stahrwe wrote: If that is his 'final' answer then his life had no meaning other than to accumulate fuel to power lower life forms at his death. Some look for more significance in death.

geo wrote:Here's an approximation of the man's question.

A man is condemned to death and everything taken away from him. All he has left is his reason and his sense of self. He wants to come to terms with his pending death by consoling himself that the world has order. That there is something that keeps things together. He tries to reason why he should be at peace at the time of his death. Problem is his source of origin is a belief in God. What would you do?

Fair enough. But I would question the notion that one should feel peace at the time of one's death. I keep thinking of Dylan Thomas' "Rage, rage against the dying of the light." This man is about to be executed. I'm not sure feeling peace is a reasonable or attainable goal.

Neil deGrasse Tyson's response is that he would request to be buried, not cremated, so that the energy from his body could feed the flora and fauna, just as he has dined on flora and fauna to sustain his existence.

This doesn't seem like a dodge at all. In fact, since it is a personal question—what would you do?—there's no right or wrong answer. The idea that there's order in the universe seems perfectly compatible with Neil deGrasse Tyson's worldview. Understanding the order of the universe hardly needs to be based on a belief in God.

It's a beautiful answer. Tyson feels a connectedness with the universe and he is comfortable with the idea of death to want to give back a little from what he has taken from the universe. Death is part of the cycle of life.

As Tyson once said:

We are all connected;
To each other, biologically
To the earth, chemically
To the rest of the universe atomically

I disagree with this 'connected' business. It is a fiction created to soothe fears.

'Connected to each other, biologically;' there is no difference between living on the streets of NYC and living on a remote island, with no contact with other humans?

'To the earth, chemically,' I should be able to draw nourishment through the connection without eating

'To the universe atomically,' This is Star Wars Force clap trap, sure the universe affects me but I am neither connected to it or disconnected from it anymore than I am connected to my car when I drive or my bicycle when I ride it.

Interbane wrote:

Stahrwe wrote:I disagree with this 'connected' business. It is a fiction created to soothe fears.

'Connected to each other, biologically;' there is no difference between living on the streets of NYC and living on a remote island, with no contact with other humans?

'To the earth, chemically,' I should be able to draw nourishment through the connection without eating

'To the universe atomically,' This is Star Wars Force clap trap, sure the universe affects me but I am neither connected to it or disconnected from it anymore than I am connected to my car when I drive or my bicycle when I ride it.

Stahrwe, this is rubbish. I'm baffled as to why you even have a problem with Tyson's answer. The question asked for his opinion and he gave it, as an opinion, poetically. He wasn't framing an argument. His answer was that the matter he is composed of will be used elsewhere. Nothing more. You hiss and snarl whenever an atheist gives an answer, but this answer is docile.