From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Afterlife:
  • Expand the lead section to a full 3 or 4 paragraphs
  • Pinpoint areas to work on
  • Separate fraudulent experiments and research on this subject from that which is considered legitimate, i.e., that which is accepted as valid by the scientific community. The two categories (exposed fraud and legitimate science) should be listed in different sections under different titles. Lumping fraudulent research together with valid research may give the impression that all legitimate scientists reject the existence of life after death or, even worse, consider the very question absurd. If there is a consensus among scientists that the question of life after death is absurd, then research demonstrating the validity of this assertion should be offered. However, it seems obvious to this writer that no such consensus exists or can exist. (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Priority 2


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#Hypotheses: Should we cut it?[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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)