There’s an underlying assumption that the correct way to evaluate belief is on the utility of them. Here it’s advocating that theism is better because it provides comfort to the bereaved, and we also see things like “theism is better because believers are happier” and “theists have fewer medical problems”.

Saying “you should believe in god because it will make you feel better when somebody dies” is just weird. Beliefs should be evaluated on whether they are true, whether there is evidence supporting them, not on how they make you feel. At least from a rational standpoint.

There’s also the problem of changing beliefs. Beliefs are conclusions, not conscious choices, so it’s not like we can just choose to believe something different. Or at least I can’t.

Posted: August 12th 2010

See all questions answered by Eric_PK

It doesn’t. We have to find comfort somewhere else.

When discussing people who have died I sometimes feel a tiny twinge of envy toward those who honestly believe their loved ones are in heaven. They have a comfort I can never enjoy. It’s a comfort based on believing a fantasy, but it’s a comfort, none the less.

The feeling passes quickly, as the benefits of living in reality vastly outweigh this one tiny benefit of a fantasy life, but it helps me understand the appeal of religion to some people.

Posted: August 11th 2010

See all questions answered by Dave Hitt

It doesn’t have to. Neither does disbelief in unicorns.

People are not atheists because they find it comforting, but because they find it convincing.

There are other ways to find comfort when bereaved. Family, friends, fond memories of the deceased… that’s a whole different question to which individuals will each have their own answers.

Posted: August 8th 2010

See all questions answered by Eshu

This question implies a misunderstanding of atheism. Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in a deity. It is not a belief system, religion or support group. It has no umbrella organization, no scripture, and no dogma. It doesn’t offer comfort to anyone, for anything.

That said, I think the real question you are asking is “Religion is an emotional crutch people lean on when bad things happen in their lives. What will replace it if they abandon their faith?”

The answer, of course, is that everyone is different. Comfort comes from wherever folks find it. Some find comfort in philosophical pursuits, others in music, art, or poetry. Some rely on the support of their friends and family or their community/club/hobby. Most, I suspect, find comfort in some combination of all of the above.

The point is that a person’s feelings are something they alone control, and if they are not believers, religion simply isn’t part of the process.

Posted: August 7th 2010

See all questions answered by Blaise

The two contributors before me have already posted excellent answers to this, pointing out that belief in a life after death is not necessarily a comfort to those who fear they or those they love may spend an eternity in hell. My mother was a case in point: brought up in a strict Methodist home, she lived her whole life in the shadow of the fear of hell, and consequently was terrified of dying. It is no exaggeration to say that her religious beliefs blighted her life. (This despite the fact that, as a Christian herself, you might have expected her to be confident she would go to heaven.)

When my stepfather – the loveliest, kindest, gentlest, sweetest-natured man you could ever hope to meet – died, my mother’s grief was greatly exacerbated by her fear that, because he did not believe in God, he would be in hell.

So I echo what SmartLX and logicel have said: atheists are spared this kind of horror, which means that for us, death is merely sad, not terrifying.

But I want to make a different point, which is this: we should not believe in a claim because it is comforting, but because there are good grounds to think it is true. Equally, we should not reject a claim because we find it uncomfortable, but because we can find no good grounds to suggest that it is true.

I am not an atheist because I prefer atheism’s take on what happens to us after death (although I do prefer it); I am an atheist because, when I reviewed my religious beliefs I realised that I had no objective reason to think they were true.

Personal preference is a poor guide to reality.

Posted: August 5th 2010

See all questions answered by Paula Kirby

I would counter: How does theism offer comfort to the bereaved? Because if it did, I would at least, if not be a true believer, be a cultural Christian. The way my mother’s death (when I was 18) and my sister’s death (when I was 17 and she was 21) was handled by useless priests and their so-called comforting ilk showed me how pathetically wanting in basic decency Christianity is. The emphasis was only on god and what it wanted, nothing about my close ones and their relationship with me.

However, when another sister died when I was 39 and she was 46—the sister that I did not see for over 25 years because she was disowned by the family for marrying a secular Jew—how comforting was that humanist ceremony held in one of her favorite natural places, a cliff overlooking the Pacific where we had permission to scatter her ashes! It was attended largely by other folks who like me, and like my beloved sister had, have their life suitcases filled, packed, and ready to exit this one life of ours whenever, and who expressed their joy and satisfaction of having had the pleasure of knowing my sister.

I don’t think atheism does offer comfort to people who have not lived their lives fully, who have put their lives on hold until the real big deal up in heaven happens. Those people have not filled their suitcase to the brim, have it packed, and waiting by the door to exit life like I have. They need to be comforted, to be ensured that they will have it all the next time around, in the afterlife.

If they truly enjoyed the company of their loved ones, if they truly recognized the fragile mortality of themselves and others, how temporal, how fleeting, how precious this one life of ours is, then they would be comforted by the mere thought that they had the opportunity to partake in life with their close ones.

I characterize Christianity as the greed religion. Christians want it all, and they want it forever, even if they have to court cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty to do so. The supposedly lesser and smaller things of unintentional reality do not significantly and qualitatively move them in appreciation and gratitude.

Posted: August 5th 2010

See all questions answered by logicel

A certain amount of confidence that the departed is not in Hell, for one thing. Their soul does not need shepherding because there isn’t a soul. They are in no more danger and will be in no more pain, because they are truly gone. We don’t have to fear for them anymore.

Posted: August 5th 2010

See all questions answered by SmartLX