Talk:Afterlife/Archive 2

Standard Model rules out life after death
According to the Standard Model life after death is impossible. We should intergrate that fact into the article. Sean Carroll: "Just knowing that the Standard Model Of Particle Physics is the right theory of thet matter that makes up the everyday world is immediateley enough, to rule out a whole host of possible phenomena..." The fact that the Standard Model is true just rules out the existence of an afterlife. That fact should be more apparent in this article. --87.174.175.192 (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That is a POV assertion. Any notion or possible manifestation of an Afterlife is an un-testable idea, therefore not subject to the scientific method. The existence of an Afterlife is a scientifically un-quantifiable state, not subject to any metric test: therefore one can not say it exists or does not exist if one can not measure it. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it unhelpful to work on the basis that an afterlife must be untestable and wholly separate from the material world, because quite a lot of people who believe in an afterlife claim to have found real-world evidence of it. For instance, there have been countless people who claim to communicate with the dead; of course it's a delusion and/or a scam, but in principle all we need is for one of them to be genuine and, bingo, solid evidence that an afterlife exists. By the way, why capitalise the A in afterlife? bobrayner (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Testimony is not "solid evidence". This is why we have the Scientific Method. This is why paranormal phenomena repeatedly fail scientific tests, or are not subject to them. An afterlife is not objectively measurable, thus it can not be scientifically confirmed. And no reason in capitalizing the "A". I suppose just because I was writing on the article title. Boneyard90 (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not a POV assertion. Sean Carroll is a scientist who thinks completely rational and neutral based on proven theorys. --87.174.170.206 (talk) 11:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a POV assertion. POV stands for "Point of View". http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/point_of_view Acalycine talk  11:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I know what pov stands for. Just listen to his arguments and you'll see that his conclusion is grounded in facts. --87.174.170.206 (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Life after death is, of course, scientifically testable. So far, no test has demonstrated it, but that doesn't mean it isn't testable. Does life after death have to be testable? No to that, also. Of course, we can't test the insides of a black hole, either, so it's nothing to be upset about. Rklawton (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

To the AnonIP: Theories and hypotheses are never "proven" in science. They are supported by evidence, or the evidence fails to support them. The afterlife is not supported by evidence, however, there is no way to send any un-biased metric "into" an afterlife, therefore there is no way to test it. If an afterlife exists, there is no way to send a human "there", with objective measuring equipment, therefore there is no way, there is no hypothesis, no methodology that can support the existence of an afterlife. Therefore, it is not testable. This person, Sean Carroll, has used observable facts to conclude there is no afterlife, but all he has found is an absence of evidence, and made inferential conclusions. The simple absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It seems to be another expansion on philosophical ideas of the existence (or non-existence) of an afterlife. I probably would have no objection to the addition of his conclusions, referenced, but it can not be presented as an absolute, or factual, truth. - Boneyard90 (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you have a confirmation bias. Go out and learn some physics, about the real world, and broaden your mind. --87.174.135.114 (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I recommend you to read this article. --87.174.135.114 (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Just like this Sean Caroll, you seem to make inferences based on minimal evidence, and assume they are confirmed. You really know nothing about me. I am trying to keep the article neutral. - Boneyard90 (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You can live with your wishful thinking but I gonna work Sean Carrolls insight into the article soon. I don't care about hurting your dreams or wishful thingkings. The only thing I care about is the truth. --87.174.140.52 (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What, is this serious? I've already said: "I probably would have no objection to the addition of his conclusions, referenced". Add away. Just remember, it can't be put forth as fact, and you can't cite Youtube. - Boneyard90 (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Limbo section inconsistent with Limbo entry
As per the "Limbo" section

"On Friday, April 20, 2007 Pope Benedict XVI, abolished the whole idea saying he "showed doubt about the concept of limbo". He cited his concerns about it when he was a cardinal."

As per the "Limbo" main article

"Media reports that by the document "the Pope closed Limbo"[34] are thus without foundation. In fact, the document explicitly states that "the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium. Still, that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis" (second preliminary paragraph); and in paragraph 41 it repeats that the theory of Limbo "remains a possible theological opinion". The document thus allows the hypothesis of a limbo of infants to be held as one of the existing theories about the fate of children who die without being baptised, a question on which there is "no explicit answer" from Scripture or tradition.[33] It ought also to be mentioned here that the traditional theological alternative to Limbo was not Heaven, but rather some degree of suffering in Hell. At any rate, these theories are not the official teaching of the Catholic Church, but are only opinions that the Church does not condemn, permitting them to be held by its members, just as is the theory of possible salvation for infants dying without baptism."

I am removing the sentence from the "Limbo" section in order to resolve the discrepancy as it is not at all cited while the Limbo entry section is much stronger. Cassius235 (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Science
The science section should represent the scientific consensus on the subject not fringe views or paranormal views from parapsychologists. I have removed unreliable references from this section sourced to YouTube videos. Goblin Face (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure there is any consensus on scientific arena on this. It is not quite logical to label the studies carried out by some -who stick to the scientific method- as parapsychology. Logos (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The studies in question are also off-topic. 'Near-death experiences' are experiences reported by the living - any connection to a supposed 'afterlife' is pure supposition, and beyond the realm of science. If the subject were on topic, this article would of course have to reflect the scientific consensus on the subject, rather than that of fringe parapsychology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The removed material was/is about the people who carried out Near-death studies. You might not know that Near-death studies is not just listening to the Near-death experiences of living people. As you know, we can't correct people's views in wikipedia by excluding the material about their studies, we can just report ("the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth"). Near-death studies and Near-death experiences are directly related to Afterlife, because one of the POVs see that way, so the removed material is on-topic. Logos (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Um, no. The section is labelled 'science', and the clear scientific consensus is that whatever 'near-death studies' are studying, it isn't the 'afterlife' - because that is beyond the realm of scientific explanation. We de not represent fringe claims as mainstream - and the claim that 'the afterlife' can be studied via science is about as fringe as one could get. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Which "clear scientific consensus" are you talking about, where are the references? Apart from that, the citations given in that science section are not qualified/sufficient enough to reflect a clear scientific consensus, if there is any: a letter from a psychologist and a theologist, and a Time magazine article without any citation/reference (that can imply a consensus) by a Harvard Psychology Professor. Even the former source has a statement like this: "Yet, models of perceptual and motor capacities such as color vision and gait do not directly threaten the idea of the soul. You can still believe in what Gilbert Ryle called 'the ghost in the machine' and simply conclude that color vision and gait are features of the machine rather than the ghost". Neither of the sources mention any consensus. Near-death studies are studying whether the individual's identity or consciousness continues to exist after/near the death, which is related to the afterlife. Logos (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Raymond Moody (psychologist and medical doctor), Elisabeth Kübler-Ross (psychiatrist), Pim van Lommel (cardiologist), Sam Parnia ( Assistant professor of medicine at the State University of New York), Bruce Greyson (Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Virginia), and Kenneth Ring (Professor Emeritus of psychology at the University of Connecticut). These are not fringe people. Editor2020, Talk 14:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think these ideas should be ignored, but I do think that a Near-death experience section would be sufficient. Editor2020, Talk 15:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We have a section entirely dedicated to parapsychology. I have no objection to mentioning them there, but keep it to the appropriate section (and make it clear where views are a bit fringe). That said, the parapsychology section itself has major issues to do with bias towards fringe ideas. The ridiculously extensive Fontana quotation is probabbly amongst the worse, where it seems like he gets quoted simply because he's willing to put the fringe views really strongly. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Why do we need a section named as science for a cultural topic/concept/belief? It is a quite stupid ambition/passion to insert such science sections into paranormal topics or cultural beliefs. Do prominent encyclopedias (britannica, etc.) have such a section? This section shuld be moved to Consciousness_after_death. Logos (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Because it has a section on Parapsychology and makes direct scientific claims about evidence. Subject fields are dealt with under their own standards of evidence: If something claims to have scientific backing, as many paranormal fields do, but this claim is, in fact, a fringe claim within science, then WP:FRINGE requires we comment on it. But if something is framed as mythology, we don't need to. The story of Phaethon does not present itself as a scientific claim. Creationism does.
 * For that matter, this is a generalist article. It should include all major viewpoints, including the view that it doesn't exist. Christianity doesn't need to discuss Buddhism or Atheism, but the general article on Religion should. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The grounds for inclusion can not be the existence of parapsychology section, as it may also be moved to Consciousness_after_death. Even if parapsychological studies choose to use afterlife as the term, which I suspect is the case, afterlife topic should be free from both. We should frame the subject the same as other prominent encyclopedias do. Logos (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, and my second point, that this is a generalist article, which you have ignored? Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Afterlife: Should we cut it?
I'm not convinced the parapsychologists listed are particularly representative - it's very easy to simply list people one finds that say something, rather than create an overview. I mean, one of them is cited to the comic magazine Punch, which is not a good sign, to say the least. I think cutting this section would improve the article. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and cut it for now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

African Religions and After life?
African Religions and After life? I see Ancient Egypt but apparently it is not in Africa anymore. But we need more African religions included. --Inayity (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The metaphysical model and Buddhism without God
What, pray tell, is a metaphysical model? Where is the reference for that or the blue link to it?

I think we need some citation requests or remarks that this article seems like editorial innovation. We're not interested in the editor's classification, we want the classifications of the experts. This is the first warning. On the second pass I put on some tags. Generally speaking the article covers a lot of territory so it is likely to turn into a big job.

I'm not sure Buddhism can be called a religion without God. I don't want to pull your chain or anything, but whose classification is that? Well, let's go a little further. If there is no god, why should we reverence him? When is God not God? What are you going to do if nothing at all suddenly addresses you? Sign into a mental hospital? Good luck.

I don't generally find this classification very satisfactory from a Wikipedian point of view. There are no references to key concepts and classifications. That is because they are not expert concepts but Wikipedian editorial classifications. I don't think we should accept this Procrustean Bed in any way. This article offers us system. It sells us little packets of concepts. There is considerable trouble about getting some things into packets. Maybe it won't go into packets. Maybe it will take your packets and stuff them up your nose! Ever think of that? Rationalist classifications just don't cover the experience I fear. I know I have just destroyed your credibility in me. But in fact I don't care. I don't want it and if you ever thought of offering it, you're up the wrong track. What we want to do here is offer the systems of the experts. That way, when it all goes wrong, they can take the blame for it.Botteville (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2016
Under the "other" category, would it be possible to add a section on the Mayan beliefs of the afterlife? The research that could be added to this article presently resides in the "Maya Death Rituals" article.

G.L. Ashworth (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Scientific afterlife through resurrection?
From a scientific uniformitarian/non-essentialist viewpoint, a person's consciousness and their perception of its continuity are physical, non-location-bound phenomena and therefore should be perfectly (though not necessarily easily) reproducible. There's nothing to prevent a sufficiently advanced intelligent agent (future humans/AIs/aliens with nothing better to do) from resurrecting a random person of choice. Further, if the universe/multiverse is expansive enough, specific conscious states and associated memories are likely to re-appear at different instances of time and space through mere coincidence. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:18F9:98D9:AD10:42FA (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Afterlife. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070527235028/http://www.catholic.com:80/library/roots_of_purgatory.asp to http://www.catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120104021648/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm
 * Added tag to http://Academy%20for%20Spiritual%20and%20Consciousness%20Studies

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Afterlife. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722154244/http://www.umportal.org/article.asp?id=5101 to http://www.umportal.org/article.asp?id=5101
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311081839/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-76 to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-76

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Afterlife. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151106125811/http://en.allexperts.com/q/Unitarians-945/unitarian-view-afterlife.htm to http://en.allexperts.com/q/Unitarians-945/unitarian-view-afterlife.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130109062948/http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=3040&C=2598 to http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=3040&C=2598
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111205005800/http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=2736&C=2480 to http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=2736&C=2480

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Reborn into this world
The individual "may be reborn into this world", this article says - should the article say that this is known as reincarnation?Vorbee (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Christian soteriology
The section on Christian beliefs in the afterlife is headed by a tag saying "See also Christian eschatology". Eschatology is the doctrine of last things, so would a tag saying "See also soteriology be more appropriate?Vorbee (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

MEDRS
I have doubts that the sources provided in the most recent edit qualify as WP:MEDRS (possible yes for the first one, the second one is probably not WP:RS at all. I would also open the question to all references in this article: do they comply with WP:MEDRS and do they need to? Elizium23 (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Afterlives in American Belief Systems
I'm not immensely knowledgeable on the topic, but I feel like this article is missing a brief rundown on afterlife beliefs from Native American cultures, especially since the Incan Pacha already has a relatively robust article on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:8A80:7D00:5CC0:BBEA:3E76:AAED (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Chungis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.25.240 (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Dangling refs
I have located some dangling refs and hidden them, replacing each with a citation needed tag. This has been done because we have references pointing to sources that are not recorded in the article. Please feel free to contact me if you need assistance fixing this. - Aussie Article Writer (talk)


 * I really don't remember that edit, but that information was copied from Reincarnation and that should be available at that article. I'm not sure how to fix the citations and any help you could provide would be appreciated. Editor2020 (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Heavy reliance on primary sources, and possible OR
Large amounts of the article depend on direct references to primary texts, often with some level of interpretation of these texts. Examples of these include religious scripture, as well as late-medieval works that are considered primary sources per WP:PRIMARY. Worse, some sections are uncited entirely. In the following, I will briefly review each section, before asking how we should address this.


 * Christianity: The second half of the lede seems appropriately sourced, as does the section on Orthodox Christianity. The rest are either uncited, or are direct references.
 * Islam: The section on Ahmadiyya appears to be appropriately sourced, but the lede and the section on Sufism is not; the former, when sourced, only sources the Quran, while the later references a translation of a work by a mid-medieval Islamic Sufi scholar. Unrelated, but it appears to use more Arabic terms than MOS:FOREIGN would allow.
 * Judaism: Sourcing is better, but relies solely on direct references in the section on Sheol, and heavily in the section on the World to Come.
 * Buddhism: A single suitable source at the start, but the rest is uncited and appears to be interpretation of scripture.
 * Hinduism: Entirely unsourced, and appears to be interpretation of scripture.
 * Jainism: Sourced, but I'm not certain we would classify the source as reliable.
 * Sikhism: First section is sourced appropriately, second section is also sourced but I'm not certain we would classify the source as reliable.
 * Shinto: Unsourced, but the content may be appropriate as it stands with sources.
 * Wicca: Sourced, but the source appears to be self-published
 * Zoroastrianism: Unsourced, and appears to be interpretation of scripture.

I'm not entirely certain what the appropriate action is to do here. I am not sufficiently informed about the vast majority of these faiths to correct the issues myself, but many of the tags have been there for years and since their introduction editors have typically expanded the issue, not rectified it. I am wondering if it would be appropriate to WP:TNT the inappropriately sourced sections, but would welcome other proposed solutions. BilledMammal (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Bibliography/Potential Sources

 * Fischer, John Martin, and Benjamin Mitchell-Yellin. Near-Death Experiences: Understanding Our Visions of the Afterlife. Oxford University Press, 2016.
 * Shushan, Gregory. Conceptions of the Afterlife in Early Civilizations: Universalism, Constructivism, and near-Death Experience. Continuum, 2009.
 * Levering, Matthew. Jesus and the Demise of Death: Resurrection, Afterlife, and the Fate of the Christian. Baylor University Press, 2012.

Gravycajun (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Gravycajun


 * Ah, I now see the context for this. Hi Gravycajun, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please note my post above on the sourcing of the section on the aftermath in different religions; given the lack of appropriate sources for many of the sections it would be very suitable for WP:BOLD editing. Best of luck! BilledMammal (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gravycajun, Maeloves. Peer reviewers: Connor Aiken.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lkettelberger.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Afterlife
After life is but anal analogy we should all examine afterlife and it’s content in the United States of America which we are to see the great afterlife and resurrection tomorrow and that is my prophecy that I have because afterlife it’s like a placenta and a placenta is like afterlife and you are the center so therefore we are all afterlife 97.127.40.183 (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Spring 2022
— Assignment last updated by Gal17014 (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Honors World Religions
— Assignment last updated by Bag0hchipz (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)