…and this is a 
The dying grandma gambit
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: November 29, 2007 2:16 PM, by PZ Myers
The dying grandma gambit is a scenario familiar to most atheists; it's been played out a few times in this thread. I'm sure you know it.
Here's how it works. An atheist says something assertive about religion; religious sympathizer retorts, "Would you say that to your dying grandmother? You atheists can't give any consolation to the dying or grieving, and all you can do is flip a finger at believers." There is usually a tone of high moral indignation, as well, and a smug expression of superiority that the faithful have over the godless.
Does this sound familiar to you yet?
I've heard it a thousand times if I've heard it once, and I have to marvel at the ability of the pious to pretend to be on the moral high road while they clout you about the head with the carcass of your dying grandma. And they also have this superior air about them, as if they've bested you in logic as well as human kindness. It's clear that they can only imagine two outcomes when you kneel at the deathbed:
You must pray together. Talk about Jesus and the Lord and meeting Grandpa again in Heaven. This will reassure Grandma that dying is alright.
Curse granny's religion; slap her hands if she tries to pray. Let her know that all she can expect is the peace of oblivion.
Item A is common enough, and happens all the time. I presume that beginning with that foundation of accuracy, no matter how obnoxious the behavior, adds verisimilitude to their belief that atheists must do the exact opposite in all things, and therefore Pat Condell, PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, and any other outspoken atheist must walk into a hospice like Clint Eastwood entering a seedy saloon (B).
I shall tell you a deep secret, however. Here's what atheists do when confronted with a dying loved one.
Hold her hand. Talk. Weep. Reminisce. Tell her about your day, how the kids are doing in school, what the weather is like. Browse the family photo album together. Tell her how much you care. Beg her to hang on longer—there's so much more to do and see. Sit quietly by her side. Wait.
You know, the important, human stuff.
You might be surprised…even Christians can do item C, and they often do. Yet there's nothing religious at all about it, and it's probably more reassuring, more consoling, and more considerate than droning on about imminent nothingness (which atheists don't do anyway) or lying to her about Jesus.
So put away the dying grandma gambit, apologists for religion. It just makes you look stupid and sanctimonious, and denies the fact that the important matters in facing death are families and love and support and togetherness, all virtues that have nothing to do with your delusions.
Politics
Comments
I predict that this will lead to an insignificant lessening in the number of occasions on which the Grandma gambit is applied.
Posted by: CrypticLife | November 29, 2007 2:32 PM
Well said. I hate these false choices.
Posted by: Michael G.R. | November 29, 2007 2:33 PM
Well said.
Posted by: Ric | November 29, 2007 2:33 PM
Last time I someone I cared about was dying, I told them "Thanks for being my friend. I remember that every time I came to visit you always had a supply of ham laid in for me. It wasn't a big deal but it always showed you cared and were thinking about me and it was really sweet of you. I love you and I'll miss you and I'm sorry you're in pain. Goodbye."
No need to argue about god. When you're dying of cancer, you usually haven't got the energy to argue about religion with the people who've come to say goodbye.
I'll tell you one thing, though - watching a dying person's struggle like mad to stay alive for a few seconds more - is objective proof to me that they don't believe they're going to a nicer place any more than I do!! Because if I believed I was going to the beer fountain and the stripper factory I'd be telling my friends, "hey hit the morphine a couple times more and roll me over so my face is in this pillow, OK?"
Although, I gotta admit there's some people I wouldn't mind perching on the corner of their death-bed and asking them chipperly, "Do you believe in hell? Because your eternity's really gonna suck, a!*##hole!"
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 29, 2007 2:35 PM
It's like the old adage, "No atheists in fox holes"; as if appealing to human behaviour under the severest and most emotionally disturbing circumstances is somehow supposed to lend support to theism. And it isn't even true anyway.
Posted by: DSK Samways | November 29, 2007 2:36 PM
I always find it a bit odd when theists play the Dying Grandma Gambit -- same with the No Atheist in Foxholes Shtick. They both seem to be tacit admissions that the real purpose of religion is comfort. Screw the actual facts of the matter, just do whatever it takes to make yourself feel better. To me, there doesn't seem to be any real respect for religion itself in this approach -- no thoughtful analysis or objective consideration of the issue. It isn't about actually believing something is true: it's about NEEDING to believe it's true.
In fact, sometimes it seems more about the belief than it is about the truth.
Posted by: Sastra, OM | November 29, 2007 2:37 PM
You forgot D: use as excuse to blow off midterm exam.
Sorry, too cynical? It's that time of the semester...
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 29, 2007 2:39 PM
What do you do when a loved, respected friend or family member, who is either facing death or grieving a spouse's death, and is a true believer but not an asshole, is constantly talking to you about their supernatural beliefs?
This is currently happening to me, and it makes me uncomfortable. I want on the one hand to validate their feelings and not be hurtful, but on the other hand really can't bring myself to acknowledge that her dead spouse is actually answering prayers to find lost objects.
[It obviously goes without saying that if some not-loved, not-repected asshat is trying to interfere with your ability to forward emails about Barbara Forrest, or freedom to make love to your hot same-sex partner, or telling you about the LDS, what you do is tell them to go know themselves in the biblical sense. The above question refers to atheist etiquette, which is clearly not extended to Death Eaters.]
Posted by: J Daley | November 29, 2007 2:40 PM
If I wanted to comfort my dying Grandma by lying, I'd just tell her she was going to live.
Posted by: tim quick | November 29, 2007 2:41 PM
Nice smack down, PZ. It was unfortunate that the Condell thread became invested with concern trolls and these context acrobatics.
It means we don't get to discuss what we do when our grandmothers aren't on their deathbeds. Which is, like, most of the time.
And, honestly, why would anyone want to force-feed a person Bible chat in their last hours? If they're going to heaven, they'll understand it all pretty soon anyway, and better than their loved ones do.
Personally, I'd want my loved ones to get on MySpace and send petty insults to old bosses and people I knew from high school. Oh, and go through photo albums and stuff.
Posted by: neodavenet | November 29, 2007 2:44 PM
If asked? I'd just say 'Of course I would, my Grandmother is Atheist too.' What are they going to do, check?
Posted by: Brendan S | November 29, 2007 2:46 PM
Actually, there's one thing Christians have to offer that atheists can't--my cousin (from Pensacola, FL, natch!) told my mother on her deathbed that she was going to Hell for all the Sundays she was the only doc rounding in the hospital, instead of going to church.
Reason 36,457 that I no longer have anything to do with the Pensacola branch of my family.
I wonder whether Mr. Concern Troll hectors non-atheists over non-hypotheticals like that; somehow, I doubt it.
Posted by: thalarctos | November 29, 2007 2:49 PM
Because at the deathbed, one should respect the beliefs of the dying and not use the fear of their imminent demise as an attempt to change their beliefs, right xians?
Hehe. The "If it feels good do it" argument for religion. I like it. Let's get grandma high!
Posted by: Evan | November 29, 2007 2:49 PM
Sven, have you ever seen this?
Posted by: Kseniya | November 29, 2007 2:50 PM
The question is, if your dying grandma asked you if there was a heaven, would you lie?
I certainly would.
I don't see what good can be done by making her feel even more miserable on her deathbed.
Posted by: Kevin Murphy | November 29, 2007 2:50 PM
You forgot
D. Tell her she is doomed to eternal painful torment at the hands of sadistic supernatural entities because she violated some silly rule or another, or didn't worship in the way she should. Too late to change your ways now, granny.
My experience isn't very extensive, but I've seen (D) far more than (A) or (B) combined.
Posted by: clheiny | November 29, 2007 2:52 PM
Oh dear...
I know it's an old question- but I still think that the original questioner didn't pose it in a way that would lead me to think he was a 'concern' or any other type of troll. People unwittingly come up with tired old questions quite often. That's the reason websites have FAQs.
It may indeed be the case that the questioner was a creationist looking to cause trouble- but until more evidence comes in I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
For the record- the questioner got several great responses in the thread by people calmly explaining their answers.
Posted by: Christianjb | November 29, 2007 2:52 PM
You forgot
D. Tell her she is doomed to eternal painful torment at the hands of sadistic supernatural entities because she violated some silly rule or another, or didn't worship in the way she should. Too late to change your ways now, granny.
My experience isn't very extensive, but I've seen (D) far more than (A) or (B) combined.
Posted by: clheiny | November 29, 2007 2:53 PM
PZ,
Just so we can be totally clear for those of us who have trouble thinking (Stand up Steve99, I am talking about you), can you confirm that you would not do this:
PZ: Granny, I know you are dying but I just need to make sure you understand there is no god and that you are deluded to think there is.
I know it is silly to think you would even think about saying something like that, but then the likes of Steve99 are silly. After all Steve99 did say in the Condell thread that only the actual words you use matter. I suspect your eloquence above is likely to only further confuse him. Actually maybe not, there must be an upper limit to how confused someone can be, and Steve99 must be near it.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 29, 2007 2:54 PM
Samways:
I always point out that there are no atheist suicide bombers either...
Posted by: roger | November 29, 2007 2:55 PM
But even if you prayed with grandma, what would that prove?
It wouldn't prove her beliefs were right, because people have wrong beliefs.
It wouldn't prove that you had to honestly admit them true, because you'd be faking it.
It wouldn't even prove that those beliefs had the benefit of being more consoling than true beliefs (which would be a questionable rationale for believing a falsehood anyway), because other beliefs might have been just as consoling -- your grandma just happens to believe this set of wrong beliefs, and it would be a waste of time to try changing her mind.
It would not in fact even prove that the wrong beliefs your grandma thinks she will find consoling are even going to be minimally effective in consoling her, because many people with the same beliefs obsess about those beliefs and still do not find themselves consoled.
I wasn't with either of my grandmas when they died, and neither asked me to pray, but I did get confirmed in the faith of one of them for her sake. The upside was it made her happy. The downside was that I was briefly a liar about something that made no difference anyway.
Posted by: pholidote | November 29, 2007 2:56 PM
Hey, here's a new gambit:
Nobody's an atheist when they're having an orgasm
I mean how many times have you screamed out "oh... standard model physics!! uh! aaaaaaah!!!! Wow! Quantum electrodynamics, baby, that was GOOD!"
I'm just sayin'
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 29, 2007 2:57 PM
My mother is as godless as I am. If the sad day came that I were to be standing beside her deathbed, and she asked me if dead people went to Heaven, and I said "Yes," she'd probably be pissed off that she raised a liar of a son.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 29, 2007 2:57 PM
Marcus Ranum:
Ever slept with a physicist?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 29, 2007 2:58 PM
Well put, as always.
It never ceases to amaze me that a lot of people genuinely think that belief in a supernatural deity is a prerequisite for being a kind, loving, caring, and generous person. It's a completely absurd but widespread belief. And it's one of the reasons that I choose not to hide my non-belief - I'm trying to show (in the small way that I can) that their thinking is faulty.
Posted by: Jessa | November 29, 2007 3:00 PM
Matt: I would not say that.
If a dying person wanted to have an intellectual conversation about deities, I'd be willing to talk about it, but I would neither hide my opinions nor would I force them on the person uninvited. They have other things to think about.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 29, 2007 3:02 PM
Sastra: tacit admissions that the real purpose of religion is comfort
Worse than that, it's an admission that the real purpose of religion is to serve the godbotherer's selfish desire to not have to deal with the discomfort, pain and fear of someone close to them. Placate them with fairy stories so they'll just slip off without making the godbotherer uncomfortable. Despicable ghouls the lot of them. I'm with Stephen Daedalus on this one, despite what Buck Mulligan might say.
Posted by: AlanWCan | November 29, 2007 3:02 PM
Actually, you don't have to "lie." Just say, "I don't know." For me, at least, that would be an honest answer. I highly doubt that there is, of course, but I don't know with 100% certainty that there isn't.
Disingenuous? Perhaps a little, but I don' think so. Even if it is, I wouldn't care.
Posted by: Orac | November 29, 2007 3:02 PM
PZ
I have a lot of respect for your blog, and I posted that 'gambit' as a debating position yesterday. My point was that Pat Condell had posted a video that was just a bit over the top, that made him look like (to be blunt) an insensitive ass. OK, so I may have missed that his posts are supposed to be comic and self-promoting as some have mentioned.
However, I am in no way a religious apologist or sympathizer. I am a proselytizing atheist (as my poor suffering christian friends will certainly agree).
You need not tell me how to deal with those who are dying. Having lost my father, and two very dear friends in the past two years, I know the experience of dealing with believers and atheists in this sad process.
All I am after is simple respect for others. For following the Golden Rule - treat others as you would want them to treat you. I believe that this was lacking from Condell's approach.
Don't take easy positions, PZ. Just because I disagree with the words on one video by Condell, does not mean I fall into any simple category.
If you want to discuss this by e-mail, or openly, I am happy to do that, in fact, I would welcome it.
Posted by: steve99 | November 29, 2007 3:02 PM
..and here I thought this was going to be a thread about the increased mortality rate of grandparents at the end of semesters :)
Posted by: Winnebago | November 29, 2007 3:04 PM
[struck speechless]
Oooh. We're talking 16-bit disgust here! That's high-rez!
Marcus, I think a simple "Oh Science!" is the proper irreligious exclamation. ;-)
Posted by: Kseniya | November 29, 2007 3:04 PM
I've got a couple links up in that other thread about the dying grandma bit, seeing as how mine was put in the ground a week ago today.
Not only do people who use the dying grandma bit look like fools, they are assholes.
Posted by: MAJeff | November 29, 2007 3:05 PM
Blake Stacey writes:
Ever slept with a physicist?
No, as a matter of fact. I'd love to do some empirical evidence-gathering if anyone knows any hot young physics babes who are willing to help me gather data. ;)
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 29, 2007 3:07 PM
-- and --
Yes. For all the natter about the "comfort value" of religion it's astonishing and inhuman how often the practitioners prey on fear to swell their ranks.
Such behavior is beyond reprehensible; it borders on the unforgivable.
Posted by: Warren | November 29, 2007 3:10 PM
When my mother was dying of lung cancer, unconscious and unable to eat or drink anything, one of our "loving" Christian neighbors came over to our house and said a prayer. It was one of the most disgusting things I have heard in my life. She basically attempted a "faith healing" of my mother, shouting at her to get up out of bed "in the name of JEEESSSUSSS!!!"
At least my mother was too far gone to have to actually hear the bitch.
Posted by: everettattebury | November 29, 2007 3:10 PM
Of course, I am a materialist with no belief in a spiritual afterlife. Therefore, it is only rational to work towards prolonging human life. Can we agree that death is horrible? Some righteous people actually believe that death is a grand thing. I say assure the believer that only in science and reason is there hope of something like immortality.
Posted by: Chuck | November 29, 2007 3:11 PM
Been there ... done C with brand spankin' new widows and grieving parents too.
It's not fun, but generally folks just want the community of another human being with them in their scariest and lowest moments. It's even better than "A" because you're saying "I care. I'm with you and I'm really here." not "Lets leave a message your invisible man's answering machine."
Posted by: Woodwose | November 29, 2007 3:12 PM
I think #6 hit an important point: comfort is indeed one of the main reasons people try to believe in god and an afterlife. It's too hard for them to contemplate the reality of an end to their lives. Personally, I find it much easier to contemplate my own end than the end of those I love, but I also wish gravity didn't pull quite so hard on me.
Posted by: Mark P | November 29, 2007 3:14 PM
Kevin. The proper answer, to a dying grandmother asking you, if there's a heaven...
"I don't know." Because obviously she doesn't know either.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 29, 2007 3:18 PM
I have one complaint. Why would you ask grandma to hold on longer, especially if it was obvious she had nothing to hold on with or for? Leave that out and the answer to the grandma gambit is unassailable.
But let me add another point. Not only is the grandma gambit a lost cause, atheists, non-theists, naturalists, whatever you like to call us, have something else to offer -- the possibility of an assisted death, without the common pain, physical distress and indignity of so many deaths. Grandma might even want such assistance. Going to keep telling her to hold on?
Posted by: Eric MacDonald | November 29, 2007 3:18 PM
I have not.
This is pretty funny. though.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 29, 2007 3:20 PM
Just to show goodwill, PZ, I am not going to hide behind any
pseudonym.
My name is Steve Zara. I am a middle-aged (a few years younger than you, though far greyer) sort of general scientist, with a Ph.D. in biology, post-doc experience in chemistry and who has ended doing something in IT (as so many do), but still managing to keep links with research.
I have considerable reason to dislike monotheism, as I am gay, and even in the relatively moderate country I live in (Britain), we have not managed to remove that poisonous influence from politics.
So, when I post, I am not positing from an easily categorised viewpoint, that can be labelled as 'religious apologist'. I am just someone who has a different view.
Posted by: steve99 | November 29, 2007 3:21 PM
If I thought that I could comfort someone in such a situation by lying to them I would probably do it.
I would rank their comfort higher than my integrity.
Posted by: Anon | November 29, 2007 3:23 PM
#22--not my own, but I thought I'd share it anyway:
An atheist woman I know
Had eight orgasms, all in a row
And although it seems odd
She did not scream "Oh, God!"
but "Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh!"
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | November 29, 2007 3:24 PM
"Matt: I would not say that.
If a dying person wanted to have an intellectual conversation about deities, I'd be willing to talk about it, but I would neither hide my opinions nor would I force them on the person uninvited. They have other things to think about."
Thanks PZ, I knew that was what would say but I am glad you said it as it may just get through to Steve99.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 29, 2007 3:27 PM
"I have one complaint. Why would you ask grandma to hold on longer, especially if it was obvious she had nothing to hold on with or for? Leave that out and the answer to the grandma gambit is unassailable.
But let me add another point. Not only is the grandma gambit a lost cause, atheists, non-theists, naturalists, whatever you like to call us, have something else to offer -- the possibility of an assisted death, without the common pain, physical distress and indignity of so many deaths. Grandma might even want such assistance. Going to keep telling her to hold on?"
I take your point but the way I read PZ's comment was that he was asking granny to hang on so that others might have the chance to say their goodbyes to her. Granny might well welcome assistance in helping her die but I think she would only want that help when surrounded by her loved ones. In this day and age, with families spread all over the place it sometimes takes time for everyone to get to the hospital.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 29, 2007 3:31 PM
Nah. Seems more hung up on being an apologist.
He answered your grandma gambit. 99 seems to have framing issues too.
Posted by: Stevie_C | November 29, 2007 3:31 PM
"All I am after is simple respect for others. For following the Golden Rule - treat others as you would want them to treat you. I believe that this was lacking from Condell's approach."
Yet you fail to notice and appreciate that failure to take into a account that a loved one is atheist and expect them to mouth platitudes is them breaking your golden rule.
If you are truly a 'proselytising atheist' then you are one who seems painfully unaware of the double standards around belief/non belief. THEY are allowed to say and expect what they want and we are not allowed to be ourselves in response. Unless and until you get this then you are off message mate.
You might also show some empathy for our brethren over the pond who have to put up with batshit crazy religious people far more than any sane person should have to stomach even while on holiday. Here we have very nice, urbane pseudo deist CofE bishops in comparison. So it is a bit much for you to sit in your comfortable English armchair and tell these embattled folk they have lost their perspective. I suggest you have not yet gained yours.
I hereby sentence you to exile in Northern Ireland, in the Rev Dr Ian Paisley's constituency no less. I would sentence you to live in Stornoway, but the place has gone all wishy washy liberal now you can get a drink on a Sunday.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | November 29, 2007 3:36 PM
"If I thought that I could comfort someone in such a situation by lying to them I would probably do it.
I would rank their comfort higher than my integrity."
I think for me it might depend on how well the person knew me. My family are all pretty well aware of my religious views and so for me to lie about them would be dishonest on my part as well as showing a total lack of respect to them.
Should I come across a stranger in the street dying who was asking for his god, I would might well say it would not be long before he stood before him. Thankfully I have never been put in such a position. I might also try to find words that did not commit me either way about god, indeed not involve him at all. To be honest until I am in such a situation I do not know how I would respond, but can only hope I would ease the suffering of the person.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 29, 2007 3:37 PM
Hoo, that's a good one. Honestly, I couldn't care less about winning petty arguements with inevitable religious nuts, but I am interested in how to act around dying/bereaved religous nuts -- especially of the elderly, related variety.
If you haven't been to an Irish wake, these things aren't exactly dignified, cerebral, detached memorials to the departed: there is lots of melodrama, and lots of catharsis. A lot of the grieving is very intense, and I have to admit out of desperation to comfort some religious relatives, I've told them what I thought they wanted to hear; I'm not exactly proud of it, but then again, I'm not ashamed either. Holding a trembling, unravelled parent or aunt or uncle in your arms, it's awfully hard to see how this would be the time for level-headed honest debate on metaphysics, even if that's the topic they want to discuss. So my question for the gang is: how would you deal with such a situation? I've deal with it already once or twice as best as I could, but maybe some folks have better ideas.
Posted by: j.t.delaney | November 29, 2007 3:38 PM
there is a more disgusting version of the option D described in comment #16 and it takes place mostly in poor and developing countries with a large missionary presence...these well-funded soul-harvesting vultures descend down on the homes of the poor and the illiterate whenever there's a family member on the deathbed and start hounding the distraught family to convert the dying one with stories of eternal hell...
Posted by: buck | November 29, 2007 3:38 PM
It's not a valid argument at all. It's not even a valid argument.
I had this situation more than once and what I normally just answer something like this:
"Well yes. But what's good in an emergency is not good in normal life. If grandma has terminal bowel cancer and has horrible pain, it is good to give her morphines, even heroin. This isn't considered good in normal live at all. Same with relgion."
Which very nicely associates religion with something very harmful and socially banned, which it is and should be ;)
Posted by: Snark7 | November 29, 2007 3:39 PM
So it is a bit much for you to sit in your comfortable English armchair and tell these embattled folk they have lost their perspective. I suggest you have not yet gained yours.
What is the 'comfortable English armchair' that you mention? I often live and work in London. Gay men have been beaten and killed in London in recent years.
You are the one who needs to gain perspective. A slightly different interpretation of the video of a self-promoting atheist comic is not the issue here.
Posted by: Steve Zara | November 29, 2007 3:47 PM
Religion promises two things, the existence of a creator and life after death. Of the two, you can make a case that life after death is more important--if most people had to make a choice between
* There's no god, but there is life after death, and
* There is a god, but no life after death, dead is dead
I think the first choice is by far the more attractive one. In fact, people want life after death so much that they're willing to believe--or pretend to believe--all the other crazy dogma that religions throw at you claiming that it adds up to a coherent whole. Which it doesn't.
If you don't agree, just imagine that Jesus came back tomorrow. Assume that we were all in agreement that he was for real and that he brought with him the genuine word of god. And then imagine that Jesus said, "Okay, everybody, God told me to tell you that he's having second thoughts about life after death, he thinks that the immortal soul turns out not to be such a great idea, and starting immediately the afterlife is canceled. So make the most of your time on earth, because it's all you're going to get."
My guess is that Jesus stock would go way down.
Posted by: Mark | November 29, 2007 3:49 PM
And after that your cousin went out to go stalk a Planned Parenthood clinic, right?
I admire your self-restraint. If I'd been in the same room when someone tried doing that to MY mother, there's a good chance they may have assumed room temperature well before she did.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | November 29, 2007 3:55 PM
I'm not sure why there is confusion over what atheists say to someone with other beliefs who is dying -- isn't pretty much everyone open to being put in that position? Beliefs about God, an afterlife, and The Point of It All run the gamut. Even if you're a theist, sooner or later someone you love will be in dire distress and say something you consider "theologically incorrect." Now what?
My guess is that people with sensitivity and tact probably all follow the same basic rules on religion and death beds. Now is not the time to convert. When asked a specific question where your real answer is 'no' -- but the other person wants it to be 'yes' -- say "I don't know." Or "maybe." Or "could be -- what do you think?" And, if you can, change the subject to something you do have in common, something positive or meaningful or helpful having to do with life and love. As PZ suggests.
"Will I see my puppy when I'm in heaven?" Plenty of Christians who don't believe animals have souls will choke pride and tell the dying child that well, they just might. That's not a sign they don't really believe what they believe -- and atheists who sidestep specific questions from a dying grandmother or otherwise make kindly compromises are in the same position. (Of course, this excludes fine folks like thalarctos' cousin -- who usually aren't insisting that people playact for deathbed scenes anyway.)
Trouble is some people think the Dying Grandma Gambit is indicative of how atheists should always act -- as if they are constantly confronting the newly bereaved -- and yet wouldn't think of applying the same rule to themselves.
Posted by: Sastra | November 29, 2007 3:56 PM
Yet Steve they live in a country that is trying to constitutionally ban what we refer to as Civil Partnerships. So even here you have no perspective. And FWIW I know, have worked with and am related by marriage to gay people and none of them has been beaten up for it. Said relative and his partner have rented a flat and stayed in hotels here and on the continent with absolutely no problems at all. Mind you they are not the blatant sort either.
Just because you have problems does not mean that the other guy's problems are not worse than yours. I suggest you get down off your moral high horse and deal with the large chip that seems to have dug itself into your shoulder. Because unless you do those you will not do well in discussions in here.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | November 29, 2007 3:56 PM
"You are the one who needs to gain perspective. A slightly different interpretation of the video of a self-promoting atheist comic is not the issue here."
Slightly different ? Nothing slight about it, you totally distorted what Condell had to say to suit your own agenda. That is not honest.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 29, 2007 3:58 PM
Chuck said:
That makes no sense to me. Does "horrible" (or "good", "bad", "happy", or "sad") have any meaning whatsoever in a materialist worldview?
I can see it from a Darwinian point of view, that we have certain things we strive for (food, sex, etc) or attempt to avoid (injury, premature death), but I can't necessarily see that death of an elderly person is a bad thing from a Darwinian point of view. Only maybe as a side effect of a general "avoid death" rule, even though there isn't a strong reason for it in an elderly person.
I find it odd that a materialist would make such a leap of logic that "death = bad" and present it with no justification. I'm no more willing to "agree that death is horrible" than I will agree that God exists....both seem to be based on nothing more than "this is what my mind initially intuits, therefore it must be true"
Posted by: robbrown | November 29, 2007 4:05 PM
In my (sadly) considerable experience of conversations with dying people (and no, I'm not a serial killer), I've never had a problem discussing death and it's impending implications. No-one's ever been offended when they ask what I believe and I tell them, and I've never skirted the issue. I get the impression people are just grateful for a decent conversation rather than embarrassed silence or abject denial ("You'll be fine Mildred, look at you, healthy as an Ox with all those tubes sticking out!").
My reply to the "What would you tell your dying Grandma?" is usually "No fucking lies."
Unless I found out I'd been left out of her will . . .
Posted by: Scrofulum | November 29, 2007 4:06 PM
I have an alternate narrative:
Imagine my mother on her deathbed. A few days prior, she converts to a "looser" religion than the one she had been raised in.
Her mother comes in, discovers this fact, and they have a huge fight about how she failed god in raising my mother and she is going to hell for a certainty. Next day, my mother dies.
Posted by: rpsms | November 29, 2007 4:10 PM
Any "Buffy" fans out there? Remember the last episode of Angel. Wesley is mortally wounded and goes to the demon who has taken over his girlfriend's body. The demon says "You are dying". Wesley says "I know". The demon asks "In your last minute alive do you want the truth or lies" Wesley says, "Lies, please." And the demon takes on the form of his gone girlfriend and says things like everythings going to be all right and she'll always be here and love him as so on, and Wesley dies ... in relative but not complete comfort.
I rather like the admission that while dying one might intellectually choose lies, know they are choosing lies, but also know that it's the best option for the moment.
One could easily turn the dying grandmother argument into one of politics:
If your grandmother was dying would you tell her you still resent her for voting for Nadar in 2000?
Posted by: woozy | November 29, 2007 4:10 PM
If somebody is dying, the moment is about them, not you. That is one time you leave the agenda at home and make a serious effort to do whatever makes it easier. If I thought it would help, I'd testify in tongues and find no conflict at all. I mean, who's going to call me on it?
A few years ago my best friend died of cancer. He was wonderfully tended by his ex-wife (they'd stayed on good terms and shared the kids' upbringing). She is a good hearted person who managed to combine residual catholicism with new age woo and towards the end tried to introduce both priests and crystal healers to his room. He declined both and when she asked 'What have you got to lose?' he had what was probably his last burst of energy and replied 'The last shreds of my fucking dignity.'
Technically those were not his last words, but that's how I think of them.
Posted by: Don | November 29, 2007 4:13 PM
By an odd coincidence, the Cure's Funeral Party is playing on my computer as I read this.
My grandmother died a few months ago. I've written and erased three posts becuase I can't seem to put anything together that adequately expresses how much she meant to me, and how incredible I thought she was. She died quickly and unexpectedly, and I wasn't with her when it happened. I still feel crushed and destroyed. She was religious, although she never bothered me about what I did or didn't believe. She was always just there for me. If I'd been there while she was dying, and she'd wanted me to read the Bible to her, I certainly would have.
My mother, on the other hand, is pretty hard core christian. Dealing with her (and my sister) after my grandmother's death has been much harder than it would otherwise have to be. There seems to be an underlying, almost unspoken accusation that by not believeing in a god or an afterlife, I am somehow killing my grandmother a second time. That if I really loved her, I would just believe so I could see her again. Apparently for my mother, just wanting something to be true makes it true.
Ironically, even my mother has said she's gotten really sick of people telling her to be happy because this is only a temporary separation, and she'll see my grandmother again in heaven. So it would seem that, even if Christianity's best selling point is comfort, it does a really piss poor job on that front.
On a lighter note:
Yes. Although she's now a biochemist/molecular biologist. And a gold-star atheist. Never called out to god, or science for that matter. Although, she sounds a lot like Cuttlefish's poem when I'm showing the proper appreciation for the study of her anatomy.
Posted by: mothworm | November 29, 2007 4:17 PM
Steve Z.
It can be difficult to interpret a posting, as you well know. Your question may have been well intentioned but it fell within the type of question usually framed by trolls.
Question: Are you out as a gay man? I'm not asking this out of rudeness but to get to the crux of the matter. If you are still closeted to many people then that is telling.
The effects of persecution in an intolerant society as well as parental disapproval can drive many people to remain closeted about atheism, sexuality, and a variety of stigmatizing traits, but at a huge psychic cost. Living an authentic life is damned near impossible if what is authentic to you seems to make you a pariah to family or society at large.
There is a difference between withholding information and misleading someone by actively engaging in behaviors that are not authentic to you. Deceiving someone by praying with them when you don't believe in their god or pretending to be something/someone else is exactly that - deceit no matter how comforting it may feel. Actually, going through certain religious rites when your not a believer is pretty damn unethical. Remaining true to your own creed (do atheists have creeds?) is important. We don't have to be confrontational when no one has confronted us but we don't have to just lie down and take it when someone abuses us (unless we've paid top money for it, but that's something else altogether).
Sometimes it is necessary to remain closeted to keep a job or for safety sake, but a friendship based on deceit is a false relationship. Not that we must divulge all our private issues to the public or even friends and family, but going "Whoah, get a load of that chick, I'd like to do her" for the benefit of homophobic friends if you're a gay man is atrocious. Nor is it necessary to volunteer to a hostile audience, "Hey, that dude makes me turgid". I'm sure that this example will spark a spirited debate substituting gay concerns for atheist concerns and vice versa (thrown in concerns for those with Mental disorders such as BiPolar and see what happens).
Several have already pointed out the folly of false choices, the "you're either for us or against us" mentality. There are many choices of action in-between. I suspect your post is begging a deeper question, but hell, what do I know. Thank you for your candor.
Posted by: Jsn | November 29, 2007 4:18 PM
Does dirty talk involving geology count?
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | November 29, 2007 4:29 PM
Am I right that Judaism is a little fuzzy, bordering on agnostic, about the existence of an afterlife? If so, what is an observant Jew supposed to say to a dying Christian loved one who wants reassurance that she's going to heaven? Is the Jewish person supposed to lie about his beliefs and say the "comforting" thing, or does that only apply to atheists?
Posted by: jdb | November 29, 2007 4:32 PM
One of the atheist friends told me a story about how he comforted a christian friend upon the death of the christian's mother. He said "She's in heaven now". The christian friend replied "But you don't beleive in heaven!". And my athiest friend replied "No, but you do".
Posted by: Haydin | November 29, 2007 4:37 PM
Wow. A blog entry on which I actually have some useful information.
I'm an atheist. I visited my dying grandmother two years ago. Her first words to the family when we arrived at the nursing home were, "Is my grandson out there?" We hugged, we caught up on events going on in my life, and as I recall, we got some McDonald's takeout and took her outside to enjoy one of the last nice days of autumn in upstate New York. For a very brief time, the misery of her grim hanging-on-for-dear-life was made immeasurably brighter simply by having her family around and carrying on with everyday life stuff.
Never once did the subject of Gawud, his only son Jeebus besotted from the vermin Mary or whatever (yes, I just called the xtian god a drunken rat-bastard), or any other religious crap come up. She never tried to get us to pray for her. She was a typical Yankee, in that she felt that religion, like most things, was a private affair and best kept that way.
Similarly, it was not necessary for me to challenge or mock her religious beliefs. It wasn't important. It wasn't relevant. Whatever comfort she took from religion came from someone else. We were there simply to brighten one of her few remaining days.
She died a very short time later (within a month, I believe), secure in the knowledge that her grandson (whom she adored) was happy, healthy, and secure in his life out west, and that the rest of her family was similarly well-situated.
So, to the Xtards who resort to the dying grandmother argument, I offer two very defiant flipped birds and a stark Yankee admonishment from the Southwest to tend to your own knitting and let me worry about my own.
Posted by: FrumiousBandersnark | November 29, 2007 4:37 PM
FWIW, I have to chime in here with Christianjb in defense of Steve Zara aka Steve99.
Steve's initial comment contained a few rhetorical questions asked in response to what seemed (to him) to be an untempered call to arms made by Mr. Condell, and I read the comment thus:
"Do we atheists resort to ridicule and mockery when confronted with the religious beliefs or needs of the dying, the bereaved, the caregivers? No, we are not, and refusing to do so is not a concession to 'moderation'."
Which is a far cry from:
"You atheists only want to give the finger to your own dying grandmothers!"
With that said, I don't think Mr. Condell was advocating that we do anything of the sort. Even if he was, it appears that everyone posting here knows better than to jump on that particular bandwagon.
We're all entitled to our own reactions and are responsible for our own responses. Well, those are mine.
Posted by: Kseniya | November 29, 2007 4:38 PM
The dying grandma might be a believers' ploy, but you would be wrong to ignore the pain this kind of thing can cause in a family. Informing my aged devout parents that I'm an atheist has been a very tough process.
There's no gentle way to say I don't believe. You can tell them you respect them, and act accordingly, but I don't think it helps much. After all, you have just dismissed the belief which is the foundation of their life, which they worked so hard to instill in you. The distinction between this dismissal and disrespect is so subtle, I'm not even sure it exists. All the hand holding and kind words in the world won't relieve them from the prospect of eternal hell for their child. They are wonderful people, and I have laid a burden on them they will take to their graves in a few years.
It sucks for everyone now, but I hope it lays the groundwork for a future for my kids and theirs in which they are free to think as they like without religious pressure from the family.
None of which is meant to criticize Pat's video, which has its place.
Posted by: charley | November 29, 2007 4:39 PM
"There is usually a tone of high moral indignation, as well, and a smug expression of superiority that the faithful have over the godless."
I've noticed that much more from atheists than from theists.
Posted by: Alex | November 29, 2007 4:41 PM
The Christian thing to do would be to have the doctor dope her to the gills on morphine while the family fights over her belongings and their lawyers try breaking the will before she kicks off.
Posted by: Crikey | November 29, 2007 4:42 PM
One thing I think the religious miss when criticising atheists is what the atheist is giving up. It would be wonderful to think that there really is an afterlife where you will get to meet you loved ones again, as well as be able to go and find the likes of Charles Darwin and have a conversation with him. However there is no evidence at all to support the idea such an afterlife exists and so atheists reject the idea it does. That strikes me as being something of a sacrifice.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 29, 2007 4:42 PM
Thank you so much Kseniya. That was exactly the position I was trying to put forward. You have expressed it so well, and far better that I could manage. It is like you have read my mind.
Of course, Condell was not advocating that we do anything of the sort. What I was so troubled by was, as you express so well, his apparent 'untempered call to arms'
Posted by: Steve Zara | November 29, 2007 4:47 PM
/Does "horrible" (or "good", "bad", "happy", or "sad") have any meaning whatsoever in a materialist worldview?/
Robbie,
Let's us presume that I have a truncheon, a billy club, if you will and I begain to hit you with it at the rate of 30 times a minute. You cannot move and must endure my blows. Do you want me to stop , slow down or continue? I presume stopping would be your answer. If I continued, would you be angry? Sad? (In PAIN obviously). If I slowed down would you be relieved? Confused?
If I stopped, would you be happier than when I started? Now, suppose now that my beating left you permanently physically disfigured. Would you feel sadness, humiliation, regret, anger or all the above?
We, as humans have emotions, whether or not there is a god/gods, heaven/hell or a celestial whorehouse in the netherworld. The psychology of humans deals with these concepts of happiness, sadness, etc. ad nauseum. We materialsts are capable of contrast and comparison and the use of many adjectives.
Materialists can determine good/bad, happy/sad because tha