Ninavism - The Philosophy of Immortality
Home
Ordering a Book
Feedback Form
SUMMARIES OF CHAPTERS:
Introduction
1. Technological Immortality
2. Final Immortality
3. Life Creation and Propagation
4. Life Centres in the Universe
5. Reincarantion Combined with Resurrection
6. Complete Model of Immortality
7. Postimmortality
8. History & Evolution of Immortality
9. Ninavism
10. Supernatural Forces
11. Problem of Evil
12. Epistemology
13. Methodology
14. Compatibilities of Immortalities
15. Heaven(s) & Hell(s)
16. Implementation of Final Immortality
17. Implementation of Present Immortality
18. Paradoxes & Puzzles of Final Immortality
19. Animals & Plants
20. Atheism
21. Population Control
22. Gays
 
Glossary of Terms
About Web Site
Chapter 14

Compatibilities of Immortalities

Summary of Chapter

Concepts of Immortality have evolved over a long course of history. Many of these ideas seem to be incompatible or contradict each other. One might ask which concept of Immortality is true? With evolving scientific theory, the true concept is usually the last one. The newest scientific theory is normally regarded as more accurate than the older. The answer is not that simple with Immortality ideas. The notion of 'accuracy' does not apply to Immortality. It is hard to say that one concept of Immortality is more or less accurate than another one. Immortality usually does not depend, to a large extent, on the truth of the details of a particular concept. The verification of Immortality relies on other criteria, such as happiness, morality, the strength of the society or irrational feelings, which are all communal truths.

Categories of Differences


The differences between the concepts of Immortality can be grouped into separate and distinct categories. The first group of differences is the existence, in a particular model or religion, of the entire big part of Immortality, or the lack of it. There are four main components of Immortality: temporary Immediate World directly after death that is frequently depicted by religions as a spiritual, Reincarnation which is a new life in this world, Semi-Permanent World such as Nirvana, and Resurrection within Final World. Some models or religions describe only one, or two, or three of these components, thus missing one or more parts. This group of differences is about the ontology of Immortality. The second group of differences are various paths and conditions of entry to any particular part of Immortality. These are known as conditions of salvation and also contain details of rewards. The next group of differences are the qualities of Immortality, which are known as penalties and Hell(s).

Afterdicy


The problem of Immortality is the issue of how to reconcile the differences between Immortalities of various religions. The Problem of Evil is the issue of how to reconcile the existence of badness with Supernatural Forces. The Problem of Evil has multiple solutions that are called 'Theodices'. The problem of Immortality also has multiple solutions. By analogy to naming convention of Theodices, Ninavism calls them 'AFTERDICES'. The first part of this term, that is 'After', comes from the word 'Afterlife'. Each particular solution to a problem, that is each AFTERDICY, provides a partial explanation of how Immortalities of different religions can be made compatible with each other.

Elevating Immortality of Own Religion


The most common way of removing contradictions between Immortality of one's own religion and those of others, is by elevating one's own Immortality and downgrading other religions. The elevation of Immortality of one's own religion or model refers to all aspects of belief: ontology, salvation, and penalties. The Afterdicy of Elevating Own Immortality comes in two distinct forms. The first one says that the only true Immortality is that of one's own religion. Immortalities of all other religions are thought to be false, inaccurate, or irrelevant. This form is the strongest and most explicit elevation. As long as one sticks to a particular religion or model, this Afterdicy provides logical internal consistency. All people, irrespective of religion or model, have the Immortal World to which they belong, which is the one of their own beliefs. In this way, Immortality is relative. It is true within one's own religion, but all others outside it are false.
      However, relativity of Immortality does not solve the problem of objective Immortality. With many religions claiming that only their Immortality is objectively true, it is impossible to decide which religion is correct. This position frequently leads to clashes and disrespect of other religions and models. Some religions try to frighten believers of other religions by claiming that they will go to Hell if they do not accept a particular version of Immortality. This type of attitude has nothing to do with underlying doctrines, but rather is an attempt to increase the number of their own followers.
      The second form of Afterdicy of Elevating Own Immortality is by concentrating on Immortality of one's own religion and ignoring Immortality of any other religion. Many religions simply do not have any explanation for Immortality of other religions. They sometimes refrain from judging other Immortalities, restricting themselves to the explanation of just their own. When one asks followers of that religion to explain Immortality of others, they either refuse to reply, or avoid answering, or simply say that they do not know other religions. This form of elevation of its own religion is implicit, because there is no open assertion of superiority of one's own Immortality, or falsity of Immortality of another religion. However, it is still elevation, even if it is not declared openly for reasons of politics or politeness.
      Ninavism opposes elevating Immortality of one's own religion in both forms, explicit and implicit. Explicit elevation of one's own Immortality is offensive. Implicit elevation does not solve problems that remain hidden. The Philosophy of Immortality tries to reconcile different religions by proposing a model that is a compromise. Does Ninavism elevate its own Complete Model of Immortality (CMI) over traditional religions? The answer is no, in principle. It does not consider Immortality of traditional religions as false, so this is not explicit elevation. It does not ignore Immortality of traditional religions, so this is not implicit elevation. At the same time, Ninavism considers CMI to provide a better explanation than traditional religions, without rejecting them. Traditional Immortalities are special cases of CMI.

Multiple Parallel Immortal Worlds


The Afterdicy of Multiple Parallel Immortal Worlds supports the complete ontological and physical separation of Immortalities. Since most religions have slightly different beliefs in Immortality, their real Immortalities are also different. Deceased creatures spend their Immortal life depending on religion; there is no one single Immortal World for all religions. The next assumption of this Afterdicy is that Immortalities of all religions are static, not changing in time.
      It is possible to create mathematical constructions pointing out to a place where those different Immortal Worlds would actually exist. Immortality, being part of the invisible world would lie in a different mathematical dimension than the visible world, located near visible world, or in a parallel universe. As a consequence of this Afterdicy, each human concept of Immortality is correct because they describe different Immortal Worlds. The contradictions between different concepts of Immortality disappear.
      Each religion has its own parallel Immortal World with the entrance located near a main Sacred town. Christians have entrance in Rome, Muslims in Mecca, Jews in Jerusalem, Hindus in Varanasi, Buddhists in Lumbini, etc. This Afterdicy satisfies those who support the total separation of all Immortality beliefs and religions. The Philosophy of Immortality does not favour this Afterdicy in the area of ontology. It is too complicated. Ninavism supports the unity of Immortality. People of different religions inhabit one world, this planet. So why should they be separated in other worlds? However, Ninavism supports partial relativity of Immortality. For example, followers of different religions have different moral restrictions. Therefore, the penalties in Immortality are also relative, different and dependant on religion. The conditions of salvation also depend on religion.

Evolution of Immortality


The Afterdicy of Evolution assumes that Immortality is not static, but rather dynamic, changing with time. The Evolution of Immortality itself provides an explanation of the multiplicity of the concepts of Immortalities. Each concept of Immortality corresponds to different stages of evolving Immortality. Different concepts of Immortality are just static snapshots of an ever-changing Immortality. This Afterdicy has two versions. The first simpler one says that there is only one evolving Immortality. This can explain how one concept of Immortality disappears, and a new one replaces it, with both concepts of Immortality being two stages of the same evolving Immortality. However, this version of Afterdicy does not explain well how different concepts of Immortality exist at the same time, like in two or more concurrent Immortality beliefs.
      The second version of Afterdicy says that there are many Immortalities, all of which evolve. Those Immortalities might have started evolving from the same single Immortality. This resembles the evolution of living organisms, animals and plants on the earth, and also resembles the development of countries. Ninavism supports the general concept that Immortality is evolving, that it is dynamic. It is particularly evident in the model of Immediate World directly after death; this part of Immortality is closely tied to this world. Since this world evolves, Immediate World must adjust itself to that evolution, and also keep changing.

Agnosticism of Immortality


In the Agnostic Afterdicy, the true details of Immortality are considered as completely unknown, agnostic. Each human concept of Immortality is neither correct nor incorrect. People do not know whether there is only one type of Immortality, or many. The only thing that is correct is the Principle of Immortality. The lack of knowledge about Immortality is graded. The weakest Agnostic says that the unknowness is restricted to the current generation, but in the future, knowledge will increase and Agnosticism will disappear. In this form, it is like science, which frequently is unable to provide the answer at the present stage, but as knowledge increases, more answers will come. The stronger form Agnosticism claims that people, in principle, are unable to know Immortality, now and in the future; Immortality is beyond human comprehension permanently.
      In this Afterdicy, the details of the concepts of Immortality presented by extinct, current, and future religions, are all irrelevant. There are no contradictions between Immortalities because they are not treated literally. Even if on the surface, at face value, Immortalities appear to contradict each other, they really describe the same Principle of Immortality. Agnosticism is very convenient, but sometimes it is overused by providing excuses for not making a sufficient effort to try to understand Immortality. Ninavism avoids Agnosticism; the Principle of Immortality alone is insufficient. People need details even if they are not accurate.

Details of Immortality Are Irrelevant


The radical solution to the problem of multiple concepts of Immortality is saying that it makes no difference whether or not a particular concept of Immortality is correct. As long as the Principle of Immortality is correct, and people are happy in Immortality, everything is OK, even if the idea of Immortality in any particular religion is incorrect. The important thing is to believe in a particular concept of Immortality, even if it is incorrect, because in the end, the believer will be OK.
      The belief in an incorrect concept of Immortality makes people happier in this world, compared to disbelief. The support of an incorrect idea of Immortality makes people more moral on earth, compared to disbelief. The belief in an incorrect Immortality makes religion and society stronger on this planet, compared to disbelief. Saying that, not each belief in an incorrect concept of Immortality makes people happier, stronger, or more moral. There were religious beliefs in history that were evil and destructive. Therefore, the beliefs are verified in this world before being verified after death. This is the position of the Philosophy of Immortality. All models presented by Ninavism stress the need for verification.

Mixed Solutions


There are myriads of solutions that are the mixture of some or all of the Afterdices presented above, applied in different proportions. In Mixed Afterdicy, Immortalities partially Elevate Own Religion, partially run in parallel, partially evolve, partially are Agnostic, and partially the details are irrelevant. This Afterdicy follows an approximate logical form:
      Immortality = Immortality-1 AND Immortality-2 AND Immortality-3 AND ...
It says that all Immortalities are correct. In contrast with the above, the Afterdicy which says that it does not matter which model is correct, has the approximate logical form:
      Immortality = Immortality-1 OR Immortality-2 OR Immortality-3 OR ...
It says that at least one Immortality is correct, but it does not say which one.

New Models of Immortality


Many models of Immortality can be constructed. CMI presented by Ninavism removes some inconsistencies between Immortalities described by various religions in history. Therefore, CMI is a type of Afterdicy. New models of Immortality and religions will appear in the future. They will try to provide a uniform theory of Immortality, thus creating new Afterdices.

Key Points of Chapter: