The Afterlife?

[Goldwell]

What do you think happens when you die?

 

I'd normally not discuss such a morbid thing but recently death has reared its ugly head and forced its way into my previously ignorant and blissful world.

 

A couple of people close to me have been diagnosed from cancer, one (a family member) and one a friend of mine for nearly a decade. Both are incredibly religious and even though they ironically believe everything is part of gods plan (which I guess includes giving them cancer) they hold their faith strong. So they believe when they die they will meet Jesus at the pearly gates which while I admit is a concept I would love to gravitate towards i'm just not able to fall into that.

 

I really wish I was religious but no religion i've read about has come across as legitimate, pretty much everything seems bullshit (and please don't confuse me for a militant atheist as I really am on the fence in that discussion and do not mean disrespect either way).. With that said to be brutally honest I find the irony that if you even try to question it people become incredible defensive and to me that just reinforces the belief that religion is just people lying to themselves to feel better about either something they have done that they are ashamed of and wish to remove themselves from the blame by using a higher power or people who wish to just "know" that when they meet the grim reaper he has a pleasant place to send them.

 

I don't mean for this to be a religious based topic but naturally the afterlife and religion tend to gravitate towards each other so forgive the analogies.

 

So I wonder.. those of you who are religious do you believe in your religion because you are afraid of death? and that simply believing in a religion allows you to accept the inevitable? or have you experienced a miracle or some other experience which has reinforced your belief?

 

Those who are not religious.. do you believe that this is all we have? The material world is basically it and once we die the only thing that remains is the memory of the person we are in the people who love (and hate) us? do you think because of this everything is pointless? or how do you apply a meaning to life?

[Destined]

This is really an interesting, albeit depressing topic. I have had discussions with many people (usually drunk discussions gone dark) and am torn myself:

 

I am a scientist and as such do believe that all we have is what we do and leave here. If you really want to leave a mark on this world, you have to reproduce and thus leave something of yourself here. In the words of Tywin Lannister: "Your mother's dead. Before long I'll be dead, and you and your brother and your sister and all of her children, all of us dead, all of us rotting underground. It's the family name that lives on. It's all that lives on. Not your personal glory, not your honor... but family."

 

On the other hand I have a hard time to imagine, that there actually is nothing left of your self, your thoughts and you just end. We cannot prove that we have a soul and thus we will never know if there is a great beyond or reincarnation or whatever. That is why I want to believe, that there will be something after I die. Personally I belive more in reincarnation than in the pearly gates, where you meet your ancestors. But it is not said, that you linger for some time in a heavenly (or hell-like) place and watch over your loved ones, before you are reborn.

 

As I said: It is a difficult question and I think everyone has to come to peace with whatever he wants to believe. And, in the end, no one will be able to tell you what to believe.

[161803398874989]

I do not believe in an afterlife. Like you say, I think it's something people invent in order to feel better about death. I also don't understand that sentiment. Why would you want to be around forever? I mean, at some point all your friends are going to be dead and they'll all be there and you'd live forever with them, or what? Then what's the point of the initial life? Won't you and your friends drift apart over the eternity you have to spend? I find the notion that everything will be perfect in heaven ridiculous too because a lot of human suffering is self-inflicted, so if you want a place free of human suffering, you'd have to change the humans themselves, in which case the question becomes is it really you in heaven? And again, what would be the point?

Not to mention the boredom. I can't imagine spending 100s of years alive and conscious, and not bored all that time.

There are many other problems with an afterlife that I can come up with, but I don't want to rant too much. I'm just going to adjust my initial statement and say this:

 

I sincerely hope there is no afterlife. It makes life all the more precious.

[esme]

I'm not a stranger to death, both my brothers are dead, my mum, possibly my dad but he buggered off when I was 13 so effectively he died then, my cousin who would be a day older than me had he lived died of leukemia, an aunt of throat cancer, an uncle of bowel cancer, grandparents and multiple aunts & uncles.

 

Some were religious some weren't and I've never seen anything that makes me think they might have lived on.

 

I have the belief that when you die thats it, you're conciousness dissipates to nothing and the only part you play in the universe from that point on is as constituent atoms and memories in other peoples heads.

 

I'll be happy to be surprised but I'm not expecting to be.

 

So I make the most of what I have and try to leave good memories in other peoples heads.

[OrbWeaver]

I'm pretty certain that what happens when you die is that your body is consumed by bacteria and worms, and your consciousness vanishes into the same nothingness that it was in for billions of years before you were born.

 

At least that's what I hope happens, because I can't think of anything more terrifying than being forced to live forever. I pity the people who need to make up childish fairy stories in a desperate attempt to convince themselves that they are not really going to die. Really they're not. Death isn't the end, is it? Please?

 

Then again, I hate this world and everything about it. You should probably ignore me.

[rich_is_bored]

I don't believe in an afterlife. I'm more concerned with the implications of consciousness being nothing more than a product of biochemical and electrical processes. Do we have free will or are we simply choosing which instance of the multiverse we live in with every choice we make? I think I'll wear a blue shirt today... new universe.

[OrbWeaver]

Do we have free will or are we simply choosing which instance of the multiverse we live in with every choice we make?

 

It seems more likely to me that free will and choice does not truly exist. It is an illusion caused by the fact that we can't reliably predict our own behaviour, therefore it "feels" like we made a decision spontaneously when really it was just the result of one of the numerous competing thoughts in our brain rising to the top and influencing an action.

 

Most of the arguments in favour of free will seem to come from subjective experience, and little tricks like "Look, I just waved my hand in the air for absolutely no reason, this proves that I have free will!". But you didn't do it for absolutely no reason. You did it because we're having a debate about the existence of free will. The action is entirely a consequence of what happened before.

[Anderson]

The topic is indeed complicated. However, in crucial, critical moments what matters is not even if you're atheist or religious, but the things you believe in. I believe in God, and I believe in people.

When someone helps you out in a situation of seemingly no way out - that's what motivates me to believe.

 

 

It's hard to lose loved ones. In my opinion there is a difference between being simply religious (without actually being able to understand why you believe in what you believe) and reaching true spiritual balance.

It sounds like crap. Today, when Jehovah's Witnesses, various sects, extremists pretty much show themselves as fanatics or really obsessed people... in such a society it's hard to maintain a belief in a higher ideal. We all noticed how in life cynicism and sarcasm is slowly becoming the equivalent of rationality.

 

Understanding and accepting that is crucial I think. But, either way there will always be simple-minded people who will never go deep enough to actually read the Bible to make conclusions for themselves rather than listen to someone's interpretation. There will always be people easily influenced, people who aren't used to thinking for themselves.

 

As far as I can say: it's better to be a decent atheist person rather than a hypocritical priest.

 

I respect every person's decision concerning these things though. That's something everyone has to decide for themselves, isn't it right?

 

Historically speaking - the society of today wouldn't exist with the liberalism it has today without Christianity which was the first religion ever to be for everyone. Not just Judaism only for the Jews or various deities of the Romans and Greek and Egyptians. This aspect always kinda fascinated me. Even secular Middle Eastern countries can't really be proud of what secularism reached in Christian regions.

This religion determined at the end, how we perceive right and wrong. Why for many murder is a taboo. It allowed the equality of man and woman, it defined what we consider democracy, free speech, privacy as well.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Anderson

[Hecateus]

‘Do you not know that a man is not dead while his name is still spoken?’ – Going Postal

http://metro.co.uk/2015/03/12/rip-terry-pratchett-10-of-his-most-moving-quotes-about-life-and-death-5100810/

[Springheel]

While I don't believe in an afterlife either, I can't fathom the people who say they can't understand the appeal of one. The comfort of knowing that you yourself will continue in some form is only part of it...it's main purpose is to dull the pain that is caused when loved ones die. Believing that they are still around somewhere, that they might even be able to see and hear what you're doing, and that you'll be able to see them again one day, is immensely comforting.

[SteveL]

No, no afterlife for me. All theories of an afterlife need dualism, the theory that there's a soul independent of the body. If there is one, and it receives information from the senses, and presumably influences our actions, what would its interface with the brain be? It'd need a lot of bandwidth. Our efforts to understand mind and brain are in their infancy but neurologists can already say that there's nothing like that in the brain. Nothing that leads to human actions and that's receiving apparently uncaused input from outside. On top of that, the physicalist model of the mind -- i.e. that it's a property of the brain -- has led to countless important discoveries about how to control and fix the mind. The dualist theory has led to none and there's never been a scrap of evidence for it. So I put it down as wishful thinking.

 

We don't need a holy book or a god to have values. Religion claims to be the source of those but it's not and never was. "Don't kill people" is something we can work out for ourselves, and we've moved well on from the bronze-age morality in the common holy books anyway. They always mix in the good bits with approval for enslaving foreigners, stoning gays or silencing women.

 

It's strange to think that eventually there'll be no eyes to see what we humans built on this planet. But the thought doesn't disturb me. Nothing can change the fact that it happened, and in the meantime we have good, meaningful things to do and sunlight and wine to enjoy on our days off.

[OrbWeaver]

This religion determined at the end, how we perceive right and wrong. Why for many murder is a taboo. It allowed the equality of man and woman, it defined what we consider democracy, free speech, privacy as well.

 

While it's true that the Christian heritage has had a lot of influence in European countries, and I'll admit that there is plenty of wisdom in the New Testament, let's not get carried away.

 

Christianity didn't invent the idea of murder being wrong. Murder is taboo in pretty much every society in the world, even those who have never heard of Jesus. Democracy was practised by the Ancient Greeks. Freedom of speech came about as a result of people kicking back against religion, including Christianity, sometimes at the cost of their own lives (hence the wording of the First Amendment which prohibits the "establishment of religion").

 

By all means let's love our neighbours and turn our other cheeks, but please don't pretend that humanity was a cesspit of lawless savages until the Bible appeared from nowhere and turned everything around. Religions only reflect the values of the societies who created them.

[Gast]

I'm afraid our conscience just vanish when we go. I do find comfort in the idea that, when returning to the ground, we are deconstructed in tiny parts that will be of use for other organisms. The molecules we're made of traveled before our birth and they'll keep traveling beyond our end, it's not a joyful perspective but it's kind of okay to me. And if life does not comes with an inherent meaning, it would be sad not to give it one. It is not pointless as long as you fill it with things you enjoy.

 

 

[OrbWeaver]

No, no afterlife for me. All theories of an afterlife need dualism, the theory that there's a soul independent of the body. If there is one, and it receives information from the senses, and presumably influences our actions, what would its interface with the brain be?

 

Plus there's the obvious argument: if souls can exist independently of the body, and can see, hear and interact with other souls without a body, why do we even need bodies in the first place?

 

Why aren't we just souls, floating around with other souls, never getting sick, not needing to eat, sleep, breathe, exercise or have periods? Think how much better it would be without the entirely unnecessary complication of a physical body.

[VanishedOne]

or people who wish to just "know" that when they meet the grim reaper he has a pleasant place to send them.

Unless they burn eternally (and in variants of Christianity with a doctrine of election, there's nothing you can really do about not being Elect). Or they get reborn in a cycle of perpetual suffering, dissatisfaction and existential ennui (for Buddhists, nonexistence is something you might eventually achieve after innumerable discontented lives). Or...

 

You say bullshit, Kierkegaard says absurdity. :-P

 

The sun will rise, you will someday die, and the universe will reach its eventual heat death whether you consider this 'legitimate' or not. If any religion teaches anything worth your while it will have about as much regard for legitimacy, whatever in the world that might be.

[Gast]

Why aren't we just souls, floating around with other souls, never getting sick, not needing to eat, sleep, breathe, exercise or have periods? Think how much better it would be without the entirely unnecessary complication of a physical body.

Your argument makes sense but maybe this question is not to be treated on a rational plane only. I'm pretty sure most religious persons are fully aware that the concept of soul isn't logical, but maybe they do not care and that is fine for me... as long as they're not telling me that dinosaurs didn't existed .

[RPGista]

Yeah, I think a lot of the confusion about morality and so on comes from a simple fact of lilfe: in our culture, we are not taught that human beings are animals, that we are african apes, in the same family as chimps and gorillas. We didnt "come" from apes, we are one of them. Imagine that. We have an ancient mystical-philosophical history that has centered on human beings as "something other", as separate, particular entities endowed with certain characteristics that makes us unique in nature. The disparity between what we can think of and conceive, and how we actually behave and feel, the impulses that drive us, probably gave rise to the whole question of a "soul", a certain aspect of our being that is not bound by our genetic mechanics, that we fell may be the tool to act against its involuntary demands. The soul predates christianity, by the way.

 

If you actually think of us as animals, and that our brain is an organ, with an evolved structure that is just meant to work and allow you to survive in a certain environment, a lot of what we perceive as human failure becomes more clear. Murder of kin, altruism, cooperation, all those traits are inside us, they dont need to be taught at all, its in our instincts, we kind of just wanna do it, without knowing why, because of the way we evolved as species. Its the same for the other animals in our family, and other families too. We can observe it in kids. As well as our bad instincts, like agression, possessiveness, selfish behaviour. Those are also inside us. Some more, some less. And of course culture rewards and enhances certain aspects of it or others. So we have those differences in how people organize themselves, depending on societal values.

 

I dont wanna make this too abstract. The point is that culture exists within the boundaries of our make. It then influences how we perceive things, creating a cycle. Religion is just one of those constructions. We can literally trace its beginnings, when it is created, its evolution in time, so really its hard to believe in any of it. We also know of its instrumental value for those in power in controling populations at various levels, so this alone should make anyone with tendencies to believe in a faithbased doctrine to be aware.

 

As for the afterlife, its not in our minds at all, apart from certain emotional moments. We dont need a life after death, its not something that has any consequence in our daily lives (at least for most of us). We have needs and apetites and dreams that motivate us to live meaningful moments, with others or by ourselves. That rich fabric of experiences is more than enough to keep us busy and reward us for being allive. A lot of living creatures dont even get that grace. A lot of us are lucky to get it. And if you die and its the end of all and you cease to "be" for ever, its like they say, I dont remember being sad about it during the eons I spent in non-existance before I was born.

Edited July 31, 2015 by RPGista

[Anderson]

 

While it's true that the Christian heritage has had a lot of influence in European countries, and I'll admit that there is plenty of wisdom in the New Testament, let's not get carried away.

 

Christianity didn't invent the idea of murder being wrong. Murder is taboo in pretty much every society in the world, even those who have never heard of Jesus. Democracy was practised by the Ancient Greeks. Freedom of speech came about as a result of people kicking back against religion, including Christianity, sometimes at the cost of their own lives (hence the wording of the First Amendment which prohibits the "establishment of religion").

 

By all means let's love our neighbours and turn our other cheeks, but please don't pretend that humanity was a cesspit of lawless savages until the Bible appeared from nowhere and turned everything around. Religions only reflect the values of the societies who created them.

 

I agree that Christianity may not have *invented* so to speak many concepts. But, the fact that it became a religion for the poor, the rich - everyone, over time it influenced our laws. The Old Testament is a great example of how different were the ideas of God before Chrtistianity.

Greek Democracy was violent and brutal mixed with draconian laws. In Greek mythology the themes of revenge, murder are very common.

Even "The Illiad" starts with the word "anger": Sing, O goddess, the anger of Achilles son of Peleus.

 

I'm not implying though that religion made everyone saint and made this world instantly better. Quite on the contrary. The struggle of people for the greater good, a process that lasted hundreds of years, for a better world, Humanism, Renaissance, with no monopoly of the pope and Catolicism, the rise of Protestantism, The Age of Enlightenment!

Very appropriately you've mentioned the American Constitution, and many other Constitutions usually are inspired by that principle that originally had their beggining in The Bible and were later developed by many great minds into functional and working systems and laws.

When we stand before the court we give an oath to not lie in the name of the law or the bible.

 

 

History is a process and in that you're 100% correct. People justified themselves through some isolated passages of the bible and ruled tyrannically through all of the Middle Ages. But the struggle of the poor against the rich created a much fairer world in the long run.

 

 

 

 

The point is that culture exists within the boundaries of our make. It then influences how we perceive things, creating a cycle. Religion is just one of those constructions. We can literally trace its beginnings, when it is created, its evolution in time, so really its hard to believe in any of it. We also know of its instrumental value for those in power in controling populations at various levels, so this alone should make anyone with tendencies to believe in a faithbased doctrine to be aware.

 

 

I disagree. If you take the *source* content of Religions you may adopt it to how you feel is right to live. Nobody has the right to control you.

 

The belief that a religion was made on purpose to control people refers more to the recent sectarianism rather than the mainstream religious currents. It's also rooted more in the corrupt nature of humans who presumably are the voice of God etc. etc. If you have a brain you won't fall for that.

 

Religion is something of the soul. Not just some routine of lighting a candle. Why do it if you don't feel there is a point to it?

I feel that religions have such a mythical appearance that we'll never date exactly, conclusively it's a pointless philosophical recursion. I mean, that's why Kant and Nietzche never appealed to me in their attempts to explain life.

 

It's intersting theories and all that but, in practice to believe or not to believe is all you can do. Religions can be neither prooved scientifically nor rebutted.

[Springheel]

Very appropriately you've mentioned the American Constitution, and many other Constitutions usually are inspired by that principle that originally had their beggining in The Bible

 

 

Which principles do you think had their beginnings in the Bible?

 

Religions can be neither prooved scientifically nor rebutted.

 

 

Plenty of religious claims can, in fact, be rebutted. And there are lots of claims that could be proved scientifically.

[Anderson]

 

Which principles do you think had their beginnings in the Bible?

 

 

 

The French Constitution - Liberte, Fraternite, Egalite. All are equal, slavery disappears, education for everyone. Eventually the revolutionary wave spread in all of Europe. The religious aspect of it asserts most importantly that these fundamental laws were made for the good of people. Every cycle of power change eventually led to better, more democratic constitutions. I can't imagine these documents looking otherwise without the idea that all men are brothers which Christianity did teach.

 

 

"Plenty of religious claims can, in fact, be rebutted. And there are lots of claims that could be proved scientifically."

 

Which ones if I may ask?

I didn't mean by the way an official stace of a religious institution (against homosexualism for example) but rather something very obvious from those texts. Things directly written about.

 

[Springheel]

All are equal, slavery disappears, education for everyone.

 

 

You do know that the Bible sanctions slavery, right? Even in the New Testament, slaves were told to obey their masters, especially if they were cruel masters. You have to cherry pick pretty hard to claim that the Bible promotes "equality".

 

 

"Plenty of religious claims can, in fact, be rebutted. And there are lots of claims that could be proved scientifically."

 

 

Which ones if I may ask?

I didn't mean by the way an official stace of a religious institution (against homosexualism for example) but rather something very obvious from those texts. Things directly written about.

 

 

One obvious example is the following claim made by the Bible:

 

Mark 16:17-18: And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

 

You can set up experiments to test these things pretty easily.

[Anderson]

 

You do know that the Bible sanctions slavery, right? Even in the New Testament, slaves were told to obey their masters, especially if they were cruel masters. You have to cherry pick pretty hard to claim that the Bible promotes "equality".

 

 

In a way you're correct. But in contrast to the Old Testament masters are also told to treat their servants as brothers.

In general though if we take the context when slavery took place in Biblical times, you'd face a harsh opposition and punishment to condemning slavery simply because it was every day reality. By not doing it explicitly obviously they didn't want to displease slave owners.

We may pick some parable lines and say that through them slavery is endorsed. We may as well take some other parable lines or more metaphoric/allegoric sayings and treat that as an opposition to the status-quo.

Regardless of that, the general thought of The New Testament is obvious in it's rebellious attitude against the established order of "kings", "princes" "of men"

[Anderson]

 

 

One obvious example is the following claim made by the Bible:

 

Mark 16:17-18: And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

 

You can set up experiments to test these things pretty easily.

It is once again a more metaphoric expression. It's impossible to test most of the time because if there are still people able to do this - they most of the time try to show off another "miracle" to gain more people to the local church.

Hypothetically if I could do all of this stuff, I'd never agree to an experiment just to satisfy my pride against the world.

Faith is something deeper than just miracles in my opinion.

It's a spiritual thing after all.

[Springheel]

We may pick some parable lines and say that through them slavery is endorsed. We may as well take some other parable lines or more metaphoric/allegoric sayings and treat that as an opposition to the status-quo.

 

 

Yes, that's why I said cherry-picking is necessary. When a book can promote both one principle and its opposite at the same time, then it's not exactly a valid source of inspiration. At best it supports principles that people come to through other means.

 

It is once again a more metaphoric expression.

 

 

Yes, that's the easy escape any time a claim is made that can obviously be disproved.

 

However, there are plenty of Christian sects that obviously don't believe that passage is metaphorical, which is why you have churches promoting faith healing, speaking in tongues, or snake-handling.

 

It's impossible to test most of the time because if there are still people able to do this - they most of the time try to show off another "miracle" to gain more people to the local church.

 

 

 

It's not "impossible to test". Yes, there are plenty of people who do this kind of thing through trickery, but legitimate, rigorous testing conditions can be set up to find out whether there are people who can do it legitimately. To my knowledge, no such test has ever had positive results, but many people who claim to have these abilities have been proved fraudulent (Peter Popoff being a high profile example).

 

 

Faith is something deeper than just miracles in my opinion.

 

Faith is just the excuse people give themselves to believe things they know they don't have enough evidence for.

[161803398874989]

 

 

I can't fathom the people who say they can't understand the appeal of one

Most people in this category hold honesty/knowledge in higher regard than comfort. I'm sure they understand the appeal, where "appeal" is understood "locally", i.e. the direct benefits it has without considering the negative sides. However, people who say they don't understand the appeal, are talking about "appeal" understood "globally, i.e. the benefits it has after weighing the pros and cons. That make sense?

 

 

 

On top of that, the physicalist model of the mind -- i.e. that it's a property of the brain -- has led to countless important discoveries about how to control and fix the mind. The dualist theory has led to none and there's never been a scrap of evidence for it. So I put it down as wishful thinking.

As interesting as this argument is, it doesn't directly imply the dualist theory is false. Moreover, certain forms of dualism and physicality are not mutually exclusive. Consider, for instance, our brain activity being completely mirrored in some other plane of existence, but when the physical brain stops working, the mirror keeps running. That'd classify as dualism, I think, and it takes absolutely nothing away from the physicalist model.

 

 

 

Plus there's the obvious argument: if souls can exist independently of the body, and can see, hear and interact with other souls without a body, why do we even need bodies in the first place?

Just because something isn't useful doesn't mean it doesn't exist. "Junk DNA" is a popular example.

 

I'm not a dualist, by the way, but I just can't let an insufficient argument slide.

 

 

 

Murder of kin, altruism, cooperation, all those traits are inside us, they dont need to be taught at all, its in our instincts, we kind of just wanna do it, without knowing why, because of the way we evolved as species. Its the same for the other animals in our family, and other families too. We can observe it in kids. As well as our bad instincts, like agression, possessiveness, selfish behaviour. Those are also inside us. Some more, some less. And of course culture rewards and enhances certain aspects of it or others. So we have those differences in how people organize themselves, depending on societal values.

This is a bit overly simplified. While the basest of values are within us, law is necessary to maintain societal order, since values can often conflict, and we have not evolved to deal with large-scale societal conflicts, but rather personal conflicts.

I'd also say there is no such thing as a "bad" instinct. Agression, possessiveness, and selfishness all have their uses, particularly in the environment humans evolved in. I am a very individualistic person, so I don't see selfishness and possessiveness as particularly negative traits. Of course, omnia in mensura.

 

 

 

The belief that a religion was made on purpose to control people refers more to the recent sectarianism rather than the mainstream religious currents. It's also rooted more in the corrupt nature of humans who presumably are the voice of God etc. etc. If you have a brain you won't fall for that.

I know for a fact that 100% of the people who fell for that did have, in fact, a brain. Shocking, I know.

Jokes aside, I really like the memetic view of religion, which can explain a lot about how it arises or why it's so "powerful", and how it can or cannot control people. Give the CGP grey video on memes (in the traditional, not the "internet fad" sense) a watch:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkq

 

 

 

It's intersting theories and all that but, in practice to believe or not to believe is all you can do. Religions can be neither prooved scientifically nor rebutted.

 

 

Plenty of religious claims can, in fact, be rebutted. And there are lots of claims that could be proved scientifically.

Yes, you can rebut specific claims, but that does not rebut religion as a whole (it's part of why you should probably cherry pick lessons from religious texts).

 

 

 

Faith is just the excuse people give themselves in order to believe things they know they don't have enough evidence for.

Doesn't mean it's bad or useless. Plenty of mathematicians believe that P is not equal to NP (if it were equal you could break the hell out of cryptography and stuff), and that belief guides their research in a significant way, and leads to progress. Indeed it now seems fairly likely that P will not equal NP, in the end. But we do not know for sure, since the arguments are of the form "if it is equal, then this this thing will do such and such, but the thing resembles some other thing that can never do the equivalent of such and such".