March 31, 2020 by hasheyehosh
I recently came across an Instagram post on a matter that peaked my interest, it was saying something without actually saying it and arguing for a particular case without being specific, so, in fact, it relied upon the power of inference and suggestion to say what it was intending to say.
This is the post.
This was my response.
That is all well and good, except it does not say anything about the concept of death, which is the logical finality of life, not delivery! There are also a number of underlying assumptions that need to be examined to determine the validity of their asserted conclusions. For example, we must assume that babies in a womb can and do indeed ponder such concepts about the world. Moreover, even if this were possible and did happen, “delivery” as a process is not the end of their lives as entities, but rather the end of their particular stage in the process, i.e. incubation in the mother’s womb. In fact, the word itself implies it is a process rather than a destination, unlike death which is indeed a destination we are all sure of reaching at some point. When delivery happens, the babies are merely “delivered” and can continue to exist and ponder even more about the world. Moreover, their world in the womb is not materially different from that of their mother’s, the babies are merely mistaken in thinking that this is the case, because the link with their mother is physical and they would soon find out when that umbilical cord is eventually severed and they can breathe on their own at this next stage in their ultimate journey of life that ends in death. It is therefore a logical error to conclude that since the babies cannot “see” the outside world, even as they may “perceive it”, that the outside world must be anything other than the space and time they will occupy when they stop living in their mother’s womb – this meaning that their mother already occupies the same fabric of space and time as they do which is why they exist inside of her. Their mother’s world must first exist for them to exist inside of it, and when they are delivered, they are simply outside of their mother’s womb but still occupy the same world as she does. Furthermore, what would the babies say if one of them were to fall ill after “delivery” and die, leaving one baby alive, in which world would the deceased baby reside? What if the babies both survived and one of them later became a mother herself and “delivered” her own baby, would that baby now also live in a different world to that of its mother?
Now, Instagram did not allow me to post more characters than that response required, so, I shall continue the rest of my argument, albeit in my mind and unbeknownst to the author of the post (unless I share my blogpost with them later) here on “the Press” for you all to consume.
To answer the question raised by the sceptical baby, one need not believe in something for it to exist. However, they do need to prove that it exists.
Life would of course exist after their delivery whether they believed in it or not.
However, we also need to distinguish between what “life” means in the context of the question; does it mean the babies existing in their own right after delivery, or that is is merely possible to have other beings (babies) exist after being delivered? Do the babies consider life in their mother’s womb to be eternal? Does the believing baby believe that when they are delivered they cease to exist in the same world as they did before delivery? Surely, the mother’s womb is simply an environment to hold them at a critical stage where they are most vulnerable to external threats.
Also, what if the sceptical baby died inside the womb, leaving the believing baby, would it now be accepted that death is still a concept to grapple with, as well as the concept of delivery? What would this baby now think of their concept of life after delivery?
What happens if their mother dies before they are born, but one survives, does this mean that she also went through “delivery” to another world, perhaps that of her own mother?
It is evident with every single one of the questions raised above that there is a fatal error in equating the process of delivery to that of the boolean state of the entity, namely alive or dead, not to be mixed up with the neutral state of simple existence.
Not to mention that for the babies to even comprehend the concept of delivery, they would need to grasp first the notion of to and fro that comprises this process, meaning the babies would be delivered from their mother’s womb (A) to the external world of their mother (B) but most importantly still within the same world.
If what they are really contemplating is whether life exists after death, then they failed in attempting to answer that question through the eyes of delivery, a process that itself is vulnerable to the concept of death.
In fact, it is the absence of this state, death, that these babies are able to ponder whether it exists or not, because if it happened to one or both of them, there would be no way for them to verify that they have indeed died.
Moreover, even if we were to accept that life after “delivery” or death existed, there is nothing to suggest that the concept of death would not still exist even in that afterlife – for the babies may still die in that realm therefore not escaping the grip of death
It is perhaps convenient, therefore, that in most religious text and doctrines, the concept of death is simply wiped out of the picture completely and promises and guarantees of external life are plentiful.
I hope you enjoyed reading this post and if not anything else then certainly that it allowed you to prod the concepts herein introduced.