science, death-afterlifeSince atheists are most likely to have a science-based outlook on life, when it comes to their hour of death shouldn’t atheists consider giving their body to science? There’s that old joke about the funeral of an atheist, “All dressed up with nowhere to go.” Now we can say that when we die we go to medical school. Such a more worthy “afterlife”- us helping the advancement of science.
Everyone ought to at least consider it, religious or not. Whether they ought to do it will depend on many things, not least the feelings of those left behind. And of course, although many bodies are needed (at minimum, so trainee doctors etc can learn about anatomy for real before they start messing with warm, breathing specimens) they won’t accept all bodies, for a variety of reasons (certain medical conditions such as HepC for example.)
I have arranged to donate my left-overs when I’m gone, and my reason was simple - they pay for your cremation. Why would I want my family to fork out £1000+ which could be much better spent?
No, because atheism is not a system of morals that would lead you to think that you need to do anything. Someone would have to subscribe to a system that expected certain things. Secular Humanism might or might not prompt you to donate your body to science, for example.
Why? Is there something special about your body? Science only needs so many bodies. Sign your organ donor card, and don’t worry about the rest.
As phrased, the question would have be answered “no”, as would any question that asks whether all of a group should make the same personal choice on a particular issue.
Since atheism is a position on a single issue, it would be an overreach to say that atheists, as a whole, have a “science-based outlook” including the further implication they would automatically trust the scientific community with their bodies after death. You are correct to say that not all have such an outlook; there are atheists that don’t apply the scientific method evenly to their reasoning and do believe in silly things unrelated to religion–homeopathy or alien visitations, perhaps. Therefore, how can you ask if all should do something that admittedly not all agree upon?
A better question might be “Is donating one’s body to science a practice that produces tangible benefits to humanity and what, if any, are the arguments against? What qualms would a religious person have about entrusting his or her body to science and how are those different from those that believe in no afterlife?”
Being an atheist only means I do not believe in a god and has nothing to do with any views about science and even an afterlife. While a lot of atheists have a very scientific view on life there are other aspects playing a role in whether or not somebody would want to donate his/her body to science. For instance relatives that are left behind might not be able to cope with the thought of having scientists cut into what they once considered their loved one and therefore their views should be considered as well since they are the ones having to cope after your death.
I agree with @Satanicpuppy. While your aims are valiant, they are most likely in vain.
On the other hand, there is no excuse whatsoever for a rational thinking person not to carry an organ donor card on their person. Not doing so is utterly antisocial.
I think everyone should consider leaving their body to whatever would do the most good: organ donation, or scientific research. And why should your surviving family or friends have to waste money on something pointless like embalming or cremation?
This is not really because of atheism, but humanism.
Already signed up!
It took quite a bit of doing, even in the UK.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.