The
night before last, I dreamt that I had a cancerous brain tumour and had been
given six months to live.
Now,
this isn’t the first time I’ve dreamt of impending death, and I’m sure it won’t
be the last, so I’m not particularly disturbed by the dream itself. As I’ve
written elsewhere, in the past I’ve even dreamt of being executed, once by
lethal injection, and another time by decapitation, and seeing my skull and
neck vertebrae on display afterwards, and this
was small potatoes compared to that. But it did open up an avenue or two of
thought.
Before
I go any further, let me get one thing out of the way: I’m a monist as
well as an atheist; which means I have no belief in any kind of non-biological life after
death. However, for the purposes of this article, I'll try and put that aside as much as I can.
What I was reminded of is that, scientifically speaking, death is an ongoing process. Even as you’re
reading this, millions of your red corpuscles are being filtered out of your
bloodstream by your spleen, taken out of circulation and effectively destroyed.
The cells lining your mouth and intestine are flaking away, being shed and
replaced by new cells growing from underneath. When you have an abscess
somewhere, it’s filled with pus which comprises cells of your body broken down
by your immune system and digested. Look at your hair and nails – they’re
comprised of tissue which was once alive, and now manifestly isn’t. Your body is constantly dying
around you.
Even
my dream tumour would only be among thousands of cancers my body will be
developing over the course of my lifetime, runaway cells of my own substance,
which will mostly be snuffed out by my body’s own defence mechanism. Only if
the body fails to kill its own
material, the tumour cells, will I develop the cancer.
Now
this is an interesting thing, because to most people, death is a final and
complete end, characterised by the stoppage of the heart and/or the cessation
of activity of the brain. But then this too is a process. That the body doesn’t die instantly when the heart stops
is fairly well known; most people are aware that if the supply of blood to the
brain can be maintained or resumed within three minutes, there needn’t be any
long term deleterious effects. But if the blood flow is interrupted for longer
than that, what happens?
Well,
the brain cells start to die, of course, since the brain is the most oxygen-
and nutrient-hungry organ in the human body. But even that die-off takes time,
as the cells run out of oxygen to energise their molecular factories and
nutrients to burn as fuel, and as they begin to drown in their own waste
products. And even after the brain cells die, less energy-hungry cells in the
body – like in the nail beds, for instance, or the dermis – keep functioning
for a while, since they aren’t as gluttonous and can carry on longer for less.
Of course, even they will die in the end – but it will take time.
[A note here: Those pulp horror
tales which claim the nails and hair keep growing after death aren’t completely
wrong. The hair and nails do keep growing briefly after the cessation of cardiac
activity, but the growth would be measured in minute fractions of a millimetre.
Sorry, guys.]
Conversely,
it isn’t necessary for the body as a whole
to die for a part of it to do so. Back
in physiology lab in medical college we had to pith frogs. This involved
destroying their brains with a needle inserted along the line of the spinal
cord. After this was done, the frogs would still be alive, though they no
longer had a functioning brain. If food was put in the back of their mouths,
they’d reflexively swallow, and they’d breathe and carry on other functions not
requiring higher mental control. The body was alive though the brain was
dead.
Anyone
who’s had an appendix removed, for instance, or a limb amputated (or, as in my
case, has been circumcised) has had a portion of his or her body cut away,
which has then died; but the main body has continued, in more or less
functioning order, to survive. And there’s the obverse, where parts of the body
die while remaining attached to the main body, at least for a time. We call it dry gangrene.
Therefore,
death is a process, a rather long-drawn-out process at that, which begins while
we’re still in the uterus and continues after our hearts stop beating and
brains give up ticking over. And even then it isn’t the end.
In
an earlier article I’ve written that we are, essentially, vast conglomerations
of organisms, from the bacteria in our intestines to the minute arthropods
which crawl in the follicles of our eyelashes. As we die, many of these
creatures immediately begin breaking down our tissues and converting them into
nutrients, which they assimilate and return to nature, to be cycled back
through the sequence of continuing death and rebirth.
All
this may seem somewhat obvious if one’s accustomed to thinking from the
standpoint of science, of course. To
someone thinking along these lines, death and life are part of one great
machine, turning constantly and irreversibly, and one’s personal death is
neither to be particularly feared or welcomed. It’s just part of the scheme of
things.
And
this is where we find a great parting of the ways. To many people – I’d even
say the majority of people – the thought
that death is just one of those things is inconceivable, almost repugnant. If death
is merely part of an ongoing process, then it’s not of great significance, and
if it’s not of special significance, it throws into doubt the very basis of virtually
all of spirituality and religion – that there’s a hereafter, and that life has
meaning because it affects the hereafter. If you’re dying since before you’re
born, what’s the big deal about death?
Answer:
nothing.
I
mentioned this, basically, because it’s such a wonderful illustration of the
schism between what JBS Haldane called the scientific
point of view, and what I’ll call the intuitive
viewpoint. The intuitive viewpoint is what seems to be “common sense”. How
flawed this “common sense” is can be understood when you consider something
that was raised to the stature of Divine Writ: the sun rises in the east and
sets in the west, therefore the sun goes round the earth. If, like Giordano
Bruno, you challenged it, you might be burned at the stake. The scientific point of view is concerned only with evidence and
testable hypotheses; it has no place for fantasies. An intuitive viewpoint can
make up whatever it wants.
To an intuitive viewpoint, life has to have
a reason to exist. As the (non-religious but spiritualist) author Richard Bach
wrote in one of his books, “Here’s a simple test to see if your mission on
earth is over. If you’re alive, it isn’t.” Personally, I have vast contempt for
Bach’s inveterate solipsism, but I shall put it aside for the moment and see what
this “mission” might be from the scientific point of view.
There’s a saying I love to quote whenever I
find anyone talking about their “purpose in life”: a chicken is an egg’s way of making another egg. Biologically your
mission on earth is to reproduce a recombinant version of your genes. You are,
basically, a means to an end – the creation of another copy of your genetic
code. Biologically, that’s all you are, and that’s all that matters. Nothing
else.
Again, this isn’t something the intuitive
point of view can accept. It’s frightening, the idea that we’re only the
expression of gene sequences, and are hardwired to recreate those sequences, like
biological robots. It’s the same attitude which recoiled in horror from the
idea that the earth was not only not
the centre of the universe, but was a minor planet revolving around a small
star on an outer spiral arm of an unremarkable galaxy. Yet that is what we are.
Where life and death are concerned, the
scientific point of view will concern itself, like on every other subject, only with facts – facts which can either be
directly detected, or can be inferred from observations and then tested for.
Recently science finally located the Higgs Boson particle, which gives mass to everything
in the universe, without which matter couldn’t exist. Yet the existence of this
particle had been inferred for a long time from observations, and experiments
were set up to detect it. It wasn’t quite found serendipitously. If, on the
other hand, it had been discovered by accident,
then the scientific viewpoint would have tested it to find out what it was and
what its position was in the scheme of things.
Yes, I’m aware that a lot of people find
science “cold” and hence frightening. But science isn’t cold or warm; it’s only
concerned with reality, as far as that term can be interpreted. If tomorrow
someone could make a case for a “soul” which survived death, which did not have
to be taken on faith but could actually be detected by instruments, its properties
predicted from observations, and the validity of the predictions checked by
independent observers, then science would be duty-bound to investigate that “soul”
and research into the “hereafter”. But unless and until someone comes up with
such a case, science has better things to do.
There’s one argument I keep coming across,
used almost exclusively by theists: “Can you prove a god doesn’t exist?” The
inference, of course, is that if one can’t prove a god doesn’t exist, then ipso
facto it exists by default. That might make sense in a courtroom where the existence
of god is the defendant, and it’s considered innocent unless proved guilty
beyond all reasonable doubt (except, of course, that to theists there can never
be “reasonable” doubt, since faith is automatically
unreasonable, even quite proudly anti-reason;
anyone who doubts me on that might want to read through the writings of St
Augustine sometime). But it doesn’t make sense to science.
To science, the burden of proof is on the “accused”,
or to be more precise on the person advancing a hypothesis. To talk about a “hereafter”
to a scientist is equivalent to talking of the existence of invisible flying
unicorns. Just as because the scientist cannot disprove the existence of invisible flying unicorns doesn’t
magically bring them into existence (uh...wait...story idea right there...down,
damn it, this is not the time), the
hereafter doesn’t exist only because science can’t prove it doesn’t. If the
person hypothesising invisible flying unicorns, however, can lay out a case for
their existence, and predictions can be made on how they can be detected and
will be found to behave, and subsequent observational data bears out these
predictions, why, then, these horned horses become subject to the scientific
point of view. But until and unless they do, they’re just pie in the sky.
Seen objectively, the scientific point of
view is not only the reasonable one,
but the only viable one from the
standpoint of any kind of morality. It doesn’t even have to do with science.
Let’s just look at the current fascination with “liberal wars”, or as they call
it, “humanitarian intervention”. In its usual form, it takes the shape of
demonising a small and defenceless country, accusing its leaders of being
freedom-hating dictatorial monsters who are keeping their people from
democracy, and proclaiming that what the nation needs is "regime change". And it is usually true that these nations are not ruled by what the “humanitarian
interventionists” would call a democracy, though it’s even more true that in
most cases these “dictators” have broad popular support, and that one can
accurately predict that “humanitarian intervention” will bring about general
social collapse and civil war.
No matter; today, war is sold as a consumer
product, with a full range of advertising pitched entirely at the emotional
level, with transparently ludicrous propaganda passed off as “fact”. Thought of
from the scientific viewpoint, lies about babies being torn out of incubators
or London being “45 minutes from destruction” are easily dismissed as lies, and
anyone trained to think scientifically will dismiss them with contempt. But to
a mass of people who not only think intuitively, but who are actively
frightened by science, atrocity stories aren’t fiction unless proof is
provided; they believe it because they can’t think objectively, and they do not want to. And they can be
stampeded into doing whatever manipulative political and religious leaders want
them to do, cheer on any invasion, swallow any lie, however outrageous; not
because they are stupid (though that is often the case) but because scientific,
logical thinking is as alien to them as the far side of the moon.
To a scientist, then, the "humanitarian intervention" is a cynical ploy which will end in disaster. To the intuitist, it's a holy and righteous mission; and it will stay that way, until the body bags start coming home, at which time the intuitist will shout that he was betrayed.
To get back to the question of life and
death, then. To the scientific point of view, since the afterlife is nonexistent
by any objective point of view, this is
all we have, and it’s incumbent on us to make the best use we have of it.
Shivering in fear of divine post-mortem punishment is as much a waste of time as
is blowing oneself up in order to get 72 virgins in paradise.
It really shouldn’t be necessary for me to
mention at this point that just as the scientific point of view seeks out hard
knowledge and revels in it, the intuitive viewpoint shies away from knowledge
and fact. Knowledge is antithetical to intuition. If not, it wouldn’t be
intuition, it would be science.
I’ll close this article with a bit of
entertaining invective directed at me back in my days on Orkut, which
illustrates not only how intuitists think, but how wilfully
ignorant they are. I was arguing with someone or other and had put forward the
advantages of viewing the universe with the eyes of science.
“You believe in science?” the other person
spluttered, indignantly. “What are you, a Scientologist?”
I rest my case.