Remix.run Logo
xyzelement 5 days ago

Sorry for your loss, and thank you for your perspective.

>> Absolutely right. There is a certain cowardice in how we deal with death in the contemporary west.

I never thought about it but it likely stems from loss of religion, like many other problems. If I see my life as insignificant in the chain of generations - as a conduit between ancestors and descendants - and believe in the soul at least as a metaphor - then personal death or that of others is sad, but is in the context of a deeply meaningful existence.

On the other hand, if I am closer to atheistic hedonism/nihilism - there's nothing else but me and my thoughts and experiences, then my existence or non-existence takes on a very heavy weight - and we project that onto others.

enobrev 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

I'm surprised by this take, simply because of my own experience, where the further I've gotten from religion over a very long time, the less significant I've found death.

Not having "answers" to what comes next has never been a weight for me - at least not since I was a child. Death being a completion, or a finality, is freeing; The end of what has been and what I hope continues to be a wonderful journey. The only weight I carry in regards to death are for those closest to me, and especially those for whom I'm responsible.

graemep 5 days ago | parent [-]

I find that surprising in turn! What were the beliefs you had around death?

I can sort of see why you found it less significant, but in monotheistic religions it is still pretty final. It is still the end of the one life you get, even if it is also the entry into something completely different and better.

tenacious_tuna 4 days ago | parent [-]

I typed out the response below but I'm not sure I have a coherent response as to why the secular zeitgeist of death is less intimidating to me than the religious context of it. (Though, I'm not who you're replying to.)

I think it comes down to the sheer amount of pressure I felt within religion to be a certain way while also being told I could never be that way enough to achieve satisfaction in the eyes of god, and outside of religion I'm just another person in a flawed world trying to do my best.

--------

At the risk of being redundant, death within religion isn't an end, but yet another beginning. Eternal life is the reward for being a diligent disciple, where that means internalizing one's inherent flawed nature and inability to be redeemed but through death in devotion to god... which is a hell of a weight to carry throughout ones' life!

The Christian ethos is woven through with constantly being judged. And forgiven, yes, in theory, but still there is a constant undertone of "you cannot avoid making mistakes, and the mistakes you make are so offensive to god he wouldn't want you anywhere near him, but for magic religion reasons you've been redeemed by god doing something so terribly debased that it outweighs all the awful mistakes you've made."

Death (and "everlasting life") is no reprieve from this, but a form of stick that weighs heavy over you all through your days. You must work to save those around you, or they'll be eternally lost. You must cleave to the teachings of god, or at the very least belief in him, or you'll be eternally lost.

Since I left the church so many things of import that I felt I didn't understand now make much more sense; I struggled to comprehend how god could allow suffering, but now I see that the universe is just absurd and uncaring. While that may seem less comforting, I find the notions of bad things happening randomly less upsetting than there being an all-powerful being who cares about me but chooses to let me suffer for reasons that were never convincing, and as I've grown older sound more and more like an abusive relationship.

Through that lens, death is just a natural consequence of the world. Scary, yes, in the sense that I may not live up to all I want to be before my time is up, but I'm not pre-marked as eternally flawed and only redeemable through processes that do not make sense to me. Instead I know that I can only do my best, and that has to be enough, because I can't possibly do more.

krapp 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Atheism doesn't presuppose either hedonism or nihilism. This is a common theist libel which is surprisingly popular on this forum of ersatz rational thinkers and logicians. Atheists are perfectly capable of finding value and meaning in their own lives and the world around them, they just don't base that value on a belief in the supernatural. Listen to any astrophysicist, physicist or biologist talk about their field and you'll encounter a wonder and awe that no theologian reciting thousand year old tracts can match.

NateEag 5 days ago | parent [-]

> Atheism doesn't presuppose either hedonism or nihilism.

And if the GP thought it did, he would not have bothered to qualify it with those labels.

Since they _did_ specify "atheistic hedonism/nihilism," we know they're talking about those specific stripes of atheism, and can discuss that.

xyzelement 5 days ago | parent [-]

It looks like you were downvoted but for what it's worth you parsed and explained my intention accurately, and I appreciate that.

NateEag 4 days ago | parent [-]

You're welcome. I'm glad I was able to clarify it.

It's not the first time I've made such a clarification - it's a very human impulse to defend your belief system from unjust attacks that aren't actually there.

rdiddly 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Which is probably why religion was developed in the first place, for its comforting effects, as a balm, a bravery-enhancer, a coping strategy for dealing with inevitable death.

I think the way we deal with death nowadays has more to do with arrogance or hubris, coupled with wishful thinking. We're used to thinking we control things, and can get anything we want. One thing useful from the religions was having a healthy sense of your own limitations, or you could say a sense of wonder or mystery or perspective. A reminder that you're not the most powerful thing in the universe. Which is true, and healthy to be aware of, whether any god exists or not.

Edit to add: There are few places where that hubris and certainty tend to be more pronounced than among doctors. Part of what this woman is grieving is probably the loss of certainty, of control or the illusion thereof.

graemep 5 days ago | parent [-]

> Which is probably why religion was developed in the first place, for its comforting effects, as a balm, a bravery-enhancer, a coping strategy for dealing with inevitable death.

It maybe a factor, but I do not think it was the main one. Death is still very hard to cope with, regardless of religious belief. There are other things behind religious belief, mostly experiences.

> I think the way we deal with death nowadays has more to do with arrogance or hubris, coupled with wishful thinking

lotsofpulp 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

All the atheistic/agnostic people I know believe they are insignificant in the grand scheme of nature, not just in the chain of generations of people.

If anything, I find religious people are the ones who believe humans are special.

xyzelement 5 days ago | parent [-]

I think you're right on the word level but I think there's a difference about what significance and insignificance means to these groups.

As a religious person, I see my life as insignificant compared to Gd, and compared to the chain of generations, but what I do with my life is extremely significant. As in, whether I bring children into this world and raise them well, is massively significant.

So maybe the way to say it is - religious people see themselves as insignificant in the context of much greater significance.

The other view of insignificance is that nothing is significant - including myself. I don't subscribe to that.

resize2996 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Equating these things with a "Belief in god" belies a narrow view of spirituality.

lotsofpulp 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Thanks, this is clearer.

krapp 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Do you really believe atheists are incapable of recognizing the significance of children or of caring about them?

xyzelement 5 days ago | parent [-]

No, I don't believe that. I valued children just as much when I was an atheist as when I became religion.

What's significant though is the PREVALENT opinion. 100% of my religious friends want and have kids, while the majority of my secular friends do not. I work in FAANG and previously in finance, so my peers are people who can certainly afford kids and are positioned to take care of them - and yet literally most are choosing to do something else.

I am not commenting on a universal attitude, I am commenting on a significant trend that I think is obvious.

krapp 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

>What's significant though is the PREVALENT opinion. 100% of my religious friends want and have kids, while the majority of my secular friends do not.

Do all of your religious friends subscribe to the same religion?

If so, does this religion proscribe having children and raising families as a necessary, or desired, component of the faith or community?

Because you could be confusing religion and culture here. Secular values often abrogate traditional gender and sexual norms, so secular people may not feel compelled to "be fruitful and multiply." I wouldn't ascribe that to lack of religion per se so much as not being affected by the same cultural pressures. After all, plenty of theists are essentially forced into marriage and children because it's what's expected, not because it's what they want.

xyzelement 5 days ago | parent [-]

I am not sure "culture" and "religion" are separable in the long run but I don't think that aligns with the point you're making.

Religious people see "be fruitful and multiply" as a literal command from G-d and one of the fundamental points of religion. So while religious culture can evolve, the evolution of this attitude isn't a flexible point.

On the flip side, secular culture has no intrinsic reason for "family values" - which is why, I think, atheist culture over time devolves to childlessness - because reasons "why not" are more immediate and in your face, vs "why yes."

So yes it's "culture" but what the culture is is obviously determined by your underlying beliefs and that which you consider eternal and that which you consider negotiable.

lotsofpulp 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

>which is why, I think, atheist culture over time devolves to childlessness

I don't think the data supports this, yet. Religiously affiliated completed TFR is 2.2 while unaffiliated is 1.8. However, completed TFR means this is looking at those older than 60, so expect those numbers to drop in the future.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/02/26/religion-fer...

From my observations, TFR is not much different between most people who describe themselves as religious and most people who describe themselves as non religious. However, the TFR is different for those who I would describe as the most religious, compared to the "casually" religious/non religious.

For example:

https://danielgordis.substack.com/p/israel-has-high-birth-ra...

xyzelement 4 days ago | parent [-]

Totally agree, even without reading your links. What matters is the actual faith in Gd. I see this myself. We're members of two temples - one more orthodox and one more what you'd call casual.

The people that show up to the casual one once a year or even a few times a year aren't really "different" than someone who doesn't bother to show up. It's good they are there but the religion isn't influencing how they think and act - which is why the TFR is similar between casually religious and casually non-religious.

Where things differentiate is on the extremes. Someone explicitly atheistic (vs just non-religious) has a TFR around 1 from what I remember, while orthodox and ultra-orthodox have 3.3 and 6.6 respectively. What makes the difference is the degree to which they allow the religion to permeate their mundane existence, which is a factor of faith.

tsimionescu 4 days ago | parent [-]

This doesn't seem to track with broader sociological trends. For example, let's compare the USA, one of the most religious Western countries, with the USSR, where 60%+ of the population was atheistic, and where the state promoted atheism. Between 1960 and 1980, the US population grew from 179M to 226M (a 26% increase). The USSR population grew from 208M to 262M (a 25% increase). So, despite massive differences in religiosity, the population rate was pretty similar. China, another largely atheistic state, grew from 582M to 1B in roughly the same period - a 73% increase.

So while it may be true that certain small deeply religious populations are more incentivized to have children, this doesn't seem like a significant effect at population levels overall. You'll also find small non-religious groups with similar behaviors.

qmr 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Borderline militant atheist, my children are the great joy in my life and the best thing I’ve ever done.

squigz 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Putting aside the question of whether your own experiences hold for the general population, you must consider why these opinions are so prevalent, either way. One might argue that religion doesn't teach 'values' so much as 'roles', and so people feel they must do these things, not for any significance or with little thought to possible negative repercussions, but simply because... well, that's just what you do, right? Find a partner, have kids, go to church. That's the lifestyle religion teaches. One might also argue that secular people aren't as intent on having kids because they're more willing to accept different lifestyles.

For what it's worth, krapp's comment is better written but is what I'm talking about here.

xyzelement 5 days ago | parent [-]

I probably agree with most of what you wrote, but at the end of the day, the difference between 'values' and 'roles' seems insignificant to quibble about in the face of the result we're talking about here.

watwut 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

lproven 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is not even slightly true and seems to be based on a profound misunderstanding of atheism. From my perspective as atheist since the age of 11, it's the reverse of the case.

5 days ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]