I don’t often know which pieces will garner a lot of comments (except that the science ones don’t!), but I knew that when I put up yesterday’s post on “Death and atheism“, asking readers to describe how their unbelief had affected their attitude toward their mortality, people would want to weigh in. After all, one of the things we must to come to terms with as atheists is that for everyone—including us—the end is really the end. And few people of any sort don’t think, at least sporadically, of their end.
One of the many comments on that post, from Alexis Alvarez, stood out as being almost poetic in its poignancy. Let me put it up here as a reminder to take advantage of the time we do have. It reminds me of Dawkins’s famous quote that begins: “We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born.”
I was raised Catholic. I don’t know when I stopped believing in God. But not believing has been truly liberating. I don’t fear death — it’s as someone stated above, something “emotion-neutral.” But I don’t want to die — not for a while anyway. I love being alive, not just joy, but also the pain, which has been almost overwhelming at times — and still I am besotted with life. The ephemerality of life does pain me, however, because I can’t conceive of anything more wonderful than being alive.
Knowing that I will cease to exist makes the totality of life all the more interesting and enjoyable.
Frankly, I don’t really care about dying, the whole “deep” discussion about it is pretty annoying and pathetic to me.
Living is largely a tiresome drag at the best of times. In my teens I actually thought that this was hell so knowing that life will eventually end is very relaxing and something to look forward to.
When Alexis says “Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born”, that is a little strange – they are only people if they exist after all. Otherwise they are only ideas – no more real than fictional characters in a book – or even, less so. I would say.
That’s a Dawkins quote.
Yeah, and what Dawkins is saying here is that your coming int being and being who you are is the contingent result of countless forces operating from the deep stretches of time over a range of conceivable possible persons who might exist. None of us was fated to be. Change tiny details in that chain of forces and you’re gone. This is the difference between determinism and fatalism. Determinism says that certain things will be the case given what has been the case, but if things has been different, things would be different. Fatalism is the idea that for some events, screwing with earlier conditions doesn’t matter as much.
More counterfactuals are true in a determinist world than in a fatalist world.
I think the idea Dawkins was trying to convey was that the particular conglomeration of “stuff” that is “you” is exceedingly improbable. Be glad you beat the odds! Don’t waste the opportunity granted you by trying, redundantly, to make your life special by inventing religious notions about an “even better second chance!”
I think that’s what he was saying.
Right on
Yes I recall that – I think it was possibly from The Ancestor’s Tale? JS1685 is probably right about what RD was getting at – nonetheless, it is a a bit strange to me. After all, if you were not alive you would not be around to say that it was wonderful. Being or non-being. It seems superfluous… but what do I know!
You are right. It’s a bit silly to say we “won” the existence lottery because, really, there are no losers. But I think Dawkins would agree with this, too.
I think the primary motivation for making that statement was this:
He’s trying to show that your life is
valuable because you have it, and not for any made-up religious reason. Why waste what you have by playing make-believe? Religion is not necessary for ascribing value to life, and is in fact deflationary.
I don’t think he was trying to make a “ain’t-life-grand-we-should-all-be-filled-with-gratitude-and-sunshine” kind of statement. As others have pointed out, and as Dawkins must know, life really sucks for many people. But, if your life doesn’t suck, I think his statement can also be understood to say “Life is valuable. Please enjoy your non-sucky life, and do whatever you can to ease the suckiness of the lives of others.”
Dom, I have the same reaction you do when I hear/read this Dawkins quote (though I do get the meaning(s) our helpful interpreters have provided).
So life is wonderful and “worth it”? Seems like argument by assertion to me.
Well, if any dead people wish to counter that assertion…
I just wanted to say – I always read the science posts, I just don’t always comment!
Me too. Although some of them get so deep that my hair hurts.
Reminds me of this exchange from December 2010 (the originating post was about embryo development and was presented by Matthew):
I love all the topics that are presented. For me it is more difficult to comment on some of the science topics. The science topics are always a fascinating and enjoyable learning experience or an equally enjoyable review of previously learned material. But, the science is based on facts or conclusions from evidence. I often find myself without any facts or evidence to add.
The topics that discuss the anti-science favored by christians and their supporters, are combating a social illness and it is easier to write a comment in support, due to the obviously wrong assertions that the christian makes.
The stuff that comes back to haunt you on teh interwebs… 😉 It does show that I pay attention to what I read.
I always* read the science posts, but I rarely comment because: a) lack of expertise compared to a huge majority of biology oriented commenters, b) some posts are way over my head anyway, c) lack of time while at work to do actual proper research to support any comments I may make that someone else may take exception to, and d) the redundancy of constantly thanking JAC, Greg or Matthew for the insight and the wonderful education they provide. Thank you again.
*This is my favorite site, I read nearly all posts daily, with the exceptions being swamped at work, and some weekends or holidays.
Me too, always read every post, but the comment “How fascinating” doesn’t seem to add much. 😉
LOL! It does, however, let the author know that you read & enjoyed his efforts. I used to think mere “conversational” replies online were just time-wasters. Now I see them more as a sort of community cement, if you will.
And while we’re on the subject, JAC is one of the best at putting complex scientific phenomena into accessible prose for the layperson. But you already knew that!
“Ditto.”
b&
Bravo, Alexis.
To my surprise, I didn’t mourn the loss of an ‘afterlife’ after I realised that there was no such thing.
As to life being ‘wonderful’, I certainly think so — but this is purely subjective. (A serious depression or long-term illness might change my view.)
I missed the idea of an afterlife. That was a hard thing for me. The idea that we would all be finally able to understand one another and our worldly transgressions wouldn’t really matter anymore was quite appealing. Now I have to work out all my problems and fix all that stuff while I’m alive or accept the fact that it won’t be resolved and I may die with someone thinking I’m an asswipe.
To me, belief in an afterlife brings with it two potential faults. First, it provides a sop for life’s really nasty times: “Your cancer is terminal? Well soon you’ll be in the arms of Jesus.” A child dies. “God wanted to take her to heaven and your grief is god’s way of helping you to understand the value of suffering.” Yuk, yuk squared!
Second, it demeans life by eliminating full comprehension and appreciation of the brevity of life. It is easier to care less about things that are free and unlimited. A finite life span makes every day a time for celebration or at least a realization that once it’s gone it’s gone.
The question of an afterlife was easy for me to answer before I became a mother. I still have the same answer to that question, but it’s not easy.
Regarding the science posts, for some reason I always feel a little guilty that they don’t get as many comments as the rest of the posts do. I try, but having no education past high school, I just can’t follow or contribute to the more technical posts. However, I do read them and pick up what I can – that can’t be a bad thing!
Never be afraid to ask questions – it is how we learn and I am sure JAC, Greg & Matthew along with others, are happy to have people showing interest. Besides, no one can see you blush on this website! (Thank goodness…)
aww thanks! jac does a wonderful job of making this stuff accessible to the layperson – also, i’m not saying that you can’t understand this stuff without higher education – i’m sure there are those in this forum who are self-taught. i just haven’t put the effort into learning advanced biology.
I think it’s pompous to command that every living human should be grateful to be alive just because. Enshrouded in the luxury of food, shelter, medicine, peace it’s an easy thing to be grateful for the brief flash in time we call a lifetime. For those who have suffered horribly from birth to death, where is the wonder in that?
no one really suffering from birth do death
“suffering” is a term that is learned
being in pain is not the same as “suffering”
in order to understand and experience “suffering” someone has to have a pain-free moment
if there is no pain-free moment there is no “suffering”
we do not chose to be born
the idea that we can chose to die (suicide) is a desease of the mind and those who kill themselves are by definition not representative of the population
whether one calls the time between birth and death “biss” or “suffering” is irrelevant because life is life: a mindless continuation of matter and energy without purpose
being thankful is helpful in maintaining mental health
trying to look for reasons where there are none will only make you waste your time and energy for nothing
I’m sorry, I really don’t understand what you are saying…at all.
I was trying to give a perspective relevant on your question “For those who have suffered horribly from birth to death, where is the wonder in that?”
I tried to point out that from a purely biological standpoint “suffering” does not exist
people _learn_ “to suffer” including becoming depressed
to experience phisical or emotional pain one needs first experience pain-free state
this is why saying “suffering from birth to death” sounds impossible to me because for however brief moment there must be a period that is pain-free and suffering-free
i think you have managed to say nothing at all. are you in first year philosophy or something? tell your crap to the mother who watched her baby starve to death in her arms. yes..it’s a scenario i have used more than once, unfortunately is happening all over the world at this very instant.
check out the calculation by Jack Alpert of sustainable population at North American living standard assuming re-distribution of wealth to total and complete equality
It will give you some insights why the number of children dying in the arms of their mothers will only increase with time
‘if there is no pain-free moment there is no “suffering”’
You know, just because you can put words into a sentence doesn’t mean that they add up to a lick of sense. Your claim there is not only incorrect it is also crass in the extreme.
‘the idea that we can chose to die (suicide) is a desease of the mind ‘
This is also manifest rubbish. There are some who do choose to die because they are despairing. There are others who choose it very rationally and carefully for a very sane and simple reason: their life quality has ceased to have a positive value for them. It is a choice of dignity and peace.
you misinterpret my words
i did not mean to denigrade the choice to die by saying it is desease of the mind
the ego has all the rights to chose to die but “life” always wants to continue to live – that is what life is all about
i support people’s choice to die because no one can tell anyone what to do with his life
but from a biological point of view “dying” means “not living” and as such it is not part of definition for life
“but from a biological point of view “dying” means “not living” and as such it is not part of definition for life”
uh, no, wrong
dyING is, by definition, the last stage of life, a stage that every living thing must pass. Dying very much is part of living. In fact, you haven’t lived (past tense), if you haven’t gone thru dying.
I think you’re thinking of “dead”.
you are right i should have used “alive” and “dead” instead of “living” and “dying”
Agreed.
I also have much less high-minded reasons for finding the “life’s so precious we should all be grateful for it” idea annoying.
There are nearly 7 billion of us. The chances of any one of us being in any way exceptional are vanishingly small.
Any intelligent person can’t help but observe the obvious injustices and inequities in the world, and the very slim chance most have of overcoming those.
In our cushy middle-class Western enclaves, a large number of people appear to be fulfilled by reality TV & shopping malls.
The world wouldn’t be any different for want of my family.
We’re the worst invasive species the world has ever known, causing what will probably be among the worst mass extinctions of all time.
If Enlightenment values had been going to take hold they would have done so by now…
I think you are probably right. I see no positive future because humans are so short-sighted. That would be the next leap in evolution – to become ‘enlightened’ as it were as a species.
I don’t think we could survive at anywhere near current population levels if everyone were capable of enlightenment…
Alexis puts it very well indeed.
Long after I had left all religious beliefs behind me I still wanted to survive my own death. The nihilism of the alternative seemed to be too awful to contemplate.
But as I made a point of becoming more scientifically literate I began to realise that there was just no plausible mechanism that would allow anyone to continue consciously after death. To my amazement the fact that my hopes for eternal life were evaporating did not send me into a cycle of depression and despair. It was just a answer to a long held question, and that was that. It wasn’t the answer I had wanted, but there you go – we don’t always get what we want.
It is true that the fact that we know that we will one day die makes us a tragic species in one sense; but we don’t have to live tragically.
It is also true that we don’t all get a square deal in life; and for some it is easier to appreciate living than for others. But it does make me wonder how much harder humanity would try to alleviate suffering and inequity if so many of us had not believed all our lives that a paradise was waiting for us in the afterlife.
Well said. Funny, I usually see the opposite side and wonder how many currently “obedient,” subordinate, repressed groups would be stirred to rise up in protest without the ingrained idea that their reward would come in the hereafter?
Like Ms. Alvarez, I also love being alive. It is a love affair that takes a lot of work and noticing, at least by me. The cliche that life is too easily taken for granted almost always seems apt. Once in a while I lean into the universe and utter a thank you.
The writer’s lovely words reminded me of one of Piet Hein’s Grooks:
I’D LIKE —
I’d like to know
what this whole show
is about
before it’s out.
Perhaps this is what I’ll miss as I consider the mysteries of this strange and beautiful universe, living and non-living, at least today.
In the short term it about reproduction. so I fail!
Actually, that’s what I see as the only long-term option we have. 😀
i rarely read the religion posts. after all, creationst cretins don’t have many new tricksor arguements. PErsonally, i wish you,dawkins, and P Zed would do more science! or as i put it in a conversation, I liked it better when Dawkins et al were scientists that happened to be atheists, instead of the other way ’round. but i understand, you guys gotta keep us informed and act like mental condoms to keep science from getting impregnated with god genes
The loss of eternity was a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the end really became “The End,” with no hope of “me” persisting after death. But on the other, the specter of eternal torment for the least transgression also evaporated. The total effect was bracing and liberating. Stripping away the phony concerns of an afterlife forced me to look at life as it is. It allowed me to find meaning in this life, right now, rather than waiting for the next big thing.
You will find much more moving quotes in “Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence” by David Benatar (Oxford University Press, 2006).
I’m an anti-natalist, and I cringed when I read this post and that quote by Alex. People who say things like “I’m glad to be alive” or “I love my life” are deluded, because all lives contain more bad than you think they do – much more than you would care to think about, thanks to our self-deceptive human nature. Even more stupid is when people say they needed the pain.
It would have been better if none if us had ever come into existence. Non-existence is preferable to existence because it has advantages over existence: if you had not been brought into existence there would be no you to suffer the harms of existence, like boredom, tooth-aches, unfulfilled desires, violence, pin-pricks, coercion, guilt, shame, etc. And please don’t say “if you hadn’t been born then you would’ve missed out on the benefits of existence, like pleasure” because your logic is defective: if you hadn’t been born, there would’ve been no you, and there would’ve been no you to be deprived of pleasure.
There should be no more new people.
People think that the whole point if there being a universe is to have people in it. If you are the sort of person that freaks out over the thought of there being no more people, then you need to get over yourself. Humanity is up itself.
There should be no more pain and suffering, even if it has to means there being no more people.
Go read the “Should this be the last generation?” article by Peter Singer. It’s at the New York Times website, and it introduces the rational pessimist Professor David Benatar.
you are right about there should be no more people
so i assume your personal decision is never to have children, right?
this is good
still your logic is flawed
we do not chose to be born or not
that was a decision of our parents
they thought it was a good idea
with time when life becomes total and complete survival struggle having children will not be such a good
eventually the population will stabilize and even decrease to reflect diminished carrying capacity of the planet
of course you and me will be dead by then 🙂
My logic isn’t flawed. Our parents brought us into existence, even though they shouldn’t have. You could neither assent nor dissent from being brought into existence, because there was no you to say yes or no to being brought into existence.
you said that non-existence is “preferable” over existence
by whom?
when you already exist to express your preference you should kill yourself but the moment you cease to exist the preferences so not apply anymore
this is where your logic is flawed
non-existence is irrelevant to existance
you are confusing the benefits of less people for mankind as organism-whole with the percepts of an individual ego
universe has no purpose
your (or mine) existance has no purpose either
our individual ego is a product of cchemical and electrical activity of the brain from the moment it formed all the way to the moment you ask yourself a question or is aware of a feeling
once you are born you go thru life all the way to the death – your ego may have “preferences” but the cells that make up your body are not “intelligent” they have no preferences , they just temporarily appropriate a certain amount of matter and energy to make sure that you play your role in the process of evolution and perpertuation of life-form that is homo species
that’s all: no preferences
To have an advantage one must exist. If there is no existence there is no advantage or disadvantage.
kevin, go read Camus and get it over with. the rest of us will continue to take all the joy we can, because its all we know and all we can count on. better to be alive and enjoy it than be dead and not be able to.
I didn’t say we should all go and kill ourselves, or that we should go around killing other people and thinking that we’re doing them a favour by putting them out if their misery.
Once we’re here, we might as well as have some fun!
Just don’t have children.
While we’re around, we can be a benefit to other people. We can give part of our earnings to Oxfam or Red Cross.
Remember this: things that don’t exist and remain non-existent can never be deprived of pleasure
this post of yours makes more sense
you just say that a simple way of reduce the amount of human suffering is to have less people
so you are for having no children
that is a sensible solution but in order to make it work there should be enough people who think like you and who care about the quality of life for people that have not been yet born
such “temporal sight” in the words of Jack Alpert is beyond the reach of most people on the planet because their “human condition” is simply surviving the day
you should check out material at http://www.condition.org
Humans should go extinct sooner rather than later, but getting 6 billion people to agree not to procreate is a big ask, and I do know it’s not going to happen.
The dilemma – if you have no offspring then your values & genes will not be passed on. The meek will not inherit the earth (or even the smouldering ruins), the selfish will.