Bereavement and children

checkyabadself · 03-08-2010 1:31pm #1

I was wondering what peoples views were on dealing with children who have lost a family member, with regard to the "heaven question" ?

I don't have children but I was wondering as to what I'd say to a child that asked where their loved one had gone?
I'm all for letting children believing in Santa as it is a harmless fantasy, but I am at a loss to think how I'd explain death to a child.
The heaven concept seems like one a child could comprehend and gain solace from, but I'd find it hard to consider that option as a white lie explanation. Id be interested to hear other opinions.

MagicMarker · 03-08-2010 1:39pm

I think saying to a child that someone has passed on is better than saying they're not in the ground rotting or they were burned to ashes.

God doesn't have to come into the equation, you don't have to use terms like heaven, but it doesn't really matter, the child will figure it all out on their own as they get older.

robindch · 03-08-2010 1:49pm

checkyabadself wrote: »

I was wondering as to what I'd say to a child that asked where their loved one had gone?

Probably a good idea to tell the truth -- that their bodies have returned to the ground from which they came, and that the star-stuff that made them up, will, sometime in the future, almost certainly be alive again in another person, plant, animal etc.

I don't think it's useful to pretend that the dead person's personality lives on in anything other than the memories (and words, pictures, videos, etc) left behind with the people who knew him or her.

Ickle Magoo · 03-08-2010 1:54pm

When I lost my first close relative, a grandparent, when I was 9 or 10 my dad explained that everything is made of the same material that was first created in the big bang. We are all made of the same stuff as stars and comets and planets and when we die, the materials that made us will go on and make lots of other things but us, as thinking people, cease to be.

I thought that faaaar cooler than the thought of ghosts congregating on a cloud. :cool:

antiskeptic · 03-08-2010 1:55pm

robindch wrote: »

Probably a good idea to tell the truth -- that their bodies have returned to the ground from which they came, and that the star-stuff that made them up, will, sometime in the future, almost certainly be alive again in another person, plant, animal etc.

Isn't this all rather faith-based?

MagicMarker · 03-08-2010 2:01pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Isn't this all rather faith-based?

We're only matter.

MagicMarker · 03-08-2010 2:02pm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

When I lost my first close relative, a grandparent, when I was 9 or 10 my dad explained that everything is made of the same material that was first created in the big bang. We are all made of the same stuff as stars and comets and planets and when we die, the materials that made us will go on and make lots of other things but us, as thinking people, cease to be.

I thought that faaaar cooler than the thought of ghosts congregating on a cloud. :cool:

This is much cooler.

*makes note for future reference*

Just ignore my previous post.

Pygmalion · 03-08-2010 2:03pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Isn't this all rather faith-based?

Well I for one have strong faith in the existence of nuclear fusion reactions in stars.
I also believe strongly that decaying organic matter can help the growth of plant-life.

magicbastarder · 03-08-2010 2:08pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Isn't this all rather faith-based?

worth posting again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk

robindch · 03-08-2010 2:14pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Isn't this all rather faith-based?

Er, no. Do you believe that we're not made from star-stuff and that memory of us won't live on in what we leave behind?

axer · 03-08-2010 2:19pm

It depends on the age of the child but there are some great books out there that get children who have suffered a bereavement to think about things for themselves. Often it is a good idea to ask the child what they think.

antiskeptic · 03-08-2010 2:20pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

We're only matter.

Isn't this all rather faith-based?

MagicMarker · 03-08-2010 2:22pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Isn't this all rather faith-based?

Erm, no, it's fact based.

antiskeptic · 03-08-2010 2:26pm

robindch wrote: »

Er, no. Do you believe that we're not made from star-stuff and that memory of us won't live on in what we leave behind?

I'm not quite sure what "star-stuff" is to believe that we're not made from it.

I don't believe that what makes me up will become the raw material used in assembling someone else, if that's any help

If you do believe that then that's fine - it was the faith-based nature of the claim that struck me. Usually atheists here are so busy dismantling other faith systems they don't get around to making faith-based statements themselves.

antiskeptic · 03-08-2010 2:29pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

Erm, no, it's fact based.

Is there anything like a neutral body of repute who would back you up on that?

Dades · 03-08-2010 2:30pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Isn't this all rather faith-based?

What are you made of then?

In the absence of any conflicting evidence you don't require faith to assume humans, like every other organic life form on the planet will decompose and cease to have a consciousness after death.

antiskeptic · 03-08-2010 2:32pm

Pygmalion wrote: »

Well I for one have strong faith in the existence of nuclear fusion reactions in stars.

I also believe strongly that decaying organic matter can help the growth of plant-life.

Me too.

Presumably you go a step further in believing that personhoods consist solely of same?

MagicMarker · 03-08-2010 2:32pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is there anything like a neutral body of repute who would back you up on that?

Yes, it's called Science.

Just to clarify, you're asking for proof that we are all matter?

antiskeptic · 03-08-2010 2:35pm

Dades wrote: »

What are you made of then?

No idea. For want of a way of determining that

In the absence of any conflicting evidence you don't require faith to assume humans, like every other organic life form on the planet will decompose and cease to have a consciousness after death.

We don't know anything about what occurs after death for any creature and so can't base our assumptions on that lack of knowledge. (blind) Faith is what you insert when you don't have evidence.

magicbastarder · 03-08-2010 2:37pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

We don't know anything about what occurs after death for any creature

am i missing something here? they rot, or are burned.

antiskeptic · 03-08-2010 2:38pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

Yes, it's called Science. Just to clarify, you're asking for proof that we are all matter?

Only matter would be more precise.

I suspect your first obstacles will be to arrive at a suitably objective location of the personhood itself (not the body) without tying yourself up in philosophical knots.

Somehow I doubt science would be foolhardy enough to pronounce on such a thing.

antiskeptic · 03-08-2010 2:39pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

am i missing something here? they rot.

Do they or is that just their body? And how would you tell?

ColmDawson · 03-08-2010 2:39pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

No idea. For want of a way of determining that

We don't know anything about what occurs after death for any creature and so can't base our assumptions on that lack of knowledge. (blind) Faith is what you insert when you don't have evidence.

No, in this case we're speaking based on evidence (i.e. that we are matter) and then stopping just at the point (i.e. death) where Christians take up the baton and fill the evidence void with comforting fluff.

robindch · 03-08-2010 2:42pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what "star-stuff" is to believe that we're not made from it.

Here's a description of star-stuff, and why it makes us up:

http://365daysofastronomy.org/2009/02/10/february-10-we-are-all-star-stuff/

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't believe that what makes me up will become the raw material used in assembling someone else, if that's any help.

Ever been to London? (see question 9).

3DataModem · 03-08-2010 2:43pm

I suggest you take a look at the Sesame Street episode that dealt with the death of Mr Hooper.

The CTW refused to patronise children and had Maria simply tell Big Bird that he was dead and wasn't coming back.

Worth checking out on YouTube.

Dades · 03-08-2010 2:45pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

We don't know anything about what occurs after death for any creature and so can't base our assumptions on that lack of knowledge. (blind) Faith is what you insert when you don't have evidence.

Faith is what you insert when you make something up with no facts.

You don't have faith that the chicken you ate for lunch is not living in chicken heaven.

mehfesto · 03-08-2010 3:04pm

3DataModem wrote: »

I suggest you take a look at the Sesame Street episode that dealt with the death of Mr Hooper.

The CTW refused to patronise children and had Maria simply tell Big Bird that he was dead and wasn't coming back.

Worth checking out on YouTube.

Good luck trying to find it on YouTube. This clips says that Lionsgate own that clip and refuse for it to be shown on YouTube. Sesame Street Studios own everything else - except that clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vkmr8lrzGuU

antiskeptic · 03-08-2010 3:08pm

robindch wrote: »

Here's a description of star-stuff, and why it makes us up:

Thanks. But isn't that just kicking the faith statement up the pitch - it takes faith to believe that 'us' is merely the totality of atoms contained within the boundary of our skin.

Ever been to London?

I suppose the contents of our stomach could be held to be (temporaritly) part of us

antiskeptic · 03-08-2010 3:10pm

Dades wrote: »

Faith is what you insert when you make something up with no facts.

Like after death there is ... nothing?

ColmDawson · 03-08-2010 3:13pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thanks. But isn't that just kicking the faith statement up the pitch - it takes faith to believe that 'us' is merely the totality of atoms contained within the boundary of our skin.

What? No. It takes nothing to stop short of faith. We're saying "We know this much from evidence-based study, and are not prepared to venture into the realm of making things up".

magicbastarder · 03-08-2010 3:14pm

i've seen no evidence within an ass's roar of being convincing to say there is life after death, so i just regard it as an assumption.

ColmDawson · 03-08-2010 3:18pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Like after death there is ... nothing?

No one is saying that there is definitely nothing. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that there is anything more than nothing.

robindch · 03-08-2010 3:18pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

But isn't that just kicking the faith statement up the pitch - it takes faith to believe that 'us' is merely the totality of atoms contained within the boundary of our skin.

Yes, you certainly can boil every statement down to its constituent axioms which one must simply "believe". However, this renders every opinion and fact equivalent to each other.

Now, since I'd imagine you probably reject the Flying Spaghetti Monster more energetically than you reject the idea that there is a monitor in front of you (thereby implying that you actually believe that every opinion + fact are not equally credible) I conclude that you're simply adopting this absurd reductionist position simply to be needlessly argumentative.

My advice -- stop being so silly

Dades · 03-08-2010 3:21pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Like after death there is ... nothing?

Once again, do you believe you chicken you ate for lunch is in chicken heaven? Or just in your stomach?

antiskeptic · 03-08-2010 3:23pm

ColmDawson wrote: »

No one is saying that there is definitely nothing. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that there is anything more than nothing.

An interesting semantic.

Due to complete and utter empirical silence on the question of the post-death environment (whatever it may be) any and all claims regarding it are faith-based. Including Robindch's..

There is no definitely, nearly definitely, likelys, perhaps about it. Just silence. And faith in response to that silence.

checkyabadself · 03-08-2010 3:23pm

@antiskeptic, would you care to post a response to the OP or are you just here to (literally) play the devils advocate.

antiskeptic · 03-08-2010 3:24pm

Dades wrote: »

Once again, do you believe you chicken you ate for lunch is in chicken heaven? Or just in your stomach?

I've no idea.

Beruthiel · 03-08-2010 3:28pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've no idea.

That's normally the best place to start looking at facts from.

magicbastarder · 03-08-2010 3:32pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Due to complete and utter empirical silence on the question of the post-death environment (whatever it may be) any and all claims regarding it are faith-based. Including Robindch's..

so the fact that we've no evidence whatsoever for life after death means we cannot say anything about the possibility? the lack of evidence is not evidence itself?

ColmDawson · 03-08-2010 3:36pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

An interesting semantic.

Due to complete and utter empirical silence on the question of the post-death environment (whatever it may be) any and all claims regarding it are faith-based. Including Robindch's..

There is no definitely, nearly definitely, likelys, perhaps about it. Just silence. And faith in response to that silence.

I've emboldened the completely unnecessary, wishfully thinking, here's-where-we-make-up-stories-indistinguishable-from-fairy-tales part.

Nothing wrong with silence pending evidence which may or may not come.

antiskeptic · 03-08-2010 3:41pm

robindch wrote: »

Yes, you certainly can boil every statement down to its constituent axioms which one must simply "believe". However, this renders every opinion and fact equivalent to each other.

Now, since I'd imagine you probably reject the Flying Spaghetti Monster more energetically than you reject the idea that there is a monitor in front of you (thereby implying that you actually believe that every opinion + fact are not equally credible) I conclude that you're simply adopting this absurd reductionist position simply to be needlessly argumentative.

You haven't an iota what happens after death. Nor can you have - you have no way of establishing likelyhoods this way or that - confined as you are by the impossibility of establishing with any degree of certainty what the hell 'you' actually consists of.

It's faith Robindch. A faith wrapped up in a veil of scientific-sounding speculation. As if by invoking science, speculation can be parlayed into probability. As if.

Dades · 03-08-2010 3:45pm

Our consciousness comes from our brains. A sharp slap with a baseball bat empirically confirms that. They are our processors, and our hard drive.

If the brain is destroyed, faith is not required to assume the consciousness is also destroyed no more than it is to assume a computer is no longer running applications if you drive over it in a tank.

Faith only comes into play when somebody suggests something like "what if our consciousness is intangible, and floats out of our brains when our bodies stop functioning?"

robindch · 03-08-2010 3:46pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Due to complete and utter empirical silence on the question of the post-death environment (whatever it may be) any and all claims regarding it are faith-based. Including Robindch's.

Are you seriously saying that you've absolutely no idea if your body is going to decompose after you die?

antiskeptic · 03-08-2010 3:48pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

so the fact that we've no evidence whatsoever for life after death means we cannot say anything about the possibility? the lack of evidence is not evidence itself?

The rigorously proper approach to absolute silence is silence. As soon as you start reading your own personal philosophy into it you'll start bending probabilities in the direction your philosophy is going in.

Does that mean we must "suppose orbiting giant teapots as yet unevidenced"? In the first instance, that's not silence - it's speculation in the face of silence. Secondly, for every ridiculous giant orbiting teapot as yet unevidenced, there's an equally marvelous discovery that would have appeared ridiculous before it finally came to light.

No one can say anything about the possibility of life or not .. after death. There is simply nothing to base probabilities on..

MagicMarker · 03-08-2010 3:48pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

You haven't an iota what happens after death. Nor can you have - you have no way of establishing likelyhoods this way or that - confined as you are by the impossibility of establishing with any degree of certainty what the hell 'you' actually consists of.

It's faith Robindch. A faith wrapped up in a veil of scientific-sounding speculation. As if by invoking science, speculation can be parlayed into probability. As if.

So what would you tell the child?

antiskeptic · 03-08-2010 3:50pm

robindch wrote: »

Are you seriously saying that you've absolutely no idea if your body is going to decompose after you die?

My body? Of course.

Me? That's a different matter - and is something held by faith. Just as you, by faith, seem to suppose youself as consisting of nothing more than your body.

robindch · 03-08-2010 3:51pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

You haven't an iota what happens after death. Nor can you have - you have no way of establishing likelyhoods this way or that - confined as you are by the impossibility of establishing with any degree of certainty what the hell 'you' actually consists of.

Based upon my food consumption over the last few years, I believe I should be around 15% pizza, 15% chinese, 30% other cooked foods, 15% fruit and 25% air, water, beer and wine. This view is, of course, entirely faith-based and I could have been eating stones and drinking fermented horse's wee-wee during this time.

Honestly, antiskeptic, that post of yours has to be one of the silliest I've seen in this forum :rolleyes:

antiskeptic · 03-08-2010 3:51pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

So what would you tell the child?

Good question. Due to the double-ended nature of eternal destinations possible (in my 'faith') there isn't a pat one I can think of. I'll have to give it some thought.

antiskeptic · 03-08-2010 3:55pm

robindch wrote: »

Honestly, antiskeptic, that post of yours has to be one of the dumbest I've ever seen in this forum :rolleyes:

And that of your's a most obvious sidestep

Your position on nothingness after death isn't based on fact - it's based on philosophy. And philosophy is a faith-based activity.

magicbastarder · 03-08-2010 3:56pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

No one can say anything about the possibility of life or not .. after death. There is simply nothing to base probabilities on..

so the original proposition made that there's life after death was just sheer speculation, and deserves as much thought as any other claim made without evidence?

MagicMarker · 03-08-2010 3:57pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Good question. Due to the double-ended nature of eternal destinations possible (in my 'faith') there isn't a pat one I can think of. I'll have to give it some thought.

No worries, I'm sure the crying child in the corner will wait until you decide which option to go for.

Bereavement and children

Comments