Eternal Life

This post is placed by Seanchan for Marc Krizack -

Can you be a materialist (or at least a skeptic who requires that there be scientifically verifiable information) and still believe in "eternal life" or "life after death"?" Well, certainly if you define life after death in a materialist way.

We know that if you have children, your DNA, or at least half of your DNA randomly mixed with the other biological parent's DNA, is passed on, and as long as each succeeding generation has at least one offspring, then parts of your DNA will continue on forever. In that sense one can sense that there is life after death. And certainly, the minerals and elements of your body return to the earth or become smoke and ashes ready to be recycled at the first opportunity.

Now, if you raise your children well and they do good things, or if you raise them badly and they do bad things, then it can be said that you live on after death in what your children do. And of course, this can also be said of what you do in your own life.

Chaos Theory says that a butterfly can flap its wings in the Amazon jungle and it can cause a hurricane a half a world away. Assuming in general that every act you do in the world has a direct effect, and that that direct effect then has further effects that ripple out, one can say that anything you do in life causes changes that make the world irrevocably different than it was before you did the act, even if it may be difficult to measure the differences.

Now, can we say that what you DON'T do has effects that live on forever? Suppose you have the ability to push the button and start a nuclear war. Suppose that it's the Cuban Missile Crisis and pushing the button is a legitimate, even if horrifying, option. If you choose NOT to push the button, it can be fairly said that that decision has ramifications, like the continued existence of mankind, that last on into the indefinite future.

Now, suppose you DON'T do something, not because you consciously choose not to do it, but simply that you don't do it. In fact, every time we do something, we are also not doing everything else. So, does it matter whether there is a consciousness or a motive behind our choosing NOT to act if NOT ACTING has an effect on the world?

Let's choose another example. A very self-aware guy gets picked on by another macho guy who wants to "take away" the first guy's woman. The first guy, being smart, knows that no good can result from a fight. So, he humors the other guy, builds up his ego, buys him a beer and calms him down. No fight ensues and therefore no consequences from that fight. However, there are consequences that result from not fighting. A second guy, totally unaware, kind of a nerdy guy who is totally out of it when it comes to interpersonal relationships, is talking to this girl (probably about computers) when the macho guy comes over to him in a threatening manner in order to "take away" the nerd's "girlfriend." The nerd, being totally out of it, doesn't recognize this as a threat, both because he is so out of it socially and because the girl isn't even his girlfriend. He responds in the exact same way as the first guy, and no fight ensures. Is there any difference? Can we say then that both action and inaction have effects in the real world, which effects have their own subsequent effects that ripple out into infinity? And if this is so, then can't we say that by the mere fact of our existence, everything we DON'T DO, as much as everything we DO DO, has effects that continue on into eternity? So, once we are born, do we not continue to live on forever whether we are kings and conquerors or couch potatoes?