Bereavement and children

axer · 03-08-2010 03:23PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is no evidence that 'you' ceases to exist at death - no least because we don't actually quite know what 'you' is to begin in order to wonder whether it can die. The objection I'm making is based on Robindch supposing what happens after death. His is a positive statement regarding the afterlife - and so demands evidence. Of which there is none.

Do you think, like the analogy earlier, that there is a high chance that chicken you hypothetically ate for dinner is still 'living'?

I think you will find that most atheists work on probabilities. It is extremely highly unlikely, given what we know, that 'you' will live on past your death. There is zero evidence suggesting 'you' will live on. You can hypothesise that you do but there is no evidence - not even an inkling of evidence.

robindch · 03-08-2010 03:29PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

And that of your's a most obvious sidestep

A compliment indeed from the high-priest of side-stepping, prevarication, vacuous hand-waving, metaphysical flapdoodle and dry-roasted waffle

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your position on nothingness after death isn't based on fact - it's based on philosophy.

It's based upon a number of facts:

"I" am the product of my consciousness which is an emergent property of the way my brain works
My brain will rot when I die, so my consciousness will die with it, and "I" will die.
There are no reliable accounts of people dying and coming back to life
The ways suggested by religious people in which "I" can stay alive after I die are so obviously completely made up, that I cringe to think that they are believed by adults with whom I share the open road.

Tough cookie, we all die. Been fun all the same though.

ColmDawson · 03-08-2010 03:48PM

Wikipedia wrote:

Because the frontal lobes are responsible for human behaviour and emotional development, trauma to the front of the cerebral cortex impairs perception and rationality, social behaviour, personality, language skills, attention span, motor skills, and sexual behaviour[4][1], as well as facial expression. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontal_lobe_injury

Antiskeptic, do you accept that the features listed above are a very large part of what makes me 'me'? Do you also accept that change in those areas (caused by, say, a frontal lobe injury) could easily alter my personality to the point where I am, apart from my physical appearance, no longer the 'me' I once was?

All that damage can happen while a person is still living. I think we can take it that a dead brain would have quite a lot less to offer in terms of being 'me'.

sink · 03-08-2010 04:07PM

Antiskeptic. It's a fairly well established fact that our physical brains are responsible for our thoughts and conciousness. The entire field of neuroscience is predicated upon such. We can alter our conscious state with psychotropic substances, we can stimulate our brains with electrodes to simulate sensations such as taste and colour. We can observe physical damage to a brain altering ones personality, making them more passive/aggressive or hyper/calm or trusting/paranoid. Physical damage to the brain can also completely wipe memories and prevent new ones being created. This goes to the very core of who we are as people, what you would call our 'souls', and yet it's entirely predicated upon the unimpaired operation of our materialist brains. We can even observe the brain working using MRI machines, seeing different networks of neurons activate when a person thinks.

Given these facts, it's completely logical to conclude that our brains are the source of our consciousness. From that we can deduct that when our brains cease functioning our consciousness does too. That explains everything we can observe and nothing else is required.

Intangible souls and afterlife's are not required to explain anything regarding our consciousness. To add anything more is quiet superfluous.

Dades · 03-08-2010 04:26PM

zyndacyclone wrote: »

I've been an atheist since I was twelve thanks to idiots like you.

For future reference, insulting people who hold different opinions to yourself is not acceptable in this forum.

Dades · 03-08-2010 04:32PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

No you're not. But you're suggesting from the outset that a person is but more of the same. Without telling us quite how you make this rather massive step. The computer analogy works because we know what goes into making up a computer. We don't know what goes into making up a 'self' and are not permitted the faith-based insertion of a materialistic philosophy to render the result we would like.

I don't really know how a computer works, but I know that smashing up the inner bits will cause it to cease working forever. There is no "materialistic philosophy" only observation. Philosophy comes into play when someone suggests something that is a leap from the obvious. The obvious being that we stop working when we're dead.

antiskeptic · 03-08-2010 06:02PM

Dades wrote: »

I don't really know how a computer works, but I know that smashing up the inner bits will cause it to cease working forever.

Man put it together so it follows that man can pull it asunder. The same cannot be said either of biological life, nor can it be assumed that 'you' is mere biology. It's your materialism that makes the leap across the canyon of silence on these subjects.

There is no "materialistic philosophy" only observation. Philosophy comes into play when someone suggests something that is a leap from the obvious. The obvious being that we stop working when we're dead.

You do realise that this view of yours is itself a philosophy - albeit clearly wonky: "It's obvious (to me) therefore true".

sink · 03-08-2010 06:11PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Man put it together so it follows that man can pull it asunder. The same cannot be said either of biological life, nor can it be assumed that 'you' is mere biology. It's your materialism that makes the leap across the canyon of silence on these subjects.

That's equivalent to saying it's your materialism that deems that birds flight is due to aerodynamics and not invisible giants picking them up and carrying them. The level of denial you display really merits thorough psychological examination.

Waking-Dreams · 03-08-2010 06:14PM

Ignorance isn't a crime, sadly.

antiskeptic · 03-08-2010 06:15PM

robindch wrote: »

It's based upon a number of facts:

"I" am the product of my consciousness which is an emergent property of the way my brain works

How is this established. I don't mean by defining it so in the first place then finding out "Hey Presto" it is so

My brain will rot when I die, so my consciousness will die with it, and "I" will die.

Clearly predicated on the first being fact. And so not yet a fact for the purposes of this discussion.

There are no reliable accounts of people dying and coming back to life

Not relevant. Silence is silence - not evidence either way.

The ways suggested by religious people in which "I" can stay alive after I die are so obviously completely made up, that I cringe to think that they are believed by adults with whom I share the open road.Tough cookie, we all die. Been fun all the same though.

This is an opinion piece.

___________

So, a single claim to establish as fact. So go establish.

antiskeptic · 03-08-2010 06:19PM

sink wrote: »

That's equivalent to saying it's your materialism that deems that birds flight is due to aerodynamics and not invisible giants picking them up and carrying them.

It is? The word equivilence has taken on new meaning since I last looked it up.

The level of denial you display really merits thorough psychological examination.

Sink sunk.

goingpostal · 03-08-2010 06:52PM

I would tell the child that the person is dead, and that they are not coming back, and that they have been buried in the ground, or cremated. I think children are at least as well able to cope with grief and loss as an adult is. In many ways they are more resilient and can see things more clearly than adults can. They are young, that doesn't necessarily mean they are idiots or emotionally more brittle than adults. Telling them that the person has gone to some place that we have no proof exists, is pointless.

Pygmalion · 03-08-2010 06:58PM

Not sure entirely which bit to quote, but I'm sure he'll know I'm talking to him :P.

You seem to be of the opinion that since we can't give definitive proof either way that either possibility is equally likely.
However not believing in an after-life or a soul requires no massive, unfounded assumptions to be made about the nature of the universe, nor does it require any widely accepted (and heavily tested) physical laws to be broken.
Believing in such a thing on the other hand requires incomprehensibly large assumptions to be made on faith.

Saying that not believing in this requires faith suggests you have an odd view of what "faith" actually is.
Keep in mind no-one here is saying we have definitive proof, just that there is no compelling reason to believe in such things.
On the other hand saying that there IS a compelling reason to believe in such things requires faith or strong evidence, the first one I will reject and the latter has never been presented to me.

Handsome Bob · 03-08-2010 07:21PM

I think it's best to be honest with the child and just say the lost loved one is no longer with us and that beyond this world, we just don't know what happens. I've known children who have lost family such as their mother, who have been given the religious answer, and they still wake up crying at night for their mother. Why give them an answer that doesn't really give them any comfort and an answer that they may end up resenting you for a few years down the line?

magicbastarder · 03-08-2010 08:06PM

i've drawn up a shortlist of conclusions so far from this thread:
1. there is nothing that cannot be denied with some obtuse rhetoric.
2. goalposts are mobile.

you are welcome to pick your own conclusion from the two listed.

strobe · 03-08-2010 08:17PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

i've drawn up a shortlist of conclusions so far from this thread:
1. there is nothing that cannot be denied with some obtuse rhetoric.
2. goalposts are mobile.

you are welcome to pick your own conclusion from the two listed.

3. not even a thread started to discuss how best to help explain the death of a loved one to a small child is immune from Skeps "that is faith too.....empiricism isn't so great" gerrymandering........

Dades · 03-08-2010 08:22PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

You do realise that this view of yours is itself a philosophy - albeit clearly wonky: "It's obvious (to me) therefore true".

A rejection of somebody elses unfounded philosophy is not a philosophy.

If someone told you humans became butterflies after they die would your rejection of this be a philosophy?

ShooterSF · 03-08-2010 08:54PM

I think it best to tell the child the whole circle of life option. I would never expose a child in greaving to the concept that a loved one stands before the Christian god to be judged and sent to heaven/hell for eternity. That's bordering on abuse.

robindch · 03-08-2010 09:27PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

"I" am the product of my consciousness which is an emergent property of the way my brain works

How is this established. I don't mean by defining it so in the first place then finding out "Hey Presto" it is so

Without wishing to get into the technical details, humans have been aware for some time that if a human brain is damaged or removed, that the same humans have trouble thinking and generally being "aware" of themselves. This basic observation didn't start with people like Phineas Gage, but he's certainly as good a starting point as any other.

I do realize that this connection between brain and thinking is entirely empirical, and therefore, that it cannot be proved. However, I must ask you to ride with me on this one.

antiskeptic wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

My brain will rot when I die, so my consciousness will die with it, and "I" will die.

Clearly predicated on the first being fact. And so not yet a fact for the purposes of this discussion.

Until you can show me a brain that's dead but which has failed to rot while not being artificially preserved, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to go out on an empirical limb here and claim that the balance of probability suggests that death will result in my brain being consumed by bacteria, and that this lack of a brain is positively and generally correlated with a lack of consciousness.

Empirically, of course. So I could be completely wrong and there may indeed be many people running about the place, each one fully conscious, but each one having a brain which has rotted or which has disappeared entirely.

Perhaps Ezekiel 37 has already happened, but nobody has noticed yet!

antiskeptic wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

There are no reliable accounts of people dying and coming back to life

Not relevant. Silence is silence - not evidence either way.

Quite relevant when one considers that the most prevalent religious fairy tale in our society suggests not only that people are likely to come back to life, rotted brains or not, but that people certainly will come back to life.

antiskeptic wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

The ways suggested by religious people in which "I" can stay alive after I die are so obviously completely made up, that I cringe to think that they are believed by adults with whom I share the open road.

This is an opinion piece.

Quite a useful opinion all the same though.

Bereavement and children

Comments