A friend of ours has recently been diagnosed
with cancer. A growth was discovered in her head
in a position on which they are unable to operate,
and she is currently undergoing radiation
treatment. She was an atheist - but has now seriously
turned to religion. This makes me wonder what would
others do? Would any of you turn to religion if you
felt that you were going to die?

Recently had the chance to experience this deathbed situation, and, nope, suspending disbelief wasn't one of my priorities. I wonder how this friend decided which god(s) were the best ones to start believing in. Perhaps there should be a MyGod site where you can compare after death plans of all the different religions.

I more contemplated the mess I would leave for those left behind and amused myself with the fact that even if I survived, which I did of course, nothing would really change despite my short-term enthusiasm for living life a better way.

As has been proven the case.

Houellie,

Hello!

(...not to mention you still have to write that book that I was nagging you to write)

I hope you've recovered well.

The closest I've come in relatively recent years was during the birth of my son when his heart rate dropped and the delivery room was whipped into a frenzy to prepare for an emergency caesarian.

I remember lying on the trolley outside the operating theatre - about 6 of us, doctors, nurses, whoever - crammed into the narrow doorway waiting for the theatre to be hastily prepared. I tried a few wise cracks to take my mind off the life or death nature of the situation.

And in the end there was nothing I could do but say a silent prayer...

They got my son out by the skin of his teeth (as the surgeon put it)

A situation where everything seemed to go wrong - and everything the hospital did in response seemed to go right.

I just remember being reduced to absolute helplessness - and all that was left was the prayer.

Hi Poirot,

The book will stay on my todo list. As I say things don't really change.

Who did you pray to?

My first born was the same, but I was playing the part of the father. I see us all as playing the part in different scenes, perceived as extras in someone else's life. They dressed me in a weird gown and hat and things to put over my shoes, and wheeled my partner in. I had a view through a small window, then they let me in for some reason a bit later, never did find out why I was excluded or included. They also averted the c-section with a lot of bruising to the poor kids head and the Dr was pretty pleased with himself and was lapping up the praise of all around.

I remember there being so many people assembled so quickly all doing their dedicated job. There seemed to be more than a dozen of them.

It's like you say it all turns so quickly, and you stand around like a doofus with no idea what to do or think about it all.

We are all diagnosed with cancer or the equivalent.
A few decades earlier or later makes no significant difference.

Therefore, take refuge in the Eternal.

Foxy asked: Would any of you turn to religion if you felt that you were going to die?

How can I tell whether anybody else would turn to religion? Feel one is going to die? I know I am going to die but just don't know when unless I decide to do it myself.

However, one's feelings about religion can be an important part of one's being, and some people do turn to religion as they get older or have a terminal disease. My father was one such person. It was annoying to me since he expected me to join him in becoming religious.

I don't always succeed, but I try to be both brave and honest. If I knew I was going to die in the near future my turning to religion would be both cowardly and dishonest.

Three heart attacks in 3 years. Didn't make me start asking for help from any being, real or mythical, other than the doctors I'd been paying for, in advance for years. It did make me swear to drive my cars more, if I still could.

I do remember wondering, in the helicopter ride into the big hospital after the second one, how the pilot & paramedic could put up with spending all day in a heap of shaking, vibrating rubbish like it. I expected it to fall out of the sky & kill us all, long before my heart attack could kill me.

I decided that if ever one of my cars ran as badly as that chopper that I burn the thing, before it did kill someone.

Houellie,

"Who did you pray to?"

I prayed to an entity that is completely beyond my reason...the one which follows me around in my psyche - that every time I try to get a fix on, evaporates into a nebulous cloud that I cannot grasp.

It was an exercise in supplication to the unfathomable.

I was helpless.

"It is better to live in the real world no matter how painful than to live in a delusion no matter how comforting."

Did it make you happier or calmer Poirot?

Could it have perhaps been Elvis Presley?

I often think if I was to experience such a thing it would be in the form of the Corral scene in David Lynch's Mullholland Drive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GekiIMh4ZkM

Or maybe like the Dude in The Big Lebowski when he gets knocked out.

I think if anything my self splits and I talk to another me in such situations but the other guy isn't really much help. More a silent observer with his hands up going 'what did you expect' or 'what do you want me to do', or 'you're an idiot'.

There have been quite a few times when I thought I was going to die.

1. Stuck in a ship wreck at 45 metres below and got lost and couldn't find way put with not much oxygen left. There was quite a bit of sediment kicked up so couldn't see a thing.

2. Too many drugs and convinced myself I would die if I fell asleep in my girlfriends attic room that was too black with no windows.

3. Had altitude sickness in the Himalayas and couldn't descend due to the weather.

4. Watching a HBO show on a TV in Guatemala when I hadn't really kept up with the news for weeks, and it was about an asteroid that was going to wipe us out. It was news reporters seriously reporting on the progress, live crosses to different cities, and was quite convincing to me in my hungover state. I finally twigged but didn't want to change the channel to confirm as it was quite fun in the end.

5. In ICU recently with a particularly bad case of pneumonia with a few complications.

Must be just a coincidence... a cancer is mentioned and then up pops Houellebecq!

(And doubles the OLO poster average IQ in the process)

But seriously folks, I mean Foxy...

I'm anticipating that dementia will stop me having to wonder about making such decisions.

Could it simply be that most people agree in many medical matters that 'There is always hope' and some feel compelled to start calling this hope God?

Though I am reminded that Michel de Montaigne wrote "The perpetual work of your life is but to lay the foundation of death."

Dear Foxy,

>> Would any of you turn to religion if you
felt that you were going to die? <<

Once an atheist friend of mine asked me to console her Chinese friend who was dying of cancer. The friend was a Buddhist. So I explained to her that although I have some ideas about existence that goes beyond the material, they are culturally grounded and different from how a Buddhist would see them. (As I would say today, Christians and Buddhist - more precisely those of them who believe in “spirits” etc - use different models of Ultimate Reality). I suggested she called a Buddhist monk, which she did, and the monk apparently consoled her, did a job that I - or any Christian - would not have been able to do.

So I presume (since I am not an atheist it doesn't apply to me), the answer to your question should be “it depends”. It depends

(a) on what kind of religion is compatible (you were familiar with at least as a critically stubborn outsider) with your cultural milieu (Until recently, for a Western ateist it was either some form of Christianity or Judaism, now many atheists feel closer to Buddhism)

(b) on how “closed” is your atheist mind, how strong a hindrance is it for your heart to open to the possibility of unfathomable HOPE in a limit life situation (as psychologists call the moments when conversions MIGHT occur). Certainly, closeness of death - not imagined but experienced - is one of these situation. For an ex-Chistian atheist, Oscar Wilde might be relevant:

“Ah! happy they whose hearts can break
And peace of pardon win!
…
How else but through a broken heart
May Lord Christ enter in?” (Oscar Wild, The Ballad of the Reading Gaol).

Poirot,

If I understood you properly, you prayed to the God I believe in. For instance, in Bhagavad Gita, the incarnate god Krishna says , “Whatever god a man worships, it is I who answer the prayers.”

ponde,
the question was about dying, not living

Houellie,

"Did it make you happier or calmer Poirot?"

It must have had some kind of positive connotation - under the circs.

"Could it have perhaps been Elvis Presley?"

I have no idea...maybe it was John Lennon?

WmTrevor,

"Could it simply be that most people agree in many medical matters that 'There is always hope' and some feel compelled to start calling this hope God?"

That's a compelling line of thought.

Hehe Trev!

I was actually going to leave it at one post but now that you and Poirot have so quickly arrived I might revive old habits.

I have looked in a few times but this place really has gotten worse if anything. Though anti is back and it seems he has digested way too much political science and philosophy recently. Why people bother I don't know with all the pop culture to dissect.

There's been no posts about the significance of Kim K's bum at all!

I'm really hoping I get dementia before my partner:-)

'Could it simply be that most people agree in many medical matters that 'There is always hope' and some feel compelled to start calling this hope God?'

Not for me really. I'm too busy second guessing the doctors and attempting to trick them into revealing what they really think my chances are. If you had hope already why do you need god? In some way I find it comforting when it's all out of your hands. I just look on curiously at the fate that becomes me.

Houellie,

I recall one particular instance in my twenties where I really thought I was going to die.

And I remember (again helpless) that I felt innately accepting of the fact there was nothing I could do. Whatever the outcome, that was it....and contrary to intuition, I was calm and accepting of my predicament and fate.

I didn't pray that time....but I can't recall a similar calmness before or since.

George,

Yes....in my mind I was praying to someone/something that could intervene on my behalf.

NO.

But I like the idea that I am composed of 'star-stuff' - atoms that have been around in the universe for 13.8 billion years, and that when I die that 'star-stuff' will recycle back into the planet and the universe. I personally won't reincarnate, but all the atoms in my body will, into something - soil bacteria, grass, birds etc. Maybe eventually, in another few billion years, into a star!

On Ilkla Moor Baht 'at!

Poirot, you can be gobsmacked at life, the universe and all that without resorting to imaginary friends.

'Yes....in my mind I was praying to someone/something that could intervene on my behalf.'

I don't think I'd like that thought. That someone was actually in control of the fate. What a bastard if they didn't help!

I have this feeling feel like I'm reading a book and the main character dies unexpectedly. It's a bit anticlimactic and I start to wonder why I bothered. It is nice to look on as my character is killed off, but I do feel a bit bummed I don't get to read the rest of the story. Then I comfort myself that I had a really good scene and the rest of the show would probably be quite predictable and then my mind turns to the cycle of generations and how they probably all thought they were significant and at least I'm not suffering under any illusions of that nature.

Houellie,

I've missed your irreverent contributions. There's something about the way you look at things - which pulls us up and tells us not to take ourselves too seriously...something Poirot is apt to do.

I'm not really surprised you turned up out of the blue. I read a mention of Michel Houellebecq yesterday http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/01/07/3608780/charlie-hebdo/ ...and I thought of you.

Obviously, with my metaphysical powers, I summoned you back to the fold.

(That's a joke - but no doubt you'll take it as the ultimate invitation to leave us again: )

Thank You for the great responses and a great
big Welcome back Houellie. It's good to have
you posting again.

I recall when I was in hospital (diagnosed with
bowel cancer) and had to be operated on. I turned
to prayer. I suppose, like many other people in
similar situations, I was looking for meaning (and
help - from whatever source) that I was unable to
find elsewhere at the time. Prayer did help calm me down.
It didn't solve anything - but it gave me comfort in
my time of crisis.

Hasbeen: how the pilot & paramedic could put up with spending all day in a heap of shaking, vibrating rubbish like it.

Ahh.. the good 'ld "Dustoff," still saving lives. When there's only half of you left & a big Negro sitting on your chest to stop you from bleeding to death mate, I don't think you'd care how much it shakes around, as long as it gets you to M.A.S.H in under 30 minutes & the Morphine doesn't run out.

I don’t think I would turn to religion in such a situation for several reasons:

1) How could I know which religion was the right one? If I picked the wrong one, I’d probably make the real god even angrier than if I had just remained not believing in any of them. At least I'd have good excuses then.

2) Even if I picked the right god, it would be hypocritical of me, and insulting to the intelligence of that god, to suddenly “cram for the final” as some sort of an insurance policy.

3) I think a god would respect remaining consistent by not suddenly acknowledging it in the last moments. It might think I’m a user if I only acknowledge it on my deathbed.

4) Any of the gods of the current religions (if it’s religion that we’re turning to here) would be omniscient enough to have already known what the future will bring; therefore, praying to it would be pointless since having them change what they knew was going to happen would be a paradox.

5) If there is a god (or some greater presence) to pray to, then it’s clearly not willing to help millions of starving children, so it would be arrogant of me to think that’s it’s going to help me (although the Christian god apparently helps with sporting matches in America, so who knows?).

Ah God bless the 'dustoff' when you need 'em they're there ! In my humble opinion to see that beautiful UH-1B approaching at treetop height, with the dust and bush thrashing about - I reckon it was God 'posonified', I could'a wept ?

Hi there POIROT...

Your account of your troublesome labour in hospital, was truly amazing ? Moreover it was your admission that when things got quite bad, you'd actually 'prayed', that was really poignant. An activity I'd never have thought, you'd even contemplate doing ? I was astonished POIROT, I really was.

You know how with some people, you can almost put a face to them, just by their conversation, their views and opinions, well...? I guess I should quit now, while I'm still ahead ? Good to speak with you again POIROT - I applaud and respect consistency, I really do.

Yes I can understand how you army types would be fond of choppers.

The Navy had those old Wessex things in my day. Quite a few of them broke & went down, taking their crew with them.

I don't like them much, in fact they scare the daylights out of me. If I'm going to fly, like the birds, I want a proper wing to hold me up thanks.

By your way of thinking - It was God that gave you cancer in the first place.
What makes you think that he is going to undo his own deeds?

Dear Ponde,

People when they're afraid and desperate seek help
wherever they can.

' Would any of you turn to religion if you felt that you were going to die?'

Foxy we are all going to die. Its just a matter of when. I doubt whether there are many true atheist around. I am sure that many are agnostics but one has to do away with all reason to be an atheist. The cancer in your friend I would say made her think which an atheist can't do to well.

The reception/rejection of Christ is determined largely by whether one humble's themselves or not. Pride is a stinking thing and often disappears when one realises they have not got long to live. Turning to religion is much different to turning to Christ. Turning to religion usually means you try hard to be accepted by God. Turning to Christ means you are accepted by God on the basis of what Christ has done for you. Turning to religion means doing certain things to reach God's standard while turning to Christ is an acknowledgment that He was the Only One able to meet God's standards on our behalf.

Turning to religion might turn you into a suicide bomber (especuially if you are a young single male), turning to Christ someone who forgives and tries hard to treat your neighbour as yourself. Turning to religion could cause you to stare at your navel all day while turning to Christ will cause you to become generous towards the poor.

Dear runner,

Thank You for your explanations - on the differences
between relgion and Christ.

I'm not sure specifically, what my friend has done,
so I can't speak on her behalf. And you're probably
right, perhaps she was not such a non-believer as
she claimed.

Still, there's various ways of looking at things, which
I find interesting from the posts on this discussion.

I found this quote on the web:

"By projecting a loving, caring figure who never leaves
your side, loves you eternally and forgives you for
your human faults allows for you to mentally dominate
the unknown.
This restores your control (and security). This control
(and security) whether false or not pacifies anxiety."

"But one has to do away with all reason to be an atheist."

Can't resist...

Either:

"But one has to do away with all reason to believe in a 'god'?

or

"But one has to do use all reason to be an atheist."

I accept that believing in a god is important for many people. But please don't assume that you (or your particular religion) are the only ones who know the truth and those who think differently have done away with all reason.

I have been an atheist since as long as I could reason - certainly before I was 10. I noted the standoff between Catholic and Protestants where I lived, and I remember reading or being told about Jews, Hindus and Buddhists. I remember thinking to myself - they all believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. But if they are all correct in believing everyone else is wrong: then maybe they are all wrong.

I became a scientist and historian, not because I was an atheist, but because I have a deep interest in how the world works and how humans tick, and have read widely in comparative religion. I think the development of religion has an evolutionary basis, and is a spin-off of the development of consciousness. But that doesn't mean there really is/are gods.

Further if you a monotheist, you are in fact an atheist with respect to many other people's gods (eg Hinduism) and you would probably use a reason-based argument to justify that.

Cossomby,

I'm not particularly interested in "religion" or a "God" in the traditional idea of a god.

I was staring down the barrel of a potential tragedy and I reached out in supplication to the Way.

An entreaty to "Whatever", if you like, because I wanted my child to survive and there was nothing else to be done except wait and let the experts do their thing. Perhaps the prayer was in response to the fact that that I was unable to help myself.

o sung wu,

Thanks for that.

I'm just coming around to the fact that although we can't help but judge others by attempting to classify them as one particular "type" - the truth is that we are all complex beings and sometimes we surprise others when certain aspects of our personalities don't necessarily match the initial impression.

Dear Poirot,

My heart goes out to you regarding your child.
Who knows how any of us will behave in times of
crisis - especially when the pain of this life
becomes more than one can bear. Your thoughts
can become dark, and your sorrow huge. One can
often feel that one will not endure and there
is no one and nothing to turn to. So you turn
to prayer, "If You can, dear God, please do.
If you can, please do."

Dear Cossomby,

As Rabbi Williamson, whom I quote very often has expressed:

"Religious institutions, as such are not the only
arbiters of religious experience. They do not own the
Truth, for Truth cannot be owned. Nor should they
think they hold some francise on our spiritual life.
They are consultants and frameworks, but they are not
God Himself. We should not confuse the path with the
destination."

Nikola Tesla stated:

"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena
it will make more progress in one decade than in all
the previous centuries..."

Hi again POIROT...

I had already ascertained that you're 'good people' POIROT, a biting bark with a soft heart, but in a time of personal crisis, you'd seek relief in prayer, well that stunned me for a while I will freely admit. I can only hope in the future, you're not ever placed in a similar position where personal prayer, is again your only option ? Stay well POIROT.

Though I am not a psychologist I think there is some similarity between the two positions:

“I shall go to heaven, all those who do not share my beliefs will go to hell”

and

“I am an atheist, and all those who believe in the divine or afterlife (however imagined), are irrational”.

At least, both these extreme attitudes seem to come to the foreground as a kind of self-reassurance when some people contemplate (in distinction to experience) closeness of their own death.

I was the only male member of my high school debating team. The other 4 were all daughters of ministers of one Christian denomination or another in our town.

We were a reasonable successful team, although I can't imagine why, at last of the time we were given for preparation was usually spent in these young ladies trying to convert me to one of those denominations or another.

If they could not succeed back then when I was probably much more impressionable & malleable, I doubt anything as minor as approaching death could do it now.

'I have been an atheist since as long as I could reason - certainly before I was 10.'

well Cossomby with any sort of thinking you would realise that their is no common thinking among scientist (except for certain Government funded group thinking) when it comes to design, laws requiring lawmakers, inbuilt moralising of humans etc. Certainly assuming you are more than 21 now you would realise that many scientist believe in a Creator and many are honest enough just to claim to be agnostic. If you just hold to the common pseudo scientific explanations of something from nothing and other evoluntionary garbage you are certainly no thinker but an accepter of (group think) unitelligble garbage. It will get you Government funding and promotion but provide no answers to life.

"There's been no posts about the significance of Kim K's bum at all!" Is it because as a topic it is too big to be adequately probed here?

But to the topic of A&E type Damscene conversions I think my atheism is profoundly thought through so I can't see it happening, but if sufficient quantities of strong enough drugs are prescribed I reserve the right to have a medically induced psychosis.

I don't feel strongly enough about it to criticize what any individual 'needs' to believe in to help them cope with a life-threatening situation. After all is said and done they have to do the coping. We might have to decide how to empathize - and that only if we know them!

Otherwise it is like our ironic reaction to a celebrity death, for example Donna Douglas last week, "Oh, I didn't realize she was still alive."

"I just look on curiously at the fate that becomes me." Agreed. Though my look is a little squinty these days unless I put on my reading glasses.

'If they could not succeed back then when I was probably much more impressionable & malleable, I doubt anything as minor as approaching death could do it now.'

Yea Hasbeen it is true that a peson's heart becomes harder and harder as they age. Thankfully though their is exceptions and hope until the end. One of the thieves on the cross next to Jesus was a good example. He cried for mercy the other just kept mocking as I suspect he had done throughout his life.

Dear Foxy,

I've had quite a few instances when I though my time was up.

Once was under an Army T10 chute I thought had completely malfunctioned but just had a nasty twist. Another was kitesurfing when an insane launch unintentionally had me heading for the hard stuff. Luckily ended in a meter of water but even that delivered me badly concussed and pissing blood through the night. Unlike a diagnosis of inoperable cancer many of these gave me enough time to 'think this might be it' but not enough to contemplate much beyond that.

The only occasion I had any significant amount of time was when the ticker decided to sprint off. Dropped me on to the slate floor, totally unconscious. Came to and managed to crawl a couple of meters then couldn't even raise my head an inch. Wife and children with really stressed looks on their faces loomed over me (apparently I was a very unbecoming grey colour) having to fight off waves of darkness had me thinking I was about to slip off this mortal coil. I remember being at peace with the thought. I was certainly worried about my wife and kids, I wanted to comfort them but couldn't which frustrated me. Otherwise I was calm through the nearly half and hour it took for the ambo's to arrive (we live in a small country town) which was a bloody long time with your own thoughts, especially when you're at the pointy end.

In hospital one of my fundamentalist relatives asked the question – did I think about God during the time on the floor? I remember being a little surprised myself that I could truly say I hadn't.

Friends of ours lost their 20 yo daughter nearly 2 years ago. The mother has turned to religion for solace and answers. I would never judge her for a moment. Losing one of your children must bring a debilitating sorrow that the rest of us would find hard to fathom. A similar sorrow might come with the realisation one's own life is limited.

Hi Foxy,

In 2013 I had a heart attack, spent 12 days in hospital, 10 in ICU, not much fun. Had a very good Specialists, said I was about the most laid back patient he had come across. Was I just being brave, no way, or was my attitude bravado on my part. I don't think so, I take very much a fatalistic attitude, I didn't want to die, that's foe sure, as I told the Doc, but I didn't experience fear, for some reason to the point where some thought I didn't understand the seriousness of my situation, but I did and when I spoke to different people including the various doctors I made it clear I did understand the seriousness.
p/s There is always an up side, 12 days in hospital lost 13kg, sure beats 'Jenny Craig'. ha ha.

I would like to talk about death, and more precisely the way we the living send our dearly departed off. I have always believed "funerals" are for the living and not for the dead.
As you get older you seem to attend more and more funerals, In my case close family, dad, mum, uncles aunts etc, only natural, that is the way of things. As I have said before my partner is Maori so I have attended a number of Maori tangi's over the years, and European funerals, and for attaining comfort and closure for the living, particularly for those closest to the deceased, the Maori tangi beats the European funeral hands down. Takes 3 and now often 4 days, as so many have to travel a long distance, like from Australia. It is important that all who possibly can attend, do attend, that's why the numbers often run well into the 100's even 1000's and the way things transpire over those days, that those closest receive so much support from others, that their burden of loss and sorrow is carried so much easier than it is for Europeans with our relatively quick send offs.

George,

I think your premise is flawed. I don’t think either of those statements are necessarily extreme. Extreme would be either side wanting the other wiped out.

The first statement is sound Protestant Christian and Islamic theology and billions of people believe it. While not necessarily extreme, making the second statement would still be going a bit overboard. It would be more accurate to say that theists have an irrational belief or that religious belief is irrational, because being religious doesn't necessarily mean that one is irrational in other ways.

Either way, if one were to express the first attitude while others contemplate the closeness of their own death, then that would just be childish and I would agree that someone who said such a thing was probably trying to reassure themselves of their beliefs. If one were to express the second attitude while others contemplate the closeness of their own death, then it would be careless and a bit unfair to not follow it up with the acknowledgment that we don't usually think rationally in times of distress anyway. But it would be unlikely that such a person was trying to reassure themselves of that belief because, unlike the theist, there is nothing holding them back from altering their position if they fear they're wrong.

They would have to have a pretty dreadful family and friends to fear they'll see them again in some afterlife.

Dear George,

You wrote: "I am an atheist, and all those who believe in the divine or afterlife (however imagined), are irrational."

I think none of us are completely rational. However, I think a belief in something for which there is no evidence is irrational. That is not to condemn belief in either a divine or an afterlife. The belief in either is certainly irrational, but we have no obligation to be rational.

There's no real difference between positive thinking and prayer, as a part of their therapy people with serious illness are often counseled on maintaining a positive inner dialogue, to get that little voice inside saying "I'll beat this!". My Mum has MS and she sees a psychologist to keep working on her mental state as well as doing physio and whatnot for her physical problems.

Thank You for sharing your thoughts and
your experiences - many of which are very moving
and leave me lost for words. We live in the
21st Century and in our Western Culture - (whose
message is one of self-empowerment) we have
come to expect that with technology, money, know-how,
rights, medicine problems can all be solved. "You can do
it!" And, often this is true. However, an encounter with
death - tells us that ultimately we can't. And its this
knowledge that can affectively hit many of us with full
force. To some, its a matter
of "Any port in a storm." To others - Religion, gives
the comfort they seek. To others still, it goes deeper -
it's a matter of faith.
And others don't turn to religion at all - finding solace in
other ways.

One thing that I am learning from all the different posts is -
Can anyone of us really predict with any certainty - how they will really react in times of crisis?
I would have said that I definitely could
a few years ago. Now, I'm not so sure.

Dear Foxy,

Sometimes there is a fear of other people dying.

As a child I would spend summers and sometimes more with my Grandmother and grandfather in Lake Placid, N. Y. up in the Adirondacks. I became very afraid of losing my grandmother. I didn’t want her or my grandfather to die. I can remember the odour of liniment that she used on her aching body. I recall her scent of clean clothes, garden and liniment. I keep her bottle of Sloan’s liniment.

Her legs were shapeless sausages with the oedema that afflicts some old people when they retain fluids. Sloan’s helped to ease her aching body.

I asked, “Ma, why are your legs so thick?” I called her ‘Ma.’ Her children did so why shouldn’t I?

She looked at me and held me close. In a dreamy voice she said, “When I was a young and beautiful woman in Eishyshok on a starry night I went swimming in the river. The smell of cedar and the reflections in the water so took me that I was not aware of the nearby water mill until I was drawn into the water wheel. I was so battered that my legs were no longer shapely when I got out. That’s why my legs are like this.”

Of course, I believed my grandmother. She was rigidly honest and would not lie to me. It was only years later that I realised that she did not want me to think of the infirmities of age. However, I did think of age. I heard that eating eggs promoted longevity so I advised my grandmother to eat eggs. Somehow, I knew this good time would not last.

I miss my grandmother.

Dear david f,

I think we have been to this before - the difference, as I understand it, between arational (as not being rational, logically irrelevant) and irrational (meaning against rational, against logic). I agree that we have no obligation to always be rational or moral, we can sometimes by arational, some of our actions might by amoral (i.e. morally irrelevant, neither good nor bad), but the words irrational, immoral have a pejorative meaning.

There are beliefs for which there cannot be evidence (convincing for everybody) for the very nature of such beliefs, like

“that the physical world is all there is” (Carl Sagan), or

“that this world is rationally ordered, (i.e. amenable to scientific investigation, as opposed to a random collection of events)”, or

"that whatever our understanbding of reality there will always be a better one, closer to truth", or

"that whatever physical theories wil supersede the ones we have, they will have to be again written in the language of mathematics" etc.

Only in mathematics and formal logic you can look for “evidence” that everybody has to accept, which is usually called a proof. You cannot have evidence for fundamental world view assumptions like you cannot have proofs for axioms.

AJ Philips,

I don’t know what premise. I just made a psychological observation about some responses to the question asked by Foxy, which - fair enough - you don’t share, if I understood you properly.

Quite poignant, David.

"Sometimes there is a fear of other people dying."

Yes, I had another experience when my daughter at 10 developed Type 1 diabetes. She'd been perfectly healthy before, and has been since. So her body just stopped producing insulin and even though I'd had her to GP in the weeks before, it wasn't picked up until she was quite sick (apparently that happens a lot). Of course it was quite a shock and we had to learn all about insulin and what it does, learn about injections give them and also about diet and how much carbohydrate and what sort of carbohydrate best manages the situation...a great big balancing act.

My mother, her Nan, kept lamenting why did it happen to her granddaughter, etc. My view was that we should just get on with learning and managing the condition. We were lucky to be in an age where Type 1 was manageable with injections of insulin, diet and exercise.

When we were at the children's hospital, I'd see all the kids with cancer, their bald heads bobbing along the corridors or lying on their pillows - and I knew we at least were lucky that this condition was manageable and the child could resume a normal life (with adjustment) quite quickly.

She's 32 now, healthy and active, 4 insulin shots a day, married to a lovely man from Missouri...all good.

Steelie: Once was under an Army T10 chute.

Now that brings back memories. The Terendak Garrison Freefall Club had a T10 Cut to a Double L. With a sleeve on they took an extremely time to open, 4 sometimes 5 seconds. Up from the usual 3 with a 28 footer. One day a Kluang, without realizing it we put a very small woman on it. It took 8 seconds to open. She looked up & saw it was deploying OK so let it open instead of deploying her reserve. Only weighing just over 45 kilos,.she ended up miles away. She was OK the rest of us on the ground, $hit. There was plenty of time for her she was at 32 thou on a hop & pop.

On that note My first jump from a Beaver at 54 over Terendak in Commonwealth Week (big Sports week) Stall speed at just over 90 knots. I ended up on my back & couldn't get back over to the Basic Free fall position. I looked up & there was this big face in the sky pointing at me. (like the one in the Sistine Chapel) He said, "Boy, you're in trouble. Do something about it." I went calm, rolled over & deployed at 22. When I landed, the Church of England Minister was doing the marking & I landed at his feet. All I could say was, "I was just talking to your Boss." & staggered off. Strange that.

Dear David F.,

Your grandmother must have been a very lovely woman
to have had such an impact on you. I loved my grandfather.
He was a very gentle giant (6ft 7inches in height) and a
great story-teller. I remember sitting with him in a cafe
and staring at the man at the next table who was studying
something on his table (although I couldn't see anything
there). I asked my grandfather - "What's that man staring at?"
Grandad simply said - "The devil." My mother scolded Gramps
"Don't tell her that, she'll believe you and you'll scare
her." I wasn't scared at all. I was fascinated and looked
to see if I could also see the devil.

Gramps died shortly after his wife, who died of Leukemia.
I think of him often and miss him very much. Many of his
stories I'm passing onto my grandchildren.

Dear Poirot,

I'm so glad that your daughter is doing well today.
You've certainly been through a lot in your life.

Dear Jay,

I wish that I could relate some extra-ordinary phenomena
from my experience to you.
No such luck. But who knows, what lies ahead.
The closest thing that my husband and I encountered
was when we were invited for a charity-raising function at the
Raheen Estate in Kew (the previous home of Cardinal Mannix).
During the course of the evening we were shown the room where
the Cardinal had died. It creeped me out. The room was icy-cold
and there definitely was an "atmosphere," there. We were told
that even the resident cat stayed away from that particular
room. I was glad to get out of there. However, we did not see
anything strange in that room - just felt the coldness and
an eery feeling whilst there.

George,

Yes, on second thoughts your main point didn’t really hinge on the idea that those attitudes were extreme. You can scrap that first sentence in my post.

Dear George,

The ancient Greeks called the square root of two irrational. Although they could create it with a ruler and compass they could not place it in their number system which only allowed for whole numbers and fractions with whole numbers in the numerator and denominator. They proved that it could not be expressed as a fraction.

Irrational in the Greek sense meant an entity which exists but cannot be explained.

However, I have no reason to accept the existence of either an afterlife or a divinity. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, they do not need to be explained since there is no evidence that they exist. We can call that arational.

Dear George,

My apologies - I'm going to repeat some of
what I've written in the past (a tendency I have).
However, I think its still relevant today:

For many years it was widely felt that as science
progressively provided rational explanations for the
mysteries of the universe, religion would have less
and less of a role to play and would eventually
disappear, unmasked as nothing more than superstition.
But there are still gaps in our understanding that
science can never fill. On the ultimately important
questions - of the meaning and purpose of life and
the nature of morality. Few citizens of modern
societies would utterly deny the possibility of some
higher power in the universe, some supernatural,
transcendental realm that lies beyond the
boundaries of ordinary experience, and in this fundamental
sense religion is probably here to stay.

The fact that sociocultural evolution has generally meant
secularisation in the past, and is becoming even more
relevant today, does not mean that this must necessarily
continue to be so in the future. What is most likely is
that there will be a growing religious diversity in the
future, reflecting the increasing individualism and
diversity of societies.

Particularly in times of uncertainty and rapid social
change, people in the future may look, as they have done
in the past, to religious values to stabilise and revitalise
their culture. It may well be the case, in fact, that the
need for religion will eventually reassert itself most
powerfully in precisely those societies that have become
the most industrialised, rationalised, and materialistic.
I'm thinking of what's currently happening in the US
with the Religious Right becoming such a strong force there.

Dear Foxy,

The Star Spangled Banner contains the words: “And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."”

This was not the motto of the US when the anthem was written. It was ‘e pluribus unum’ (One out of many)

The pledge of allegiance when I went to school in the US was “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

During the Cold War in the 1950s under Eisenhower efforts were made to distance the US from the ‘godless’ communists.

The US motto became “In God we trust”, and the pledge became “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

There have been efforts to restore the original wording of the pledge and eliminate ‘under God’. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals supported a law suit which eliminated ‘under God’. The Supreme Court restored it. Obama in his inaugural speech said ‘we are a nation of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and unbelievers. That was the first time any president in a speech made a reference to unbelievers. Hopefully if other justices get appointed to the Supreme Court the pledge will be restored.

The US Constitution does not mention God or Jesus. The Federalist Papers which express the philosophy behind the US Constitution in all of its mentions of religion call it a divisive force. However, those who wrote the Constitution were almost all Deists influenced by the Enlightenment. The country as a whole was much more religious. Part of the current religiosity in the US reflects the broadening of the suffrage.

In my opinion the current rise of the religious right is because the great unwashed, the superstitious part of the population, are voting, and their views have little in common with the enlightened group of thoughtful men who wrote the US Constitution. There is a de facto alliance between the religious right, and such corporations as those of the Koch brothers who don't want their environmental destruction interfered with.

Hi PAUL1405...

You mention 'funerals' in one of your contributions on this Topic ? There's something about a funeral that I find quite unsettling, similarly as I do the 'trappings' associated with funerals ? The concept of death is not the issue, it's the 'ritual and panoply' encompassing it that I don't particularly like, why exactly I don't know ? I've had plenty of exposure to death, both at work and when I was in the Army, and generally speaking I cope with it like most do, in similar situations, so it's not death so much, I really don't know ?

I got a job early one morning (about 0415-0430) a reported 'bust' at a small suburban funeral director's place triggered by an alarm. Attended there, and met the authorised key holder outside. Long story short, as 'senior member' I was 'one-out' and had determined there had been no illegal entry, so I asked the key holder to check the office and work areas downstairs, and I'd check upstairs.

Beside a small Chapel, there was only a store room. The store room contained about twenty or so new coffins, standing-up on there ends ? I'll admit, even though I'd turned on the lights, I found both the silence and all these coffins quite unnerving, and I don't know why ? Naturally, I never mentioned my unease to anybody, least of all, those at work ?

Dear David F.,

Thank You. You've told me things I did not know
about the US.

I had always assumed that there was
an implicit cultural assumption that Americans
should be religious - mot necessarily by attending
church or synagogue, but at least by expressing a
belief in God and in religious principles.

As far as I can remember - religion in the US is
an element in oaths of office, party conventions,
court-room procedures, and indeed nearly all
formal public occasions. Even the Boy Scouts give
a "God and country" award, a phrse that implies,
to say the least, a compatibility of interest
between the two. Many of the nation's secular
symbols also have a sacred quality - the flag, the
eagle, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the
Statue of Liberty, "America the Beautiful,"
"The Star-Spangled Banner," Washington, Jefferson,
and Lincoln. Political leaders must always pay
at least lip-service to religious belief; in fact
every presidential inaugural address except one
(Washington's second) makes mention of God - but
only rhetorically, at the beginning or end of the
speech.

John F. Kennedy's inaugural, for example, captures the
idea that America's social order and historical
mission are specifically santioned by God:

"With a good conscience our only sure reward, with
history, the finasl judge of our deeds, let us
go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing
and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work
must truly be our own."

Such sentiments are not allied to any specific faith or
political program, they are sufficiently broad to be
acceptable to almost anyone.

The current political involvement of religious organisations
presents a complicated picture, for each group tends to
regard its own political activity as legitimate, but
other groups' activities in favour of contrasting goals as
unjustified interference. Some religious leaders apparently
have effectively told people who to vote for, others have
merely implied that they should not vote for candidates who
favour certain policies, such as abortion.

Abortion and school prayer appear to be two issues that
do seem likely to endure.

Foxy,

We need to give the dying permission to go through the inevitable stages of death. We need to support and listen and ask if there is anything we can do for them, and genuinely mean it.

It is trite for me to observe that reaching for God could be part of that process, the 'Bargaining' [5 stages of loss, Elizabeth Kubler-Ross]. Whether the person found God for that or another reason, really doesn't matter.

Elizabeth Kubler-Ross died a bit over ten years ago. How did the the wonderful human who revolutionised the way we understand dying, experience hospital and later, die herself? See here,

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Expert-On-Death-Faces-Her-Own-Death-Kubler-Ross-2837216.php

does the term 'religous right' also indicate the 'irreligous left'? The demonising of those who oppose on tap baby murder is really very dishonest in many ways.

I think it's the way you look at death. Death is inevitable for all. It is irrational not to accept that everyone dies even your self. It's the fear of the unknown. I have accepted the fact that, mentally, I just won't be here anymore. That's it.

I imagine it's like a good nights sleep. You are out like a light, there is nothing to remember while you are asleep, you don't feel anything. It's just that you don't wake up again. So what's there to fear except fear it's self.

The concept of God has been pushed into us from the day of our birth. Weather you accept God later on is another Question. The thought of a God will always be at the back of our mind somewhere because that is the conditioning we have received, regardless of the Denomination.

Dear Foxy,

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10790 is an essay which deals with the separation of religion and state in the USA.

“George Washington was not a Christian. He was, like many men of the Enlightenment, a Deist. Deists believed in God as a Creator who rules the world by rational laws, and that humans are rational beings, capable of guiding their lives by the light of reason. Deists rejected the claims of supernatural revelation and took no share in formal religious practices. Washington attended church with his wife but refused to take communion.”

There has been an attempt by the religious right in the USA to rewrite history and make the founding fathers out to be religious Christians.

“Nature’s God” which deals with the ‘heretical origins of the American Republic’ is a corrective.

From the jacket:

“Derided as “Infidels” and “atheists” in their own time, the radicals who founded America set their sights on a revolution of the mind. Not only the erudite Thomas Jefferson, the wily and elusive Ben Franklin, and the underappreciated Thomas Paine, but also Ethan Allen, the hero of the Green Mountain boys, and Thomas Young, the forgotten founder who kicked off the Boston Tea Party – they all wanted to liberate us not just from one king but from the tyranny of supernatural religion.

The ideas that inspired them were neither British nor Christian, but largely ancient, pagan, and continental; the fecund universe of the Roman philosopher Lucretius; the potent (but not transcendent) natural divinity of the Dutch heretic Benedict de Spinoza. Drawing deeply on the study of European philosophy, Matthew Stuart pursues a genealogy of the philosophical ideas from which America’s revolutionaries drew their inspiration, all scrupulously researched and documented and enlivened with story telling of the highest order.”

General Grant, ancestor of two of my grandchildren, said, “pure morals unfettered by religious sentiments”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Ingersoll tells about a leading Republican.

“... orator of United States during the Golden Age of Freethought, noted for his broad range of culture and his defense of agnosticism. He was nicknamed "The Great Agnostic".”

May the US return to its noble traditions.

runner wrote: "The demonising of those who oppose on tap baby murder is really very dishonest in many ways."

One who will not own up to the lack of basis of his own false statements will speak of the dishonesty of others.

Matthew 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Dear David F.,

Thank You again for the information concerning
the US. It shall be interesting to see what
changes the future holds.

Dear David F.,

Why does American money (coins and paper currency)
declare, "In God we trust." Where does that come
from and why?

Dear jayb,

At a touch over 100kg fighting weight I was never a fan of the T10 especially in summer. A quick descent rate combined with rock hard clay soil always rattled the back teeth considerably. I remember one day at the field a bloke was instructing a 80 year old doing his first jump. Even though there was very little of him he was kitted up with a T10 with a view to looking after an older body. Same deal as yours, chute opens and he dropped to about 300 ft and just stopped. It was a dead calm day and we could hear him clearly calling out wanting to know what to do. We told him to enjoy the view. It only got concerning after about 10 minutes when he started to drift toward the highway. All good in the end.

Purely speculation of course but given the topic perhaps this particular octogenarian may well have been handed a less than favourable prognosis from his doctor which was why he was there. Regardless it would certainly appeal to me. 'Stuff the chemo, those wingsuits look great, any in my size?'

Dear Foxy,

As I wrote in my post of Saturday, 10 January 2015 12:48:45 PM.

"During the Cold War in the 1950s under Eisenhower efforts were made to distance the US from the ‘godless’ communists.

The US motto became “In God we trust”, and the pledge became “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”"

Dear Foxy,

Thanks for the thoughtful post that I have nothing to add except perhaps to repeat my conviction that “religion” is a multifaceted phenomenon - c.f. my metaphor of the "elephant" and the “six blind men“: a psychologist, an anthropologist, a sociologist, an evolutionist, a philosopher (metaphysicist), an ethicist, a historian (sorry, that makes seven). So to fully understand why religion is going to stay with us in this or that form one has to take into account all these perspectives. When speaking of "approachjing death" we are in the psychologist's field of view.

One can find a substitute for religion so that one of these “blind men” would not notice the difference, but if all of them look, they will notice the fake.

Dear david f,

Exactly: ancient Greeks called the square root of two irrational because they could not fit it into their understanding of number (although they could have represented it as the length of the diagonal of a square). Later the square root of minus one was called imaginary because it did not fit into the understanding of number at that time. Today we have Dawkins using the word “delusion” to describe a concept that does not fit into his understanding of the world, although others use “irrational” or “imaginary” also here. The difference is that in mathematics irrational and imaginary are not pejorative terms.

Otherwise I am joining Foxy in thanking you for the insights into the changing American attitudes towards their “Founding Fathers” heritage. Only one thought: Does not the explicit reference to God have similar reasons as the explicit attachment of “between one man and one woman” when some people refer to marriage, although it, as well as God - maybe in a “spinozarian” sense - used to be self-understood, implicitly always there?

The gravestone of Elizabeth Kubler-Ross says it all,

Graduated to "dance in the galaxies" on August 24, 2004

We are made of stardust and that is what we will return to be.

To me, the tragedy of religion is subjugation of the spirit and will, and very often a life not lived and enjoyed to the best possible at the time, in the irrational expectation that there is something better, you just have to die first.

Dear David,

<<I think none of us are completely rational. However, I think a belief in something for which there is no evidence is irrational.>>

Well, none of us is rational at all anyway: we all make axiomatic assumptions based on which we may or may not make the necessary rational conclusions, but the axioms themselves which we choose are not derived by logic.

Belief in the importance of evidence is one irrational axiom while belief in something for which there is no evidence can be a rational step based on other irrational axioms.

For example, the assumption that there is value in tending to one's body's needs, help it procreate, help it feel pleasure and comfort and try preventing it from feeling pain and dying, is highly irrational. After all, we all know that no matter what we do, this body will decay and die and eventually no memory of it will remain. Same for serving one's mind: what's the point in fame, riches or knowledge since it is clearly rational that all will be lost!

From Bach's Cantata #26 - http://emmanuelmusic.org/notes_translations/translations_cantata/t_bwv026.htm

"Ah, how fleeting, ah how insignificant
are the doings of mankind!
Everything, everything that we see
must fall and pass away.
Whoever fears God will stand forever."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfpKvbMT1Bg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soBVNqRthUE

Dear George,

I think the word, irrational, at the time the Greek used it to refer to the number that would express a certain length was used in a pejorative sense. It did not fit into their world in the same sense that the notion of a deity does not fit into Dawkins' world. However, the notion of number has expanded since the time of the Greeks so the irrational numbers now fit into the current notion of number. I doubt that the notion of God will disappear, but the concept is now regarded as valid by only a small minority of philosophers and scientists. Of course truth or falsity is not dependent on what majorities or minorities think, but I think irrational to the Greeks was regarded as pejorative in the same sense that Dawkins regards the notion of God as a delusion.

Some Greek philosophers had the notion that the world, if it were understood, would leave no room for the irrational. I believe Plato's ideas that there could be perfect forms are an expression of that concept. I think you and I agree that it is neither desirable or possible to eliminate the irrational.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I find Bach's music beautiful, but the words, whoever fears God will stand forever, are nonsense.

Dear david f,

I am not a historian, so I don’t know whether ancient Greek mathematicians considered those who worked with the square root of 2 as a number, albeit in a generalised sense, with the same disdain as Dawkins treats those whose world view is built around a concept that does not fit into his world view. I only know that contemporary mathematicians don’t think that to work with irrational numbers is against being a rational person.

>> the concept is now regarded as valid by only a small minority of philosophers and scientists <<

I don’t understand what is the difference between valid and invalid notions, though I agree that in natural science there is no place for the concept of God, whatever some philosophers and other thinkers mean by it.

You cannot define the concept of God like, for instance, you cannot define that of a set in mathematics, although I am old enough to have known a professor of mathematics who had no use of the concept of set, probably because he did not understand where and how it was used in “modern” mathematics.

Being diagnosed with cancer many years ago didnt turn me to religion and of all the people Ive known who were diagnosed, some of who died, none of them suddenly became religious.

Dear David,

In the world of facts, "whoever fears God will stand forever" is indeed nonsense, so if your aim is to describe the world where we live, then it's a "Fail". Taken literally, children would comment: "What, this poor fellow will never be able to sit?".

But just as the attitude of having a number which is the square-root of -1 helped mathematics and physics enormously, having the attitude of "whoever fears God will stand forever" has helped millions to significantly overcome our arch-enemies: greed, lust, envy, hatred, arrogance and ultimately selfishness itself.

The word used by the psalmist for "fear" (which is where Bach picked the idea), is a progression of three levels: the lower is indeed 'fear' as used in everyday speech; the middle means awe and reverence; while the highest means "seeing [God]".

On the lowest level, the "Whoever" that fears God is the human, which obviously does not stand the death of their body and mind, but ultimately whoever "sees" only God everywhere and in every thing, who in other words have shed their identification with the ephemeral - What is left once that identification is gone, is that which you truly are which remains eternal, was never born and will never die.

"whoever fears God will stand forever" has helped millions to significantly overcome our arch-enemies: greed, lust, envy, hatred, arrogance and ultimately selfishness itself.
In reality this has never helped anyone and exactly to the same degree as a a placebo has not really helped anyone.
greed, lust, envy, hatred, arrogance still exist despite what fear God may have implied.

> "whoever fears God will stand forever"

If one has to be afraid of one's God then the God must not be a good God. Just thinking.

Jesus "Blessed are the peacemakers."

Some distance away.

Spectator I: I think it was "Blessed are the cheesemakers".
Mrs. Gregory: Aha, what's so special about the cheesemakers?
Gregory: Well, obviously it's not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

Life Of Brian

Dear George,

You wrote: “You cannot define the concept of God, for instance, you cannot define that of a set in mathematics”

The concept of God is not for me to define since I do not contend any such entity exists. The concept of God as defined in the Bible is quite contradictory. He listens to arguments when Abraham’s argues with him about not destroying Sodom and Gomorrah if a certain number of righteous people can be found. He destroys almost all life on earth in the Flood in a fit of petulance regarded human behaviour. He tells Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge when he knows darn well that that is just what they are going to do. In the Jewish Bible he plays a lone hand. Christians apparently believe he needs a sidekick so they posit Jesus as an intermediary. Muslims believe his prophet is Mohammed.

We can specify rules by which a set operates even though we don’t define a set. A set is amenable to reason. God is not. He is an arbitrary construct which does not operate in a reasonable manner.

According to Popper it is better to avoid definitions where possible and merely consider the operational aspects of the entities one considers. eg consider the behavior of mounds of sand of particular heights rather than define dunes.

He is given the epithets of loving, slow to anger and merciful even though in many cases he or she acts in a manner that indicates those epithets do not describe its behavior.

Rather than concern oneself about definitions of valid and invalid one can remark that current surveys of philosophers and scientists have shown that 7% of scientists and 14% of philosophers(maybe it’s the other way round) believe that he or she exists.

The existence of God is easily explained in mathematical set theory.
It is called an empty set.

Dear david f,

>>The concept of God is not for me to define since I do not contend any such entity exists.<<

Sorry, so read it as “One cannot define the concept of God, for instance, one cannot define that of a set in mathematics”. It was not meant personally, I know you do not have a need for that concept. Also, I never thought of looking in the Bible for a formal definition of God only for His representation as a person. You can only have an UNDERSTANDING of what is meant by God in everyday language, the same as you can have an understanding of what is meant by a set of objects.

>>A set is amenable to reason. God is not. <<

Both the concepts of God (assumed as amenable to reason by philosophies all present ones are built on) and reason itself preexist that of a set as understood since Georg Cantor. As I said, most people do not need to use the concept of set in that abstraction, although they understand the concept of a set of objects, c.f. ponde’s post. The same as some people do not need the concept or idea of God in their world-view. I understand that they consider that concept superfluous. However, I do not understand why they would need to kidnap the concept of reason to justify their world-view preferences, the same as I do not agree with those believers who claim only their world-view is “amenable to reason”, whereas an atheist’s beliefs or world-view must go against reason, just because they cannot accept the presuppositions it is built on.

I agree that today the majority of scientists and philosophers would not know what to do with the idea of God - even less how to relate it to the biblical representation of Him, see my disputes with Peter Sellick about the “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” versus the “God of philosophers” as Pascal put it. Like e.g. the scientist EO Wilson probably would not have use for Cantor’s theory of sets (see my article http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15928).

Dear George,

Thank you for that. I look forward to reading your other articles. I regret that I have not done so before.

"Mathematics is the language in which God has written the universe." - Galileo

Galileo enhanced our understanding of the universe. Darwin said that there is beauty in his view of life, and there is beauty in mathematics. Implicitly E. O. Wilson denies the value of that beauty. A moth just landed on my keyboard. It is fearfully and wonderfully made.

Your reason and your life experiences cause you to arrive at a place different from the one I am at and vice versa.

I have just read Nagel's "What is it like to be a bat?" It makes the point that physicalist explanations cannot explain consciousness. Perhaps reason can never explain consciousness. The moth just flew off and is on the curtain. I cannot enter its consciousness. I can kill it, but I cannot understand it. Let it be.

Peter Sellick and E. O. Wilson both share a certain type of blindness in their arrogant attitude to that which is outside their worldview. I will try not to emulate them. Good morning.

Dear david f,

Thanks for the kind words. You are certainly one of the few people on this OLO who make me better understand myself.

David f,

That is particularly weird - for last evening I noticed a moth sitting beside my kitchen tap - and took a few moments to acknowledge that " It is fearfully and wonderfully made."

Just happened to remember that I took a moment to indulge that thought.

(If you don't mind me raising it, I remember a few years ago you mentioned you were 86 - you must be nearing 90 now. Thanks for your wisdom here all these years:)

Dear Poirot,

I am reading "Endless Forms so Beautiful." It deals with the patterns and structures found in nature. Each scale on the wing of a moth or butterfly is a single cell. The eye cells on the wings divert predators. An insect can survive a bite taking a chunk of wing, but a bite to the body is much more dangerous. However, I don't feel competent to advise young or old mothers.

I will be ninety on October 31, take no medication, have no false teeth and exercise in the community pool usually five days a week. My only medical problem is hay fever. I understand when one gets old enough the auto-immune system is less active, and allergies disappear. I'm patiently waiting.

Dear Jay,

<<If one has to be afraid of one's God then the God must not be a good God. Just thinking.>>

One doesn't have to be afraid of God, my preference is to love Him, but for some people it can help.

Fearing God is a crude tool which helps some of us to fear what we really ought to fear - sin!
If we already fear [our own] sin, then we don't need that tool of fearing God.

As I explained earlier, the original Hebrew word translated as "fear" in the Psalms has in fact a triple meaning, of which "fear" is the lowest. Devotees should not adhere indefinitely to this lowest meaning.

Dear Ponde,

<<In reality this has never helped anyone and exactly to the same degree as a a placebo has not really helped anyone.
greed, lust, envy, hatred, arrogance still exist despite what fear God may have implied.>>

Well God does not imply any fear, fearing God is merely a human technique, which sometimes worked but some other times was also abused by organised religion.

Like any placebo, this technique cannot help those who do not believe.

In order for this prescription ("whoever fears God will stand forever") to work, one must:

1. Believe that they are their bodies.
2. Be afraid that their body would die (not stand forever).
3. Entertain the possibility that a body may not die.

Contemporary generations are disadvantaged by having been exposed to science, which refutes #3, but strengthens #1 and does nothing to allay #2.

The beneficiaries of this obstruction are greed, lust, envy, hatred, arrogance...

Yuyutsu,

What is sin?

Dear Poirot,

'sin' means missing the target - and the target is God.

Any commission or omission which sets us off-course, taking us in a different direction, to that extent is a sin.

It ain't no sin
To take off your skin
And dance around in your bones

The polar bears aren't green up in Greenland,
they've got the right idea.
They think it's great to refrigerate
while we all cremate down here.

Yuyitsu, 'sin' is a man-made notion thought up by ancient old men who wanted to keep the masses under their control.

What better way to do that than tell the rabble that everyone sins, and that only these 'special' old men can assist the 'sinners' to get to a place called heaven.

They lost me a long time ago when they asked me to pray for sinner babies who dared to die before they were Christened. They were doomed to spend eternity in pergatory apparently.
I would wonder what sins newborn babies could actually commit?

In my job, I have seen plenty of cancer sufferers die peacefully with never a mention of any God.

Suseonline,
You are apparently ignorant of your capacity to do wrong to others? To claim there is no such thing as sin is ignorance - what is the courts and the police force doing, if not attempting to put wrong right? They are dealing with things at the extreme end of sin. Neglect to do good is sin.

As far as your experience of religion; it is pagan and not what Christ taught, "suffer the little children to come unto me for of such is the kingdom of heaven". Purity, guilt free and innocence is the state of heaven. A state of reconciliation to a pure and holy life of loving others as you would want others to love you is the relationship of heaven.

I had a dream the earth was red
Its charred remains cried out and bled
Nothing was living on its face
What happened to the human race?

This darkening vision pronounced life gone
In its place the embers shone
A crimson red like the setting sun
Flames extinguishing one by one

Every night this dream returns
Its dying flame ignites and burns
And with the flame the same quiet fear
There's nothing living on this sphere

A desolate place the earth appears
Its shadow grows as the darkness nears
Suddenly, I wake in fright
Having dreamt this vanquishing dread all night

'What is this dream?' I shudder and cry
What I should really ask is, 'Why?'
Why does it haunt me every day?
Is it my future tenement of clay?

As I lie dreaming and can't rise
Am I foreseeing my own demise?
And then to simply ward off these blues
I go and read the daily news ...

Beautiful Foxy. Is it yours?

Are you referring to Easter Island where their devotion to their religion of raising stone monuments to their gods denuded their island of vegetation?

Josephus, I never said humans can do no wrong did I?
You certainly twisted my words.
Where do you stand on the sinning newborns then?

Many people find comfort in imagining there are gods, but that is just a personal belief.

I am just saying that one doesn't have to believe in a holy book or in the existence of gods to have a life filled with good deeds for others, or to find peace in their existence.
I have seen that truth many times in my work with the dying.

Dear Jayb,

Thank You.

Yes I wrote it a few years ago.

Josephus,

The notion of sin rests on the assumption that a god exists. So until the the existence of such a god can be demonstrated, the notion of sin has no value and can be dismissed out of hand.

Even if sin could be shown to be a valid concept, it would still be unreliable as a general guide given the fact that it doesn't even include gullibility.

What is bad is not always a sin, and what is a sin is not always bad. You are conflating two different concepts - that happen to share similarities - in your post to suseonline.

If the notion of sin gets it right on moral issues, then it is largely by chance that it does.

Dear Josephus,

Thank you for answering Suse for me.

I agree in general, however it is not the role of courts and police to eliminate sins - they are there to protect people who could be victims rather than to fix the souls of perpetrators.

Dear Suse,

As Josephus answered for me, I will now answer for Josephus:

<<Where do you stand on the sinning newborns then?>>

One would never need to be born unless they were in sin.

<<Many people find comfort in imagining there are gods, but that is just a personal belief.>>

Indeed many do, but comfort is only a side-effect. Imagining there are gods is a valid method of opening our heart to God. If comfort occurs as well, then why not?

<<I am just saying that one doesn't have to believe in a holy book or in the existence of gods to have a life filled with good deeds for others, or to find peace in their existence.>>

I absolutely agree, but many, perhaps even most, are unable to arrive at the state you describe without this or a similar crutch. By criticising their method you are undermining goodness and peace, which I am confident was not your intention.

<<I have seen that truth many times in my work with the dying.>>

God bless you, Suse.

Sin is a violation of the law. Law is there to protect each other in society. As the scripture says, "he that knows to do good and does it not has sinned." Jesus upped the conditions and said, "those that harbor hate in their heart toward another is as guilty even as a murderer".

To claim that people do not do evil deeds defies the facts of reality. Is shop lifting a sin? it identifies covetousness and theft. The heart of every man has a propensity to evil.

Josephus: The heart of every man (or woman) has a propensity to evil.

First of all let's not be Sexist about this. The Heart of Man, or Woman, is more inclined to do good. I believe.

Dear Foxy,

I also liked your poem, and what, I think, it tries do convey. Thanks for sharing it.

Yuyitsu, if I was going to consider turning to religion, I would hope to be a gentle, mild mannered person like yourself.

Josephus " To claim that people do not do evil deeds defies the facts of reality. Is shop lifting a sin? it identifies covetousness and theft."

Has anyone here claimed that people do not do evil deeds?
I think you are mixing up laws with your sins.
Some laws don't have anything to do with the 12 commandments eg laws re cars or driving etc.

"The heart of every man has a propensity to evil. "
Lol! Amen to that Josephus.....

Josephus wrote: <<Jesus upped the conditions and said, "those that harbor hate in their heart toward another is as guilty even as a murderer".>>

Dear Josephus,

The above is absolute rubbish. A person is guilty for what they do - not for what they think. That saying is a recipe for unreasonable guilt.

Some of the sayings attributed to Jesus are dead wrong, and that is an example. Our law courts have never condemned anyone for what they think only for what they do. I am glad our law courts are more reasonable than Jesus.

<<Sin is a violation of the law. Law is there to protect each other in society.>>

Dear Josephus,

Sin is not a violation of law as defined by our legal code and according to religious authorities. Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, said: "In a civilized society, all crimes are likely to be sins, but most sins are not and ought not to be treated as crimes."

david f, Today in Australia we have "Hate Laws", hate is an attitude of the mind it is now considered as good as murder. Get with the developments on terrorism. They are hate crimes against innocent people. You can be arrested for inciting hate. They haven't actually murdered but is as equivalent to murder. Try bullying on online is now a crime because it attempts to destroy another. Jesus was not far wrong!

Dear Josephus,

I oppose the antivilification legislation because it confuses words and action. I am quite conversant with the legislation on terrorism, and it is absolute rubbish that hate is the same as murder. It one limits speech because someone is offended by it you simply do not have free speech. If speech presents a clear and present danger such as inciting a lynch mob or yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre then it should be banned. Mere offensive speech which does not present a clear and present danger should be left alone. Jesus was completely wrong. People feel guilty because they have thought of doing something bad. That is neurotic.

One is free to say what offends nobody in a tyranny. Equating a thought with an action as the words attributed to Jesus did is sick, sick, sick.