The Afterlife

[Atlas]

By popular demand I'll revive this thread. I posted it just last night, but realized it might just be too deep, too soon. Here it is again-

So, where do we go after this temporal existence? Some believe nowhere, that we just lie in the dirt. Everyone thinks about it, but not everyone likes talking about it.

What do you think?

[moogle]

Ah, here we go. The thread was deleted last night before I had finished responding, so let's try this again.
--

Well, to assume we survive our own death is quite a claim. It's comforting, of course, to believe that our deceased family and friends watch over us from Heaven and that one day we will be reunited, but the fact that we would like this to be true does not make it so. One would have to assume some sort of "spiritual" entity, a kind of seperation of mind and body, which we have yet to find. One must believe that our consciousness lies outside of our physical brain. It's a leap of faith; of course, people justify this belief almost exclusively because of their religious faith.

It is strange that those who are unwavering in their belief in Heaven still grieve as if the deceased is, in fact, dead. If you really believed that person was going to Heaven, the ultimate paradise, shouldn't you be happy? If that same person had instead been taken away from you forever and isolated in a place where his or her every wish was granted, would you feel the same kind of grief?

[brace for shitstorm]

[Atlas]

It is strange that those who are unwavering in their belief in Heaven still grieve as if the deceased is, in fact, dead.
[brace for shitstorm]


I grieve for lost loved ones because death, no matter what I believe, is a sad deal. While I believe that someone is going a certain place, wherever that place that may be, there is still the sting of death because you must live on the earth without them, until you also, cease to be. I am a firm believer in heaven and of hell from a Biblical outlook, just fyi. Of course, though, we all have our separate beliefs.

[moogle]

I grieve for lost loved ones because death, no matter what I believe, is a sad deal. While I believe that someone is going a certain place, wherever that place that may be, there is still the sting of death because you must live on the earth without them, until you also, cease to be. I am a firm believer in heaven and of hell from a Biblical outlook, just fyi. Of course, though, we all have our separate beliefs.
Now, not to piss on anyone's deeply-held beliefs (this, as is usually the case, can't be helped when alalyzing religion and spirituality critically), but our core difference seems to lie in 'wishful thinking' versus 'critical thinking' (please feel free to correct me if I'm mischaracterizing you, I don't mean to put words into your mouth). Basically, what I'm saying is that I rely on evidence rather than appeals to emotion. I don't think there's any reason to view the Bible as a history book or moral authority any more than The Odyssey or The Illiad.

[Atlas]

It lies in the fact that I believe the Holy Bible which is alive inside of me and that also states became flesh.

My faith cannot be argued. This is not science, my friend.

[Mark]

I believe that I will live my life having fun and doing my best. I don't believe in an afterlife and I don't think about what it may be. the way I see it is this:

I will life my life, and then I will die. when I die, if I go someplace new and end up in a place of Nirvana or Hell then that is that. if I become nothing then I will except that as well. I just live the now, I don't think about the later.

[Priest4hire]

Well, to assume we survive our own death is quite a claim. It's comforting, of course, to believe that our deceased family and friends watch over us from Heaven and that one day we will be reunited, but the fact that we would like this to be true does not make it so. One would have to assume some sort of "spiritual" entity, a kind of seperation of mind and body, which we have yet to find. One must believe that our consciousness lies outside of our physical brain. It's a leap of faith; of course, people justify this belief almost exclusively because of their religious faith.

Actually, dualism is not required for belief in an afterlife. The early Christians, proto-Orthodox at least, believed in a physical and bodily resurrection. As such no separate soul is required. But even with heaven it is perfectly feasible that God could simply reconstitute us in paradise. This is without getting into the concepts of idealism or pantheism which both get around the problem.

That said, a person can hold to a dualistic position and be on very solid philosophical ground. There is an issue known as the 'hard problem of consciousness' which throws into doubt the possibility of a materialistic explanation for the entirety of mental life. The basic problem is that we can't even imagine how any physical process could translate into qualia. So certainly the fat lady has not sung on the question of mind and body.

Myself, I have no idea whether there is an afterlife. The issue is really quite complex given the vast array of afterlife possibilities. I will admit that my inability to imagine or conceive either eternal life or oblivion does bother me. Being stuck between two seemingly impossible scenarios is troubling to say the least.

[moogle]

Actually, dualism is not required for belief in an afterlife. The early Christians, proto-Orthodox at least, believed in a physical and bodily resurrection. As such no separate soul is required. But even with heaven it is perfectly feasible that God could simply reconstitute us in paradise. This is without getting into the concepts of idealism or pantheism which both get around the problem.

That said, a person can hold to a dualistic position and be on very solid philosophical ground. There is an issue known as the 'hard problem of consciousness' which throws into doubt the possibility of a materialistic explanation for the entirety of mental life. The basic problem is that we can't even imagine how any physical process could translate into qualia. So certainly the fat lady has not sung on the question of mind and body.
Sorry if I overgeneralized, I understand that even today there are concepts like ressurection that are taken as literally as possible. Or the idea that God is literally a man sitting in the clouds sending bolts of lightning down to the earth as punishment; there are people who believe such things, but I find most people who care to defend their faith will dismiss these concepts.

Now, the greatest arguments for an afterlife are (intentionally?) vague, and it will often come down to the question of "what is consciousness?" (You could go on to postulate: what is existance? Why are we here? These are philisophical questions that are in the general sense, useless. Philosophy, the way I see it, is for thought experiments and gaining new perspectives. Not real-world answers). If you view consciousness as being on a seperate plane than the "material" world, then the afterlife doesn't seem so far-fetched. But instead of using the logical scientific explanation that our brain is what constitutes all of our consciousness, one instead tries to justify an interaction between the soul and mind. And, you would think, if there was such an interaction, it would be testable.

Of course we cannot "know" if there is such thing as a soul or afterlife, but we can also not "know" that there are undetectable demons influencing our actions as well. If you're calling into question the very nature of reality you're probably not going to get very far if you're looking for real answers.

[Jarrid]

Afterlife? Yes, I believe there will be an afterlife, but possibly it will only have to do with our existing energy that we give off. I also have been reading a lot about the Akashic records as well as Carl Jung's theory of the collectice unconscious following Timothy Leary's 8-Circuit Model of Consciousness. Pretty interesting stuff.

[Atlas]

possibly it will only have to do with our existing energy that we give off
That is an interesting though. Maybe the energy from our soul's will just kind of drift off into the cosmos... cool idea.

[Powerslave]

There might be an afterlife, but somehow the idea that it is some grassy plain with blue skies where we wear robes and have wings and hang around with the dead seems completely ridiculous, and likewise for the idea that we wake up in some burning lake where minotaurs whip you for eternity. If there's some sort of 'afterlife' it might be just like... a sort of unconscious and intangible 'feeling', or connection to everything else. Something of that sort, but likewise, I have no idea. I guess the clouds n' wings are as good a conception as any.

[Liam McDohl]

I grieve for lost loved ones because death, no matter what I believe, is a sad deal. While I believe that someone is going a certain place, wherever that place that may be, there is still the sting of death because you must live on the earth without them, until you also, cease to be. I am a firm believer in heaven and of hell from a Biblical outlook, just fyi. Of course, though, we all have our separate beliefs.

Hell is one of my major problems with christianity. After being told for years upon years that god is all-forgiving and that I should try to be all-forgiving and that god is like a father whose love is all-encompassing, the idea of hell is simply ridiculous.

To put it plainly: god loves you and forgives you anything you do while you're alive but the instant you die stops forgiving you, and will send you to burn in the lakes of fire for all eternity despite apparently loving you like his own child.

These are not the policies or actions of an all-knowing, loving being; they are the policies and actions of an imbecile, and seem more likely to have been drawn up to keep the laypeople from being naughty when the bible was being written.

[Priest4hire]

I think one of the main purposes of hell was to curb those secret crimes which society was unable to punish.

Now, the greatest arguments for an afterlife are (intentionally?) vague, and it will often come down to the question of "what is consciousness?" (You could go on to postulate: what is existance? Why are we here? These are philisophical questions that are in the general sense, useless. Philosophy, the way I see it, is for thought experiments and gaining new perspectives. Not real-world answers). If you view consciousness as being on a seperate plane than the "material" world, then the afterlife doesn't seem so far-fetched. But instead of using the logical scientific explanation that our brain is what constitutes all of our consciousness, one instead tries to justify an interaction between the soul and mind. And, you would think, if there was such an interaction, it would be testable.

The irony is that you're making a philosophical argument. There is no scientific explanation of consciousness and thus no scientific explanation that the brain constitutes it. That is a philosophical position known as monism or materialism. For example, saying that activity in unmyelinated C fibers correlates with reports of certain kind of pain is scientific. Note that science limits itself to what it can observe and/or what it can reasonable explain.

The other irony is that the argument against materialism as a complete explanation of mind is built on impeccable logic. Formal logic at that; where as science relies on inductive logic. In order to support a materialist view of the mind you need to be able to reduce all conscious experience to material causes. A good reductionist explanation predicts the higher level phenomena. Consider that the molecular theory when applied to water predicts how it behaves as a liquid. In fact, the property of liquids necessarily follows from the ways the molecules are arranged.

In the case of conscious experience this just doesn't happen. Explanations at the level of brain states or the level of functional states all fail to predict subjective experience. Think about it. What in the nature of memory, cognition, perception, or any other functional aspect of our minds necessarily includes subjective experience?

So in the end the science simply can not support assumption about consciousness and logic can only support materialism if you are willing to make certain assumptions. Either you have to downplay or ignore subjective experience or you have to assume some scientific or philosophical breakthrough that will close the explanatory gap.

This is still getting way off field. Dualism doesn't necessarily lead to an afterlife while monism doesn't rule it out. From a certain point of view one could argue that of all possibilities only one leads to oblivion while countless ones lead to some sorf of afterlife. I can't help but note that if infinite oblivion is what faces us all at death then the total value of our lives must be infinitely small. This leads promptly to nihilism and I can't see any way around it.

[Atlas]

Hell is one of my major problems with christianity. After being told for years upon years that god is all-forgiving and that I should try to be all-forgiving and that god is like a father whose love is all-encompassing, the idea of hell is simply ridiculous.

To put it plainly: god loves you and forgives you anything you do while you're alive but the instant you die stops forgiving you, and will send you to burn in the lakes of fire for all eternity despite apparently loving you like his own child.

These are not the policies or actions of an all-knowing, loving being; they are the policies and actions of an imbecile, and seem more likely to have been drawn up to keep the laypeople from being naughty when the bible was being written.


That is false. I am very sorry you've gained that perspective. Please forgive me on behalf of the arrogant Christians that think the only way to bring somebody to Christ is to tell them how much they suck.

Seriously, Liam, I am sorry. Even if I don't believe in your lifestye, that leaves no room for me to judge you, bro.

I could sugar-coat my beliefs, but I wont.

[Inari]

One would have to assume some sort of "spiritual" entity, a kind of seperation of mind and body, which we have yet to find. One must believe that our consciousness lies outside of our physical brain. It's a leap of faith; of course, people justify this belief almost exclusively because of their religious faith.
There actually is no smoking gun that truly unifies physical processes and qualitative awareness. Perception and cognition does manifest itself in a variety of ways through the physical structures and chemical activities in the brain. But as Priest so aptly put it, there is no scientific explanation for how material processes translate into qualia. To deny that is a leap of faith.

[Cyrus the virus]

I used to believe in Heaven and Hell, now I don't know if I believe anything. It doesn't matter too much to me.

[Blackdragon]

I don't believe in the concept of Heaven and Hell, or any other sort of afterlife. There's no solid proof of any existing. So as far as I am concerned, you live, you die, end of story.

[moogle]

The irony is that you're making a philosophical argument. There is no scientific explanation of consciousness and thus no scientific explanation that the brain constitutes it. That is a philosophical position known as monism or materialism. For example, saying that activity in unmyelinated C fibers correlates with reports of certain kind of pain is scientific. Note that science limits itself to what it can observe and/or what it can reasonable explain.

The other irony is that the argument against materialism as a complete explanation of mind is built on impeccable logic. Formal logic at that; where as science relies on inductive logic. In order to support a materialist view of the mind you need to be able to reduce all conscious experience to material causes. A good reductionist explanation predicts the higher level phenomena. Consider that the molecular theory when applied to water predicts how it behaves as a liquid. In fact, the property of liquids necessarily follows from the ways the molecules are arranged.

In the case of conscious experience this just doesn't happen. Explanations at the level of brain states or the level of functional states all fail to predict subjective experience. Think about it. What in the nature of memory, cognition, perception, or any other functional aspect of our minds necessarily includes subjective experience?

So in the end the science simply can not support assumption about consciousness and logic can only support materialism if you are willing to make certain assumptions. Either you have to downplay or ignore subjective experience or you have to assume some scientific or philosophical breakthrough that will close the explanatory gap.

This is still getting way off field. Dualism doesn't necessarily lead to an afterlife while monism doesn't rule it out. From a certain point of view one could argue that of all possibilities only one leads to oblivion while countless ones lead to some sorf of afterlife. I can't help but note that if infinite oblivion is what faces us all at death then the total value of our lives must be infinitely small. This leads promptly to nihilism and I can't see any way around it.

There actually is no smoking gun that truly unifies physical processes and qualitative awareness. Perception and cognition does manifest itself in a variety of ways through the physical structures and chemical activities in the brain. But as Priest so aptly put it, there is no scientific explanation for how material processes translate into qualia. To deny that is a leap of faith.
It's almost amusing how easy it is to twist the argument around like that. Similarly, I have heard the response, "it takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a Christian." The problem here is that I'm not actively believing in anything as an atheist, I'm responding to a claim. I don't believe in a god because there is no evidence for a god. I don't believe that what most call a "soul" exists because there is no evidence for it. The same goes for the afterlife, psychic powers, or dragons.

The main problem I have with your argument is that you make the assumption that consciousness has to be a "thing" that is somehow tangible. Because we do not know everything there is to know about the brain, would it really be a leap of faith to not take seriously the idea that there is a non-physical entity that communicates with our mind? Since we can't yet attribute all of our awareness to the corresponding parts and workings of the brain presently, that means we must assume something from the outside gives us our consciousness?

Ignorance is not a strong case for the metaphysical. We can admit our ignorance without assuming the improbable.

[Priest4hire]

I'd love it if you'd point out where I said consciousness had to be tangible. The problem isn't that we don't know how the brain functions; that's just obvious. The problem is that we can't even imagine what a physical explanation for qualia would look like. There's lots of things we don't know but we can imagine what a theory that explains them would look like. We simply can not bridge the explanatory gap between functionality and conscious experience.

Let me turn it around and ask if we are really to ignore the solid reasoning at hand simply because the outcome doesn't mesh with your scientific beliefs. This has nothing to do with evidence since you've brought none up. Certainly you aren't going to argue that the brain must be all there is to consciousness based on being unable to prove it otherwise. This is getting too unwieldy to discuss and I'm sure readers would prefer fewer walls of text. Why not check out David Chalmer's website (http://consc.net/chalmers/). He's only a professor of philosophy and the director of the Center of Consciousness.

Now, what evidence exactly would you expect to have if there was a real afterlife? I'm guessing you'll just write off any subjective evidence. And I don't suppose you'd be moved by documented cases of children possessing knowledge that can best be explained as past life recollection. So then consider the sheer improbability of existence itself and the total black box that is conscious experience. Us even being here involves countless impossible paradoxes. Yet despite that it is our own existence that we can be most sure of despite the lack of any scientific evidence to that effect. This doesn't prove anything, hence I'm still agnostic towards the afterlife, but it does suggest the limits of our understanding. If cognito ergo sum is the core of my knowledge, why should I assume it must cease based on far less certain information?

[Inari]

This is getting too unwieldy to discuss and I'm sure readers would prefer fewer walls of text.
One of the most odd things about the mind-body problem is that it's awkward to even attempt to coherently state the problem, let alone a scientific theory to explain it.

[Baby]

I believe that there is something beyond this sock o' shit that we live in :)

No, I do believe that this life is a journey and that the journey does not end with death. There's no evidence as to whether there's anything beyond or not so... :)

"That's death
No more headaches, no more pain
Of the millions who've died
No one came back to complain!"

;)

[Atlas]

"That's death
No more headaches, no more pain
Of the millions who've died
No one came back to complain!"

;)

That is funny. Who's that by?

[Baby]

That is funny. Who's that by?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fczjCi73So8

It's from Disc World 2... sung by Eric Idle the (Monty) Python.

[Atlas]

Oh, Baby... you so silly. ^_^

[Cyrus the virus]

I can't imagine how dull it must be to only believe in things that can be proven beyond a doubt.

[moogle]

I'd love it if you'd point out where I said consciousness had to be tangible.
Tangible maybe isn't the right word. In fact, that's the opposite of what I meant. (Don't worry, I'm not trying to cover my ass or anything.) You describe consciousness in a way that comes accross as something physically existing, but on a seperate plane of existence. That is the impression I get.

Also, you bring up major philisophical concepts that only work within a framework of assumptions. Now there's nothing wrong with this on a conceptual level, but these do not translate to reality. As I said earlier, if you're going to get into the line of thinking of "what is reality?" you're not helping your argument.

The problem isn't that we don't know how the brain functions; that's just obvious. The problem is that we can't even imagine what a physical explanation for qualia would look like. There's lots of things we don't know but we can imagine what a theory that explains them would look like. We simply can not bridge the explanatory gap between functionality and conscious experience.
I don't think this is particularly relevant. The argument for qualia is like the argument for God; "it is unknowable" and that is somehow a proof. It's essentially meaningless.

Let me turn it around and ask if we are really to ignore the solid reasoning at hand simply because the outcome doesn't mesh with your scientific beliefs. This has nothing to do with evidence since you've brought none up. Certainly you aren't going to argue that the brain must be all there is to consciousness based on being unable to prove it otherwise. This is getting too unwieldy to discuss and I'm sure readers would prefer fewer walls of text. Why not check out David Chalmer's website (http://consc.net/chalmers/). He's only a professor of philosophy and the director of the Center of Consciousness.
The only way you attribute consciousness to something outside the brain is through magic. (Hey, I'm not pulling any punches here.) Sound like an oversimplification? You bet. But that's what it boils down to. When someone dies, we can demonstrate that person is dead. It's tempting to think that the body is not the person, and that there is a spirit that escapes the dead body. Such a claim DEMANDS evidence. Yes, I am saying the brain is all there is to consciousness because we are unable to prove otherwise. We can link parts of the brain to things we feel. We are just beginning to understand these kinds of connections. The dualist theory throws this out the window.

Now, what evidence exactly would you expect to have if there was a real afterlife?
Give people lists of very specific things to do that would affect the real world after they die. I'm only half-kidding.

I'm guessing you'll just write off any subjective evidence.
Yes.

And I don't suppose you'd be moved by documented cases of children possessing knowledge that can best be explained as past life recollection.
You don't honestly believe that, do you?

So then consider the sheer improbability of existence itself and the total black box that is conscious experience. Us even being here involves countless impossible paradoxes. Yet despite that it is our own existence that we can be most sure of despite the lack of any scientific evidence to that effect. This doesn't prove anything, hence I'm still agnostic towards the afterlife, but it does suggest the limits of our understanding. If cognito ergo sum is the core of my knowledge, why should I assume it must cease based on far less certain information?
The improbability of existance has NOTHING to do with the topic. Of course it doesn't prove anything, it's completely irrelevant.

~

Phew. I did not plan on staying up this late. I'm not well-versed in philosophy, plus I'm tired as hell, so forgive me if my arguments sound half-baked. I feel like we're just throwing accusations at each other that the other is making assumptions. That's what this is all about. I'm really sick of it, and it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I'll still respond to anything else you have to say, though, Priest. When I get to it. *crash*

[Liam McDohl]

I can't imagine how dull it must be to only believe in things that can be proven beyond a doubt.

Why do you assume it would be dull, then? ;)

[Indigo]

I have heard of many beliefs but these are just spoilers(if true) I prefer to wait and see.

[Cyrus the virus]

Why do you assume it would be dull, then? ;)

I have no idea how to possibly answer this. A life without mystery or wonder would be pretty dull, I don't really feel the need to provide evidence to support that.

[moogle]

I have no idea how to possibly answer this. A life without mystery or wonder would be pretty dull, I don't really feel the need to provide evidence to support that.
You're making a false assumption here. Those who refute supernatural claims do not do so because they have something against "mystery" and "wonder," it is exactly the opposite. It's about caring whether or not your beliefs are true, and having the capacity to look for real answers. Instead of making an assumption, it's more reasonable to investigate. I'm fond of the analogy that is something along the lines of: understanding the composition and structure of music doesn't diminish our appreciation for it, it enhances it.

[Priest4hire]

Actually, if you only believed in things that can be proven beyond doubt it would be a very short list. And it would be totally impossible. Remember that just a little up the page jarvolt wrote off subjective experience as proof. OK, remove all subjective experience from that which can be proven beyond a doubt. What's left?

It's impossible to live that way of course. We have to believe in things we can't prove beyond a doubt just to function.

[Cyrus the virus]

I am so bad at transferring my thoughts into words. Hoo boy.

[moogle]

Actually, if you only believed in things that can be proven beyond doubt it would be a very short list. And it would be totally impossible. Remember that just a little up the page jarvolt wrote off subjective experience as proof. OK, remove all subjective experience from that which can be proven beyond a doubt. What's left?
That's not fair unless you clearly outline what you mean by subjective evidence. Are you implying there can be no such thing as objective knowledge? If you say that repeatable evidence demonstrated as being factual by numerous people in numerous ways is in fact merely subjective evidence, you have completely divorced yourself from reality. The reason we have an institution of science is to eliminate subjective evidence. That is how we determine reality from delusion.

[Priest4hire]

That's absurd. If we needed science to determine reality from delusion we'd have died out millions of years ago. Seriously, a statement like that is worthy of a religious zealot. I like science as much as any geek but let's not get carried away.

Asking whether there can be objective knowledge is the wrong question. What you should be asking is to what extent we can know it. This is not a black and white question. If science offers an accurate picture of the world, then our subjective perception must be accurate most of the time. If we can't trust our senses then we can't trust our perception of the objective truth. This is where it gets tricky. By what measure do you determine which subjective experiences are accurate and which are not?

This always comes back to the subjective and qualia. I suppose that's because it's at the heart of the question of the afterlife. The issue is not whether the body lives on or whether other people's perception of us continues but whether our subjective awareness survives. As of right now there is no objective data on the area of subjective experience. This has caused some philosophers to argue that the two realms are forever separate. While I don't necessarily buy into that I do see the problem. If don't even have an explanation for what conscious experience is, or even an idea of what such an explanation would entail, then how can you realistically evaluate the likelihood that it has the qualities needed to continue after biological death? At least, without falling back onto beliefs. Such as the belief that the physical universe is the entirely of existence or that the necessarily limited scope of scientific inquiry encompasses all worthwhile knowledge.

Personally, I'd consider subjective evidence to be less reliable than objective. But I would never write it off entirely. Can you provide objective proof that it is impossible for something not perceived by more than one person to exist? Even the possibility is enough to warrant consideration; although not unthinking belief. Again it is not black and white. There are times when the only possible evidence is subjective; such as the evidence for qualia. In the land of the blind is the one-eyed man delusional?

By the way, have you ever heard of or read a book called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? Now admittedly the book has flaws and Kuhn takes his conclusions in it a little far. But it's still a key work in the field of philosophy of science.

[moogle]

That's absurd. If we needed science to determine reality from delusion we'd have died out millions of years ago. Seriously, a statement like that is worthy of a religious zealot. I like science as much as any geek but let's not get carried away.
I'm trying to make my arguement from within your framework. Millions of years ago the concept of reality versus illusion was basically a non-issue. It was about survival. Where exactly do you draw the line between instinct and self-awareness?

Asking whether there can be objective knowledge is the wrong question. What you should be asking is to what extent we can know it. This is not a black and white question. If science offers an accurate picture of the world, then our subjective perception must be accurate most of the time. If we can't trust our senses then we can't trust our perception of the objective truth. This is where it gets tricky. By what measure do you determine which subjective experiences are accurate and which are not?
Like I said, the scientific method is set up in a way as to eliminate subjective experience. You could argue that our whole existance is a dream. It's fair to say that in theory, that could be true. But to assert that you need an explanation for what your consciousness is. Unfortunately, the scenario is set up in a way that it is essentially impossible to "know." To repeat myself once again, these philisophical concepts are not useless in that they ask questions that deserve thought, but they do not provide us with answers. They're not meant to.

This always comes back to the subjective and qualia. I suppose that's because it's at the heart of the question of the afterlife. The issue is not whether the body lives on or whether other people's perception of us continues but whether our subjective awareness survives. As of right now there is no objective data on the area of subjective experience. This has caused some philosophers to argue that the two realms are forever separate. While I don't necessarily buy into that I do see the problem. If don't even have an explanation for what conscious experience is, or even an idea of what such an explanation would entail, then how can you realistically evaluate the likelihood that it has the qualities needed to continue after biological death? At least, without falling back onto beliefs. Such as the belief that the physical universe is the entirely of existence or that the necessarily limited scope of scientific inquiry encompasses all worthwhile knowledge.

Personally, I'd consider subjective evidence to be less reliable than objective. But I would never write it off entirely. Can you provide objective proof that it is impossible for something not perceived by more than one person to exist? Even the possibility is enough to warrant consideration; although not unthinking belief. Again it is not black and white. There are times when the only possible evidence is subjective; such as the evidence for qualia. In the land of the blind is the one-eyed man delusional?
You're going to say that the ONLY POSSIBLE evidence must be subjective? If you're defining qualia as the "feeling" rather than the process, then sure. But the "feeling" is irrelevant as far as knowledge.

By the way, have you ever heard of or read a book called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? Now admittedly the book has flaws and Kuhn takes his conclusions in it a little far. But it's still a key work in the field of philosophy of science.
I haven't, but it looks interesting. I admitedly haven't read too many books concerning philosopy, but that doesn't mean I don't care. But even you must admit, there's a lot of antiquated garbage out there that masquerades as philosophy (without even getting into the many religions of the world).