Slashdot Mirror


Study Finds the Pious Fight Death Hardest

Stanislav_J writes "A US study suggests that people with strong religious beliefs appear to want doctors to do everything they can to keep them alive as death approaches. The study, following 345 patients with terminal cancer, found that 'those who regularly prayed were more than three times more likely to receive intensive life-prolonging care than those who relied least on religion.' At first blush, this appears paradoxical; one would think that a strong belief in an afterlife would lead to a more resigned acceptance of death than nonbelievers who view death as the end of existence, the annihilation of consciousness and the self. Perhaps the concept of a Judgment produces death-bed doubts? ('Am I really saved?') Or, given the Judeo-Christian abhorrence of suicide, and the belief that it is God who must ultimately decide when it is 'our time,' is it felt that refusing aggressive life support measures or resuscitation is tantamount to deliberately ending one's life prematurely?"

38 of 921 comments (clear)

  1. Or they're terrified by Nursie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because they don't really believe and haven't had time to consider and come to terms with their own mortality.

    1. Re:Or they're terrified by new_breed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ..or terrified that what they've believed their whole lives might actually not be true. It's the ultimate test of your faith!

    2. Re:Or they're terrified by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      what they've believed their whole lives might actually not be true

      Actually, I'd expect it to be the reverse. If I expected my eternal destiny to be judged upon death, I'd be pretty anxious to postpone my trial.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:Or they're terrified by vertinox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because they don't really believe and haven't had time to consider and come to terms with their own mortality.

      I dunno. Maybe the truly pious people don't wear it on their shoulder or are so humble that they play down their amount of piety religious when asked.

      That or people who fear death are more likely to have embraced religion, not that religion makes people more fearful of death.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    4. Re:Or they're terrified by Ambiguous+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or it's as simple as those that are afraid of mortality tend to cling to the idea of an afterlife. Rather than a causation here, I would guess we more likely have a correlation. The sort of people who are afraid of death will of course do everything in their power to avoid it. Additionally, the sort of people afraid of death will also be more willing to accept the idea of an afterlife.

      We're so quick to tag any "link between video games and violence found" as correlationisnotcausation, but then we get an article positing a correlation between fear of death and religious faith, and we all start hopping on the bandwagon for "oh they don't believe their own lies" or "haha, shaken faith!" but really, I'm guessing it's more likely that the one doesn't actually cause the other, but they're instead both caused by some third factor (railing against mortality.)

      --
      Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
    5. Re:Or they're terrified by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Honestly I find it's those that are members of the "you are BAD!!!!!" and guilt based religions that do this. Real christians, those that actually follow his teachings, not the dimwits that have the fish on the car and have sunday morning Tv extravaganzas tend to be afraid of death.

      It's interesting. Do they realize on their death bed, they were actually raging assholes to their fellow man and are afraid of the wrath of their god on the other side?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    6. Re:Or they're terrified by Ambiguous+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think most everyone should be bothered by the situation you described: that's just a healthy human reaction.

      But there's a difference between fear of death, and acceptance of the inevitable. Me falling into the grand canyon is not inevitable (I hope) but me dying eventually for some reason is.

      --
      Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
    7. Re:Or they're terrified by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now, were you okay with it? Did you feel any fear, any adrenaline, anything like that? If not, maybe you're not afraid of death.

      Or maybe they are just afraid of falling long distances and experiencing the crunch at the bottom.

    8. Re:Or they're terrified by __aagmrb7289 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can be afraid of pain, but not of death, and have the same reaction. Your test is poorly designed.

    9. Re:Or they're terrified by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 5, Insightful

      According to my common sense, original sin is messed up.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    10. Re:Or they're terrified by Sentry21 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Couple that with the fact that the more 'pious' people that I've met are generally the worst Christians. They're judgmental, opinionated, closed-minded, bigoted, and full of hate. The most laid-back Christians I know are more liberal and open-minded, and follow the teachings of Christ a lot better.

      Perhaps when faced with their impending death, some of them realize just how much of assholes they've been, and how badly that's going to look come judgement.

    11. Re:Or they're terrified by neoform · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's a difference between not fearing death and welcoming it.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    12. Re:Or they're terrified by Don853 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In my opinion, Agnosticism makes the most sense. I think what exists outside the bounds of our physical universe, and before (and after?) 'time', is unknown and unknowable. God, Zues, the Matrix, or a spontaneous generation, it's all the same to me. The Christian story is full of contradictions with the evidences of our origin which surround us, but that certainly doesn't rule out in my mind the existence of some sort of creator. I sincerely doubt it gives a shit who I am or am not having sex with in any more than an ant farm sort of way. Obviously, we are, rather than are not, but God only moves that question to "where did God come from?".

    13. Re:Or they're terrified by plague3106 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ahh.. the watchmaker argument. Of course it couldn't be that the universe HAS to exist as it does, or it couldn't exist at all. It's a matter of statistics; there's a lot of matter in the universe, so it only makes sense that somewhere in it life started, randomly.

      Nieschze has a good theory that explains it... without the need for a god.

    14. Re:Or they're terrified by ianare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I always have thought this to be the most illogical parts of humans of modern mainstream religion.

      Looking for logic and consistency in any religion is a fool's errand.

    15. Re:Or they're terrified by mcmonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow. A lot of dark, dark souls here on /.

      Rather than fearing judgement or beset by regrets, perhaps pious folks have led for the most part satisifying lives, and that's why they want to keep on living.

    16. Re:Or they're terrified by spinninggears · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Very few have ever thought seriously about the question" Maybe because it is not really a question, but a false dilemma fallacy, and they find your jumping to the God conclusion a good example of someone not thinking things through very well.

    17. Re:Or they're terrified by HadouKen24 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most of the atheists I've run into, in contrast, have considered the question.

      I don't think it's fair to characterize the "parallel universes" response as "blind faith." I've only run into one or two (rather stupid, sadly) atheists who really did have a firm faith in the existence of parallel universes. Generally speaking, this hypothesis is brought up to counter the notion that one should immediately leap to the conclusion that there is a personal Creator. There are too many options to settle on one.

      To my mind, the really interesting question is why the universe is so damn mathematical. It's not just that we can measure things, but that things follow mathematical laws so exactly. It's no wonder that no one twigged to this fact for so long; it's such an astoundingly strange notion, from the perspective of pre-scientific peoples. For this reason (along with others), I find myself compelled to admit that a mind-like Higher Power is somehow the ultimate cause of things as we know them.

      However, I don't think that there is any compelling reason to think that something like the Christian or Muslim God exists.

    18. Re:Or they're terrified by vadim_t · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have the answer right at the start of the article.

      If the universe wasn't tuned in a way that allowed us to exist, we wouldn't be here to marvel at its well-tunedness.

      There's also that life forms adapt to their environment. It's not that the universe is well suited to us, but we're well suited to live in the universe. It's like wondering that the ocean is remarkably well tuned for dolphins. It's isn't, the ocean was there before the dolphins.

    19. Re:Or they're terrified by Chad+Birch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's a quote I've always liked along these lines:

      "Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." - Marcus Aurelius

      --
      Sturgeon was an optimist.
    20. Re:Or they're terrified by pluther · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Very few have ever thought seriously about the question, and most are more than content to ignore the issue, or maintain a blind faith in some system of parallel universes for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

      No. You may have been told by those in authority in your church group that atheists have never thought about the issue, but that is not the truth.

      What you describe is the Anthropic Principle, and far from never being seriously thought about, it's been debated to death all over the internet.

      Aside from the extreme fallacy of claiming that if an atheist can't explain how something happened, it must have been a specific god, it can also be pointed out that the universe is not precisely tuned for human life. In fact, in all of it we know about, with the exception of one tiny portion of one tiny planet, we can't even breathe. And even on that part there are places where it's so hot and humid you'll die within hours, so cold you'll die within minutes, wind so strong it'll kill you, ground that shakes, falls, burns, fills suddenly with water, or just collapses under you unexpectedly. And that's not to mention all the other life forms, from large predators to tiny micro-organisms, that kill millions of us every year.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    21. Re:Or they're terrified by dargaud · · Score: 3, Insightful

      About the fine tuning of the universe, the simplest explanation is the anthropic principle, but really it doesn't explain anything ("it is so because it is so" sounds close to many a religion's theogony). But maybe it's simpler to say that since we cannot experiment changing the speed of light or the charge of the electron, maybe the whole question is wrong or purposeless.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    22. Re:Or they're terrified by blueskies · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's arguing in a circle. The universe doesn't HAVE to exist at all, much less be hospitable. It is not trivial that both of these are true, no more than it would be trivial for me to find myself alive, having somehow dodged every bullet from a firing squad.

      - Joe Blow won the lottery.
      - Joe Blow must have cheated because the chances of him winning the lottery without cheating are not trivial.

      Argument from ignorance or argument from lack of imagination. Because you cannot foresee an answer it has to be God. But you end your logical probing at God.

      Now you fall victim to the first cause fallacy. Who created and finely tuned God? The chances of him existing and being finely tuned into your Christian God are far smaller than the chances of the universe being as it is. It's non-trivial that God could exist in such a form, some earlier God must have created him. And so on, and so forth.

      Explain to me how the fine tuning required for God to form anywhere is less than the fine tuning for life to form anywhere.

    23. Re:Or they're terrified by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You could only come to that conclusion if you ignored all the other tenets of Christianity e.g. murder being wrong, life being purposeful because it is commanded by God and provides opportunities to serve him and enjoy him.

    24. Re:Or they're terrified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Basing your life on every word written by people who lived in the desert thousands of years ago seems a bit messed up too.

    25. Re:Or they're terrified by againjj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's only messed up if there is a belief that original sin means that you are guilty for the sins of Adam/Eve -- that is, their sin has created some type of guilt on the part of their descendants.

      Another thought is simply that the the sin of Adam/Eve was an "upward fall" whereas the sin is a consequence of free will and full humanity -- if people did not have the ability to choose between right and wrong, then they would not be fully human. Here original sin is the state of being able to sin, which is inherited just as humanity is inherited.

      Another thought on original sin is simply that is an insignificant blemish, and therefore of no importance (though it still exists).

      Another thought is that the sin of Adam/Eve, has caused humanity to have a tendency towards sin -- and thus the original sin is simply a bias in behavior.

      Original sin really is not a single belief any more than Christianity itself is a single set of beliefs, or that slashdot "thinks" anything in particular. Instead, it is a collection of related beliefs that are often lumped together into one -- "original sin".

    26. Re:Or they're terrified by turbidostato · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "In the christian case, however this disappearance is interesting since it was atheists who prosecuted christians."

      Which atheists? Surely not the Jews nor the Romans. Which atheists, then?

      "the Romans, which brings the question why they did this ... which is imho not sufficiently answered"

      It's so simple it hardly needs an explanation. On one hand, don't tell Romans were atheists, they were not. On the other hand, christians were prosecuted because they were a (relatively) easy target on a time it meant political advantage having a "racial" enemy (for more information, look for "Emmanuel Goldstein" or "Al Qaeda"). Just the same reasons than in the case of Jews, women, black people or any other easly distinguishable people pool.

      We are humans, social mammals, with a strong tendence to promote "our" group against "others" as a mean to make our gene pool to perdurate. Social prosecution is just a symptom emerging from our biological ancestors.

      And about religion, more of the same. We are strongly programmed to stablish causal correspondences. Every "why" must have a "because". You know every baby born grows to the phase of "why this daddy? why that daddy?" and more importantly, you will see little children *never* question daddy's answers (only they will add another "why" to the answer): the Moon is made of cheese, because my daddy so said; babies come from Paris, because my daddy so said... We need *answers* much more strongly than *correct* answers. Given the choice of a crackpot answer or no answer most people will accept the former to the latter.

  2. Time on Earth is Valuable by A.+B3ttik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe, since they believe in a higher power, they believe that they "belong" on Earth and "have work to do" and that they can actually make a difference in the universe.

    Compare this with an atheist who might believe that life is futile, fleeting, and nothing they do matters in the long run... they might be more accepting and complacent.

    I'm not saying that either of these two are the case, my real point is that there are a billion different ways to look at this.

    1. Re:Time on Earth is Valuable by DinZy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If there are billions of different ways then clearly most of these ways must be wrong on some level or another.

      Most of the atheists I know, myself included, value life a great deal. I would argue that the pious are more afraid because they spend their whole life thinking the afterlife is where life truly begins that they fail to live it to the fullest. Whereas the accepting atheist knows he/she has only 70 or so years if they are lucky to have a personally meaningful existence.
       

    2. Re:Time on Earth is Valuable by Nick+Ives · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The TFA reveals the study is about aggressive, end-of-life cancer care. We're talking about people who have metastatic cancer and are on their death beds, people who have zero percent chance of survival.

      This study is saying that religious people are more likely to insist on non-palliative chemotherapy and mechanical respiration even though there's no chance of it succeeding. The study found these people were the least likely to have filled in a "do not resuscitate" order.

      This could be a fear of death thing or it could just be a hope for a miracle. If it's the latter then surely it'd just be better to place your complete faith in God at that stage of the game?

      I suppose you can't expect religious people to act rationally about these things though.

      --
      Nick
  3. Cause/Effect... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd be inclined to suspect(admittedly without experimental evidence) that, rather than being cause or effect of one another, piety and pursuit of aggressive EOL care are both effects.

    People with the greatest fear of death would be inclined both to fight it medically and to seek reassurance against it theologically.

  4. Re:The obvious answer by cowscows · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ignorant of the fact that there are many many different types of religions and religious people. Ignorant of the fact that there are many different types of atheists (even ones that fear death). Ignorant of the fact that stereotyping a very large and very broad category of people(religious)is a not at all informative or useful.

    --

    One time I threw a brick at a duck.

  5. Re:Catholic Judeo-Christian by Nazlfrag · · Score: 4, Insightful

    His will cannot be defied, they were merely doing his bidding. How can any action of man be artificial when god is everywhere, omnipresent and omnipotent. There is only the will of the divine, and what you see as doctors performing miracles is in fact a host of angels.

    You need a better line of reasoning to convince believers that they are cheating their god.

  6. Voice of sanity by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions of years before I was born and had not suffered the slightest of inconvenience from it." -- Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens).

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    1. Re:Voice of sanity by EllisDees · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >That's as maybe ... but in those billions of years previously, young Mr Twain wasn't aware of what he was missing.

      And he isn't now, either.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
  7. Re:As much as I don't want to spark a Religion deb by Phroggy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The core tenent of Christianity is to (paraphrasing) "Love God above everything, love others as much as you love yourself."

    Spot on. Matthew 22:36-40.

    Now I have serious problems with pretty much all organized Christian faith. They spend all their time telling you that you're going to burn in hell if you don't do this, or don't say that,

    As another poster suggested, perhaps you've been going to the wrong churches. Yes, you'll burn in hell if you aren't saved, but salvation is a free gift, not a reward; you can't earn it by doing the right things or not saying the wrong things (Ephesians 2:8-9). Christianity isn't about rules to govern our behavior (1 Corinthians 10:23), but your actions and words are a reflection of your heart (Luke 6:43-45); if you know God and love God, then your actions and words will naturally fall into line with God's will, and you won't need rules to adhere to.

    or if you vote in favor of gay marriage,

    That's a tricky issue; clearly God doesn't approve (Leviticus 18:22) but legislating morality generally doesn't work. The call to love our neighbors isn't restricted to just our straight neighbors, but different people have a variety of interpretations of what they think the right thing to do is.

    or eat red meat on Fridays during Lent,

    Lent is not a Biblical concept; it was invented by the Catholics, and most other Christians don't usually observe it. If you do observe Lent, you certainly don't have to choose red meat; whatever vice you think would be the most beneficial to give up is fine. I've heard some people are giving up texting and Facebook for Lent this year.

    or use a condom

    Contraception is definitely not prohibited by the Bible. Again, another screwy Catholic thing.

    or Pay us 10% of your wages

    The Jewish concept of setting aside 10% is rather different than the modern Christian concept of tithing; see Wikipedia.

    or fail to wear your holy underwear at all times.

    And that one's a Mormon thing, also not even close to Biblical.

    You have the godhatesfags.com morons who obviously really fucking hate themselves if they're "loving others as much as you love yourself".

    Yeah, no kidding. Assholes.

    Its not my place to pass judgement on ANYONE. I live my life, believe what I believe, pass on my beliefs when appropriate, and try my best to be good natured. And I fail miserably at times :). I try to do good overall in the world, and help other people out when they need it. And quite frankly, I can do that without someone telling me the myriad of ways I'm going to go to hell.

    That's a great attitude to have. Unfortunately, it won't keep you out of hell - that free gift of salvation I mentioned must be accepted, or it doesn't apply. None of us is inherently good enough to be permitted into the presence of God (Romans 3:23), no matter how good we try to be, because like you said, you fail miserably at times - we all do, and it only takes once. God doesn't recognize any difference between tiny little sins and great big huge sins, nor between one or two sins and a lifetime of constant sinning; it's all sin, and it must be paid for. Jesus died to pay for that sin, but you must turn your life over to Him in order to accept that gift (Romans 10:9-10).

    But hey, if you'd rather not, that's your choice to make, not mine.

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  8. Re:Why are gods narcissistic? by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 3, Insightful
    If I were a god that "invented" the universe and the humans within it, I certainly would not "require", "want", or "need" any kind of worship whatsoever.

    How do you know? If I were a "god" that "invented" the universe and the "scare quotes" within it I would be very different from how I am now, and I think you would be too.

  9. They just aren't ready. by kklein · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was raised a very "on fire" Evangelical Christian, but have since seen the light and accepted myself as my Personal Lord and Savior--a spiritual condition which has brought me much more happiness and peace than Jesus ever did.

    As such, I think I have a very keen insight into the psychological differences between highly religious people and agnostic/atheistic people.

    Basically, the belief in an afterlife that is great (for you and people who agree with you, anyway) really shields you from ever having to sit down and think, "I am going to die. It's not going to be some other person--some old man--who looks like me. It's going to be me. Just like I am now, but I'm going to look like that old man." Instead, the whole concept of mortality is couched in language like "going to a better place" or "being with Jesus" or whatever. Your entire concept of death is euphemistic. As a result, you have a sense of peace and well-being because you don't need to worry about death.

    All that changes, I imagine, however, when the time actually comes. Suddenly you can't be euphemistic anymore. It isn't so much this "meta" idea of death. It is your lungs filling up with fluid. It is pain wracking your body as the cancer spreads. It is the heartbreak of knowing that you and your loved ones are going to be separated now, and you don't know when you'll see them again, or in what form (this is assuming you really believe in heaven). Suddenly it's not so beautiful. Suddenly it's the nuts and bolts of your body--the only vessel you know--falling apart and failing you. Suddenly it is very real and very immediate.

    And you weren't ready for that.

    Atheists, however, accept death--the nuts and bolts--as inevitable, and probably first thing you have to come to terms with if you are an atheist is how you're going to think about death. And, I think, most people have to put themselves through that process of thinking and realizing that, yes, you are going to die. Your lungs will fill with fluid. Your body will be wracked with pain. By the time you get to that point, you have already thought a lot about this, and have resigned yourself to the pitiful, painful, undignified end almost all of us eventually face.

    So you don't see any point in fighting.

    Furthermore, a mindset that believes in a "super-natural" world--a world and truth and story that supersedes and explains everything we experience and in which we play an important part--comes to see death as more important than it really is. Part of the benefit of religion is that it makes one feel that everything they do is part of a Grand Plan, that everything fits together and has meaning. As an atheist, I know that it doesn't. I know that whether I live or die is wholly inconsequential. I am the product of an incredibly complex physical system that started moving billions of years ago when something exploded. Whether I lived or did not makes no difference whatsoever.

    And herein lies one of the most important distinctions between religious people and atheists: Religious people find that viewpoint hopelessly sad and question why we would want to live. Atheists think that the pleasure of typing into a textbox on Slashdot while nibbling black licorice is plenty reason to keep processing oxygen and sugars for as long as they can. The warmth and camaraderie of friends and family are enough. Life is worth living for life's sake. That may be the genes, who are selfish and want to be propagated, talking, but who cares?

    Religious people's peace and happiness are conditional, and when the conditions change, they often don't know how to cope. Atheists are unconditional, and therefore don't kick up such a fuss when it's over.

    My $0.02.