Meaninglessness

[rusmeister]

I'm somewhat cynically reminded of Chicken Licken syndrome - being so perturbed about future outcomes that one doesn't dare do anything at all.

I'm quite sure that anyone with at least average intelligence has considers his/her own mortality at more than one point, but IMHO it'd be entirely unhealthy to dwell on this constantly to the extent that such consideration affected everything else that we think or do.

Now Rus will probably say that this is just burying one's head in the sand, but that'd be wrong. I've always been entirely uneasy with apparent scare tactics being used by certain religions, seemingly in an attempt to use fear to gain converts - and the "you're gonna rot and be eaten by worms unless you grab God's escape rope" is only slightly more subtle than the "you're gonna burn in Hell for all eternity unless you believe the right stuff" schtick.

As I've said elsewhere, to me it's atheistic humanists that are the most morally courageous of us all... people who attempt to "do right" without any metaphysical agenda, without any striving for some promised eternal bag of candy. Even if somewhat more negative, Dylan Thomas's famous viewpoint shows far more moral courage than a fear-inspired obeisance to some creed or other:-

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rage at close of day.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Not being obsessed by our own transience is not de facto avoiding the issue, it's not necessarily being animalistic and only "living in the now". It's being alive and active, happy and sad, good and "sinful", caring and selfish - in fact it's being essentially all the things that make us human in spite of (or just as probably, because of) our inevitable awareness of our brief time upon the stage.

Hey TF -
What is "unhealthy" depends on what the truth is here. You seem to be saying that a person cannot possibly be both reasonable and healthy and consider all of their actions and life in the light of the fact that we do die. When you say "consider mortality" I think that for a great many people it's like Billy Crystal truly said in "When Harry Met Sally" "like a fleeting thought passing in and out of the transom of your mind" or something to that effect. But to galvanize and organize one's life in the face of that fact and considering its larger meaning (which it must have). This is not "morbid" or "unhealthy". It is the person who says that who is most likely to have thought least about it.

I'm not talking about "scaring". I said nothing of scaring. In that prayer, certain things that obviously MUST be true are listed. If they scare you, then I would suggest that there may be a good reason to be scared that is not a "tactic" but a serious reality that is not being considered. Is it impossible to bury one's head in the sand, or is it only possible that believers do this, but that it is impossible for unbelievers?

I do think there are things to be praised in the moral atheist. CS Lewis was a committed adult atheist - his first cycle of poems "Spirits in Bondage", written when he was atheist, is in the public domain. The moral atheist who is angry at God for not existing is far more to be admired than the indifferent agnostic (which is what Iwas).

I think there is a genuine concept of morbidity - but I think most people fall into the opposite error - of taking mortality too lightly and labeling any serious thought about death at all as "morbid". It's fine to be happy, sad, etc. But if it logically has no meaning, then it boots nothing to talk about exulting in those feelings. Everyone has done it. And they're nearly all stone dead. And so I suggest that thinking about the awfulness, the terror - which any sane mind ought to admit that it is terrifying to be finally and ultimately cut off from life - is a rational activity that people today do not engage in at all. It really is burying one's head in the sand.

I'm not naming names. If the shoe fits...

[Fist and Faith]

What makes your view unreasonable, rus, is that you declare that one must feel as you do about it all. Everyone must find the thought of death to be awful and terrifying. No sane person can feel otherwise. Everyone must think about it to a certain degree. (I guess it would be helpful if you would specify frequency and duration.) And, of course, anyone who does find death awful and terrifying must choose your worldview as a means of coping.

[TheFallen]

Hey TF - What is "unhealthy" depends on what the truth is here. You seem to be saying that a person cannot possibly be both reasonable and healthy and consider all of their actions and life in the light of the fact that we do die. When you say "consider mortality" I think that for a great many people it's like Billy Crystal truly said in "When Harry Met Sally" "like a fleeting thought passing in and out of the transom of your mind" or something to that effect. But to galvanize and organize one's life in the face of that fact and considering its larger meaning (which it must have). This is not "morbid" or "unhealthy". It is the person who says that who is most likely to have thought least about it.

Likewise, hiya Rus.

I'm not at all advocating a blissful attempt at ignorance of the fact that we do inevitably die. I'm simply saying that I wouldn't find it healthy - or indeed useful - if I were to double-take every time before I took an action or made a decision and said to myself "Hang on, I'm going to die one day... in the light of this inescapable fact, should I alter my action or decision?"

Why would my death necessarily have a larger meaning? Larger in what sense? Okay it'd be fairly telling to me the individual, but that doesn't make it necessarily meaningful beyond me.

I'm not talking about "scaring". I said nothing of scaring. In that prayer, certain things that obviously MUST be true are listed. If they scare you, then I would suggest that there may be a good reason to be scared that is not a "tactic" but a serious reality that is not being considered. Is it impossible to bury one's head in the sand, or is it only possible that believers do this, but that it is impossible for unbelievers?

I know you didn't in the least mention "scaring", but the prayer you quoted is redolent of fear - the fear of death and the decay of the corporeal - it's very mediaeval in its treatment of its subject matter. Death is presented as something physically horrific, whose terrors can only be endured and indeed shucked off by the grace of God (Who won't grant it unless you're a faithful believer - that's something that's always struck me as rather petty-minded of Him. I'm not sure I want to buy into a God who'd condemn moral atheists to eternal damnation... why? They don't have an agenda, so their "goodliness" is pure and without taint of self-interest). Anyhow, the prayer you quoted is the prayer of a scared individual, or a tricksy piece of marketing, or both.

I think there is a genuine concept of morbidity - but I think most people fall into the opposite error - of taking mortality too lightly and labeling any serious thought about death at all as "morbid". It's fine to be happy, sad, etc. But if it logically has no meaning, then it boots nothing to talk about exulting in those feelings. Everyone has done it. And they're nearly all stone dead.

So what if they are? For example, I take delight in the company of my daughter. Spending time with her makes me happy and I exult in that feeling. It's going to be a transient experience, sure, because at some stage I'll be pushing up daisies and oblivious to the previous joys (and equally sadnesses) of my life. That doesn't make those moments any less significant or meaningful against the necessarily transient backdrop of my existence. In fact quite the reverse - the joy in those moments is MORE meaningful because of my temporality.

And so I suggest that thinking about the awfulness, the terror - which any sane mind ought to admit that it is terrifying to be finally and ultimately cut off from life - is a rational activity that people today do not engage in at all. It really is burying one's head in the sand.

I'm not naming names. If the shoe fits...

Now that's a collection of total non-sequiturs... dissection time

1. Death happens, whether I like it or not. Why is it so awful or terrible - I might as well be terrified of gravity, or any other inevitable process. We're back to that "fear" thing again - which although you may not realise it, again underlies what you're saying. Not that I'm saying that you personally would ever do this, but I've got very large issues with religions that I see using either guilt or fear as attempted control tactics.

2. Plus why should any sane mind admit that death is terrifying? It's a natural process - if we didn't die, there'd be no room for new life... plus I very much doubt, since eternal youth isn't yet available, whether I'd like to grow ever more old and physically (and probably mentally) decrepid.

3. Even so, at the moment I wouldn't welcome death. It's not something I'm going to actively seek and I'll go out of my way to avoid it, while I can. It would be irrational to pretend it doesn't exist, but it would be equally irrational to spend every day dwelling on my own mortality. So, not head in the sand, nor self-flagellating despair in constantly reminding myself that one day, I'll be no more... I think I'll take the middle ground.

[rusmeister]

What makes your view unreasonable, rus, is that you declare that one must feel as you do about it all. Everyone must find the thought of death to be awful and terrifying. No sane person can feel otherwise. Everyone must think about it to a certain degree. (I guess it would be helpful if you would specify frequency and duration.) And, of course, anyone who does find death awful and terrifying must choose your worldview as a means of coping.

Well, I would say "Ought to" and not "must", because it is possible for a person to not feel that way, of course. I think a sane person can happen to not have thought about it, and if they refuse to think about it, then they are unreasonable, not insane.

Nor would I say that they must choose my faith. It ought to be obvious that people are free to reject it.

But it is at the very least a defect of thought to find death not awful - as if it were merely a stroll in the park - whatever his worldview. The word "natural" does not explain it at all. There are a great many natural processes that we very often object to and work against; entropy, for example. We do not cheerfully embrace all 'natural' processes merely because they are 'natural'. The person who can merely shrug their shoulders at their own death is in some way blind - either they have convinced themselves that there is nothing to fear via defective reasoning or really haven't thought about it. But in the former case they have done so in spite of all natural instincts which tell him that death is undesirable and to be avoided if possible. Now this instinct is not reason - but in general this, as well as the sex instinct, both work toward life, even if the person is a mental vegetable, and so can be said to be good and representing a correct attitude towards the thing, in this case, death. This is where I'd say that Chesterton is quite right when he says that the madman is not the man who has lost his reason, but the man who has lost everything but his reason. So the person who denies that instinct and says that it is merely mistaken and misplaced is failing to see something that ought to be obvious. At any rate, I choose to accept that the billions of people and even animals who have shown a grasp of this are both sane and right, and the tiny minority that says they have all been mistaken are, at best, wrong. The mass of humanity is far more likely to be sane and in possession of common sense than a tiny minority that denies that enormous common sense.

But you say that I am unreasonable. So what's the use?

[Fist and Faith]

If I don't agree with you, I have defective reasoning, or I haven't really thought about it. And you don't like that I call you unreasonable?

You're trying to split hairs, or hedge your bets, or whatever the appropriate phrase is, when you say 'I would say "Ought to" and not "must"' then say defective reasoning. A sane person must, by your definitions.

As for death, yes, it is a natural thing. It is entirely, perfectly natural. Every living thing dies. Doesn't mean I want it. Doesn't mean I look forward to it. I'm not waiting with anticipation. I get bored sometimes, but I'd rather be alive than dead. And when I think about it deeply (as I have often throughout my life, your assurances to the contrary be damned,) and sometimes get the strongest sense of non-existence that I (an existing, sentient being) can, a feeling washes over me. Yes, part of it is fear. How could it not be? The end of me? Damn! But that doesn't mean death is unnatural. And not looking forward to oblivion is not evidence that oblivion is not what awaits us. Lots of natural things are unpleasant.

And part of the feeling that washes over me is not fear. Some is awe. Some is the feeling of insignificance I feel when I stand on the beach and look out at the ocean.

But none of that's enough for you. If I don't agree with where your thoughts go from there, I haven't thought about it enough. The only way I can prove to you that I have is if I embrace your worldview.

Or, I'm not sane/I have defective reasoning. One of us does. My money's on the one who says it's impossible for people to feel differently about things.

[rusmeister]

If I don't agree with you, I have defective reasoning, or I haven't really thought about it. And you don't like that I call you unreasonable?

You're trying to split hairs, or hedge your bets, or whatever the appropriate phrase is, when you say 'I would say "Ought to" and not "must"' then say defective reasoning. A sane person must, by your definitions.

As for death, yes, it is a natural thing. It is entirely, perfectly natural. Every living thing dies. Doesn't mean I want it. Doesn't mean I look forward to it. I'm not waiting with anticipation. I get bored sometimes, but I'd rather be alive than dead. And when I think about it deeply (as I have often throughout my life, your assurances to the contrary be damned,) and sometimes get the strongest sense of non-existence that I (an existing, sentient being) can, a feeling washes over me. Yes, part of it is fear. How could it not be? The end of me? Damn! But that doesn't mean death is unnatural. And not looking forward to oblivion is not evidence that oblivion is not what awaits us. Lots of natural things are unpleasant.

And part of the feeling that washes over me is not fear. Some is awe. Some is the feeling of insignificance I feel when I stand on the beach and look out at the ocean.

But none of that's enough for you. If I don't agree with where your thoughts go from there, I haven't thought about it enough. The only way I can prove to you that I have is if I embrace your worldview.

Or, I'm not sane/I have defective reasoning. One of us does. My money's on the one who says it's impossible for people to feel differently about things.

Well, the word "natural" has quite a few definitions and understandings, and that is part of the problem of communication. (If it had only one meaning there would be no problem; it'd be nice if we expressed the ideas with different words)
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural
There are fifteen definitions there, twelve of which are likely to be used by us. I'd say that here I mean it in sense #1, and you use it in sense #8.
So death is "natural" in the sense of "happens in nature", but not in the sense of "inherent right and wrong". My contention is that it is NOT "natural" in the sense of human design, the intent of the Creator, and the instinct of humanity to recoil from it is right, and not some unreasoning fear. To us Orthodox Christians, it is the last Enemy, but it is also an ultimately defeated enemy. (So we don't go around shaking in fear of it the way you guys seem to have picked up from the monk's prayer.)

Anyway, we are both right about death being natural and unnatural. But we're speaking different languages, and so talking past each other. I KNOW death happens in the normal course of nature - but it is a Fallen nature. What you don't know - don't accept/deny - is that death is something that ought not be (although it is). In that, the overwhelming majority of humanity disagrees with you. I'll go with the overwhelming majority. There are things to be trusted in the common man that the intellectual can sophize/trick himself out of. Common sense, for example. It can be lost, even by academics. It's not an intellectual trait, but a natural sense - and senses can be stifled or dimmed on any intellectual level.

The awe and insignificance are good things, though. I'd call it humility - which is a virtue. But where it's not enough is in denying that death, while being natural - happening in the course of nature, is also unnatural - an inherent wrong. Tracie shouldn't have died. She ought to be here right now, commenting in her unique style on our rooster fights.

[TheFallen]

My contention is that it is NOT "natural" in the sense of human design, the intent of the Creator, and the instinct of humanity to recoil from it is right, and not some unreasoning fear...

I KNOW death happens in the normal course of nature - but it is a Fallen nature. What you don't know - don't accept/deny - is that death is something that ought not be (although it is). In that, the overwhelming majority of humanity disagrees with you...

The awe and insignificance are good things, though. I'd call it humility - which is a virtue. But where it's not enough is in denying that death, while being natural - happening in the course of nature, is also unnatural - an inherent wrong.

Okay, now I am confused. Rus, you make an excellent point about inexact terminology leading to confusion and then go on to clarify what you meant... but unfortunately I am having trouble getting my head around your clarification.

Are you saying that death is a moral wrong? You really think that it's "something that ought not to be"? Something that's solely resulted from our fallen natures, and therefore presumably that traces its origins all the way back to original sin? And presumably you're commenting on all cessation of life here, not just human life... so, if we weren't (or hadn't been) sinful, nothing would die?

I'm not being flippant here, just checking that I'm understanding what you're stating. And don't get me wrong - I view death as a natural process in dictionary sense #8. Sure, I'd never say that death was fair or just, but then again, what natural (in sense #8) process ever is? Mind you, I believe in randomness - shit does happen sometimes for no reason other than entropy, and when this affects me personally, it leads to anger and bitterness (and hopefully eventually acceptance). However, if you believe in everything being part of God's plan in some way - as I think you do - then I can kind of understand why you hold the views that you do.

It comes down to this - I don't need there to be a conscious reason for the "creation" of death... to me, it just *is* (and in general, that's a necessary *is*, no matter how much I might wish it away, when it comes to the specific). You on the other hand *do* need a reason, and thus you're ascribing the very existence of death directly to the Fall of Man...

Do I have that right? Is that a fair summary?

[Fist and Faith]

We haven't gotten anywhere, rus. You still think I demonstrate defecting reasoning, or haven't really thought about it, if I don't agree with your stance on #1 and #8. And, again, that is defective reasoning.

As for your #1, the fact that most people would rather live than die, that we even fear death, is not evidence that it is an inherent wrong. It simply is. All nonliving structures eventually fall apart. Every mountain will eventually erode away. Every skyscraper will eventually fall. Every star will eventually not be a star. And all living things eventually die. The fact that we don't like this is not proof of God.

[TheFallen]

As for your #1, the fact that most people would rather live than die, that we even fear death, is not evidence that it is an inherent wrong. It simply is. All nonliving structures eventually fall apart. Every mountain will eventually erode away. Every skyscraper will eventually fall. Every star will eventually not be a star. And all living things eventually die. The fact that we don't like this is not proof of God.

...although at a sub-atomic level, having been "created" just the once, nothing ever disappears - it's just subject to endless recycling and re-use as either matter or energy.

I have a hard time with the inference of death being some sort of deific punishment for mankind's transgressions, which is why I want to know from Rus whether in his worldview, he traces the source of death back to original sin. If so, this gives rise to several apparent paradoxes.

Would an all-merciful God really give rise to death or at the very least, allow it? God's mercy seems to be entirely conditional and not absolute - He'll allow us to escape the horrors of death, but only providing that we're worthy followers of Him. Oh and by the way, it's tough about "unfair" deaths, e.g. the deaths of newborns - that's all Adam & Eve's fault, is it? Plus, moral atheists are all going to burn for all eternity, are they? And how about all those millions of people who died before they even had a chance to hear God's word, either through living at the wrong time or in the wrong geography?

I can't make it all fit together with the notion of a benevolent deity.

[Fist and Faith]

One thing I anticipate rus saying is that they do not believe in "burning for all eternity" any more than you and I do. But I'll then ask him what the nature of Gehenna is, and how long it lasts. Even if it isn't viewed as punishment, it is, according to the source he gave me, an eternal fate that's named after a burning trashpit outside of Jerusalem.

[TheFallen]

One thing I anticipate rus saying is that they do not believe in "burning for all eternity" any more than you and I do. But I'll then ask him what the nature of Gehenna is, and how long it lasts. Even if it isn't viewed as punishment, it is, according to the source he gave me, an eternal fate that's named after a burning trashpit outside of Jerusalem.

It's not punishment? Okay, but without wanting to put words into rus's mouth - I can't, because I really don't know how or what he thinks - it definitely looks like that death is a punishment, because a) it apparently exists because we're sinners and b) it's apparently a horrific thing.

Plus being eternally absent from God's grace post-death doesn't sound like it's meant to be much of a soft option...

[rusmeister]

One thing I anticipate rus saying is that they do not believe in "burning for all eternity" any more than you and I do. But I'll then ask him what the nature of Gehenna is, and how long it lasts. Even if it isn't viewed as punishment, it is, according to the source he gave me, an eternal fate that's named after a burning trashpit outside of Jerusalem.

It's not punishment? Okay, but without wanting to put words into rus's mouth - I can't, because I really don't know how or what he thinks - it definitely looks like that death is a punishment, because a) it apparently exists because we're sinners and b) it's apparently a horrific thing.

Plus being eternally absent from God's grace post-death doesn't sound like it's meant to be much of a soft option...

I'm surrounded with kids and an exhausted wife - but have free seconds and minutes here and there - so can't go into detail, but death is a consequence, not a punishment. Punishment is a western idea. If you warn your teen about drugs and they don't listen, they will suffer the consequences of their actions, which may be hellish, but are not a punishment inflicted by the loving parent. The consequence is mainly a result of turning away from God as our God and to ourselves - to be our own gods, and so have cut ourselves off from the very source of Life (kind of like a scuba diver cutting his own oxygen supply), and so, although born, we are already dying. None of that is proof - it's conclusion, of course, and so doctrine based on other things. Faith can't be proven, by definition. The question for the rational mind is whether faith, or a faith, is compatible with reason. The fact of sin is an outstanding beginning point for the rational mind, i.m.o. Fist starts by denying the very sense of sin - that something IS sin - wrong in some way, certainly as anything universal (the Orthodox faith is quite far, though, from western legal understandings which so pervade both Catholic and Protestant thought and theology, so as soon as you speak of punishment or of sin as the breaking of arbitrary laws you are already talking about un-Orthodox understandings which I would probably agree with you on to a huge extent).

I don't know the nature of the burning, to what extent it is allegorical for something else (even worse? Don't know - there's a lot we're agnostic about), but Zahir's description of not being able to bear absolute Good is definitely a part of it.

[rusmeister]

We haven't gotten anywhere, rus. You still think I demonstrate defecting reasoning, or haven't really thought about it, if I don't agree with your stance on #1 and #8. And, again, that is defective reasoning.

As for your #1, the fact that most people would rather live than die, that we even fear death, is not evidence that it is an inherent wrong. It simply is. All nonliving structures eventually fall apart. Every mountain will eventually erode away. Every skyscraper will eventually fall. Every star will eventually not be a star. And all living things eventually die. The fact that we don't like this is not proof of God.

Not in and of itself, of course. It is the beginning of a chain. And the chain is not final proof, even then. But what that chain does establish is that the traditional Christian view - most especially the Orthodox one - is reason-compatible, even if you can find unreasonable members of the Church. I'm far from the most reasonable and intelligent one and so keep trying to point you elsewhere. I just happen to be on this board with you guys.

I'd submit when you say that something "simply is", that statement does not represent thought about death, but an immediate cessation of thought about it. The scientist and/or rational thinker NEVER says that something "simply is" (except for a first principle from which thought must start). The intelligent inquirer asks why this is.

[aliantha]

I'd submit when you say that something "simply is", that statement does not represent thought about death, but an immediate cessation of thought about it. The scientist and/or rational thinker NEVER says that something "simply is" (except for a first principle from which thought must start).

Let's try that game.

First principle: Death exists.

Next move, somebody?

[rusmeister]

I'd submit when you say that something "simply is", that statement does not represent thought about death, but an immediate cessation of thought about it. The scientist and/or rational thinker NEVER says that something "simply is" (except for a first principle from which thought must start).

Let's try that game.

First principle: Death exists.

Next move, somebody?

When I say "first principle" I mean a base dogma that is the beginning of a philosophy. Not any thought at all can be considered a first principle. "The sky is blue" is not a first principle." How can I even know whether death IS if I doubt Truth itself - if I ask what "IS" means? (I think a person can self-contradictorily deny absolute truth and in the next breath affirm death as an absolute truth, but then, that's just people being illogical and not thinking their own propositions through.) "Human reason is valid and can reveal truth" or "I think, therefore I am" are first principles.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle

[aliantha]

You're ruining my game, rus. Cut it out.

Anyway, why *couldn't* "death exists" be the base dogma of somebody's philosophy? Everything that lives, dies eventually (on this mortal plane). It's a rule. It's a postulate that's self-proving, in a way.

And isn't it one of the Big Ideas that religion is supposed to help us cope with? Isn't it the Big Idea that Christianity is all about? Jesus died on the cross so that we can live forever with God in Heaven (subject to certain conditions, etc.) -- thereby defeating death. That's the assumption of the monk's prayer you posted earlier: oh God, be with me through my mortal death, help me through all the agony and indignities this carcass will suffer at the end of its mortal life, so my soul can live forever after with You.

You've said that you don't think the monk was expressing fear in that prayer -- but of course he was. He's afraid death will hurt. He's afraid he'll have to face it alone (which is why he's asking God for mercy). And, I think, he's afraid he won't be found worthy of entry into Heaven.

So: Death exists. What next?
The monk's answer: Fear.
Another answer: Glad acceptance -- particularly if you're in terrible pain in this life, and/or if you're certain in your heart of hearts that something better is waiting for you on the other side.
Still another answer: Acceptance (minus the happiness), because death is just one part of the never-ending cycle of birth/destruction, rebirth/renewal. It's certainly a challenge to accept death in this way. Our minds, as you have observed more than once, recoil from it. We might even wish to view death as "unnatural" because it steals life away from us.

But look around you. Nothing -- *nothing* -- gets out of here alive. Plants germinate from seed, grow to maturity, die, and rot away, providing nourishment for the new seedlings just sprouting. Insects hatch, grow, reproduce, and die. And so on up the food chain. Even rocks have a life cycle -- once created, they can be worn away into sand by wind and waves, and that sand can be fused into glass.

Death is a natural part of the life cycle of everything. It is neither good nor evil. It can't be. It just *is*.

I would argue that that state of calm acceptance is a healthier response than either fear or "I can't wait to die." To love or hate or fear something that simply *is* is a door into madness.

[rusmeister]

You're ruining my game, rus. Cut it out.

Anyway, why *couldn't* "death exists" be the base dogma of somebody's philosophy? Everything that lives, dies eventually (on this mortal plane). It's a rule. It's a postulate that's self-proving, in a way.

And isn't it one of the Big Ideas that religion is supposed to help us cope with? Isn't it the Big Idea that Christianity is all about? Jesus died on the cross so that we can live forever with God in Heaven (subject to certain conditions, etc.) -- thereby defeating death. That's the assumption of the monk's prayer you posted earlier: oh God, be with me through my mortal death, help me through all the agony and indignities this carcass will suffer at the end of its mortal life, so my soul can live forever after with You.

You've said that you don't think the monk was expressing fear in that prayer -- but of course he was. He's afraid death will hurt. He's afraid he'll have to face it alone (which is why he's asking God for mercy). And, I think, he's afraid he won't be found worthy of entry into Heaven.

So: Death exists. What next?
The monk's answer: Fear.
Another answer: Glad acceptance -- particularly if you're in terrible pain in this life, and/or if you're certain in your heart of hearts that something better is waiting for you on the other side.
Still another answer: Acceptance (minus the happiness), because death is just one part of the never-ending cycle of birth/destruction, rebirth/renewal. It's certainly a challenge to accept death in this way. Our minds, as you have observed more than once, recoil from it. We might even wish to view death as "unnatural" because it steals life away from us.

But look around you. Nothing -- *nothing* -- gets out of here alive. Plants germinate from seed, grow to maturity, die, and rot away, providing nourishment for the new seedlings just sprouting. Insects hatch, grow, reproduce, and die. And so on up the food chain. Even rocks have a life cycle -- once created, they can be worn away into sand by wind and waves, and that sand can be fused into glass.

Death is a natural part of the life cycle of everything. It is neither good nor evil. It can't be. It just *is*.

I would argue that that state of calm acceptance is a healthier response than either fear or "I can't wait to die." To love or hate or fear something that simply *is* is a door into madness.

Well, Ali,
I'm serious here. I think the truth matters. I don't want to discuss the ten million imaginary realities that don't exist. If I ever hope to establish that transcendent meaninglessness really IS complete meaninglessness, and is inherently illogical, then I don't want to go off on tangents irrelevant to that.
Now, physical death IS, that is a given. The materialist assumption is that since the physical is all there is, and KNOWS that there must be meaning somewhere, somehow, he naturally says that meaning is in this life, and is whatever you make of it (or else life would mean nothing at all).

Intelligent religion is NOT supposed to help us "cope" with an uncomfortable reality. It EXPLAINS the reality (rightly or wrongly). So no, it's not the assumption of the monk's prayer. Not having considered his worldview, all you guys jumped on the platform of "unreasoning fear". Indeed, while the descriptions are awe-some, the natural fear of physical death (which evidently people do not experience in the same degree or manner) is quite secondary to the fears of what must come after for him - but for the materialist who talks about the wonderful meaning of a beautiful life, those moments represent the complete destruction of all of that. Death is the final fear. For the monk it's not.

Consider: the suicide destroys the universe, as far as he is concerned. He expresses an attitude toward both the universe and to the people around him in the form of a big "F-you!" (that various emotions play into such a decision does not change the effect.) For the materialist, death, being a complete end, completely ends the universe as far as he is concerned. As far as he is concerned, it doesn't matter what happens to the world or anyone in it one second after he dies. Sure, he frequently attributes meaning to what happens in this theater, to his family and friends (and so the noble atheist DOES sacrifice himself to save others, for example), but that meaning means NOTHING to him. It might as well have not happened at all. It's no use talking about how wonderful the world is if it literally means nothing to you the moment you are completely dead. I can't talk about meaning if it must eternally mean nothing to me.
When that is grasped, 'glad acceptance" of it becomes nonsense - foolishness.

I am expressly addressing materialism and defending the logical continuation of our existence after death, so I won't argue now with answers that suggest continuation. Here I am only dealing with the idea called "oblivion" and the inherent illogic of it.

So my objection is to the adverb 'just'. Death ISN'T 'just'. Fear is NOT always illogical. There are things that it is right to fear and foolish at best to not fear. If you do not fear being hit by a car when you cross the road, then you are foolish, not 'brave', 'wise' or 'liberated'. If the fear is logical and justified, you can't cast the person who experiences and reports it as unreasonable.

So again, I think what you all read is the monk's fear as unreasoning, and missed what he REALLY feared, and judged his fear on your terms rather than his - and didn't comment at all on on what I think relevant to the materialist - the point of the end of meaning (to the materialist); the moment of death.

[aliantha]

Interesting that your response focuses on defining the monk's fear (or lack of it) and totally skips over my conclusion, which BTW had nothing to do with materialism.

I would just say that your pedestrian has a choice about whether to cross the road. He is right to fear the traffic, but there are work-arounds: he could cross at the light, or go around the block, or walk a block and take the pedestrian bridge. *No*body gets a choice about whether they're going to die.

Intelligent religion is NOT supposed to help us "cope" with an uncomfortable reality. It EXPLAINS the reality (rightly or wrongly).

And in explaining the reality, it gives adherents a framework for coping with it. Why else have priests? Why not just hand out Bibles and let people fend for themselves?

[TheFallen]

rus,

The Partheny prayer absolutely *is* redolent with fear, and there's nothing atypical in that. I can't find a date as to when it was written, but I'd bet that it was mediaeval. The prevailaing zeitgeist at the time was to be obsessed with the physical horrors of death, and this is shown throughout all Western European art and literature - completely understandable, given the prevalence of plagues, wars and a generally short life expectancy... against that context, it's not "unreasonable". I don't dispute that your monk is showing two fears - the fear of the physical aspects of death and the subsequent fear of not attaining the grace of God eternally, but it's fear, nonetheless.

...but for the materialist who talks about the wonderful meaning of a beautiful life, those moments represent the complete destruction of all of that. Death is the final fear. For the monk it's not...

For the materialist, death, being a complete end, completely ends the universe as far as he is concerned. As far as he is concerned, it doesn't matter what happens to the world or anyone in it one second after he dies. Sure, he frequently attributes meaning to what happens in this theater, to his family and friends (and so the noble atheist DOES sacrifice himself to save others, for example), but that meaning means NOTHING to him. It might as well have not happened at all. It's no use talking about how wonderful the world is if it literally means nothing to you the moment you are completely dead. I can't talk about meaning if it must eternally mean nothing to me. When that is grasped, 'glad acceptance" of it becomes nonsense - foolishness.

I am expressly addressing materialism and defending the logical continuation of our existence after death, so I won't argue now with answers that suggest continuation. Here I am only dealing with the idea called "oblivion" and the inherent illogic of it...

So again, I think what you all read is the monk's fear as unreasoning, and missed what he REALLY feared, and judged his fear on your terms rather than his - and didn't comment at all on on what I think relevant to the materialist - the point of the end of meaning (to the materialist); the moment of death.

And you equally miss the point, I'm afraid. It'd be only the most subjectivist of materialists who'd believe that the universe ends when they die... I'm sure that most would buy into the ongoing existence of a universe, despite the fact that they can no longer perceive it. And so here's the thing...

Transferred meaning. Yes, I am a transient being. Yes, death simply *is*, as I, Fist and Ali have stated earlier - it exists, like gravity. Yes, I'll be completely oblivious as to what occurs after I'm dead. However, much like passing the baton in an endless relay race, I can pass something hopefully meaningful onto those I love who will outlive me - my daughter for example. I can do the level best within my abilities to ensure she has the best building blocks - financial, emotional, philosophical - for her own independant life after I am dead. It'll be entirely up to her what she does with those, of course, but even to a materialist (which I'm nor sure I even am, by the way), death is not the end of meaning. Meaningfulness survives, even if I don't... it's just not meaningful to me any more.

BTW thanks for clarifying that death isn't a punishment but a consequence - your example of the teenage drug addict was revealing. However, I still don't get how, given a benevolent God, death can be a universal consequence, applicable to all of humanity. Why do newborns die, then? Is it really down to the "sins of the father"? And what about all those millions who died without being exposed to the word of God? And equally to the point, what about those who died between the time of Moses and the time of Christ... are they ineligible for redemption and eternal life?

[rusmeister]

Interesting that your response focuses on defining the monk's fear (or lack of it) and totally skips over my conclusion, which BTW had nothing to do with materialism.

I would just say that your pedestrian has a choice about whether to cross the road. He is right to fear the traffic, but there are work-arounds: he could cross at the light, or go around the block, or walk a block and take the pedestrian bridge. *No*body gets a choice about whether they're going to die.

Intelligent religion is NOT supposed to help us "cope" with an uncomfortable reality. It EXPLAINS the reality (rightly or wrongly).

And in explaining the reality, it gives adherents a framework for coping with it. Why else have priests? Why not just hand out Bibles and let people fend for themselves?

Well then, let us unpack the word "cope".

Definition of COPE
intransitive verb
1
obsolete : strike, fight
2
a : to maintain a contest or combat usually on even terms or with success —used with with b : to deal with and attempt to overcome problems and difficulties —often used with with <learning to cope with the demands of her schedule>
3
archaic : meet, encounter
transitive verb
1
obsolete : to meet in combat
2
obsolete : to come in contact with
3
obsolete : match

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cope

So then unbelieving materialists do NOT cope with death? Or what is the negative intent clearly implied when you use the verb 'cope' as an accusation? I'd call it attempting to understand death, and to reconcile it with their natural feeling (that which happens in nature) that death is unnatural (an inherent wrong; something undesirable to be avoided). To attempt to explain why it both IS and why they don't want it to happen.

My analogy assumes the person HAS to cross the road, for whatever reason. If that is given, then you can grasp the intent of my analogy. (Unless you don't want to - but I would think you, being neo-pagan, have no objections to my objections to the idea of oblivion. I assume you take continuation of existence on one level or other as highly probable or for granted.)