It has been suggested by various philosophers that having absolute certainty of consciousness surviving death is not in humanity’s best interest. To put it another way, some doubt on this concern is necessary for humanity to flourish. I was curious as to what Artificial Intelligence (AI) has to say on this matter and asked for “its” thoughts.
“This is a thoughtful question, and it has a long philosophical pedigree,” it (ChatGPT) responded. “I’ll try to respond in a way that takes the concern rather seriously rather than dismissing it as mere speculation.” (It should be noted that I asked AI which pronoun I should use in referencing “it” and it replied that “it” is proper, not “he” or “she,” although “they” would be acceptable.)
AI then went on to say that the suggestion I was referring to rests on a “prudential or evolutionary argument, not a truth claim” and reworded it to say: “Even if survival of consciousness after death were true, absolute certainty of it might have destabilizing consequences for human behavior and social order.” First among the arguments for the necessity of doubt, it listed “existential urgency,” explaining that “if life is known to be one chapter in an endless story, this life might be devalued.” It went on to say that mortality sharpens attention, compassion, and responsibility now, rather than deferring meaning to ‘later,’ and that uncertainty forces moral autonomy. “Absolute certainty would collapse diversity of worldview in ways that might be socially brittle.”
AI draws from Sǿren Kierkegaard, William James, Miguel de Unamuno, Henri-Louis Bergson, and Paul Tillich to support the uncertainty premises. Kierkegaard, often referred to as the “father of existentialism,” held that “ethical responsibility arises precisely because outcomes are uncertain” and that “objective certainty destroys authentic inwardness.” Professor James argued that “certainty can short-circuit moral development if it removes existential risk.” Spanish philosopher de Unamuno held that “certainty of immortality would cheapen life, yet certainty of annihilation would destroy meaning.” As French philosopher Bergson saw it, “intellect is ill-suited to grasp it fully.”
Tillich, a German-American philosopher, concluded that “certainty would eliminate anxiety, but also eliminate courage.”
Interestingly, AI further pointed out that some of the pioneers of psychical research resisted claims of final certainty. Frederic W. H. Myers, who argued that the evidence strongly favors survival, is said to have “hinted” that “full certainty may not be compatible with embodied human life.” Richard Hodgson feared that premature certainty would corrupt inquiry and invite dogma. Professor James Hyslop saw doubt as a safeguard against religious authoritarianism, while Sir Oliver Lodge stated that “public, universal certainty might be socially disruptive.” Lodge further stated that his personal certainty was not transferable.
But AI didn’t stop there. It then cited the works of NDE researchers, including Drs. Raymond Moody, Bruce Greyson, and Pim van Lommel, stating that a recurring theme in NDE research is that “absolute conclusions are avoided – not merely for reputational safety, but because the data resist closure.”
Leave a Reply