Grief gets an expiration date, just like us

There is a problem with rigid medical definitions. There is a huge difference between the author of this, a young pregnant woman losing her husband, and say, something like a middle aged person losing an elderly parent (as I did earlier this year). Of course it will take her far longer to recover (if at all).

I would guess her grief is not "disordered" though. As she says she functions - she works, she looks after her child, she looks after herself.

> We medicalize grief because we fear it.

Absolutely right. There is a certain cowardice in how we deal with death in the contemporary west.

Sorry for your loss, and thank you for your perspective.

>> Absolutely right. There is a certain cowardice in how we deal with death in the contemporary west.

I never thought about it but it likely stems from loss of religion, like many other problems. If I see my life as insignificant in the chain of generations - as a conduit between ancestors and descendants - and believe in the soul at least as a metaphor - then personal death or that of others is sad, but is in the context of a deeply meaningful existence.

On the other hand, if I am closer to atheistic hedonism/nihilism - there's nothing else but me and my thoughts and experiences, then my existence or non-existence takes on a very heavy weight - and we project that onto others.

All the atheistic/agnostic people I know believe they are insignificant in the grand scheme of nature, not just in the chain of generations of people.

If anything, I find religious people are the ones who believe humans are special.

I think you're right on the word level but I think there's a difference about what significance and insignificance means to these groups.

As a religious person, I see my life as insignificant compared to Gd, and compared to the chain of generations, but what I do with my life is extremely significant. As in, whether I bring children into this world and raise them well, is massively significant.

So maybe the way to say it is - religious people see themselves as insignificant in the context of much greater significance.

The other view of insignificance is that nothing is significant - including myself. I don't subscribe to that.

Do you really believe atheists are incapable of recognizing the significance of children or of caring about them?

No, I don't believe that. I valued children just as much when I was an atheist as when I became religion.

What's significant though is the PREVALENT opinion. 100% of my religious friends want and have kids, while the majority of my secular friends do not. I work in FAANG and previously in finance, so my peers are people who can certainly afford kids and are positioned to take care of them - and yet literally most are choosing to do something else.

I am not commenting on a universal attitude, I am commenting on a significant trend that I think is obvious.

>What's significant though is the PREVALENT opinion. 100% of my religious friends want and have kids, while the majority of my secular friends do not.

Do all of your religious friends subscribe to the same religion?

If so, does this religion proscribe having children and raising families as a necessary, or desired, component of the faith or community?

Because you could be confusing religion and culture here. Secular values often abrogate traditional gender and sexual norms, so secular people may not feel compelled to "be fruitful and multiply." I wouldn't ascribe that to lack of religion per se so much as not being affected by the same cultural pressures. After all, plenty of theists are essentially forced into marriage and children because it's what's expected, not because it's what they want.

I am not sure "culture" and "religion" are separable in the long run but I don't think that aligns with the point you're making.

Religious people see "be fruitful and multiply" as a literal command from G-d and one of the fundamental points of religion. So while religious culture can evolve, the evolution of this attitude isn't a flexible point.

On the flip side, secular culture has no intrinsic reason for "family values" - which is why, I think, atheist culture over time devolves to childlessness - because reasons "why not" are more immediate and in your face, vs "why yes."

So yes it's "culture" but what the culture is is obviously determined by your underlying beliefs and that which you consider eternal and that which you consider negotiable.