Death-seeking in Religion

Tibdits from another discussion, i.e. How We Got Here

But as for "God defeating Death"... frankly, I have no idea how to begin to examine this concept. God is... not very well characterized, and neither is his relationship to Death and its place in the cosmic order. A Muslim would say that human life's only real function is to be a long semi-Secret Test of Character where God is watching, Death merely an interruption until the Day of Resurrection, and immortal life thereafter, in Heaven or Hell (with the lowest parts of Heaven being not that much better than life on Earth, and the highest parts of hell not being that much worse, but still excellent and horrible respectively). In this cosmology, talk of defeating or even posponing Death sounds basically like the testees asking for a lengthened exam; more questions means more chances to do both right and wrong, so it's a zero-sum gain. And talk of God defeating death is patently absurd, since it's his tool to command as he pleases.

There's a fair bit of Christian poetry about how the poet cannot wait to die and be reunited with the LORD. Don't make out every inconvenient extrapolation of belief to be malicious slander by the enemies of religion; if it can be logically deduced from the existing premises, it's pretty probably, given how many intelligent, imaginative people poured their minds on religion over the centuries, that someone, sometime, deduced it.

St. Teresa wants to die. She wants to meet her maker. To her it's not just a phrase, it's a promise. She really believes that Death marks the beginning of the Next Great Adventure, one with a Happy Ending where she gets to be forever with the awesomest concentration of awesome in the cosmos. Eternal Bliss.

It only makes sense that a faithful person who thinks they did well, who believes in the vale of tears perspective, is a Death Seeker, if a passive one. I myself was really hoping to die early, when I was in my early teens, because I was deathly afraid of the opportunities for sin that living past the age of innocence would provide, and was not at all confident that I would succeed in resisting temptation. This was when I was entirely surrounded by religious people; there's no way in Hell this would have been a "rationalist stereotype".

It's not a stereotype, it's a logical deduction. It's not "rationalist", it's reasonable. If the conclusion feels repulsive to you, then there's something wrong with either your intuitions (like the way some food that's good for you can taste bad), or the premises (maybe you either don't actually believe in an afterlife in a way that informs your decisions). If not, then explain to me, why would one want to help lengthen a person's stay in the Vale of Tears?

This interest in extending life among those who profess to believe in immortal souls is especially baffling in the case of people with terminal diseases, whose families (and governments!) keep them alive for extended periods, against their wishes, at great expense, in terrible living conditions.

St. Teresa's poetry is quite beautiful and eloquent, it clearly expresses the relationship she feels toward her Lord, and summarizes her attitude toward life and death quite well. But several things should be obvious: St. Teresa herself did not commit suicide; also, she is one of the most successful religious reformers in European history, - so her attitudes must somehow be compatible with a life spent pursuing, and achieving, idealistic goals in the real world. Her life seems incompatible with the kind of passive surrender-monkey to fate that you described as accepting the natural order without complaint. Second, do I really have to mention one famous guy who certainly must have believed in an afterlife yet still didnt want to die? "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me...". Evidently, this reluctance to leave life is a central element in our belief system. The problem with claiming that Rationalists are merely engaging in a little deduction is that the deduction is based on a lack of research. The conclusion isnt repulsive, it's just annoying. It's not like the Christian prohibition against suicide (or allowing people to die) is some big secret. We're rather infamous for it, as you yourself pointed out. I cant speak to your own childhood of course, if that's what the people around you told you to believe, I can only ask why they were still around.

It's certainly true that one can surrender on some things and refuse to compromise on others. It even makes sense under the Ego Depletion theory of finite willpower. I'm not saying Christians are suicidal (although there definitely was and remains a strong Martyrdom Culture). But, by itself, Christian dogma just isn't life affirming, at least in interpretations that remain close to the source material. While there is a certain type of badassery in Turning The Other Cheek that cmmands respect, endurance in the face of a suffering that is promised to be temporary is emphasized over wanting to get "everything and more" out of life.

Santa Teresa De Avila my not have been suicidal, but, if she ever saw a Dementor, I believe she'd see something beautiful and sublime. If she keeps on living, it's because suicide is forbidden, and because she believed herself invested with a holy mission; saving souls.

And thi is a point where Chrisitanity and Islam differ; Christin scripture and tradition seems to suggest that the fate of the damned, their eternal punishment, is not a Fire and Brimstone Hell, but The Nothing After Death or outright Cessation of Existence. If you're any good at saving souls, the right thing to do is indeed to endure while you save as many eternal lives as possible; it certianly doesn't hurt your chances of getting one.

edited 21st Mar '14 3:11:23 PM by TheHandle

I was seriously shocked when you said this, because despite being Christian myself, that makes totally no sense to me, and makes me wonder what the beliefs of the particular denomination you are/were in are. The Bible says that humans are born into sin, there is no "age of innocence" where you start sinning after a particular age.

It is good that you realize this. Not many people have.

Technically God can do away with death anytime he wants, he's just waiting for the right time to get rid of it and the rest of humanity's problems. Of course, that goes into another discussion.....

Not quite. Jesus' issue was not so much the dying itself, but the manner in which he would die, God's first-born dying as a mere criminal.

I view it as Christian dogma not being "not life affirming", but as "next life affirming". That you prioritize the next permanent life over this temporary one. If you get to the next one without dying, great. But if you have to choose, better the permanent life over the temporary one. (Note that I believe in resurrection on Earth.)

edited 23rd Mar '14 9:29:01 AM by shiro_okami

What i heard was that hell was merely apartness from God and not cessation of existence, though the two could be one in the same (Agnostic, raised catholic, here)

I think you are talking about the angels in Tartarus in 2 Peter 2:4. That doesn't refer to humans. "Hell" is used as a translation of too many different words of the original languages in some translations. See Fire and Brimstone Hell (link goes to the Analysis page) for more info.

edited 23rd Mar '14 9:27:06 AM by shiro_okami

I've heard far more Fire and Brimstone Hell talk from various preachers of different denominations and the average Christian-in-the-street than I have heard "Cessation" or "Apartness", so I would respectfully suggest that while actual Christian Scripture is light on the fire and brimstone, Christian Tradition is extremely big on the threat of eternal torment.

Yes, very much so.

Dang I had a really good discussion with Carciofus over this, what was that thread?

Given that some of the descriptions of the afterlife seem to encourage death-seeking, some religions have to go far out of their way to actually tell people it is a bad idea. Which they usually do.

Interesting that death-seeking seems usually approved while suicide forbidden

Found it...ehh, that thread didn't turn out so well. Carciofus responded well, to his credit.

edited 23rd Mar '14 9:01:28 PM by RadicalTaoist

Religions that encourages suicide tend to not have many followers left. Religions that promise a reward in the afterlife for someone who dies spreading/defending said religion on the other hand....

edited 23rd Mar '14 9:39:29 PM by nightwyrm_zero

It makes perfect sense. If a religion states that the afterlife is infinitely better than life on Earth, then it pays to die as quickly as possible to get fast-tracked into Heaven. (Though some interpretations of the Bible, and all interpretations of Islam, state that people don't get into Heaven until the Last Judgment.) Therefore, if you're concerned for the state of your soul, devote your life to your faith of choice, put your ass on the line for it, and smile calmly when they burn you at the stake.

If you believe that religion was crafted by man, rather than God, then the idea of a free pass to Heaven makes perfect sense; it's a useful tool for building the power of your religion, by helping to mitigate the fear of death and channel it toward your goals.

However, it may interest readers to know that outright stupid martyrdom-seeking has been a problem for the Catholic Church before. At one point, under one of the Andalusian caliphates, Christians deliberately trolling the authorities so they could be executed for it became such a problem that the local priests had to tell their flock to cut that out, and that that was suicide, not martyrdom.

A perfect, blissful afterlife and the concept that murder and death are bad things don't actually gel together all that well on their own, if you really think about it.

As usual with religious mysteries, it makes more sense if you think of it as something made up for practical purposes by someone(s) who Didn't Think This Through.

edited 24th Mar '14 4:26:49 AM by TheHandle

The tradeoff of religions encouraging death is the human survival instinct discouraging death.

Faith tells you that a much more wonderful paradise awaits you after death. Doubt and uncertainty tells you, "...but it will still be there in forty years. Maybe I should enjoy my life first." Being a true zealot who believes fervently without a single speck of doubt is incredibly hard.

edited 24th Mar '14 8:20:16 AM by TobiasDrake

@Shiro Okami: I was raised a Muslim; Original Sin is absolutely not a thing (it's seen as a rather quaint, absurd, and unfair notion, really) and everyone starts with a blank slate, with everything decided by your actions. A Muslim has no Savious but themself.

Survival instinct is often trumped by the demands of status and reputation, duty and devotion to a cause, passions such as love, hatred, and greed, and, well, a sense of perspective:

If you genuinely believe in a cosmology where your earthly life is insignificantly short compared to your afterlife, then the only thing to do is to prioritize the betterment of your afterlife over everything else. The question becomes, not "Am I to be a martyr?" but "Is martyrdom the most effective way to do good, improve the world, and earn maximum eternal reward?". If I were to use a military metaphor, it's the difference between being a Glory Hound, and being that guy that actually wins the war AND the peace after.

As for "zealotry" being hard, I can't comprehend that posture. Either you believe something is true, or you don't. Being open to evidence against that is, of course, indispensable. Holding your judgement until you believe there's enough evidence, that's also acceptable. But once you've made up your mind to believe, unless there's new evidence against it, it makes no sense to have second thoughts.

I also resent the equation of "true believer" with "zealot". Please keep the language neutral.

By zealot, I mean someone who is so firmly devout in their faith that they refuse to acknowledge the possibility that they might be wrong. To believe so completely in a worldview that the barest hint of possibility that that worldview may be even the slightest bit in error is the behavior of a zealot, and that's what I was making my point about.

Belief in the insubstantial is not that straightforward. Even belief in proven facts can come with a measure of uncertainty, and faith is far more uncertain than proven fact.

Many people aren't sure what to believe. Many more are only fairly sure of what they believe, and many still are pretty confident in what they believe but still feel that pull of, "What if you are wrong?" That's normal. To truly believe, "I am 100% correct about every single aspect of my faith, and there is not even the slightest possibility that any of my beliefs could be faulty, skewed, or outright incorrect!" is rare, incredibly arrogant, and quite a bit frightening, because that is the attitude that produces the greatest possibility for atrocity.

I have met my god in person and I still experience doubt about my faith. I still ask questions. I encourage any religious person to do the same.

That last bit puzzles me.

But to be death-ready does not require being absolutely sure of everything about everything. It only requires being absolutely sure that extending your own existence is less important than other things your faith asks of you.

That's true. For one, History is still uncertain and new information is being discovered or re-assessed years/centuries after the events have occurred.

Personally, I'd agree with that — and that attitude, well, they've probably missed something important. One should never be 100% certain, as there's always room for improvement and never complete information.

In your last sentence, Handle, you touched on why even a wonderful afterlife isn't held out as a reason to death-seek — most religions that have an afterlife, also have a list of other things that are important to do while you're alive, and, to some degree, hold that while this life isn't the most important thing, neither is it something to be thrown away to get to the afterlife faster. In Christianity, for example, this life,and our skills, talents and abilities is something we are given and expected to use to our utmost ability, not something that we are expected to not do anything with for fear of what might happen in the afterlife. ("That servant, who knew his lord's will, and didn't prepare, nor do what he wanted, will be beaten with many stripes, but he who didn't know, and did things worthy of stripes, will be beaten with few stripes. To whomever much is given, of him will much be required; and to whom much was entrusted, of him more will be asked."
— Luke 12:35-48, World English Bible")

edited 24th Mar '14 10:04:41 AM by Madrugada

I now realize that "death-seeking" is a bit of a misnomer; it's more like "wishing/hoping for death".

Even that is... not quite right. It's more a question of priorities- physical survival is emphatically not the most important thing to a theist, or even in the top five. In fact I cant think of any life philosophy that puts improving the conditions of material living first (with the exception of Neitzsche, and possibly Epicurus). Improving someone else's quality of life, on the other hand, often receives a very high priority.

That doesn't mean that one's own physical life has negative value except as a means of improving the afterlife- although that is an attitude one encounters in theistic philosophies (St. Teresa clearly had it). But that attitude isnt mandatory and it's perfectly ok to feel grateful for the pleasing aspects of one's life- provided one does not lose sight of more important things. Living is more like a recreational activity- perfectly ok to indulge in provided that your homework is done ("homework" in this case being one's religious duties, whatever those are).

The most precise way I can think of to put it might be "Failure to affirm the improvement of one's own objective quality of life." This failure is quite compatible with a strong drive to improve the world in some concrete, objective way. Self-denial often seems to translate well into redirecting that emotional energy toward a cause or helping others. If humans were entirely rational, then the more of a resource surplus you have, the more you should be willing to share and invest in those who are less fortunate than you are. It doesnt seem to work that way. De-emphasizing the self seems to open up cognitive space to consider the outcomes of others. In that way, mainstream religions like Christianity strive, in theory, to be a net benefit to mankind.

Once you make your maximum contribution to that, then you can die, and receive your reward. Not until then, though.

Well, given that context your statement actually makes sense. Did not know Original Sin was different in Islam.

This is often true, but zealotry and asking questions are not mutually exclusive. A person can ask questions and still be a zealot if the answers or tests only end up affirming their faith rather than undermining it. Also, asking questions is not the same thing as doubt.

I don't understand you guys. Your eternal life is on the line. The stakes are literally infinite. How can you even think you can afford uncertainty? When making a decision, don't you always ask yourselves, "What would God want me to do?" Because, ultimately, that's the only thing that matters. Not your desires, impulses, or even feelings.

When God told Abraham to cut Ismahel's throat, old Abe cried and moaned, but both Agar and Ismahel were entirely supportive. Thankfully, God swapped the kid for a lamb at the last minute; he was making two points. That he should be obeyed absolutely, and that he would never order us to do wrong. You have to do the right thing, no matter what. But how can you Shoot the Dog if you don't know for sure if it's the right thing to do? How can you bear being faced, day by day, with one choice after another, and failing, over and over, to follow the best, most righteous path, to be Diligent, Charitable, Kind, Restrained, Patient, Humble, and Wholesome, to follow every little rule and respect every little prohibition... and, even, sometimes, to designate enemies, and set yourself against them, and eschew Forgiveness for the sake of righteous Justice? Especially when you're left to your own devices, only able to rely on a 1400-year-old book (possibly tampered with), and a collection of second-hand reports of variable credibility (ascertaining their credibility was, in fact, so important, that's how the scientific citations system was invented!).

Isn't it a blessing, then, to have a short life? Yes, you're supposed to endure it while it lasts and not seek to shorten it, and do as much good as you can in that time... but how can you do that if you don't really know what's good, what's the right thing to do?

Hm, I see I'm really channelling my younger self today. But I'll stop here for now; it's a terrifying, harrowing experience... and a very lonely one; no-one seemed to get it, back then. Also, I think it's a bit off-topic. Maybe it would warrant a "Why Hell is a terrifying prospect and how to avoid ending up there" topic?

I'm not sure I can provide a satisfactory answer to that, because our reasoning is based off of two different beliefs. It seems to me that you equate death with the afterlife. I believe in Cessation of Existence and Back from the Dead, so I don't really believe in an "afterlife"; I view the "new" life as a continuation of the "old" life and death as the opposite of both lives, so your question makes no sense to me, and comes off as viewing Cessation of Existence as a blessing.

Once you're Back from the Dead, you're immortal and your fate is set forever. So I don't call that part "life", but "afterlife".

In France and in China and Japan, they have a system where your college, and pretty much your entire future, is decided on one national exam. If you're among the best in the nation, you get to go to an excellent school, you get the royal red carpet to every ambition you may have, you are among the elite; they don't even make you work all that hard, because you've already proven yourself; getting expelled from those Great Schools is practically unheard of. If you're lower than that, you get suckier and suckier schools, you're among the rabble, and, for those who were raised to aim for the top, and missed, this can feel like a living death. The years leading up to that exam are extremely important, and, if you're wise, you'll manage and organize your life, your higiene, your discipline, your very existence, for the sake of acing that exam.

In this context, can you blame those that beg for this nightmare to not drag on, so that they can get on with the living of the actual life, the life after the exam, for better or for worse?

edited 24th Mar '14 4:57:53 PM by TheHandle