Can atheists deal with death?
Before attending the Global Atheist Convention, I would have thought "Yes, surely atheists can face death". But after hearing Sam Harris, I'm not so sure.
Sam Harris is a well-known advocate of atheism, and one of the draw cards for the conference. Before he started speaking, Harris told us that, in honour of Christopher Hitchens, he had changed the topic of his talk, and that today he would be discussing Death.
Harris claimed he could deal with death, but my doubts came during question time. But first, let me tell you a bit of what he said.
Harris began by claiming that only atheists can deal with death. All the religions, he said, treated death as a problem: a problem they solved through speculative devices, such as an afterlife where we could be reunited with our departed loved ones. Atheists, being free of such superstitions, were free to see that life was the problem. They could focus on the business of living, unencumbered by religious baggage, and free to seek the betterment of the human condition.
Harris offered us some nuggets of wisdom. I particularly liked his insight that people spend much of their time either reliving the past or anticipating the future, rather than living in the moment. Remembering and anticipating are both activities we do 'now', and I think Harris is right to encourage us to be busy 'living' now.
But then things took an odd turn. Harris asked us to close our eyes as he taught us a meditation technique modelled on Buddhist reflections. The aim was to teach us to be aware of our senses and living 'now', without any 'interpretive frame'. I kept my eyes open during this 10 minute exercise, and looking around I saw that I wasn't the only person whose 'interpretive frame' was bemused skepticism. One woman tweeted "I teach this stuff to my Year 7 drama class". Indeed.
But it was during question time that Harris' claims about dealing with death came undone.
A young woman asked how she could talk to people who were grieving. She said that having become an atheist, she was now more sensitive to people's suffering. But how could she engage with people who were grieving?
Referring to the hypothetical case of a person dealing with the loss of a child, Harris' advice was that meditative techniques such as the one he had just demonstrated were useful in coping with grief! He suggested that in times of grief it was important to find sources of happiness – he seemed to be saying we could escape from grief by living in the 'now' where we are neither remembering the person nor anticipating life without them.
I was dumbfounded that this intelligent, urbane, articulate man had nothing to offer a grieving parent except a temporary anaesthetic. A Panadol for a brain tumour.
I know something of the pain of a grieving parent, having lost one of my god-daughters in a traffic accident two years ago. Grief is a complex and difficult process, which needs to be embraced – not avoided. Indeed, the depth of our grief reflects the value we attach of the relationship. If we persist in avoiding grief, that is to some degree a denial of the relationship we had with the dead person.
Harris had stated in his address that atheism is seen by some as an attack on grief, in that it undermines the 'false hopes' of religion. But if I've understood him correctly, Harris is not attacking but rather avoiding or denying grief.
Harris is a clever man, but I feel that Jesus offers greater wisdom in matters of life and death.
With regard to living in the present, Jesus says: “Do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.” (Matthew, chapter 6, verses 31-34)
This confident embracing of the moment which Jesus commands is not a superstition: it has two historical reference points. The first is the resurrection of Jesus – an event that shows God's favour towards us, and which shows us what our own resurrection will be like. The second is the future resurrection which Jesus promises to all those who put their lives in his hands.
I doubt Harris can deal with death, but I'm confident the resurrected Jesus has dealt with death for me.
Comments
Sam's are debated heatedly in the atheist community as well. He has atheist fans and atheist anti-fans.
Point is Sam doesn't speak for the atheist community, but then no one really can.
-
Mike, I hope I didn't come across as suggesting the atheist community is monochrome in its views (I did point out the skepticism exhibited by atheists in the room as Harris did his meditation exercise). Yet even you, in writing your comment, are seeking to speak on behalf of the atheist community (I'm assuming you are an atheist). Not as an endorsed representative, but as a concerned citizen perhaps.
I suspect, however, that Sam Harris' publishers might like us to believe he is the voice of atheism!
We Christians, on the other hand, do have our eponymous representative, Jesus. We look to him as our representative in matters of life and death. Christians deal well with death because Jesus has removed it's shadow.
-
-
[I suspect, however, that Sam Harris' publishers might like us to believe he is the voice of atheism!]
You suspect wrong. I mean, some of his books are written to and for the atheist community to make his cases on various points. A person in that position can't pretend to speak for that community.
[Yet even you, in writing your comment, are seeking to speak on behalf of the atheist community ]
It was an observation.
-
death is a truth that no one can avoid..... every living objects face death......a man may be atheist or anti atheist he must face it... by the way post is great.... i think no one can speak for atheist community because they also face death....
I think what Sam is advocating for is honesty.
Telling people that lost loved one's are in heaven, and that they will be re-united at some point in the future may make them feel better in the short term. But it is merely hopeful speculation. We don't know whether it's true or not. Why console someone with that, when the bubble of credulity is so easily burst if they ever lose faith?
I would think that contemplating the nature of love, compassion, and friendship in the face of our own mortality should be a far better way to grieve than to construct elaborate scenarios about how life persists after death.
Thanks for your comment, Andrew. I agree that speculation about an after-life is not helpful, and can soon become wishful thinking. But two points are worth making.
Firstly, the information we have about what happens after death is based on Jesus' resurrection. His resurrection tells us that there is life after death, and it's physical.
And secondly, the information we have about what happens after death is based on Jesus' promises. It's not necessarily what we might wish. There is no marriage in the resurrection, so it's not a family reunion. And Jesus figures prominently: he tells us he is Judge, King, and Friend.
If we have a small view of Jesus, the prospect of a resurrection might be no comfort at all.
Can you elaborate at all on what you mean by a physical resurrection? Can you even speculate on the biological and chemical processes constituted in such a resurrection?
In other words, what goes through your mind when you read or hear these claims about resurrection? Have those images, probably of transparent bodies rising above their graves for example, changed since you first heard of them?
Because to me, having reflected on them over time, they speak to our most basic and infantile desires. There may not be, as you say, a family reunion, but these stories still say to us 'don't worry, everything's going to be all right'. It's still the happy ending that the storybooks say.
I fail to see how you can discourage 'wishful thinking' and caution others against 'speculation about an afterlife', when the rest of your post does precisely that.
Andrew, sorry about not responding earlier but our system didn't notify me of your comment. You ask some good questions, but perhaps too many to deal well with them all in one post.
I'm intrigued by your comment about 'transparent bodies'. A common misunderstanding of Christianity is that we believe humans are composed of three distinct components: a body, a spirit, and a mind. This idea originates in Ancient Greek philosophy, and should be rejected.
But Christians get our views of what constitutes a person from the Jewish Bible, not the Greeks. See Ezekiel 37 for a description of resurrection in the 'valley of dry bones': before they can live, the bones need flesh and breath. The resurrection involves the whole person. Whatever we are in the resurrection, we will not be transparent. (Jesus went to great pains to demonstrate he was flesh and bones after his resurrection.)
I'd like to respond to 'basic and infantile desires'. I hope I'm not simply being uncultured, but I find that the basic desires are the most enjoyable: food, drink, friendship. (And the ratings for MasterChef suggest I'm not alone.) So when Jesus describes the resurrection as a feast or a wedding party, I must admit I find that attractive.
Regarding 'speculation about the afterlife', perhaps an analogy is helpful: when I'm invited to a wedding, I look forward to it with anticipation but not with idle speculation about all the details. I have no information about the biological and chemical processes involved in a resurrection, and I don't really care.
Finally, you seemed to have grasped the key point when you say 'don't worry'. The key point is whether Jesus can be trusted when he says 'don't worry'. He's talking not only about the worries of this life, but about facing God's judgement. Can he be trusted to rescue us from that?
Yes Sam Harris might have been advocating honesty. Most Christians I know, also really dislike the game our culture plays when faced by death that Uncle whoever is in heaven looking down blah blah.
But the best Sam can argue for is a serious agnosticism about life after death - he goes way beyond evidence available when he and others say we know there is no life after death - he doesn't - He hopes there is none.
Who is qualified to speak in this area - life after life and death.
Jesus claims and demonstrates his qualifications in this area. Rather than confidently poo-pooing the very possibility of Jesus being truthful when he claims to know, honest examination of the nature of His claims and the evidence he delivers has led very many intelligent honest people to be persuaded. Evidence is often unpersuasive when unexamined - Sam and the other "horsemen" show little evidence of checking Jesus persuasive claims as adults.
Honesty is better than fantasy. Real Christianity doe not offer comfort to all and sundry who experience a sad death - sometimes it even makes death worse for people - truth is tough.
Powell, are you able to show me somewhere where Harris definitively asserts that there is no life after death, as you say? This seems to be a straw man that you've created.
If you're interested, you can see Sam twice say that we can't know that there is no afterlife. In the following debate, he says exactly this, at 5:40 and at 1:10:30
http://youtu.be/xbzd6ZbCowY
You are certainly correct to say that honesty is better than fantasy. But just as you are probably skeptical about the fantastical claims of other religions, many are skeptical about those of Christianity.
Andrew, in the video you reference, at 1:10:30, Sam Harris is discussing what happens to the brain at death. He questions how we can "rise off the brain" after death, and still "recognise Grandma". He seems to be suggesting the afterlife is non-physical.
In another comment on this post, you asked me what I mean by a physical resurrection. Based on the resurrection of Jesus, I think it's safe to say this: that Jesus had a working brain before he died, and a working brain after he was resurrected.
Andrew, I watched the video you referenced, at 5:40, and I don't get the sense that Sam Harris is open to the idea of an afterlife. He says "there is no evidence" for an afterlife, that "the concept of the afterlife functions as a substitute for wisdom", and "the only justice we're going to find in the world is the justice we make".
It seems to me that he's saying only a fool would believe in an afterlife, and suggests that such a person is complacent about evil (seeking justice then rather than now). If that is the case, I think you've demonstrated that it is no strawman argument to claim that Harris says "we know there is no life after death".