![Medicine Medicine](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/medicine_64.png?refresh=now)
Study Finds the Pious Fight Death Hardest 921
Stanislav_J writes "A US study suggests that people with strong religious beliefs appear to want doctors to do everything they can to keep them alive as death approaches. The study, following 345 patients with terminal cancer, found that 'those who regularly prayed were more than three times more likely to receive intensive life-prolonging care than those who relied least on religion.' At first blush, this appears paradoxical; one would think that a strong belief in an afterlife would lead to a more resigned acceptance of death than nonbelievers who view death as the end of existence, the annihilation of consciousness and the self. Perhaps the concept of a Judgment produces death-bed doubts? ('Am I really saved?') Or, given the Judeo-Christian abhorrence of suicide, and the belief that it is God who must ultimately decide when it is 'our time,' is it felt that refusing aggressive life support measures or resuscitation is tantamount to deliberately ending one's life prematurely?"
Or they're terrified (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they don't really believe and haven't had time to consider and come to terms with their own mortality.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Insightful)
what they've believed their whole lives might actually not be true
Actually, I'd expect it to be the reverse. If I expected my eternal destiny to be judged upon death, I'd be pretty anxious to postpone my trial.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Insightful)
Couple that with the fact that the more 'pious' people that I've met are generally the worst Christians. They're judgmental, opinionated, closed-minded, bigoted, and full of hate. The most laid-back Christians I know are more liberal and open-minded, and follow the teachings of Christ a lot better.
Perhaps when faced with their impending death, some of them realize just how much of assholes they've been, and how badly that's going to look come judgement.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Couple that with the fact that the more 'pious' people that I've met are generally the worst Christians. They're judgmental, opinionated, closed-minded, bigoted, and full of hate. The most laid-back Christians I know are more liberal and open-minded, and follow the teachings of Christ a lot better.
Perhaps when faced with their impending death, some of them realize just how much of assholes they've been, and how badly that's going to look come judgement.
The truly pious (your second group) are more familiar with the concept of forgiveness, and thus believe in their own salvation. The rare(?) judgmental hate mongers within a church tend to intellectually understand that they are forgiven in a cold academic way, but may not really believe it.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Insightful)
According to my common sense, original sin is messed up.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:4, Insightful)
Basing your life on every word written by people who lived in the desert thousands of years ago seems a bit messed up too.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Insightful)
"In the christian case, however this disappearance is interesting since it was atheists who prosecuted christians."
Which atheists? Surely not the Jews nor the Romans. Which atheists, then?
"the Romans, which brings the question why they did this ... which is imho not sufficiently answered"
It's so simple it hardly needs an explanation. On one hand, don't tell Romans were atheists, they were not. On the other hand, christians were prosecuted because they were a (relatively) easy target on a time it meant political advantage having a "racial" enemy (for more information, look for "Emmanuel Goldstein" or "Al Qaeda"). Just the same reasons than in the case of Jews, women, black people or any other easly distinguishable people pool.
We are humans, social mammals, with a strong tendence to promote "our" group against "others" as a mean to make our gene pool to perdurate. Social prosecution is just a symptom emerging from our biological ancestors.
And about religion, more of the same. We are strongly programmed to stablish causal correspondences. Every "why" must have a "because". You know every baby born grows to the phase of "why this daddy? why that daddy?" and more importantly, you will see little children *never* question daddy's answers (only they will add another "why" to the answer): the Moon is made of cheese, because my daddy so said; babies come from Paris, because my daddy so said... We need *answers* much more strongly than *correct* answers. Given the choice of a crackpot answer or no answer most people will accept the former to the latter.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:4, Informative)
That's some pretty serious twisting of the facts there to suit a particular worldview.
Atheist does not mean "non-monotheist". The Romans were by no means atheists [wikipedia.org]. While there is evidence of persecution of Christianity for some time, it was eventually absorbed as the state religion, and coalesced into the Roman Catholic Church. The title of Pontifex Maximus [wikipedia.org], now applied to the Pope, was once held by Julius Caesar.
To assert that Christianity has been unchanged before or since this time is just strange. Ever heard of the Council of Nicaea [wikipedia.org] or Vatican II [wikipedia.org]? How about the fate of Gnosticism [wikipedia.org]?
Your desert claims are ridiculous. Where did Jesus go for 40 days and 40 nights, to be tempted by the devil, if there was no desert in Ancient Israel?.
It is hard to buy your argument that Christianity somehow "works". It has split into innumerable denominations, further underlining its mutability. Allegedly righteous Christians launched the Crusades and used their religion as justification for colonialism and slavery for centuries. The modern world only even began to "work" when Europe was released from religious domination of state affairs.
I do agree with you that not all ideas ideas in established religions are simply random. Successful religions will tend to have properties that lead to that success. There is no reason to believe, however, that benefit for believers or alignment with actual truth about the world are well-represented among these properties.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only messed up if there is a belief that original sin means that you are guilty for the sins of Adam/Eve -- that is, their sin has created some type of guilt on the part of their descendants.
Another thought is simply that the the sin of Adam/Eve was an "upward fall" whereas the sin is a consequence of free will and full humanity -- if people did not have the ability to choose between right and wrong, then they would not be fully human. Here original sin is the state of being able to sin, which is inherited just as humanity is inherited.
Another thought on original sin is simply that is an insignificant blemish, and therefore of no importance (though it still exists).
Another thought is that the sin of Adam/Eve, has caused humanity to have a tendency towards sin -- and thus the original sin is simply a bias in behavior.
Original sin really is not a single belief any more than Christianity itself is a single set of beliefs, or that slashdot "thinks" anything in particular. Instead, it is a collection of related beliefs that are often lumped together into one -- "original sin".
Voice of sanity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Voice of sanity (Score:5, Interesting)
"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions of years before I was born and
had not suffered the slightest of inconvenience from it." -- Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens).
That's as maybe ... but in those billions of years previously, young Mr Twain wasn't aware of what he was missing.
Re:Voice of sanity (Score:5, Insightful)
>That's as maybe ... but in those billions of years previously, young Mr Twain wasn't aware of what he was missing.
And he isn't now, either.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Funny)
Osmostism.
Original sin (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Original sin (Score:5, Informative)
Original sin as a Christian doctrine predates the formation of most distinct separate sects -- it may be "catholic" in the sense of "universal", but it isn't a distinctly Catholic idea; it is found in most strains of Christianity (though not in all groups that are or call themselves "Christian"). OTOH, the evolution over time of the precise understanding of original sin differs between different groups within Christianity. Wikipedia's article on original sin [wikipedia.org] is a fairly decent starting point.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, it's almost universal in Christianity. A few fringe sects might not believe in it, but it's part of Catholic, Orthodox and mainstream Protestant thought.
Re:Original sin (Score:5, Interesting)
Buddha looked around him and saw life as a bondage and full of suffering, as we are subject to our animal instincts, fears, desires, etc. I have read a Chinese erudite who interprets the concept of original sin as a corruption of this buddhist idea into something where we are born as entirely corrupt (while it could be observed that we inherited cooperative instincts as well) and where we inherited guilt from our ancestors, a quite simplistic and vicious turn of a sound observation of our animal and earthy nature.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Insightful)
You could only come to that conclusion if you ignored all the other tenets of Christianity e.g. murder being wrong, life being purposeful because it is commanded by God and provides opportunities to serve him and enjoy him.
Re:Why are gods narcissistic? (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you know? If I were a "god" that "invented" the universe and the "scare quotes" within it I would be very different from how I am now, and I think you would be too.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Interesting)
From a memetic point of view, this only makes sense. Any religion that believe offing yourself as fast as possible was a good idea would be like the Ebola of religions, wiping itself out before getting a good shot at jumping hosts.
Although, in this day of fast communication and semi-decent data retention, one could almost get away with it. Put up a website, start a trust to keep it going, put up a page consisting of "donate to our trust, then pop a cap in your head". Then read it.
It'd only catch the crazies without a better hook, but it'd probably keep the site going until the government where the site was hosted suffered revolution or nuclear war.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Insightful)
I always have thought this to be the most illogical parts of humans of modern mainstream religion.
Looking for logic and consistency in any religion is a fool's errand.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, unbaptized babies go to Limbo. Read something besides Pagan FUD please. Thank you.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, unbaptized babies go to Limbo. Read something besides Pagan FUD please. Thank you.
Rome threw out the idea of limbo. Didn't you get the memo?
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Interesting)
Who knows what happened to all the babies' souls that had supposedly been in limbo up until that point. It makes absolutely no sense to me how people can believe in religion when things like this are fairly common.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:4, Interesting)
It makes absolutely no sense to me how people can believe in religion when things like this are fairly common.
This is the problem with all Slashdot discussions on religion. All you see is logical analysis of faith and doctrines, pointing out inconsistencies, irrationalities. Of course, most techies have overemphasized rational thinking, and most don't realize that this is but one faculty governing a man's life, and the feeling that this faculty is the one that sits in the big chair is illusory.
And occasionally you see a Christian defend faith, but on the same rationality battlefield, bringing up specious "complex design" or "unprovability of the absence of God" arguments. This is the same fallacy that pits religion against science, as competing descriptions of the world. Inevitably religion loses this concocted battle, because science actually provides a model of the world, while religion is a FEELING.
Why do people believe in religion? And I don't mean people that were born into it and inertially follow the organized traditions, without delving into the questions and their own personal relationship to religion. It is also primitive and uninsightful to attribute the persistence and strength of religions throughout human history to some vague conspiracy-leaning theory about how religion is just another way to hold power and kill people. The people that form the living heart of religions, those that sustain its strength and move it forward (yes, religions progress!) are those that perceive what Jung called the numen, a divine feeling from the inside.
So, why do such people believe in religion? Because the stories of God coincide with the numinous feelings that they themselves experience. The question of where, psychologically, evolutionarily, these feelings come from is irrelevant to these people, since such feelings are often the most real-seeming experiences of one's life, laden with meaning and filling their lives with a sense of purpose.
Now, before you dismiss me as some nutcase, I don't myself have such strong experiences, and am more interested in studying them from a psychological standpoint, but my research consistently points out the ignorance of modern man in regard to what religion really is - a basic perception. Do you believe in sound? Or just hear it?
Of course, it is religion's own fault for not articulating itself better in today's ultra-rational world, and attempting to lay claim to some part of the physical world, through a physical God.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Insightful)
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." - Marcus Aurelius
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The quote has fairly massive flaws If God is by his nature, supremely worthy of worship, then not worshipping him is a terrible wrong, making any human virtues somewhat irrelevant. And if God's moral standard is at a certain level, then human definitions of virtue will always fall short.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:4, Informative)
Where did I say that? You were the one with a quote saying that devoutness (i.e. adherence to God) was something God wouldn't care about, which I disagreed with.
Such reasoning takes Genesis 1 and 2, then fails to apply Genesis 3, which reveals man to fallen i.e. no longer a good representative of God, therefore our current nature is not what we are supposed to be.
Who said anything about blind faith? I certainly don't have it and hope that people have faith on the basis of evidence.
I agree that God gave us minds in order that we might use them (though I also disagree that his precepts are irrelevant). How is that at all relevant to what I posted? Surely a intelligent mind, upon discovering an infinitely worthy being, would worship it?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Limbo was made up. There's no reference to it anywhere in the bible. Even our catholic school teachers taught us as much.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
[citation needed]
As a Pagan I'm very confused by this statement because I've never heard of such. I don't even know of any proactive Pagan initiatives educate outsiders on Paganism (possibly a FUD engine based on your point of view).
Like any religion we have our share of members who are attention seeking louts (our's scream "I'm a Pagan, deal with it!" yours scream "Your going to Hell for X!") but we tend to have few members actively recruiting. Paganism doesn't have a Dogmatic philosophy
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Insightful)
Or it's as simple as those that are afraid of mortality tend to cling to the idea of an afterlife. Rather than a causation here, I would guess we more likely have a correlation. The sort of people who are afraid of death will of course do everything in their power to avoid it. Additionally, the sort of people afraid of death will also be more willing to accept the idea of an afterlife.
We're so quick to tag any "link between video games and violence found" as correlationisnotcausation, but then we get an article positing a correlation between fear of death and religious faith, and we all start hopping on the bandwagon for "oh they don't believe their own lies" or "haha, shaken faith!" but really, I'm guessing it's more likely that the one doesn't actually cause the other, but they're instead both caused by some third factor (railing against mortality.)
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Interesting)
If you think you're not afraid of death, try this test: get a friend, and go to the Grand Canyon. Stand on the edge. Have your friend hold onto your shirt and push you so that your balance goes out over the edge. Don't try it too many times - your friend might slip.
Now, were you okay with it? Did you feel any fear, any adrenaline, anything like that? If not, maybe you're not afraid of death.
I think the actual problem here is something the Tibetans call tetsom - lazy doubt. You sort of nominally believe that X is true, and you leave it at that - you never go any deeper, never really examine it to see if what you believe really stands up to analysis. You *think* you really believe it, but your faith is foundationless.
Then when your faith is tested by the approach of death, suddenly your lazy doubt catches you by surprise, and makes your fear of death just that much worse, and so of course you cling to life all that much more strongly.
The depressing thing about lazy doubt is that I think it's behind a lot of the really pernicious things we attribute to religion - e.g., creationism is a clear case of lazy doubt. "Oh, if it turns out that things evolved, that calls my whole belief system into question, and I don't want to have to question it, so I will pretend that things didn't evolve."
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Insightful)
I think most everyone should be bothered by the situation you described: that's just a healthy human reaction.
But there's a difference between fear of death, and acceptance of the inevitable. Me falling into the grand canyon is not inevitable (I hope) but me dying eventually for some reason is.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Funny)
I dunno about you, but I do know that my plan is to live forever. Everything is going according to plan so far.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, were you okay with it? Did you feel any fear, any adrenaline, anything like that? If not, maybe you're not afraid of death.
Or maybe they are just afraid of falling long distances and experiencing the crunch at the bottom.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a difference between not fearing death and welcoming it.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ahh.. the watchmaker argument. Of course it couldn't be that the universe HAS to exist as it does, or it couldn't exist at all. It's a matter of statistics; there's a lot of matter in the universe, so it only makes sense that somewhere in it life started, randomly.
Nieschze has a good theory that explains it... without the need for a god.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:4, Insightful)
- Joe Blow won the lottery.
- Joe Blow must have cheated because the chances of him winning the lottery without cheating are not trivial.
Argument from ignorance or argument from lack of imagination. Because you cannot foresee an answer it has to be God. But you end your logical probing at God.
Now you fall victim to the first cause fallacy. Who created and finely tuned God? The chances of him existing and being finely tuned into your Christian God are far smaller than the chances of the universe being as it is. It's non-trivial that God could exist in such a form, some earlier God must have created him. And so on, and so forth.
Explain to me how the fine tuning required for God to form anywhere is less than the fine tuning for life to form anywhere.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:4, Informative)
The universe is not tuned to our specifications, with our well being in mind. We are tuned to it's specifications, and have adapted to survive here.
Oh wait, here's a quote from the article that you linked which explains it better than I could.
Critics suggest that the fine-tuned universe assertion and the anthropic principle are essentially tautologies.[9] The fine-tuned universe argument has also been criticized as an argument by lack of imagination because it assumes no other forms of life, based upon alternative biochemistry, are possible. In addition, critics argue that humans are adapted to the universe through the process of evolution, rather than the universe being adapted to humans. They also see it as an example of the logical flaw of hubris or anthropocentrism in its assertion that humans are the purpose of the universe.[10]"
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it's fair to characterize the "parallel universes" response as "blind faith." I've only run into one or two (rather stupid, sadly) atheists who really did have a firm faith in the existence of parallel universes. Generally speaking, this hypothesis is brought up to counter the notion that one should immediately leap to the conclusion that there is a personal Creator. There are too many options to settle on one.
To my mind, the really interesting question is why the universe is so damn mathematical. It's not just that we can measure things, but that things follow mathematical laws so exactly. It's no wonder that no one twigged to this fact for so long; it's such an astoundingly strange notion, from the perspective of pre-scientific peoples. For this reason (along with others), I find myself compelled to admit that a mind-like Higher Power is somehow the ultimate cause of things as we know them.
However, I don't think that there is any compelling reason to think that something like the Christian or Muslim God exists.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Insightful)
You have the answer right at the start of the article.
If the universe wasn't tuned in a way that allowed us to exist, we wouldn't be here to marvel at its well-tunedness.
There's also that life forms adapt to their environment. It's not that the universe is well suited to us, but we're well suited to live in the universe. It's like wondering that the ocean is remarkably well tuned for dolphins. It's isn't, the ocean was there before the dolphins.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Insightful)
No. You may have been told by those in authority in your church group that atheists have never thought about the issue, but that is not the truth.
What you describe is the Anthropic Principle, and far from never being seriously thought about, it's been debated to death all over the internet.
Aside from the extreme fallacy of claiming that if an atheist can't explain how something happened, it must have been a specific god, it can also be pointed out that the universe is not precisely tuned for human life. In fact, in all of it we know about, with the exception of one tiny portion of one tiny planet, we can't even breathe. And even on that part there are places where it's so hot and humid you'll die within hours, so cold you'll die within minutes, wind so strong it'll kill you, ground that shakes, falls, burns, fills suddenly with water, or just collapses under you unexpectedly. And that's not to mention all the other life forms, from large predators to tiny micro-organisms, that kill millions of us every year.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The beautiful thing about science is it doesn't have to explain anything until it's ready. The huge number of species so specialised didn't make sense until evolution came about. Until then, everyone could go "A wizard did it", but eventually it made sense. When physics reaches the point that we understand how this universe that we exist in came about, if it does end up explaining it in the span of human existence, then we'll know. Until then, the universe can be "A wizard did it" too. Electricity and magne
Kenny Chesney says it best... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Everybody wants to go to heaven,
Nobody wants to go now."
Maybe these folks just love life, and regard it as a great gift, something they don't want to end so soon...?
Nope, this is not a religion-bashing post, so I doubt it gets much support. I do find it interesting that so many here have to be so critical of other peoples life choices.
Standard disclaimer: Not a religious person, personally. But so long as your religion doesn't call for you to kill me because I don't pledge my life to your Deity, then it's
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Interesting)
I can talk about this first hand. You are all wrong. My father is very religious. He has had cancer twice. The second time was seven years ago. The doctor's gave him a 3% chance of living. He lived. And to this day, his medical bills are nuts. He works everyday to prolong his life in a manner which I know any normal mortal would be able to handle. I would have rolled over and died years ago. His quality of life sucks. He has been on a 90%liquid diet for seven years. For the past two years, he coughs up half of what he eats because it goes into his lungs. It takes him an hour and a half to eat a snack. It is an everyday battle for calories and strength. His oxygen levels are so low, that nearly every regular doctors visit, they send him to the emergency room. In fact, he went today.
So what is it? Is it a fear of death? Hell no. If you met my father for as little as one hour, then you would know that isn't it. He isn't scared to die. It is the combination of two things,
1) His faith gives him strength. What we may see as an unbearable life style, he has ways of dealing with it. It simply doesn't break will. He still finds joy in life.
2) My father believes in purpose. If God has given him a way to live, then God still has plans for him. Suffering everyday means something completely different to him.
---------------
I should not that, personally, I am agnostic. All of you pining over the idea that the religious fight death hardest because they are scared of death, which does follow some logic, are VERY wrong.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:4, Informative)
I agree completely. My mother-in-law who suffers from cancer stays with my wife and I. She is going through her second episode of cancer.
I can attest to the fact that she finds it possible to carry on only because of her faith. If she didn't have faith, she would have given up and died long ago.
Most people on Slashdot do not seem to realize that people handle terminal illness very differently. Many just give up and then death comes very quickly. Some just don't quit - no matter how hard it gets. Mental toughness goes a long way in keeping one alive.
I am guessing many of the more religious people probably don't quit as easily as those who are not religious.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If that's true, why does /faith/scientology /faith/christianity
$diff -B
show no difference between the two?
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Funny)
I can think of some unnatural religions.
Cthulhu ftaghn, RAmen!
It'd be like calamari in spaghetti sauce:)
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they don't really believe and haven't had time to consider and come to terms with their own mortality.
I dunno. Maybe the truly pious people don't wear it on their shoulder or are so humble that they play down their amount of piety religious when asked.
That or people who fear death are more likely to have embraced religion, not that religion makes people more fearful of death.
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly I find it's those that are members of the "you are BAD!!!!!" and guilt based religions that do this. Real christians, those that actually follow his teachings, not the dimwits that have the fish on the car and have sunday morning Tv extravaganzas tend to be afraid of death.
It's interesting. Do they realize on their death bed, they were actually raging assholes to their fellow man and are afraid of the wrath of their god on the other side?
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Interesting)
It's interesting. Do they realize on their death bed, they were actually raging assholes to their fellow man and are afraid of the wrath of their god on the other side?
EXACTLY! It was probably fear that lead them to the church in the first place. Then they surround themselves with like minded people and yell at the rest of the world for how evil they are(really there just mad everyone else doesn't have the same irrational fears of the natural world.) and have nice fantasies of the rest of the world rotting in hell. Then on their deathbed they wonder... "Is god gonna like those fantasies of all those people burning and being tortured because that's about as much as I thought about my entire life...All I ever wanted was for OTHER people to die and goto hell".
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a terrible survey, the base demography are of terminal cancer patients. Have the surveyor ever consider the possibility of people become pious due to fear of death? Many soldiers get sent to the battle field also suddenly become more pious. That's not something new. It'd pretty much be the same as "We've surveyed slashdot, and it seems people who post on slashdot also tend to be avid computer users." All I can say about that is "well duh!"
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow. A lot of dark, dark souls here on /.
Rather than fearing judgement or beset by regrets, perhaps pious folks have led for the most part satisifying lives, and that's why they want to keep on living.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I was raised, 'in the church' but I haven't stepped foot in one for at least 18 years. And I was never a 'believer' at all. (Parents taking you to church on Sundays doesn't make you a believer)
But I'm not sweating the idea of dying. What happens- happens.
We don't have any idea what exists in the great-beyond, but generally I don't believe it's anything like what the Christians (or any other religion) wants me to believe.
If pressed, I would guess that the light goes out, and it's over.
But who knows, maybe
Re:Or they're terrified (Score:5, Interesting)
That's how it works for me.
Around the age of 5 or 6, I was introduced for the first time to whatever the current life expectancy chart was at the time. For males, the average was 72. Now, I understood that anything could happen and I could pop my clogs a lot sooner, but I distinctly remember thinking "72? Sounds like a good run." And since that day, I've lived my life largely based around the knowledge that by the time I'm 70-80, I better have gotten to do all things I've wanted to do.
If it were me (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd be praying for a quick death so my family wouldn't have to pay the millions to keep me alive after hitting the limit on my insurance policy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Time on Earth is Valuable (Score:5, Insightful)
Compare this with an atheist who might believe that life is futile, fleeting, and nothing they do matters in the long run... they might be more accepting and complacent.
I'm not saying that either of these two are the case, my real point is that there are a billion different ways to look at this.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Atheism != nihilism. You fail it, try again.
Re:Time on Earth is Valuable (Score:5, Insightful)
If there are billions of different ways then clearly most of these ways must be wrong on some level or another.
Most of the atheists I know, myself included, value life a great deal. I would argue that the pious are more afraid because they spend their whole life thinking the afterlife is where life truly begins that they fail to live it to the fullest. Whereas the accepting atheist knows he/she has only 70 or so years if they are lucky to have a personally meaningful existence.
Re:Time on Earth is Valuable (Score:5, Insightful)
The TFA reveals the study is about aggressive, end-of-life cancer care. We're talking about people who have metastatic cancer and are on their death beds, people who have zero percent chance of survival.
This study is saying that religious people are more likely to insist on non-palliative chemotherapy and mechanical respiration even though there's no chance of it succeeding. The study found these people were the least likely to have filled in a "do not resuscitate" order.
This could be a fear of death thing or it could just be a hope for a miracle. If it's the latter then surely it'd just be better to place your complete faith in God at that stage of the game?
I suppose you can't expect religious people to act rationally about these things though.
Cause/Effect... (Score:5, Insightful)
People with the greatest fear of death would be inclined both to fight it medically and to seek reassurance against it theologically.
Is this really surprising? (Score:3, Interesting)
Probably get modded down for this.. for "religion" has always struck me as a haven for the fearful, those who lack self-esteem, or narcissistic personalities looking for external justification for their insane behaviour.
When such an individual is confronted with the prospect of death.. all that doubt, self-loathing and regret must really be a lot to suddenly bear when they "know" they're about to face the final judge.
No it is not. (Score:4, Informative)
Firstly, this thread seems to forget that there are many religions, not just Christianity. Each religion treats the coming of death differently. We Muslims are actually taught to be fearful of God and the coming of death. Being fearful of God and death is judged a positive trait.I have said before and I will say it again: you do not need a God to justify doing bad (and good) things in life. Atheists are as prone to having "insane behaviour" as religious people, or any human being. In fact, we say that those who don't believe in God are the ones who are narcissistic, in that by not believing in God, they elevate themselves to Godhood.
There are many verses in the Quran and hadiths that says every little action, good or bad that we do in this world, hidden or clearly seen, will be replayed and judged on Judgment Day and we are constantly reminded that death afflicts the young and healthy as equally as the old and sick. Muslims are taught to pray for an "easy" death, easy in the sense that the soul leaves the body without much suffering to the body. We fear death because we might not have asked people for forgiveness when we had the chance, or we had not carried out our duties and responsibilities to the best of our abilities, or we have taken more than we have given back. Yet we do not "hate" death because life and the whole Universe is an illusion, a game. We score points by doing good and lose points when we do bad things. The "real" life begins after death, one that is eternal and where we reap our rewards or receive our punishments. There are many verses in the Quran where non-believers and sinners on Judgment Day, will beg for another chance to return to this life and do better, but always the answer is it is too late.
Thus, it is a duty of a Muslim to live as long as possible, while doing as much good deeds as he can, to prepare for the inevitable. When a Muslim is on his death bed, his family and friends will attend to him, and whisper in his ear "there is no God but Allah" and asks him to repeat it so that it will be his last words. Quranic verses will be recited in his presence to calm him down and to face death with dignity. And when he dies, it is the duty of his children to regularly pray for him so that God forgives him.
So you obviously don't believe in God. I accept that. Then why do you belittle those who do? You choose to highlight evil religious people, yet you conveniently ignore those who serve the community and do good deeds. We Muslims are taught to praise and respect people who do good deeds, be they Muslims or not. If you don't believe in the Afterlife, does that invalidates the good deeds of those who do? Will you not benefit from the positive effects of good deeds done by the pious? Or are you ironically succumbing to the same dogmatic stance that you accuse believers of having?
Authoritarianism (Score:5, Interesting)
People who follow the instructions of authority, believe others should follow such instructions, and tend to believe that authority is right most or all of the time, are called authoritarian. People who hold to belief systems dictated by a hidden power with perfect judgement are some such. Those people also tend to believe/believe in other authorities judgements and power. Thus, people who hold strong religious beliefs tend to be the same people who most strongly believe in (and expect results from) the abilities of health care authorities -- doctors.
The same paradox was noted by Stanley Milgram in the Yale Experiments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment [wikipedia.org] A nurse was one of the people who continued to follow instructions and "shock" a subject after the subject appeared dead, just because she was told to. At first it seemed a paradox that a nurse would follow instructions that would harm another. He figured it that he was equivalent to a doctor in the nurses mind, and so she was following his instructions to the letter without evaluation, just as she was trained to do with doctors. (Nurses these days are trained differently).
Prolonged & Painful vs Short & Serene (Score:5, Interesting)
A few notes to remember about this study:
Personally, I would much rather go for hospice care. Aside from being more comfortable for the patient, it also gives them a chance to say goodbye to everyone properly, rather than just gurgling at your horrified visitors from inside a torture chamber.
Terminal Cancer Is Different (Score:5, Interesting)
This study was done on terminally ill cancer patients. My wife is an RN, and in our discussions about her job it has been very apparent to her that death by cancer, slowly, causes a very different reaction in most people she has seen than other terminal illnesses.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the study, but I would like to see it expanded to, for example, heart/lung failure and other forms of terminal disease, and see what the difference is.
One aspect that I have seen in cancer end-of-life treatment is the heavy reliance on pain-killers to cope (nothing WRONG with that, just an observance). This could also have a very serious effect on EOL decisions.
I can hardly speak for all the "pious" (Score:4, Interesting)
I cannot speak for all the pious, nor do I know how the study defines the pious so I will speak for myself. [cue the anti-whatever snarks...]
I believe we---mankind---were created for this world, not some ethereal place in the clouds. The Bible teaches that the people of God will live on earth forever, with a brief (relatively speaking) intermission elsewhere (between death and the return of Jesus Christ). It's quite interesting that the Bible begins with the Tree of Life in a garden (Eden) and ends with the Tree of Life in a city (see Genesis 2-3 and Revelation 21-22). Actually, the Tree of Life is still in a garden-like area that we would call a park. When Jesus returns He will create a sort of heavenly Central Park in the midst of a great city.
God intended from the beginning that man should live on the earth and the great promise is that one day man will live on a newly recreated earth and God will dwell with man forever in a world of peace, free of greed and anger and malice and war and poverty and hunger. In other words, people were created for this world and it should come as no surprise that they want to stay in it as long as possible. If, however, one does not believe this or one believes that this world is all there is, why delay the inevitable? Non-existence can often seem more desirable than a bad existence in this fractured, fallen world. For those who have hope for a future, existence in this broken world is desirable because they believe they were meant for it all along.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you did a good job summing up the position of traditional protestants. I would, however, caution against inferring the mindset of the average atheist, as you do in the second paragraph. I say this only because most of the "this is probably what they're thinking" posts by atheists/agnostics above trying to infer the mindset of the average church-goer are horribly, even to the point of caricature, off the mark. I imagine I would sound as ridiculous doing the reverse.
In short, I think the study is mean
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry to ask this, as it's so eay to offend. IF God created man, to always live on earth i.e. everyone coming back to earth after Jesus Christ returns it bewgs a simple question. Where and how will everone live on a totally over populated single planet with no personal space and no room to grow food? Or is the "easy" answer that there are really so few "decent" people that in reality the returning few will have more space than today?
The Bible does not address this, so the following is my speculation (which is another way to say "I don't know"). The earth is large enough to sustain many, many more people than it currently does. One can certainly find many alarmists who are screaming about overcrowding and lack of food but the WORLD is not any where near overcrowding. The problem is too many people in one place. (China is slightly smaller than the United States yet it has several times the population.) I live in one of the 100 large
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds like hell to me - an eternity of boredom. The only way heaven would sound good to me is if there was still some kind of progression or something. After a week at a resort I'm ready to leave - can't imagine spending an eternity on one planet.
No kids? No exploring space and discovering new things (assumedly God knows everything anyways..)? No other metaphysical drama beyond "now God lives with us forever"? Pfft. Rather stay dead.
The cultural mandate in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 1) was for man to rule over the earth and subdue it. When Gregory Mallory climbed Everest "because it was there," he did so because he was created in the image of God. There is no reason to think that people will regress in technology simply because they are on a perfect planet that has been recreated by God. A good book on this is Randy Alcorn's book "Heaven." His main thesis is heaven (the new earth) will be a lot like this one, but without any of th
Small Sample is right (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe some/most of these people were pious because they were dying
Maybe these people actually enjoyed their life more because they were pious
Maybe they were more pious because they were younger and didn't actually want to die
etc.
Nothing is learned from this study other than the fact that some religious people who have cancer don't want to die.... WOW. That should be in tomorrow paper... errr perhaps they'll need a special edition.
Terminal? Says who? (Score:3, Insightful)
After 5 years I've logged in again to /. to post a reply >.
Anyway I wanted to say that there's nothing impossible in religion. Those who are religious tend to hang on longer because they believe a higher power is at work and can solve impossible things. It has nothing to do with being afraid of death, rather being hopeful that their terminal ailment CAN indeed be cured.
Meanwhile the non religious would normally just give up and die.. because some guy said so.
Point of view of the non-pious (Score:3, Insightful)
A rather naive attempt... (Score:3, Funny)
Obviously, the entire post was crafted with one and only purpose in mind: to make a trollish statement about "nonbelievers who view death as the end of existence, the annihilation of consciousness and the self". The rest was added for the sole purpose to make the trolling less obvious.
it's pretty obvious, isn't it? (Score:3, Insightful)
The data is pretty easy to explain based on the hypothesis that religion is motivated by an irrational fear of death; the same irrational fear of death also motivates the desire for excessive medical intervention. The religious are also are much more afraid of violent crime than the rest of the population.
Unfortunately, the paranoid fears of this group is responsible for bad public policy, such as imposing unwanted life extending measures on others, irrational security features, human rights violations in the name of national security, and an irrational and unforgiving "get tough on crime" approach.
Religiousness is not measured by prayer (Score:5, Interesting)
People pray a lot. The question is what they actually do with their lives.
Many church regulars will tell you about people they know who attend every Sunday, yet who live some of the most amoral lives imaginable.
So prayer itself isn't a measure of religiousness. It may even be a measure of self delusion so that people can live with what they have done with their lives.
Too many people don't know why they live. They don't really believe in anything, so the thought of death scares them to no end. They seek prayer as an affirmation that they're basically good people, even if they don't feel like their time on Earth was a good thing.
I call that a guilty conscience, not a pious person.
Your responses are also forgetting that... (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I'd classify myself as a "Christian" and this is the main reason that I can believe -- while I am totally comfortable with death (not to the extent that I'm going to go play on the freeway) I also see the possibility of "supernatural events" aka "miracles" to occur and thus can see that prolonging a loved one's life via life-support seems plausible, particularly for a younger individual. However, myself, if I was old and have had a full life, I don't think I see the need to be on life support -- I've done what I need to do in this life.
This idea isn't discussed in the originally linked BBC article, but comes up in other articles on the same study (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/story?id=7105959&page=1 for example)
So no, I disagree that it's patients being "unsure" about the afterlife or that they're unwilling to accept death. I just think it's relatives that are praying for a miracle.
They just aren't ready. (Score:5, Insightful)
I was raised a very "on fire" Evangelical Christian, but have since seen the light and accepted myself as my Personal Lord and Savior--a spiritual condition which has brought me much more happiness and peace than Jesus ever did.
As such, I think I have a very keen insight into the psychological differences between highly religious people and agnostic/atheistic people.
Basically, the belief in an afterlife that is great (for you and people who agree with you, anyway) really shields you from ever having to sit down and think, "I am going to die. It's not going to be some other person--some old man--who looks like me. It's going to be me. Just like I am now, but I'm going to look like that old man." Instead, the whole concept of mortality is couched in language like "going to a better place" or "being with Jesus" or whatever. Your entire concept of death is euphemistic. As a result, you have a sense of peace and well-being because you don't need to worry about death.
All that changes, I imagine, however, when the time actually comes. Suddenly you can't be euphemistic anymore. It isn't so much this "meta" idea of death. It is your lungs filling up with fluid. It is pain wracking your body as the cancer spreads. It is the heartbreak of knowing that you and your loved ones are going to be separated now, and you don't know when you'll see them again, or in what form (this is assuming you really believe in heaven). Suddenly it's not so beautiful. Suddenly it's the nuts and bolts of your body--the only vessel you know--falling apart and failing you. Suddenly it is very real and very immediate.
And you weren't ready for that.
Atheists, however, accept death--the nuts and bolts--as inevitable, and probably first thing you have to come to terms with if you are an atheist is how you're going to think about death. And, I think, most people have to put themselves through that process of thinking and realizing that, yes, you are going to die. Your lungs will fill with fluid. Your body will be wracked with pain. By the time you get to that point, you have already thought a lot about this, and have resigned yourself to the pitiful, painful, undignified end almost all of us eventually face.
So you don't see any point in fighting.
Furthermore, a mindset that believes in a "super-natural" world--a world and truth and story that supersedes and explains everything we experience and in which we play an important part--comes to see death as more important than it really is. Part of the benefit of religion is that it makes one feel that everything they do is part of a Grand Plan, that everything fits together and has meaning. As an atheist, I know that it doesn't. I know that whether I live or die is wholly inconsequential. I am the product of an incredibly complex physical system that started moving billions of years ago when something exploded. Whether I lived or did not makes no difference whatsoever.
And herein lies one of the most important distinctions between religious people and atheists: Religious people find that viewpoint hopelessly sad and question why we would want to live. Atheists think that the pleasure of typing into a textbox on Slashdot while nibbling black licorice is plenty reason to keep processing oxygen and sugars for as long as they can. The warmth and camaraderie of friends and family are enough. Life is worth living for life's sake. That may be the genes, who are selfish and want to be propagated, talking, but who cares?
Religious people's peace and happiness are conditional, and when the conditions change, they often don't know how to cope. Atheists are unconditional, and therefore don't kick up such a fuss when it's over.
My $0.02.
Re:They just aren't ready. (Score:4, Interesting)
Okay. So, you've enjoyed yourself. In a very short time, it's over. You don't go to an old folks home where you can reflect back on how much you enjoyed your life. You are oblivion. Now what? Everything you've done, alone, is gone. It might well have never happened. So what is the point?
It really sounds like you haven't thought it through, yourself.
If life is about enjoying yourself, then extreme hedonism, while doing unlimited harm to those around you to get it, is the only way to go.
On the other end of the spectrum, if we exist in what we leave behind, you should start making endless donations at the nearest sperm bank, to propagate the genes as far and wide as possible. With that part taken care of, start building an army, death ray, whatever, to REALLY make your mark on those who survive you.
After all, your genetic material and your societal impact are the only thing which will last. And in both cases, no matter how much of a mark you make, it's likely to be completely erased within a couple centuries anyhow.
Sounds like atheists are actually the ones whose happiness is conditional on their good health, and just give up. Meanwhile the more religious find a way to be happy, even after intensive medical treatment. In fact, this WAS the conclusion of the study, not the trolling anti-religion spin put on the /. submission.
Of course, the REAL answer is pretty obvious. The most popular forms of religion command their followers to maintain their own life as much as possible. There was a minor controversy when baseless rumors began spreading that Pope John Paul II refused life-extending treatment near the end of his life...
Now, with the Catholic church having spread the doctrine that the faithful are obligated to extend their lives as much and by any means possible, some morons just feel obligated to spin that simple fact around, to try and promote their own agenda.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:As much as I don't want to spark a Religion deb (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh believe me, I agree with you 100%
I would choose to consider myself a "Christian", if one were to apply a label to my religious beliefs.
The core tenent of Christianity is to (paraphrasing) "Love God above everything, love others as much as you love yourself."
Now I have serious problems with pretty much all organized Christian faith. They spend all their time telling you that you're going to burn in hell if you don't do this, or don't say that, or if you vote in favor of gay marriage, or eat red meat on Fridays during Lent, or use a condom or Pay us 10% of your wages or fail to wear your holy underwear at all times. You have the godhatesfags.com morons who obviously really fucking hate themselves if they're "loving others as much as you love yourself".
Its not my place to pass judgement on ANYONE. I live my life, believe what I believe, pass on my beliefs when appropriate, and try my best to be good natured. And I fail miserably at times :). I try to do good overall in the world, and help other people out when they need it. And quite frankly, I can do that without someone telling me the myriad of ways I'm going to go to hell.
But I agree..the Burn in Hell shit is nothing but FUD. These people who call themselves Christian and constantly tell you how you're going to burn in hell....well, assuming hell IS real, my personal opinion is they'll probably be there too.
Re:As much as I don't want to spark a Religion deb (Score:4, Insightful)
The core tenent of Christianity is to (paraphrasing) "Love God above everything, love others as much as you love yourself."
Spot on. Matthew 22:36-40.
Now I have serious problems with pretty much all organized Christian faith. They spend all their time telling you that you're going to burn in hell if you don't do this, or don't say that,
As another poster suggested, perhaps you've been going to the wrong churches. Yes, you'll burn in hell if you aren't saved, but salvation is a free gift, not a reward; you can't earn it by doing the right things or not saying the wrong things (Ephesians 2:8-9). Christianity isn't about rules to govern our behavior (1 Corinthians 10:23), but your actions and words are a reflection of your heart (Luke 6:43-45); if you know God and love God, then your actions and words will naturally fall into line with God's will, and you won't need rules to adhere to.
or if you vote in favor of gay marriage,
That's a tricky issue; clearly God doesn't approve (Leviticus 18:22) but legislating morality generally doesn't work. The call to love our neighbors isn't restricted to just our straight neighbors, but different people have a variety of interpretations of what they think the right thing to do is.
or eat red meat on Fridays during Lent,
Lent is not a Biblical concept; it was invented by the Catholics, and most other Christians don't usually observe it. If you do observe Lent, you certainly don't have to choose red meat; whatever vice you think would be the most beneficial to give up is fine. I've heard some people are giving up texting and Facebook for Lent this year.
or use a condom
Contraception is definitely not prohibited by the Bible. Again, another screwy Catholic thing.
or Pay us 10% of your wages
The Jewish concept of setting aside 10% is rather different than the modern Christian concept of tithing; see Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
or fail to wear your holy underwear at all times.
And that one's a Mormon thing, also not even close to Biblical.
You have the godhatesfags.com morons who obviously really fucking hate themselves if they're "loving others as much as you love yourself".
Yeah, no kidding. Assholes.
Its not my place to pass judgement on ANYONE. I live my life, believe what I believe, pass on my beliefs when appropriate, and try my best to be good natured. And I fail miserably at times :). I try to do good overall in the world, and help other people out when they need it. And quite frankly, I can do that without someone telling me the myriad of ways I'm going to go to hell.
That's a great attitude to have. Unfortunately, it won't keep you out of hell - that free gift of salvation I mentioned must be accepted, or it doesn't apply. None of us is inherently good enough to be permitted into the presence of God (Romans 3:23), no matter how good we try to be, because like you said, you fail miserably at times - we all do, and it only takes once. God doesn't recognize any difference between tiny little sins and great big huge sins, nor between one or two sins and a lifetime of constant sinning; it's all sin, and it must be paid for. Jesus died to pay for that sin, but you must turn your life over to Him in order to accept that gift (Romans 10:9-10).
But hey, if you'd rather not, that's your choice to make, not mine.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Every religious group is a hate group to some extent. You must have a them to rally against.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
only God has a right to decide when my time is.
In the cases mentioned in the article, basically He has already decided it's their time, but they keep defying Him by relying on machines and drugs and surgeries, prolonging the time away from Him.
So, basically, no. You're not letting Him decide when your time is; you're attempting to artifically take every last second possible.
Re:Catholic Judeo-Christian (Score:5, Insightful)
His will cannot be defied, they were merely doing his bidding. How can any action of man be artificial when god is everywhere, omnipresent and omnipotent. There is only the will of the divine, and what you see as doctors performing miracles is in fact a host of angels.
You need a better line of reasoning to convince believers that they are cheating their god.
Re:The obvious answer (Score:4, Insightful)
Ignorant of the fact that there are many many different types of religions and religious people. Ignorant of the fact that there are many different types of atheists (even ones that fear death). Ignorant of the fact that stereotyping a very large and very broad category of people(religious)is a not at all informative or useful.