Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Confessions of a mortician

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 65 posts

Re: Confessions of a mortician

#41

Post by quonn »

marvin wrote: post #32
cdoxsey wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a curse, in a way, to have (be?) a brain trained to recognize and solve problems, optimize expected outcome, and see through bullshit when the popular solution to existential debilitating dread — religion — crumbles at the slightest analysis. Ignorance is bliss, to add to Puchner's ostensibly empty bromides. There are a lot of very intelligent people who believe in an afterlife. They aren't ignorant about the re…

It's hard to admit in scientific company, but I have a Masters degree in science, excellent academic results, IQ well above average and still believe in God, in spite of the supposed contradictions that should apparently entail. And I'm also a relatively firm believer in rationality (including the parts of science that occasionally gets me in trouble with other religious people), with the caveat that I sometimes crit…

> but I have a Masters degree in science, excellent academic results, IQ well above average and still believe in God

Academic results and IQ are mostly about solving puzzles quickly, though. That's what most exams are about after all [0]. But the problem we are talking about is different, since you have as much time to reason about it as you want and IQ and grades probably don't affect what you finally arrive at very much. What matters is thinking deeply and honestly.

[0] Depending on your field of study, memorization may also play a role.

Re: Confessions of a mortician

#42

Post by plikan13 »

nagrom wrote: post #37
cdoxsey wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a curse, in a way, to have (be?) a brain trained to recognize and solve problems, optimize expected outcome, and see through bullshit when the popular solution to existential debilitating dread — religion — crumbles at the slightest analysis. Ignorance is bliss, to add to Puchner's ostensibly empty bromides. There are a lot of very intelligent people who believe in an afterlife. They aren't ignorant about the re…

They may earnestly believe in it, but they cannot provide a shred of evidence that it exists and all authority that claims that it does is inevitably found to be either a) mistaken or b) fraudulent. Very intelligent, otherwise rational people believe in false propositions that make them feel happy, relieved or secure all the time. Unless there's evidence, that belief is as unfounded as the belief of most people that…

I have been visited by deceased relatives a few times in my dreams and for me these experiences were convincing enough to serve as evidence that death is not the end of things. Of course this is just personal, but it's good enough for me.

Re: Confessions of a mortician

#43

Post by proveanegative »

hw wrote: post #35
proveanegative wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Death is the price you pay for living. Be grateful that you had the chance. It is truly a miracle that you are even alive. Of course, the price you pay for living is not just death at the end of your life but also suffering throughout. Just how much suffering you will experience depends on many random factors the effects of some of which (like genetics and early childhood environment) are either very difficult or im…

As much as we ask ourselves whether the price of living is one worth paying, more than often we would prefer to pay down due to the inherent nature of survival in us all. Even for those who experience a lot of suffering that possibly brings one to prefer death, whether one thinks that life is worth living is subjective. It not only depends on how much suffering you experience, but how much you value everything else r…

Sure, you can make that judgement for yourself, if under the pressure from your self-preservation instinct. The antianalist argument of the kind summarized in [1] concerns not your continued living but whether you should bring new beings into the world. One can't ask one's unborn children to consent to be born and hence to suffer.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism, "Moral Responsibility".

Re: Confessions of a mortician

#44

Post by marvin »

quonn wrote: post #41
marvin wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to admit in scientific company, but I have a Masters degree in science, excellent academic results, IQ well above average and still believe in God, in spite of the supposed contradictions that should apparently entail. And I'm also a relatively firm believer in rationality (including the parts of science that occasionally gets me in trouble with other religious people), with the caveat that I sometimes crit…

> but I have a Masters degree in science, excellent academic results, IQ well above average and still believe in God Academic results and IQ are mostly about solving puzzles quickly, though. That's what most exams are about after all [0]. But the problem we are talking about is different, since you have as much time to reason about it as you want and IQ and grades probably don't affect what you finally arrive at very…

If this is an invitation to debate whether there is a god (or even if the observable universe is all that exists), I'm not taking the bait. My point was about personal faith not being incompatible with most definitions of rationality.

You could of course define rationality to be only caring about what is observable, measurable and understandable with the currently accepted models, but the history of science would have been very boring if everyone always took that stance. You're free to do whatever you want with this, of course, my point is that it's a personal choice which is not directly related to whether you are a rational being. ("Thinking deeply and honestly" sounds like intellectual hand-waving to me, but I suppose a lot of people would agree with it).

Re: Confessions of a mortician

#45

Post by mabbo »

rdtsc wrote: post #7

Some 10 or so years back HBO had the Six Feet Under show. It was centered around a funeral home family business. But it was a pretty good show all around. Highly recommended.

I've never seen any of it, but I do know it was a real jumping point for Michael C. Hall, who went on to star in "Dexter". I just know I'm going to have a hard time not being freaked out by his character being semi-normal.

Re: Confessions of a mortician

#46

Post by industriousthou »

Gatsky wrote: post #29
christiangenco wrote: post #19

The raw terror of the inevitability of death without comfort of distraction or mental illusion — "fleshing," as Puchner describes it — was brilliantly captured here in a way I've never before heard or read expressed by another person. It's relieving, in a way, to know that I'm not the only human to chronically go through it. I especially enjoyed his comment on the difficulties of erecting a comforting fantasy of an a…

Fear of non-being, whether through death, losing one's mind, dementia etc is one aspect of the problem of living. I have found in my own case that the purely rational, aspiritual approach in life leaves me with a pretty anemic and empty philosophy on how to live, composed of a few cliches and self-aggrandized 'staring into the abyss'. Eventually I found this rather unsatisfying. I was hoping for something more than a…

I think Existenitalism offers one way out of this. The idea is that the universe lacks intrinsic meaning, yet we can choose to construct meaning within it.

Also, I would point out that atheism is sort of silly. Who cares about what you don't believe in? Instead focus on what you do believe - for me, that the physical universe exists in some sort of substantial way and the other humans I meet are similar to myself (not automatons or figments of my imagination). I take it on faith that I'm not actually completely alone.

Re: Confessions of a mortician

#47

Post by nagrom »

plikan13 wrote: post #42
nagrom wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may earnestly believe in it, but they cannot provide a shred of evidence that it exists and all authority that claims that it does is inevitably found to be either a) mistaken or b) fraudulent. Very intelligent, otherwise rational people believe in false propositions that make them feel happy, relieved or secure all the time. Unless there's evidence, that belief is as unfounded as the belief of most people that…

I have been visited by deceased relatives a few times in my dreams and for me these experiences were convincing enough to serve as evidence that death is not the end of things. Of course this is just personal, but it's good enough for me.

Without wishing to be insensitive, in my dreams, I can occasionally fly. That is absolutely not evidence that I can fly.

Re: Confessions of a mortician

#48

Post by mietek »

christiangenco wrote: post #19

The raw terror of the inevitability of death without comfort of distraction or mental illusion — "fleshing," as Puchner describes it — was brilliantly captured here in a way I've never before heard or read expressed by another person. It's relieving, in a way, to know that I'm not the only human to chronically go through it. I especially enjoyed his comment on the difficulties of erecting a comforting fantasy of an a…

Your comment reads like something I might have written myself, down to the concern about the heat death of the universe. However, I have had one additional thought. Have you considered a scenario in which our universe may be virtualised?

“Being saved” could quite literally mean having the pattern of our existence stored outside the universe. “Omniscience” is simplified when you can pause a virtual machine to inspect its memory. And maybe, just maybe, there could be a way to escape the VM.

Re: Confessions of a mortician

#49

Post by nagrom »

_xnmw wrote: post #39
nagrom wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may earnestly believe in it, but they cannot provide a shred of evidence that it exists and all authority that claims that it does is inevitably found to be either a) mistaken or b) fraudulent. Very intelligent, otherwise rational people believe in false propositions that make them feel happy, relieved or secure all the time. Unless there's evidence, that belief is as unfounded as the belief of most people that…

> cannot provide a shred of evidence. Human testimony is evidence, especially if corroborated by multiple unrelated sources (i.e. countless mystics from many different backgrounds and eras, many of which are completely absolved of having a material interest). A collective conscience, i.e. the fact that practically all ancient peoples believed in God and an afterlife can be considered atleast a "shred" of evidence. I…

Practically all ancient people believed in nature spirits, and several disconnected tribes have worshiped the sun. The majority of ancient peoples enjoyed slavery and showed overt racism, sexism and caste systems that caused unnecessary suffering and hardship.

It is said that Aristotle believed that women had fewer teeth than men. He never thought to check by counting them.

If this is your standard of evidence, then your standard of evidence as a way of differentiating any objective truth is useless.

Re: Confessions of a mortician

#50

Post by quonn »

marvin wrote: post #44
quonn wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I have a Masters degree in science, excellent academic results, IQ well above average and still believe in God Academic results and IQ are mostly about solving puzzles quickly, though. That's what most exams are about after all [0]. But the problem we are talking about is different, since you have as much time to reason about it as you want and IQ and grades probably don't affect what you finally arrive at very…

If this is an invitation to debate whether there is a god (or even if the observable universe is all that exists), I'm not taking the bait. My point was about personal faith not being incompatible with most definitions of rationality. You could of course define rationality to be only caring about what is observable, measurable and understandable with the currently accepted models, but the history of science would hav…

This was not an invitation to debate whether there is a god - a topic which I avoided on purpose - but a comment that also applies outside this context. The point is that good grades or IQ are not the same as being able and _willing_ to reason correctly and neither indicates that your beliefs or arguments are reasonable or likely to be true.
Post reply on HN