OK, I have always thought that the stories of the Heaven and Hell as the afterlife are a con. They convince you that belief without proof (faith)  is a powerful way to connect with God. One philosopher likened this to leaping off a cliff on a horse, in the dark, without being able to see an “other side” to the chasm, and being certain that you would arrive safely on the other side. Not something that I would have much faith in. So I have always seen faith as a confidence game. But it has just dawned on me that the con could be much worse if heaven and hell are actually real and God is lying about being the “good guy” and the combination of his church and the Holy Roman Empire has lead Christians in the past and present to kill Gods “children” in the name of God to further their political aims. But God tells us in his commandments that we MUST NOT KILL!!! So, do all those religious zealot murderers go to Hell for killing, or go to Heaven for doing it in God’s name? And all those people who couldn’t care less if there is a God or not, or what he might have to say, get through their lives by being fair, never killing anyone, and helping out their fellow man whatever they look like, will end up in hell, because they haven’t accepted Jesus Christ into their hearts. Well, it looks to me like actions define whether you are following one set of rules or another, not the person or god you give your faith to. (talking about this topic in terms of racial injustice is another false point of view as all homo sapiens on the planet are of the same “Race” as we are all the same species and have no problems inter-breading, unlike, for instance cardinals and sparrows, which are both birds but of different species and can correctly be called different races of birds although that is still not the term normally used for this distinction. So, talking about different races of humans is a discriminatory practice in its very structure. There is only one human race, and it includes all the ranges of characteristics that a human being can possess. So if you say black people aren’t human, then you can as easily say Blonds aren’t either, or Blue eyes make you subhuman, or just pick any trait you want. Racism is a fundamental Roman concept for how you enslave others…now back to our rant).

So, the conditions, as I see them, are people who live evil lives in the name of God, or good lives in the name of God (“in the name of God” means you fulfill that faith in Jesus requirement for going to heaven)  all of these people go to heaven, while all those who lived before the birth of Christ, and all those born afterward who do not bow down to Jesus as lord, go to Hell. On the face of it this is not fair at the very least. But, what if the whole setup is a con. What if, when you can ignore the Roman teachings and not believe in a higher authority for your actions than yourself, and take responsibility for your behavior, your DO go to Hell, and in all cases where you believe that Jesus is Lord you DO go to Heaven, but Heaven is the most terrible place you could ever in your worst nightmare imagine, with people who are of the evil, conniving, rip your guts out sort, and you are stuck there for all eternity, while Hell, on the other hand is the most wonderful place you could ever imagine, full of interesting, helpful, happy people., and you get to stay as long as you like.

Now that is a con! When I consider that I have written this and have not been struck down by the wrath of God for blasphemy, just that fact alone re-enforces my belief that if there actually is a creator of everything, he doesn’t interfere in the world he created, but just observes the results and takes notes. But, I’m not even sure that is necessary for the universe to exist. We have not even the vaguest concept of forever. Even our mathematicians  can’t come to terms with the concept of Infinite. So the easiest answer for why the universe exists is that for most of eternity the total mass and energy of the universe is zero. There is no universe and time has no real meaning. Over an infinite period of that not quite real time a few hundred trillion years of existence of a universe is a minor statistical deviation from zero and of no particular notice when viewed against all of eternity. By the Copernican Principle that, if it is like that here, then it is like that inother things as well, we can infer that consciousness follows the same model, being created at birth, and ceasing to exist when the body dies. A brief flash in the forever of time. My only reason for having any thoughts that there may actually be an afterlife is that nature doesn’t waste anything. In the material world nothing is ever thrown away, it just gets reused, and recycled. If the spiritual, cognitive side of life operates on the same principles then there would be a mechanism for re-using the experienced consciousness in some way. As we don’t have an firm proof that they are being re-incarnated in our world, even though many adhere to this belief, the concept of the afterlife gives nature another opportunity to use this experience. So I am still willing to consider the afterlife as a possibility even when we have no idea what it might be like.

One of the things that is wonderful about language (and its root problem for communication) is the fact that we can talk about things that don’t or might not exist. We can describe the flight characteristics of a dragon and how hydrogen production in their digestion would make it easier for them to fly, when there are no examples to point to, only stories. The afterlife appears to be in the same sort of situation, except that we have the suspicion that because of its nature it may exist but just not be a part of our 4 dimensional universe. Those are actually very different things to be talking about and yet language provides opportunities for expressing thoughts on either subject. That the elaboration the the two reflexes of “reach and grasp” and “suckling” could become such a complex form of communication expressed both in writing and vocal speach? I find it quite fascinating the tricks you can teach human beings to do. But, again, I have gotten a bit off topic.

I guess my bottom line in this rant is that a con is the hardest thing to analyse because it is like the scattering problem in Physics, you can infer from intent, what actions might be taken, but it is very difficult, if not impossible, to determine intent from perceived actions.  So figuring out the “Depth” of the con is a challenge and if the con artist is infinitely more intelligent than you are, you have no chance of figuring it out. One of the saving graces of this argument is that, if there actually is an afterlife, we will all eventually end up there. And if there isn’t an afterlife, then what we do here is much more important that it would be if we could fix it in the afterlife. So, it seems like in either case, no matter what the actual facts are in this particular argument, that directing our human lives in the most loving and universally useful way possible to us is the only approach any of us should be taking for living in this world. Our rational minds should be enough to solve the problem. The difficulty is identifying and ignoring the distractions placed to divert one from the correct path. That is why, I think, the challenge is so difficult, with the participants appearing to be working on different principles than the correct ones and different from each other’s principles. How do we evolve beyond this problem without killing ourselves off first? That is the big question.