"I don't know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths."

The other says "This is absurd! Walking is impossible. And eat with our mouths? Ridiculous. The umbilical cord supplies nutrition. Life after delivery is to be excluded. The umbilical cord is too short."

"I think there is something and maybe it's different than it is here."

The other replies, "No one has ever come back from there. Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery it is nothing but darkness and anxiety and it takes us nowhere."

"Well, I don't know," says the other, "but certainly we will see mother and she will take care of us."

"Mother??" You believe in mother? Where is she now?"

"She is all around us. It is in her that we live. Without her there would not be this world."

"I don't see her, so it's only logical that she doesn't exist."

To which the other replied, "sometimes when you're in silence you can hear her, you can perceive her."


Thoughts on the analogy? Criticisms of it?

 

[variant]

Thoughts on the analogy? Criticisms of it?

Well for one thing the world outside the womb would be apparent to any baby and it's sensory range if it could think in abstractions like that.

Second, life seems very unlike the sheltered environment of the womb, so that part of the analogy seems to fail.

Third, where did the one baby come by all this info? How do they know about delivery? Was there a third baby?

I'm very confused.

 

[quatona]

Talking fetuses? Um, ok, I´m already convinced of whatever this is meant to be an analogy for.
I think it would have been even more convincing if one of the fetusses had been a non-believing professor, or something.

 

[Paradoxum]

Well a reason not to believe in life after death is because our mind seems to be part of the brain. So when the brain dies, there is no mind. There is no analogy to that here.

The fetus' apparently know what the umbilical cord does, so I see no reason why they wouldn't know that the mouth connects to the stomach too.

Also, I don't know if atheists ever argue that the lack of evidence for God proves that God doesn't exist. So there's a strawman.

A mother would be able to communicate with such intelligent fetus' if it was important. The communication could be heard by both fetus', so they could know it wasn't just psychology. And a good mother would communicate, if such communication was necessary to avoid torture.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Thoughts on the analogy? Criticisms of it?

I don't see how "life after delivery" is even remotely analogous to life after death.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[durangodawood]

...Thoughts on the analogy? Criticisms of it?

If there was actually life after death, it might be a passable analogy.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The analogy is one big exercise in begging the question.

There is very little payoff. Yes, human beings aren't omniscient, and may be mistaken about some things. No one suggests otherwise. However is invalid to suggest, in effect: "We don't know if there is life after death, so we'll assume that there is life after death".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[brightlights]

I think it's funny how many here don't understand the purpose and nature of analogy.

 

[Paradoxum]

I think it's funny how many here don't understand the purpose and nature of analogy.

Do you?

 

[jacks]

I thought it was a cute analogy. It was merely pointing out that we aren't as smart as we think we are. We are confined by our perceptions and prior experiences.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think it's funny how many here don't understand the purpose and nature of analogy.

Do tell. Enlighten us as to your purpose here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[brightlights]

Do tell. Enlighten us as to your purpose here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Analogy is a tool of language like metaphor and poetry. It's used to bring together to different worlds of discourse so that each can illumine the other. It's not meant to be precise language. For that reason every good analogy brings certain light but also breaks down at other points. All language contains analogy and metaphor to some degree, even my previous sentence. When I say that a metaphor sheds light on an issue I do not mean literal light. Still the analogous and metaphorical language enhances understanding by making certain abstract ideas sensible.

 

[Paradoxum]

I thought it was a cute analogy. It was merely pointing out that we aren't as smart as we think we are. We are confined by our perceptions and prior experiences.

But we don't all think the same thing, about how smart we are. So how could it possibly point that out?

As far as I can tell, the analogy is pretty bad. Nothing about the analogy is comparable to death.

Analogy is a tool of language like metaphor and poetry. It's used to bring together to different worlds of discourse so that each can illumine the other. It's not meant to be precise language. For that reason every good analogy brings certain light but also breaks down at other points. All language contains analogy and metaphor to some degree, even my previous sentence. When I say that a metaphor sheds light on an issue I do not mean literal light. Still the analogous and metaphorical language enhances understanding by making certain abstract ideas sensible.

What about the analogy is good? This the umbilical cord an analogy to the brain? I don't see how that is a good analogy at all.

Merely phrasing something like an analogy doesn't mean the analogy is a good one, or shows anything.

 

[brightlights]

What about the analogy is good? This the umbilical cord an analogy to the brain? I don't see how that is a good analogy at all.

Merely phrasing something like an analogy doesn't mean the analogy is a good one, or shows anything.

The analogy accomplishes certain things. It's trying to get at the absurdity of our confidence in spite of our ignorance. The skeptical baby is confident that only what he knows by sense experience is real though we know that he's truly ignorant. When he's born he'll see what he couldn't see before.

In the same way we are often overly confident in our positions when we may very well be truly ignorant. The analogy suggests that perhaps life in this age and life in the next age is analogous to this ignorance.

 

[Paradoxum]

The analogy accomplishes certain things. It's trying to get at the absurdity of our confidence in spite of our ignorance.

Well I'd agree that in the analogy, the skeptical baby is ignorant and coming to a bad conclusion.

But our knowledge of different things isn't all the same. So I don't see how you can claim this has anything to tell us about our attitude towards the afterlife, for example.

The skeptical baby is confident that only what he knows by sense experience is real though we know that he's truly ignorant. When he's born he'll see what he couldn't see before.

You mean the skeptical baby only believe in the womb, and nothing outside, because it has only experienced the womb?

This gets back to me asking what this has to do with the afterlife. My problem with the afterlife isn't that I don't think a heaven could exist... my problem is that the mind is dependant on the brain. When the brain is harmed, the mind is harmed... and when the brain is destroyed, the mind is probably destroyed too.

In the same way we are often overly confident in our positions when we may very well be truly ignorant. The analogy suggests that perhaps life in this age and life in the next age is analogous to this ignorance.

Well yes, maybe we are ignorant, but maybe we aren't massively ignorant. That's why we consider the arguments to see how strong they are.

 

[Gadarene]

Talking fetuses? Um, ok, I´m already convinced of whatever this is meant to be an analogy for.
I think it would have been even more convincing if one of the fetusses had been a non-believing professor, or something.

 

[brightlights]

To respond to Paradoxum...

Well analogies aren't arguments and they don't have the convincing force of arguments. They're used to help people who probably already accept the idea. The purpose of the analogy is to make the idea sensible. By "sensible" I mean "able to be sensed". The abstract idea becomes more concrete in the analogy. So I'm not surprised you're unconvinced.

 

[durangodawood]

To respond to Paradoxum...

Well analogies aren't arguments and they don't have the convincing force of arguments. They're used to help people who probably already accept the idea. The purpose of the analogy is to make the idea sensible. By "sensible" I mean "able to be sensed". The abstract idea becomes more concrete in the analogy. So I'm not surprised you're unconvinced.

I like your examination of the function of analogy. Well done.

 

[Paradoxum]

To respond to Paradoxum...

Well analogies aren't arguments and they don't have the convincing force of arguments. They're used to help people who probably already accept the idea. The purpose of the analogy is to make the idea sensible. By "sensible" I mean "able to be sensed". The abstract idea becomes more concrete in the analogy. So I'm not surprised you're unconvinced.

Good analogies can be fairly convincing, even for those who don't agree to begin with. Of course arguments normally go along with them to explain what the point is.

I fairly often use thought experiments (analogies) to think about issues. If you notice the similarity between two things, then you might change your mind on an issue.

The reason I am unconvinced is because this particular analogy is particularly bad. It also doesn't come with an explanation.

 

[variant]

I think it's funny how many here don't understand the purpose and nature of analogy.

Understanding the nature and purpose of analogy is what caused people to criticize the one in the OP.