END-OF-LIFE ISSUES…FROM A SECULAR PERSPECTIVE

GIL SHAPIRO, SPOKESMAN, FREETHOUGHT ARIZONA

TEXT OF TALK (SOME OF TEXT REFERS TO SLIDES ON SCREEN)

I am going to divide this talk on end-of-life issues into 3 parts:

1) the first is how believers and non-beleivers view tragedies that end lives prematurely.

2) the second is how believers and non-beleivers view issues when lives end naturally or, shall we say, on time.

3) the third part is how believers and non-beleivers view death and the afterlife.

My talk will go for about an hour or so.

It will deal with end-of-life issues from a secular perspective; with the uniquelyhuman experience─perhaps the curse of─ being able to contemplate our own mortality; and, of course, the mortality of friends, family, and all fellow human beings and for that matter all other living things in this world.

gdshapiro@comcast.net

While i have strong opinions, i do not hold myself as an expert in this field.

Hopefully as you, i am just someone who is very interested in the topic.

My presentation is meant to inform, to challenge current thinking, to be procative and to prompt discussion.

Although their meanings are different, for variety, i will use some words such as believer, religionist, christian and theist as well as non-believer, secularist, and atheist interchangeably.

Talk of death and end-of-life issues have been traditionally subjects conceded to religion.

But, these are basic human issues that have every right to be discussed from a secular perspective─a position devoid of supernatural association or influence.

Secularists, of course, manage mortality without asking guidance from, or feeling subject to, a deity.

But, with about 80% of americans believing in a personal deity that controls everything, this a-theistic attitude is in the minority.

Secularists will certainly get pushback from those who regard this area as their turf.

Religionists have always been quick to voice opinions─no, more like pronouncements─ on matters such as abortion, end-of-life care as in the terri schiavo fiasco and on physician-assisted suicide as in the case of brittany maynard (the 29 year old who had the brain tumor), to name but a few issues.

Believers are also sure there is an afterlife in heaven or hell.

This sphere of influence, is jealously guarded by believers, and is one not to be easily relinquished to non-believers.

But, i intend to explain how our understanding and management of mortality is not only different but better.

Better, because it is based on reason, experience and science─and not on conflicting and unsupportable religious dogmas, directives and claims.

I am going to talk about the differences about how believers and non-believers approach life and living and attitudes about dying and death.

Like it or not, here are the cards all humans and for that matter, all living things are dealt: from the moment after conception, we age and then die.

The questions, of course, are how and when.

Some die before the realization they were even alive.

I’m of course talking about embryos and fetuses in miscarriages and abortions.

Some humans die after living longer than 115 years.

Most of our lives, of course, end in-between those extremes.

The best we can hope for is perhaps extreme longevity in good mental and physical health and to be happy or at least content with our existence.

Here’s an interesting extreme longevity story…

In 1967, in the south of france, a 47 year old lawyer paid an agreeable 92 year old lady for her home with the understanding that he would own it after she died.

At 92, he thought, “how long would i have to wait?”

Little did he know, however, that he signed a deal with the person, whom do date, became the oldest human to have ever lived.

Yes, jeanne calment died thirty years later in 1997 at the age of 122;

Ironically, the lawyer died twenty nine years later in 1996 at the age of 77.

**************

Death is normal, expected. It is not a failure. Death is not the enemy but the natural order of things.

Except, when it is not.

When death is due to accident, violence, illness, natural disasters prior to old age, it is unexpected, shocking and tragic.

How is premature death dealt with by believers and non-beleivers?

This is a photo of a car that was crushed by a metal beam last week.

In that car were three innocent, god fearing, church going, seemingly good human beings who were just driving along.

Vanessa and josh ellis and their baby hudson.

Notice how the beam hit the passenger compartment directly.

If they drove a touch faster or slower, they would have been untouched.

Was the driver exercising free will at that moment?

Believers would admit that why god allowed or even wanted this to happen is unclear. Fundamentalist Christians will say that we all deserve death because we are all sinners and the real question is why does god allow or want us to live at all?

To non-believers, if we accept, for argument sake, that the god in question exists, the undeniable conclusion is, that at minimum,that he permitted the fatal event to happen.

And, if he permitted it to happen, it was because he wanted it here are the 7 Sasoon children who died in fire in their second floor bedrooms in Brooklyn n.y. a few weeks ago.

Their mother left a hot plate on downstairs, as is tradition in orthodox jewish homes, so that the ritual of not working on the sabbath would be observed.

By working, in this case, is meant the flicking on of a switch, not the actual use of electricity.

The hot plate malfunctioned, and in the ensuing fire these children were burned to death.

There were no smoke detectors.

These people were following their god’s strict insructions. And, here’s how they were rewarded.

Was the mother exercising free will?

Or, is that lost when you are observent?

Andreas lubitz, a pilot for germanwings airlines, decided to commit suicide and take his 138 passengers with him.

Does god give free will to severely depressed perhaps psychotic people?

And if so, could an addled mind truly exercise free will?

The sunni vs shiite conflict here are two groups who are extremely devoted to the same god.

They have been killing each other, non-stop, for 1400 years.

Do these enemies do what they do based on free will or by scriptual directives?

Shouldn’t god, somewhere over those centuries, have said, as a loving father

Would, “children, stop fighting!”

The tsunami in indonesia in 2004 killed an estimated 250,000.

No issue of free will here except for possibly that of the people who decided to live in this part of the world.

This is the tsunami in japan 2011.

Natural event no free will here. Just the effects of a world that a supposed god supposedly created…… but obviously supposedly couldn’t or didn’t’ want to control.

Black plague.

In the 1400s…another natural event.

Observtions;

To believers these tragedies are all part of a deity’s plan which he has not been revealed to his believers.

“god needs those people in heaven.” “god has his reasons.” “you can’t know the mind of god”

Perhaps, but what you can say is…again… that at minimum, god allowed these events to happen.

He could, of course, have prevented or stopped their occurrences by outright miracles. But, obviously he chose otherwise.

And, these tragedies, in the above cases, happened equally to believers who were worshiping this deity and to non-believers who were not!

So, these tragedies confirm to non-believers what they have always acknowledged.

That:

Our world and the greater universe are provably, exquisitely, indifferent to everything in it.

Our world works precisely as expected if there were no deities or supernatural interventions to guide events.

Interesting that while miracles (supernatural interventions or happenings that defy natural laws) were common occurrences in biblical times, in modern times zero have been confirmed. Hmmm?

If the black plague,the holocaust and the centuries of carnage in the middle east didn’t rise to the level of deserving a miracle, then just how high is that bar?

Yes, there have surely been a lot of awesome, remarkable, unexplainable, mysterious things that have taken place….but none have proven to be supernatural, to that realm populated by gods, angels, devils, spirits and the like.

And wouldn’t these events i cited, these tragedies, have merited miracles?

As a matter of fact, aren’t there thousands if not millions of happenings everyday that deserve miracles?

This assessment is central to how secularists see our place in the cosmos.

This sad, indisputable cold reality provides not only no convincing evidence for, but solid convincing evidence against a personal god, whose attributes are love, justice, all-powerful and all-knowledgeable.

While non-believers always leave the door open for new evidence that could make us change our minds, none, however,appears to be forthcoming.

It is interesting and hopeful to note however, that our worldview is being accepted by an increasingly larger portion of especially western thinking people.

Although harsh and until proven otherwise, is that we and all life are, as darwin discovered, the products of unguided evolution by natural selection and by random acts and accidents of nature.

To religionists, this scientific assessment is unpalatable.

At its core, scraping away all the apologetics, the bottom line, in our opinion is that believers believe simply because they wish it were otherwise.

They’ll ask non-believers, “how can you live in this world if you can’t believe it’s governed by a loving god?” And, these types of questions go on and on.

The secular and religious perspectives on end-of-life issues are influenced by respective beginning-of-life and how-life-is-to-be-lived issues.

These two latter positions lay the necessary foundation for the “end-of-life issues” discussion you came to hear about.

THE RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVEMost religions view life as a sacred gift from a deity.

Life’s meaning, purpose and worth are defined by this deity.

There is an existence after this one: heaven or hell.

The goal of this world is to get into heaven.

There is an rule book and instruction manual (the bible, koran etc) that makes it clear how to get there. If the rules in it are not followed then hell is the destination.

Ultimately, fear, guilt and faith are undeniably strong factors that motivate a certain degree of religious life.

Conservative commentator laura ingraham, who openly and proudly touts her religiosity by routinely wearing her necklace bearing a catholic crucifix in plain view, said, “this is not our place, earth. Our place is, we believe, with our lord in heaven, not here.”

I think this captures the religionist viewpoint that earthly life is less important than the afterlife.

THE SECULAR PERSPECTIVEThere is no credible evidence for personal god, for a supernatural realm and for an existence after this one. To non-believers, it’s just that simple.

Death means non-existence: we disappear, we vanish, forever. It is what it is.

Psychologists tell us that this latter proposition is very difficult for humans to grasp.

While we have no problem understanding that we did not exist until our conception, it strains comprehension however, especially

after experiencing the consciousness of life, that at some point in the future, unknown to us (i guess except for people on death row), we will suddenly (and as far as we know, for an

Eternity), cease to exist.

Somehow, this second go-around of non-existence seems strangely different in character from the non-existence that preceded our lives.

At least with the first one, it ended with existence!

This time, and let’s frame it this way: that there is, at minimum, an absence of credible evidence that there’s an existence after this one.

But, let’s also remember astronomer carl sagan’s caveat that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!“

…but then also equally the caveat of the late and sorely missed christopher hitchens that, when that evidence should be there and it is not then…“absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence!”

And, it is precisely because of the desire to continue to exist, to exchange the fear of death into hope for a blissful existence in a heaven, that secularists believe humans turn to religion.

Believers view life and how to live it as a top-down construct.

God created everything 6 to 10 thousand years ago with all living things more or less in their present forms.

Non-believer s view life and how to live it as a bottom-up construct.

And, we go back, much farther back than 6 to 10,000 years.

Science informs us that the atoms in our bodies along with everything in our universe were created at the big bang an estimated 13.8 billion years ago.

(Btw: religionists error in their timeline of creation by a factor of 138,000.

That’s like saying that a location you want to go to is a mile away, say campbell and broadway, when it is really at a distance

more than halfway to the moon. Wow!) Delusional thinking at its best!

Science state that before 13.8 billion years ago, there was no time, no space, no nothing…at least for our universe.

Btw: believers will assert that this claim is equally delusional!

And, just as our own non-existence before and after death is difficult to comprehend, the fact that nothing existed─neither time nor space─is perhaps even more difficult to accept.

Let’s give some perspective on what science tell us………

In rough estimates, our earth formed 4.5 billion years ago and life began (how or why, science doesn’t claim to know…and, by the way, evolutionary theory isn’t responsible for telling us…… just as science deals with our universe just nano-seconds after the big bang and does not claim to know how or why the universe

Was created. It deals with what happened after it was created.

Science deals with what we have information for─ after life began on earth─3.2billion years ago and after the big bang 13.8 billion years ago.)

Primitive life did not move off the primordial dime until 2.5 billion years ago.

And, it wasn’t until another 2 billion years passed, now at 500 million years ago,

Until life exploded in diversity during what was called the cambrian explosion.

All living things, plant and animal, you and me, the 10 to 14 million

Current and the millions of species that went extinct, can trace their origins to the earliest life forms from that distant past on the earth.

“modern” homo sapiens, our distant (or recent?) Ancestors, came on the scene 480 million years later, about 200,000 years ago.

But, our immediate ancestors, who we think numbered only 2000, began a migration out of africa 70,000 years ago.

All current humans can trace their lineage by DNA to this group in Africa.

Think of it….it is awesome that our dna and thus our lives have been an unbroken chain of life that directly connects us to the earliest forms of life on earth; and that the atoms in our bodies were created at the big bang and then were in stars that exploded billions of years ago.

Consider all the begating not just of your great-great- great- grandparents but going back to the beginning of life on earth. And, if all those begats had not happened exactly as they did, you and i wouldn’t exist. Or, would we???

Mindboggling!

There is however a philosophical axiom that will keep you somewhat sane. It is that one cannot predict the probability of an event after it has happened.

(probability being the likelihood of one or more events happening divided by the number of possible outcomes.)

So, why you and i exist at the present time, in our present form, in this part of the world, or more profoundly that we exist at all, is an incredible mystery. The odds against it happening are astronomical. But, here we are! Who says science is not fascinating?

Keeps me up at night!

Therefore, secular thinking on end-of-life issues is based on:

Nature being exquisitely indifferent to all that exists (ie: “shit happens!”)

Meaning and purpose for our lives not coming from a deity but from our culture and biology.

Not living our lives to glorify or please a deity.

Not behaving well to assure eternity in heaven rather than hell, but rather behaving well because it is the right thing to do morally and ethically.

Not depreciating this life by thinking it is less important or merely a transition to a better next one.

Again, unless irrefutable evidence to the contrary is presented, “this is it!”

Accepting that there is a limited right time to do rewarding things in our lives,

Creates and justifies the urgency to do them.

Otherwise we might stagnate in procrastination.

So how do secularists make sense of it all?Here are the questions we, along with the religious, often ask:

What is the meaning, purpose, significance of life? What's it all about? Who are we?[

Why are we here? What are we here for?[

What is the origin of life?[

What is the nature of life? What is the nature of reality?

What is valuable in life?

What is the reason to live?

Our differences are in our answers!

How do christians, for example, contemplate end-of-life medical issues?

To these believers, morbidity (disease and debility) and mortality (susceptibility

To death) are not medical and philosophical problems to be solved but spiritual ones to be faced.

Ecclesiastes states that there is a time to live and a time to die.

Christians are directed to make decisions that are not only wise medically, but are also in accordance with the will of god.

The sanctity of life is always in the forefront of christian minds.

All decisions should thus be formulated around biblical knowledge, a respect for human life, prayer, and a denial of self-interests or emotional desires.

For faithful christians, dying is a time to rejoice for the “heavenly homecoming”

But as their loved ones get closer to that heavenly goal, they must make sure their decisions do not become the actual cause of their deaths.

For example, christians understand there is real danger that those who have been diagnosed as being in a vegetative state will, in fact, be viewed as “vegetables” and, therefore, “subhuman.”

These patients are still very much alive by all commonly accepted medical and ethical criteria. Living means life.

Biblical teaching regarding the nature of man acknowledges that he is composed of two distinct parts—the physical and the spiritual.

If the body is alive, it must be the case that the spirit is present.

Death should be declared only after, not before, the fact.

Christians recognize that the deliberate denial of food and water to innocent human beings in order to bring about their deaths is homicide, for it is the choice to kill by starvation and dehydration.

Human instincts and insights may be of no use, since they often are clouded by pain or emotion. Therefore, christians must prayerfully request the wisdom from god.

Christians understand that even in suffering, there can be reward.

SO, LET’S CONTRAST THAT TO WHAT GUIDELINES SECULARISTS USE AS THEY CONTEMPLATE END-OF-LIFE MEDICAL ISSUES?

John webster (a 17th century playwright) observed there are “ten thousand doors for men to take their exits.”

Secularists do not see the hand of a deity as controlling their lives; do not see their plight as god’s will; and are not asking through prayer how to deal with their situation.

THEY THEREFORE WANT TO DETERMINE FOR THEMSELVES HOW THEY WANT THEIR END-OF-LIFE ISSUES TO BE HANDLED.What are the medical issues and time frames do most of us face at the end of life?

We face……..

Instant morbidity: trauma, heart attacks, strokes

Compressed morbidity: some cancers can debilitate s and then kill in short order

Extended morbidity: other cancers and especially mental disorders such as alzheimer’s and neurological disorders such as multiple sclerosis, parkinson’s, als kill us slowly in a drawn out affair of decline lasting months to years.

Secularists and religionists both want the “good death” and “‘death with dignity.”

But, in reality it is not the death that is “good” or death that has “dignity” but that of dying.

Let’s then call it the “good dying” or “dying with dignity.”

Dr. Nuland in how we die, refers to “‘death with dignity” as our society’s expression of the universal yearning to achieve a graceful triumph over the stark and repugnant finality of life’s last sputtering.”

He goes on the say, “not death but disease is the real enemy, the malign force that requires confrontation.”

So, the fork in the road where the religious and non-religious often part company is….

How we each: confront disease and disability;

Confront personal autonomy in decision-making;

Choose the medical care we each personally desire and

Choose how much medical care we allow our healthcare system to put towards others whose bodies are failing and will never recover, and of course, how we see the role of government laws and policies in all this.

LET’S GET PHILOSOPHICAL FOR A MOMENTWHY DO WE AGE AND DIE?The religious look to scripture as in the book of ecclesiastes: “to everything there is a season, and a time and purpose under heaven: a time to be born and a time to die.”

The non-religious look to other sources: many years earlier, homer observed,

“the race of men is like the race of leaves. As one generation flourishes, another decays.”

Thomas jefferson, the farmer (and of questionable religious belief) wrote to a dying john adams. “there is a ripeness of time for death, regarding others as well as ourselves, when it is reasonable we should drop off, and make room for another growth. When we have lived our generation out, we should not wish to encroach on another.”

So, if it is the way of nature that we not “encroach on another,” then nature must of necessity provide some means of certainty that we, like homer’s leaves, progressively attain a stage at which we “drop off an make room for another growth,” as Jefferson the gentleman farmer put it.

SOME PERSPECTIVE IS NECESSARYCaveat: we are more comfortable talking about how long people did live than figuring how long they could have lived under ideal circumstances.

Average longevity began to significantly increase past the age of 30 or so only about 30,000 years ago – quite late in the span of human evolution.

Longevity to 1500 a.d.: 20-35 years,

1500 - 1800 a.d. 30-40 years.

1800 to today: since life expectancy at birth has doubled – in a

Period of only 10 or so generations.

Just think of it. Before 1800, the concept of having grandparents and grandchildren were novel ones.

In 1900, life expectancy averaged only 49 years.

Even as recently as 1921, countries like canada still had an infant mortality rate of about 10%. Yes, 1 out of every 10 babies did not survive.

THE BIGGEST DESIRE FOR SECULARISTS, AMONG THE VARIETY OF DESIRES RELATED TO END-OF-LIFE ISSUES, IS CONTROL.Because, to secularists, it matters how and when you die.

The secular position is that individuals should decide for themselves how they want to be cared for when dying and when it is time to die.

They do not want to follow any guidelines that are generated based on faith-based beliefs.

Secularists want, aside from hospice─which is accepted by both religious and non-religious people─the choice of physician assisted-suicide and perhaps the option to be euthanized.

While passive euthanasia (removing life support, discontinuing feeding tubes and in more cases than you might imagine, the dosing of pain medications at high levels so as to significantly depress respiration) is practiced all the time, in an op-ed last november, i suggested consideration to euthanasia, initiated by an advance directive written while the individual is compos mentis, for when that individual is unable to help himself die… as is required in physician assisted-suicide.

From a global perspective, as of 2015, euthanasia is legal only in the netherlands, belgium, and luxembourg. Assisted suicide is legal in switzerland, germany, albania, colombia, japan and only in the us states of washington, oregon, vermont, new mexico and montana.

In late october of last year, i like many others, were saddened by the death of brittany maynard who had a fast progressing, painful, debilitating and inoperable brain tumor. She decided to end her life in oregon based on their allowing for pas.

(btw: many object to the word suicide as it is so pejorative. I agree, but until we come up with a better word or term, i’ll use it reluctantly.)

Her decision reopened the discussion about dying with dignity.

My guest opinion in the star, on behalf of freethought arizona, highlighted a more likely scenario for us than what she experienced.

Our argument encompassed several points that capture secular thinking on the entire subject.

Bare with me as i read it, as our freethought board touched on many important issues:

Suppose you lost your mind. I mean suppose you really lost your mind, irreversibly and with no hope for treatment or cure — would you want to continue living?

If you could never again coherently communicate with yourself and others, take care of bowel and bladder needs, remember to eat, chew and then swallow food, have any understanding of recent experiences or awareness of current surroundings and were incapable of most basic human functions, what rational

Reason could you justify to stay alive?

Most of us know people who are or have been in such a state. With sadness,heartbreak and frustration we’ve watched these individuals, whom we knew and perhaps loved and who knew and perhaps loved us — who were once engaged with

Themselves and the outside world — progressively lose mental function and endure a relentless downhill course lasting months to years.

Dementia is a chronic disease of aging characterized by progressive cognitive decline that interferes with independent functioning.

Alzheimer’s disease is the most common form of dementia (75 percent) with other brain diseases and trauma making up the rest. It is estimated that as many as 6.8 million people in the united states have dementia, and at least 1.8 million of those are severely affected.

This mental disorder increases steadily after the age of 65 and escalates after 85 — the fastest growing age group in our country.

Studies in some communities have found almost half of all people age 85 and older have some form of dementia.

Severe dementia is untreatable.

The united states spends $159 billion to $215 billion annually on dementia care, making it more costly than either heart disease or cancer.

The money provides for institutional and home-based long-term care rather than medical services — which most of these patients additionally need.

The burgeoning baby boom population, which is entering the age category where dementia strikes most, will double the cost of care by 2040.

Something sensible needs to be done.

Freethought arizona proposes a solution worthy of discussion and debate:

We recommend an advanced medical directive giving individuals the option to request euthanasia if they were to suffer from severe dementia.

Obviously, this treatment would need to be legalized.

Euthanasia, to be clear, is different from physician-assisted suicide (pas), which is allowed in five states (oregon, washington, montana, new mexico and vermont).

With pas people must be of sound mind when they ask for this assistance to die and must also be able to self-administer the lethal medication — two steps not possible for those with advanced mental disease.

However, euthanasia carries the stigma of being used only on animals and first-degree murderers.

This is unfortunate because it should also be viewed as a way to help people, at their own request and on their own terms, die with dignity.

Determining the time for one’s own death is a personal decision. Asking to be euthanized for severe dementia is rational and moral if the decision is made by a competent person in an advanced directive which states, in no uncertain terms,

That when certain mental functions cease, it is time to die.

Death by euthanasia prevents needless suffering and indignity; it releases loved ones from watching helplessly as futile

and often prolonged palliative care is rendered to those who would otherwise refuse it; and it benefits society by redirecting limited health-care dollars for treatments that will truly help others.

Freethought arizona understands this issue is inherently controversial, stressful and highly emotional. But, by advocating for personal control over when and how one dies — whether with palliative care, physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia, we are putting the individual — not anyone else — in control of what should be a fundamental and private decision.

WHAT FACTORS IN OUR SOCIETY WORK AGAINST YOU CHOOSING YOUR OWN TIME AND METHOD TO DIE?Answer: our healthcare system (doctors, hospitals and the pharmaceutical industry), government, and ourselves.

THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEMDOCTORS:In generations before ours, doctors were far more willing to recognize the signs of defeat of being able to save a life and were far less arrogant about denying them.

Modern doctors live with amazing technology and pharmaceuticals. They want to exhaust all treatments to keep their patients alive.

This goal is often misguided.

But, the way the system is organized, they have the power to maintain authority and exert influence over the dying process by controlling its duration and determining the moment as which it ends.

Doctors are taught primarily how to save lives, not how to end them.

Many doctors today throw up the white flag of surrender, often too late in the game.

Doctors’ humility in the face of nature’s power has been lost.

They too often display a conceit about their abilities to forestall the inevitable.

In doing this, doctors deprive the patient and family the control that is rightfully theirs.

Just because medical science can sustain life, doesn’t mean it has to.

The aphorism goes, “just because you are a fish doesn’t mean you have to go for the bait!”

The key word, the elephant-in-the-room that must be accepted now is futility.

Due to frailty, due to hopelessness.

Doctors are the gatekeepers.

But just as doctors who are avid u of a wildcat fans know that being behind by 20 points (alright a very rare event! But, go with me here), with a minute to go in the game, is a futile or hopeless situation, so too should they acknowledge the same reality for their patients.

GOVERNMENTCurrent laws and policies about end of life matters too often reflect religious belief.

Perhaps this is because a significant percentage of our politicians are christian and aware that 80% of their constituency is too.

“god,” they bellow, “not us, should decide how and when we die.”

Seems to me like a privileging of religion, an intrusion of church into state!

Pas is controversial in the us with a 50/50 approval/disapproval split.

It is one of those subjects difficult to debate when the language used by the religious is, as i wrote in a recent op-ed related to sen.ted cruz’s religious references, frankly unintelligible to secularists.

For example, basing arguments on and using terms such as sacrament, sanctity of life, soul, spirit, spirituality, god, sin and prayer are conversation stoppers.

While being important and totally understandable to believers, this terminology is meaningless, confusing if not incoherent, and based on how the real world works, irrelevant to non-believers.

But, for example, reasons can be raised against pas or euthanasia for severe dementia that are not uniquely religious.

Believers could debate this issue without resort to religious jargon.

Here are 4 arguments that ron lindsey, in his book the necessity of secularism states that the religious or anyone else could make against pas:

1) the quality of palliative care would decline.

2) various vulnerable segments of our population such as women, the poor and minorities would be adversely affected in disproportionate numbers by the availability of legal pas.

3) pas will not be regulated properly and there will be numerous abuses such as patients being coerced to hasten their deaths.

4) pas will put us on the slippery slope to pas on demand, non-voluntary euthanasia, and other dreaded outcomes.

While he doesn’t agree with these criticisms, he makes the point that these are reasons we can all understand and discuss and debate.

OURSELVESAs we grow older, we increase our understanding and acceptance that lives are finite and always subject to ending unexpectedly.

This realization lays the seeds for the awful anxieties we all constantly live with.

*******************************************************************************

The next big end-of-life issue i’d like to address is the very popular concept of heaven.

I’ll title this part as the

THE FALLACY OF THE HEAVEN ARGUMENT

A thank you to writers Greta Christina and Adam Lee whose insights i am about to share with you.

Evangelists will often approach their prey with the question, “do you know where you are going after you die?”

And, they don’t particularly care for the secularist’s snarkey but logical answer which is “..a cemetery or crematorium!”

It is undeniable that the prime motivating factor for people, worldwide, to believe in and worship “god” and follow his rules and regs, obey his commandments, and ask forgiveness for sins is the comfort of being assured of knowing the answer to that question: heaven.

But, this assurance is person by person.

In other words, family, friends and everyone else are on their own to seek out heaven.

Those who do not follow this well-lit, well-worn and assured pathway to salvation will, they are told in no uncertain terms, wind up in hell.

To continue to exist in a glorious place, with fellow wonderful people forever (like Hitler, Stalin, Mao…yes, if they had deathbed conversions, they would be there!) Is truly the best news anyone could receive.

That is why religion has always trumped secularism about whose gets the better deal…i mean answer…to the question, “what happens after death?”

It is a shame that secularists have let religionists have their way on this argument.

It is a shame because, with a little rational thinking, probing and examination, it is evident the concept of heaven is nonsense.

Its major flaw is that it is incoherent. It makes no sense.

And, even if it did, logically and practically meaning it is no place any thinking person would want to be, especially for an eternity.

If the fallacy of a heaven were more widely known, it would be a compelling reason for believers to revisit their beliefs in general and then give more attention to non-believers’ attitudes on end-of-life issues.

THE LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF HEAVENAlthough the Christian bible has many verses describing the horrors and torments of hell, it has surprisingly little to say about what heaven is like.

The assumption, it seems, is that everyone knows heaven is a great

Place and everyone will want to go there, so publicity is unnecessary.

Let’s stipulate that “eternal life in heaven” means an eternal continuation of some aspects of mortal life – i.e., the souls in heaven will retain the same memories, the same personality, the same character traits as they had on earth.

If this is true, then here are some legitimate questions for believers in heaven:

Do those in heaven retain their same sinful human nature?

Are sins committed in heaven, just as they are on earth?

Is there anger or frustration in heaven?

What about envy, pride, lust, greed, loneliness, hatred?

Could there be harassment there, infidelity, treachery, outright war?

And, if all these things do exist in heaven, then why would anyone want to go there?

If these emotions and actions don’t exist in heaven, then how can that be reconciled with the fact that heaven is populated by fallible, sinful humans?

So, two possibilities exist: either there is sin in heaven or there isn’t.

If there is sin in heaven, why should heaven be that much better than earth?

Let’s remember that sin is a product of man’s free will.

So, the key question is, and follow me closely here:

Does god revoke the free will of heaven’s inhabitants so there is no sin or evil?

Those who affirm heaven is a desirable goal, must also affirm that free will is a bad thing…..or at least that the lack of free will is a desirable condition.

But that violates the key teaching of theism, embodied in the free will defense, which states that god gave us free will because he wants us to choose him of our own accord, not have our love for him and others programmed into us like machines.

Does god desire for us in heaven to now lose our free will and become mindless automatons to him?

This does not make any sense.

It is not compatible with the high value god supposedly places on free will; so high, in fact, that he allows most of humanity to damn itself just so the fraction of people who worship him as he directs can be said to genuinely love him.

If it is that important to god that we freely choose him, then how can he be content to be surrounded for all eternity by humanoids chanting his praises, endlessly, like broken records?

Would this not represent the undoing of everything he sought to achieve by creating free will in the first place, especially on earth?

Indeed, if he is content with this set up, then the creation of this mortal world was entirely unnecessary.

Why not just throw out free will entirely and begin with heaven, and not have to create a hell at all?

Many people, would say that a paradise without free will is no reward at all.

Humans value autonomy and self-direction.

Why would we want to give that up?

If heaven is not a place where you get the reward you desire, it is not heaven.

Is the solution then that in heaven there is free will, but no sin?

While this is the most interesting solution, it is the most potentially dangerous for theism.

On its face, it seems like the best option for both god and human beings.

But how can there be free will without sin?

Perhaps in heaven is some different kind of free will, superior to the kind we have on earth.

Perhaps the people there are gifted with perfect knowledge, or perfect empathy, or something of the sort, or perhaps people are transformed by being in the presence of god, or perhaps people receive new bodies immune to the temptations of sin (some Christians believe exactly this and call it “glorification“) – so that people in heaven are either no longer able to commit sins or are able to avoid doing so, yet retain their free will in other things.

But of course, this begs the question: why didn’t god create us with this kind of free will in the first place and thus not have to create a hell at all?

But again, is it possible for god to create free-willed beings without the possibility of sin and evil?

The only coherent answer is that god deliberately chose to create free-willed beings who would commit evil acts, even though he had the option of doing otherwise.

Therefore, god wanted evil to exist.

Secularists will often make the point (for argument’s sake) that even if we concede that a personal god does exist, who would want to worship a being who allows evil and suffering to go on the way it does on earth; the same argument can be made that even if we concede that heaven does exist, who would want to live there?

To wit:

THINK ABOUT THE LOSS OF INDIVIDUALITY.Think about the idea of a perfect, blissful afterlife where you and everyone you love will live forever.

But, also think about the fact that you will also be in heaven no doubt with people you dislike and even hate.

Will all your conflicts with them, petty and large, just disappear?

If they don’t… how will heaven be perfectly blissful?

And, if they do disappear… how will you be you?

Conflicts arise because people are individuals, with real differences between us.

In heaven, either those conflicts will still be raging, or our differences — the individuality that makes us who we are — will be eradicated.

THINK ABOUT THE LOSS OF COMPASSIONIn heaven, will you be aware that your loved ones — or anyone, for that matter who didn’t make it— are screaming and begging for mercy in the eternal agony of hell?

If you are aware of this torture, is there any way for heaven to be blissful?

But if you’re not — if you’re so blissed-out by god’s presence that your awareness of hell is obliterated, like morphine obliterating your awareness of pain — how could you be you?

Isn’t our love and compassion for others one of the best, most central parts of who we are?

How could we possibly be who we are, and not care about the suffering of the people we love?

This is not abstract philosophizing.

This question of how heaven will be heaven if our loved ones are burning in hell… it’s a question many on-earth Christians struggle with terribly.

Think of grandparents who are tormented because their children and grandchildren have left the church, and they knew they were all going to burn.

It creates deep strife in families and caused her many people great unhappiness.

THE MONOTONY AND BOREDOM OF HEAVENPeople need to change, be challenged, grow, and learn how to

be happy.

Wouldn’t an eternity of any one thing eventually become tedious and drive you mad?

It would seem that our personalities would have to change so much that we would become to others and to ourselves, frankly unrecognizable.

(as for “near death experiences,” remember they are just that, near death and not death.

Still to this day, no one has been confirmed to have really died and then really come back to life.)

Secularists, who understand that a belief which makes our existence more pleasant, but is incapable of being true and therefore unworthy of acceptance, are being in my view, not only brutally honest but very brave.

Isn’t it the duty of every person to rationally and skeptically examine such a proposition as heaven before accepting it?

And, if that proposition turns out to not be supported by logic or evidence, isn’t it the mark of a mature mind to set it aside and face life as it really is?

Comforting though the idea of heaven may be, a rational examination shows that it suffers from intractable logical problems.

Therefore, we should face up to the fact that it is a fiction, and find within ourselves the wisdom and the honesty to go on without it.

This is the case with secular attitudes towards death.

Secular understandings of death can withstand criticism and scrutiny:

The idea that we didn’t exist for billions of years before we were born, and that

Wasn’t painful or bad, and death will be the same?

The idea that:

Our genes and/or ideas will live on after we die?

That each of us was astronomically lucky to have been born at all?

That death is a deadline, something that helps us focus our lives

And treasure the experiences we have?

That loss, including death, is necessary for life and change to be

Possible?

That things don’t have to be permanent to be meaningful?

That your life, your slice of the timeline, will always have existed

Even though you die?

That death is a natural, physical process that connects us intimately with nature and the universe?

These secular philosophies of death, and others, can withstand

Scrutiny —because they’re based in reality.

And for many atheists, this is a profound comfort.

Spiritual believers, thinking about death are propelled into cognitive dissonance. They think, “oh, my mom’s not really dead, my friend isn’t really dead, I’m not really going to die.

Spiritual beliefs don’t make sense because they aren’t supported by any evidence.”

They are mostly founded on wishful thinking.

People make them up as people go along.

And, people are comforted by them …as long as they don’t really think about or examine them.

They don’t make honest efforts to try to falsify their beliefs.

And, from the non-believer vantage point, that’s not a happy way to live.

They don’t say, as do secularists, “how might i be wrong about this idea?”

A secular foundation for dealing with death, i would argue, is more consoling than a religious one.

One doesn’t constantly juggle a flock of inconsistent, incoherent ideas… or put them on the back burner.

When you grieve the death of a loved one you can actually experience true grief and when you contemplate your own eventual death, you can actually experience true fright and fear…

Because this understanding of death is based on reality, it can withstand as much exploration and contemplation as you care to give it.

Dealing with death as an atheist seems at first to be harsh… but actually, i think it is easier.

But let’s remember that while secular philosophies of death may be comforting or appealing to some they are probably not to others.

But, it’s absurd to say that religious ideas about death are inherently more appealing than secular ones.

For a lot of us, they aren’t.

For a lot of us, the exact opposite is true.

So, let’s stop treating the subject of death as if it belongs only to religion.

We all want the opportunity to have a last word with a loved one.

Most of the time, it is to express love or other deep sentiments.

Sometimes, however, it is for other important things.

For example, my parents rarely, if ever, said to their four children (of which i am the oldest) that “i or we love you.”

This was perhaps because it was so obvious to me and my sibs that they did love us that for them to express that in words would actually be awkward.

SO, I’LL END MY TALK WITH MY MOTHER’S LAST WORDS.

I think it highlights the variety of things on even some religious people’s minds (and my mother was a religious woman) as they are about to die.

In 2008, my father won two tickets to a play at the music hall for a Sunday in February.

I told him that if they were going to use the tickets, I would like to chauffer them to and from the music hall.

My mom and dad, 89 and 90 at that time, mentioned they did want to go but would let me know for sure during the week.

If they weren’t going they would give away the tickets.

By Friday of that week i hadn’t heard about their decision, so i called my mother to ask if they were going.

My mom enthusiastically said, “yes, darling. Of course we’re going!”

Well, the next morning she awoke with severe chest pain.

She firmly instructed my father what to do in this exact order: “get me 4 aspirin, my hairpiece, my lipstick and then call 911”

My mon had her pride at 89!

The paramedics stabilized her, then rushed her to st. Joe’s where a stent was put into her heart.

She was of course heavily sedated and sent to the intensive care unit.

The cardiologist informed us her situation was very critical and he didn’t think she would recover.

My father, brother, sister and i went to her bedside in the ICU.

We assured her that we were there with her and that all that could be done would be done for her.

All hooked up to iv lines, monitors and with a 100% oxygen mask on, mom motioned for my father to come nearer.

We all leaned in to hear what turned out to have been her last words.

Summoning up all her strength, she lifted the mask off her face and in the same firm manner she spoke to her husband earlier that morning said,

“Honey, don’t forget to give away the tickets for tomorrow!”

THANK YOU.