Death and Dying

July 17, 1990

Host: Barbara Thompson ..................................... Invited Guest: Karl Puechl

Barbara: Good Morning! Thanks for your good comments and thoughts on our current subject of "Death and Dying". As I've indicated this subject is so interwoven with all of our faiths and beliefs, with in fact the way we live our lives, that I've come to realize it deserves all the attention we can give. We've had a real variety of perspectives given to us already from a firm belief in not only reincarnation but in the individual's ability to select his or her own next reincarnation --- to a firm belief in predestination --- to equally firm beliefs in a future resurrection for those who accept Jesus Christ as their savior. These, along with some excellent insights and suggested guidelines, have each week made the seekers forum a truly interesting and though provoking half hour. Agreement is not the goal --- nice if possible but not very realistic. Rather, the goal is for increased understanding and respect for the other person's faith and belief, to realize that these are not taken on lightly but have been arrived at and/or accepted after careful reasoning and consideation. Even if we do not always agree with the process of reasoning nor the result. This morning we have still another perspective, another viewpoint, one which I would expect to differ quite a bit from all we have heard so far. For those of you who have made the Seekers Forum one of your early Sunday morning habits, you'll remembeer karl Puechl of the Unitarian-Universalist Fellowship here in Hemet. Beliefs are independently held, Karl tells us, in the UU Fellowslhip; in fact, "Fellowship" actually describes the group best. So his position which he tells us is essentially from the atheistic viewpoint is not necessarily held by others in his group. But is is a perspective which I think can give us a lot to think about and consider. So, Karl, once more welcome back to the Seekers Forum!

Karl: Thank you, Barbara. I'm glad to again be here to represent the local Unitarian Universalist Fellowship. Probably contrary to most popular opinion, I think that it will be fun to talk about Death and Dying---I say "fun" because this is a challenging topic.

Before we get to the questions, I'd like to make a few general remarks pertaining to the subject; I think that they will help to show where I am coming from when I answer the specific questions.

First, and what I consider to be most important, is the fact that someone's death primarily influences his or her survivors; his or her family, friends, acquaintances, colleagues, etc. However one considers death and how to deal with it, the survivors must be given primary consideration since they will have to adjust to living without you; you will be beyond the need to make adjustments.

Secondly, I'd like to repeat something that I said during one of my previous appearances on the SEEKERS FORUM. I said that religion came about because man, even in prehistoric times, found it difficult to face reality: especially, he had trouble accepting his mortality: he had trouble accepting his insignificance in the universe; and he had trouble interacting with his fellow man. Religion addressed each of these individual fears by postulating a life-after-death or reincarnation of some sort; by elevating man to be a god or at least to be made in the image of a god; and by announcing that the "believer" in a particular religion was somehow different and/or better than the neighboring "non-believers" or "heretics", for example, perhaps it was announced that only the believers could achieve "immortality". Since each religion strives to allay these fears in slightly different ways, there exists confusion as to what is really true. Simply stated, the truth is that man developed on earth quite by chance, has little significance in the overall scheme of things, and is born and dies like every other living thing on this planet. For those of us who can accept this reality, many of the questions that may arise relative to death and dying are immediately answered unequivocally.

To carry this introduction somewhat further, I'd like to make one more comment relative to religion. Once people accepted the myths that were postulated to alleviate their fears, certain individuals found out that these believers could be readily controlled: to maintain the status quo; to instill loyalty or patriotism; to even achieve mass fanaticism (witness the news-clips on mass demonstrations in Iran under the Ayatollah). In short, it was found that people who could not face reality could be easily led or controlled by those in power. As a consequence, the people were further taught that they were incapable of making some decisions by themselves; that they needed intermediaries to guide their lives. This dependency could be readily taught, especially at an early age, since it was simply a psychological carry-over of the parent-child relationship. Because of these teachings, many questions relative to death and dying are referred to the clergy or to the government through the law, when, in fact, they could be better answered by the individuals themselves. Afterall, who has more knowledge about a particular situation; the individual who has problems and doubts, or a somewhat removed, although, perhaps, well-meaning minister or judge?

Now, Barbara, you can ask some questions.

Barbara: A listener asked: "I have a hard time understanding why 'Eternal Life' is so desirable. I admit I'm not convinced there is a Hell except maybe for the one we make for ourselves in our life here on earth. Isn't it just possible that when we're dead, that's it? That we live on genetically in our children and children's children and so on - and, for a while maybe, in the memories of people who have known us? But, quite frankly, 'Eternal Life' doesn't sound like anything I'm much interested in going after. If anyone can convince me otherwise, that will make it a different ballgame. I'm open."

I think that I've already answered this question. It sounds to me as if the caller is accepting reality. To further reinforce his or her viewpoint, I refer them to Samuel Butler's book entitled EREWHON AND EREWHON REVISITED, and to the philosophical writings of Ashley Montague, Corliss Lamont and Erich Fromm. I think the caller will be surprised that many philosophers and psychologists have viewpoints similar to his or her own.

Barbara: Another listener's question: As a rule I don't question. I like to follow Paul's thinking: "Now we see in a mirror dimly. But then face to face." I trust God. I put myself in His hands and don't worry. But I am curious about how to understand the "form" of resurrection which has been promised to us. There seem to be so many different ideas about it. I would like to hear it discussed. And another similar question: I understand some Christians believe in reincarnation. What kind of reincarnation would that be?

Karl: I think I touched upon these questions when I said that each religion tries to allay man's fears in a slightly different manner and that these differences lead to confusion. If one accepts reality and that descriptions of immortality are simply myths, then one need not be concerned about the differences.

Barbara: Yet another listener's question: Do we get a second chance? My father was never baptized in spite of my mother and I both trying to urge him to be. He had a lot of health problems but he was, basically, a good man. We're afraid, now, that he's condemned to suffering forever and we feel bad to think we'll never see him again. A friend told me she thinks people like my father are given a second chance by Jesus. That that was the reason He visited Hell after being crucified. My minister just shakes his head whenever I bring up the subject. But I'd like to think there might be a second chance for my father. Do you think so? Or do you agree with my minister?

Karl: This is another question that would go away if one could accept reality. However, I suspect that the caller might not be capable of doing this. (This comment is not meant to be derogatory, I accept the fact that we are all individuals, genetically and environmentally unique, and that each of us therefore has different psychological needs.) If my suspicions are correct, then I suggest that the caller, at least, considers the concept of a merciful God. If your God is truly merciful, He too will see your father's good points, as you do, and He also will conclude that you father does not deserve to be in eternal Hell.

Barbara: We act, sometimes, as if we thought we could live forever - I mean, in this body on this earth - if only everyone would do what they should. We're all going to die, eventually, so why prolong it in misery and suffering or, equally as bad, in a vegetative state when the diagnosis is hopeless for improvement? And, of course, there could be mistakes. When it's a younger person I can see some reason for hoping there might be a cure. But when it's an older person what is the point? They are going to die one day. We put our pets out of their misery, mercifully and lovingly. Doesn't it make sense to do as much for people? And a similar question: I'm not afraid to die like some people seem to be. I'm 90 years old and I've had a good life. Frankly, I don't care much for the way things are done now. Maybe that's just because I can no longer take an active part. But what I am afraid of is somehow becoming so incapacitated that I can't take care of myself. I don't want to put that burden on any of my children and I certainly don't want to have to be put in some home someplace for strangers to take care of me. I'm not able to do anything productive anymore. Why can't I just take something to put me to sleep permanently? Without getting anyone into trouble that is.

Karl: I think you already know my viewpoint on these questions. Each individual should have the right to make his or her own choice and he or she should be given the means to carry their choice to a dignified conclusion. But I repeat my initial comment that it is the survivors who will be most affected by any choice, and their interests and feelings should be given due consideration when making the personal decision.

Barbara: If you're going to be talking about "Death and Dying" then I'd like to hear what the thoughts are about ABORTION from your different ministers. Specifically, if a baby doesn't belong to God until it's baptized, why be concerned about it as a fetus any more than if it were a seed that was planted then got washed out by a flood before it could begin developing? The "Pro-lifers" talk about abortion being murder whether it's early in the pregnancy or later on. "Pro-Choice" says it shouldn't be a factor until it can survive on its own. It seems to me we need some definitive cut-off times both at the beginning of our life as well as at the end. They say the fetus brain is not functioning until about six months after conception. If we have no brain, of what good are we to ourselves or anyone else? Except an awful lot of care and work?

Karl: The entire issue of abortion has been confused by both sides and, luckily for us, it will soon become a non-issue. Let me explain. To begin with, when one looks in detail at the reproductive possibilities of any plant and animal species, it immediately becomes apparent that nature, to give some assurance of survival, has made each species much more prolific than it needs to be under ideal environmental circumstances. What would the world be like if every acorn took root and matured into a fully-grown oak tree? What if every mosquito larva matured rather than most of them being wiped out by the drying-up of the pools of water, or by birds and other predators? What would the earth look like and what would be the fate of humanity without some means of human birth control? Certainly, nature, eventually, would take care of the excess through starvation and territorial wars; but is this what we desire for our progeny? Since we do not desire this end-result, isn't some sort of birth control morally correct? When does life start? An absurd question. Every sperm is alive; if it weren't, it wouldn't be able to swim to find the egg. And the egg, certainly, has the potential for life. Why don't the Pro-Lifer's insist that every egg and sperm cell be carefully nurtured and saved so that they can be combined to create the human life that they believe to be so sacred? Why not try to maximize human procreative capability? Why tolerate any waste at all? Again, I am on the side of individual choice. Who knows best (and I mean morally best not only selfishly best) whether a potential child is wanted and will be loved and cared for? The potential Mother or some removed "Do-Gooder"? Luckily for all of us, as I started out saying, abortion will soon be a non-issue. A pill already exists which can induce abortion; this is the French abortion pill designated RU-486. Any woman who suspects she is pregnant can take the pill without any supervision and, almost always, menstruation will follow a few days later. So far no drug company is willing to bet monies on introducing this pill into the U. S., however, most assuredly, it will find its way here, illegally if it can't be done legally. We haven't been able to keep cocaine from coming in, even with massive police action. How can we ever expect to keep relatively small quantities of a most desirable pill from finding its way to the end-users? When this happens, both doctors and charlatans, and, if the woman desires, even the potential fathers, will be out of the abortion cycle and there will be no way to control, or even count, abortions. Barbara, do we have time for any more questions?

Barbara: Yes, a few more: Do you believe we have a "Time to Die?" It does seem like there are a lot of times when someone is killed or dies in circumstances where it just shouldn't be. And other times when someone survives some horrible accident that you would normally think would have to kill anyone else. Would that be predestination? And again a related question: Is God punishing us when we have a long, painful death? I think it's so wonderful when I hear about someone just going to sleep and dying. Or having the kind of death where they say "they couldn't have even known what happened". They were here and then gone. I think they must be especially blessed when that happens. But my friend says that, if we have to suffer a lot in the dying process, maybe it's because God wants us to learn something more before it's too late. What do you think?

Karl: Again, if one can accept reality; that we are here as we are, strictly because of chance and that our individual lives are largely determined by chance, then asking "why" certain things happen has no meaning. That's just the way the universe operates. If one believes in an almighty, all-knowing, loving god, and then questions the "why" of certain events, one cannot help but become disturbed. If God is merciful, how can he let things like this happen? If God is loving, why is he making me suffer so? If God is all-knowing, he must already know the outcome of a particular situation, so why must I go through the torment? If one begins to question the nature of his or her god, it is sometimes easier to discard the god altogether and accept reality as it is rather than to ascribe meanings to god's actions.

Barbara: The whole idea of frozen embryos stored someplace until someone's ready to "plant" them in a woman's womb is an idea so repugnant to me I wish it were science fiction and could be dismissed. But it's a reality so we have to figure out how to deal with it. With our population reaching proportions beyond our ability to feed - with worldwide starvation predicted within the next generation, how can these methods of birthing possibly be justified? If ever abortion should be legal, it should be used in the case of methods such as this for creation of human life. Your comments please.

Karl: While I can sympathize with your feelings, I still come down on the side of individual choice. If technology exists, it will be utilized legally or illegally and I don't believe that the State should interfere. Having offspring gives us a certain measure of immortality and this is a strong human desire; accordingly, I can also sympathize with the people who want to go to extremes to be able to procreate. However, together with the freedom to use the technology, I also support education which stresses that immortality can also be achieved by individual accomplishment; that procreation is not the only route towards gaining a vicarious measure of immortality. Incidentally, such education will also tend to reduce natural births since having children does hinder individual achievement by the parent.

Barbara: I've read a lot about "after death" experiences (where the doctors have declared someone to be dead but then they come back to life and tell about having seen long dead members of their family or friends or sometimes even convinced that they saw Jesus or someone very much like what they would expect Him to be. And, generally, it seems to be a pretty positive experience with some of them saying it changed their life, almost like the way some people describe their "born again" experience. I have some questions about this:

(1) What purpose would this serve from God's viewpoint? It would seem that, under these circumstance, he would definitely be in charge with the person's own will no longer in effect. Why would He want it to happen?

(2) Isn't it just possible that we don't yet know how to read all of the "vital signs" and the person is just having a wish-fulfilled dream and not really dead?

(3) Have you had anybody tell you about such an experience? Did you believe them?

Karl: I'll touch on the last question first. No, I haven't had anyone tell me about such an occurrence, but if someone had, I would believe that their brain had stored the information and that they were not just making the story up as it was being told to me. The brain is a very complicated organ and chemicals that are related to stored information still exist even though brain functioning cannot be detected. When a VCR is on "play", its functioning can be detected on the TV set; when it's on "off", the functioning cannot be detected but the information is still on the tape; when the VCR is again turned to "play" functioning can again be detected and it is found that no information was lost from the tape while the VCR was not functioning. The same is probably true with the brain for some time after the brain ceases to function. If by some impulse, the brain again begins to function, there is no reason to be amazed that not all memory has been lost. Now, normally, and even when one is near death, the brain is a busy place. Information is continually sent to the brain by the various senses and this information is stored in what is called "short-term" memory and the brain immediately attempts to make correlations with all the other information that is already stored so that it can get some handle as to where the new piece of information should be permanently "filed". The brain, also, continually tries to make new correlations even with the old information that has been stored somewhere. Now most correlations do not make much sense, that is to say, they are not realistic and when the correlations are strung together the resulting story is most-often absurd. This supposition is verified by our dreams, most of which are incomprehensible. When someone is near death, perhaps in pain or undergoing anesthesia, death is probably upper-most in the person's mind and it is most natural for the brain to begin correlating information that has something to do with death, as concluded by previous correlations. It is natural, therefore, for the brain, just before ceasing to function, to be concerned with heaven and hell, Jesus, loved one's who have died, etc. Some of the new correlations, most of which do not make much sense, can become stored before the brain ceases to function, and they then can be recalled if the brain again begins to function; but, it must be understood that the recalled correlations must be considered much like a dream; interesting, but certainly having nothing to do with reality.

Barbara: And here we are at "that time" again, Karl. I wish we didn't have to break away just now. But I am planning on a second round on this same subject so perhaps we can pick up where we have to leave off today when we get together next time?