Still here, still looking for answers.

[Michael]

I raised up the donkey as an example because (as I understand TGB) it seems that the only person who can be called a “person” is one who goes through the trials of this life. Therefore I would logically conclude (obviously) that your sister - lacking all those experiences - is not a person if indeed she did not go through these same experiences. And thus if she is not a person, then perhaps she will not be in heaven, hell or ever have a chance at life at all since God annihilating her would pose no moral problem. But perhaps I’m misunderstanding

Yes, you are misunderstanding something.

The issue is not whether my sister was a person (a soul), but whether this world is in any sense necessary for preparing a soul for it’s highest good (and it makes no difference to me whether you believe it’s necessary in the LFW sense of providing a context for making choices, or in the alternate sense of providing a contrast between good and evil.)

If it’s not necessary (i.e. if persons can be created sinless, loving, wise, perfectly happy, and perfectly grateful creatures, with the full knowledge of good and evil, and fully understanding God’s love for them–i.e. if the potter can instantaneouly produce the finished product without working with any clay), then all human experience here (includng Eden, Gethsemane, and Calvary) is meaningless (and we can throw C.S. Lewis, George MacDonald, Prof. Tom Talbott, A.E. Knoch, and every Christian theologian or Philosopher who’s ever considered the problem of evil out the window.)

I don’t find their continued connection to this world very helpful. They’re still disembodied…so all the stuff you mentioned (skinning knees, riding bikes, etc.) continues to be unavailable to them

Not necessarily, if they’ve maintained some connection to this world.

Why would it be implausible that the disembodied souls of infants who never lived outside the womb are able to see and feel living chidren at play, riding their bikes, skinning their kness, interacting with other children and adults, making mistakes, learning and growing (and that they might somehow learn and grow with them)?

If the whole topic is as wide-open to speculation as you say it is, why would you rule out the possibility of some kind of meaningful connection between this world and the intermediate state?

It would make this world as necessary for them as it is for us, and they’d be able to benefit from it without being re-incarnated (or even resurrected in a quasi-mortal, pre-glorified state.)

What is so frightening about that speculation?

What is so far fetched?

(Even Jung’s hypothesis of a collective unconscious posits some connection between all human souls.)

I’ve encountered attitudes similar to yours (“yes” there must be an answer, but we dare not ask the question, and it’s best not to think about any possible answers) on an Anglican forum, and it truly mystifies me (though yours mystifies me even more, as you do ask the question.)

Please tell me.

Why is the above speculation implausible?

And why is all speculation to be avoided (especially when someone is in pain, and looking for plausible answers that don’t violate his Christian Faith)?

[TGB]

Michael,

I don’t know where to start.

Speculation isn’t bad; certainly not “frightening.” We all speculate to some extent. But it only makes sense to speculate when you have to, and I don’t see why we have to make some of the speculations you’re trying to make.

I do think there are ‘necessary’ features of embodied existence that the pre-born and infants don’t automatically skip just because they die before journeying responsibly through this world. I’m relatively sure that the exercise of the will with respect to love (regarding one’s relationship to God) is a necessary feature of human becoming. Beyond that I don’t feel much need to speculate. Reincarnation doesn’t appeal to me (for reasons I’ve mentioned), and the idea that deceased babies grow up consciously connected to and involved in our world and its events but are just not perceived by us strikes me as overly ad hoc.

I can’t say your suggestion is impossible, Michael. Who knows enough to say for certain? But the more ad hoc a view is the more implausible it is. Plausibility, to my mind, has to do (among other things) with a general connectedness to a wide variety of issues. That is, the more diverse the scope of questions that a hypothesis ‘fits’ with, the more plausible it is.

Speculation is “open,” sure. Speculate away. It’s a good thing to always have something contemplating on the back burner. But to bring a speculation off the back burner and situate it among the more serious positions one argues FOR takes a bit more that its being ‘possible’. I can’t say your view is impossible. But I need more than its being possible to be plausible. So when you ask “if the whole topic is as wide-open to speculation as you say it is, why would you rule out the possibility of some kind of meaningful connection between this world and the intermediate state?” my answer is—I haven’t ruled out the ‘possibility’ of such a connection as you suppose. I just don’t find it very plausible, and since I don’t feel like we need it to be true I don’t feel the existential appeal of it either.

Michael: I’ve encountered attitudes similar to yours (“yes” there must be an answer, but we dare not ask the question, and it’s best not to think about any possible answers)…

You misjudge me Michael. I think we MUST ask the right (and the necessary) questions. And we MUST think about the possible answers to such questions. That goes without saying. But not every question is necessary. It’s one thing to ask about whether there is life after death, and if so, whether it’s the sort of place where human beings can work out the consequences of their choices, or if they were unable to sufficiently self-determine, whether they can work out those choices that their perfection requires.

For the record, I do ask these questions and I’ve answered them in the affirmative. It’s entirely plausible to suppose that there is an afterlife and that it’s the sort of place we need to conclude our development. But that much doesn’t satisfy you. You want specifics. You want detailed blueprints. You want a metaphysical map of post-mortemville with pretty much everything laid out.

I don’t need that. And I’m not interested in that. And I don’t think those questions can be answered with any kind of certitude—NOT because I think we dare not ask the questions (ask away if you feel they’re necessary TO YOU). But if you want US to ask them with you, you have to show US that they’re necessary TO US, and you haven’t done that. To inquire about the fate of deceased infants (or the preborn) IS important. To ask whether the afterlife is a plausibly fit context for human beings IS an important question. But to speculate farther and deeper into the nuts and bolts of HOW it all looks and works is, I think, not a speculation that we know enough to turn into a helpfully plausible supposition.

…on an Anglican forum, and it truly mystifies me (though yours mystifies me even more, as you do ask the question.) Why is the above speculation implausible? And why is all speculation to be avoided (especially when someone is in pain, and looking for plausible answers that don’t violate his Christian Faith)?

Speculation isn’t to be avoided. Sometimes it’s necessary (when questions require speculation in a specific topic). But I don’t see why the idea that some features about embodied human existence must of metaphysical necessity be exercised for human development and fulfilment requires us to make the speculations YOU are making, i.e., speculations about specific scenarios that explain HOW those necessary features of human development work themselves out post-mortem.

Hope that helps.

Tom

[Michael]

For the record, I do ask these questions and I’ve answered them in the affirmative. It’s entirely plausible to suppose that there is an afterlife and that it’s the sort of place we need to conclude our development. But that much doesn’t satisfy you. You want specifics. You want detailed blueprints. You want a metaphysical map of post-mortemville with pretty much everything laid out.

I don’t need that. And I’m not interested in that. And I don’t think those questions can be answered with any kind of certitude

For the record, I’m not asking for certitude, I’m asking you for what you consider PLAUSIBLE scenarios, and so far you’ve given me none.

You’ve ruled ot the reincarnation of still-born infants, and I don’t think you ever gave me an answer on the quasi-glorified resurrection alternative (beyond what you said about “the wicked”), and now you seem to be rulling out any kind of metephysical connection to this world.

You agree that this world (and my mother’s suffering here) would be meaningless if my sister went straight to heaven.

Can you give me one PLAUSIBLE scenario as to how she gets there from where she is without making this world unnecessary?

“AD hoc” means “for the specific purpose, case, or situation at hand,” and I don’t see why an “ad hoc” explanation would be IMPLAUSIBLE when we’re discussing (or I thought we were discussing) the very specific case of children who are born dead.

Why would some meaningful connection to this world (that would allow them to learn and grow through the experiences of others) be “IMPLAUSIBLE”?

Why would you make that assumption>

(And is there any scenario you do consider PLAUSIBLE?)

[TGB]

Michael: I’m asking you for what you consider PLAUSIBLE scenarios, and so far you’ve given me none.

Tom: I don’t have any to give you. And this disturbs you. But why? Why should it bother somebody that we on this side of the grave are unable to determine the plausibility of scenarios describing post-mortem consciousness experience on the other side? And why is plausibility on this so important to you? Do you believe it has something to do with your sister’s fate? Does it relate to your peace of mind regarding her? Why? Do you think that asking seriously and responsibly what’s necessary about embodied life on earth requires us to offer a ‘plausible’ explanation of how that necessity endures into the afterlife (or is maintained with this world by those in the afterlife)?

The best I can do is give you my ‘gut’ feeling (perhaps informed by what I see in Scripture), but ‘gut’ feelings does not make a view plausible. You need actual arguments, and something MORE than ‘Well, it’s possible, so it must be plausible’—which it seems you want to do. You come up with a logically possible explanation and if no defeater is forthcoming you take it to the next level, i.e., plausible. But not having any defeaters doesn’t make a ‘sheer possibility’ a ‘plausibility’. You need more positive reasons. You ask me about the plausibility of deceased babies remaining connected to this world and developing in that connection. But what makes this PLAUSIBLE to you, Mike? What positive arguments or evidence do you have that it is so? None. Exactly. What about positive evidence that it is NOT so? None, I suppose. So how do we determine the plausibility of a view that is as likely to be false as it is true (on the face of it).

Now, I may be wrong about this likelihood. There could be theological reasons that tip the scales. I don’t know. There may be positive evidence for your view. I’m all ears. But it doesn’t seem to me that we have “evidence” of the afterlife (except exceptional stories of people who claim to have died and come back). So what would you like us to consider in determining the plausibility of your view?

What IS plausible is that the personal fate of all our loved ones is secure in the Lord of creation and history, and that none shall be lost. It’s plausible to conclude that this world with its risky freedom is a necessary feature of the sort of human development and perfection. It’s plausible to conclude that if all are eventually safe in Christ, then whatever necessary aspects of human development there may be, those who aren’t able to exercise them in this life will exercise them in the next. It may be plausible to assume that this world and the next really aren’t so different after all. But none of us has first hand experience of the next world, so we have to leave much about these questions in the Lord’s hands.

Tom

[Michael]

Why should it bother somebody that we on this side of the grave are unable to determine the plausibility of scenarios describing post-mortem consciousness experience on the other side? And why is plausibility on this so important to you? Do you believe it has something to do with your sister’s fate? Does it relate to your peace of mind regarding her?

You’ve repeatedly asked me a very personal question here, we seem to have different definitions of “plausibilty”, and this thread is getting a liitle long (with little participation from anyone else)–so I’ve started another topic heading on what’s motivating my questions (the issue that seems to be what you’re primarily interested in here), and the “PLAUSIBILITY” of the scenarios we’ve discussed (the issue that interests me.)