The 3 year old atheist

[Futurama Philosopher]

I came home after work today, and my cat's kitten had died for unknown reasons. I  let out a breath of regret and unceremoniously buried the poor thing in the backyard. I was struck by the conundrum I would have been in if I had children. Would I tell the child that the kitten was going to a better place and run the risk of causing the damage possible for a belief in religion? Or would I tell my child the possibly harsh truth that nothing happens when we die? What appropriate ethical actions can you guys envision for a possible way of dealing with this point of ambiguity? 

[Pepin]

I don't know, primarily because I am unsure of the capacity for a three year old to understand the concept. I don't believe lying is an option. Perhaps no explanation is needed. Perhaps the challenge is explaining it in a way they can understand, and isn't too horrifying.

 

It would be a great introduction to the concept of the circle of life, though again, can a three year old understand that?

 

I wouldn't trust my judgement on this matter, and instead would ask a secular psychologist who specializes in child development.

 

A few articles I found on the general subject:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/developing-minds/201312/children-s-understanding-death-and-the-afterlife

http://psychcentral.com/lib/children-and-grief/000374

http://cpancf.com/articles_files/helpingchildpetloss.asp

 

One of those articles is giving me the inclination that the concept of a soul and afterlife is a childhood trait which is retained into adulthood. In a sense, it could be said that the adult never progressed past that part of their development.

[Wuzzums]

Or would I tell my child the possibly harsh truth that nothing happens when we die?

 

Why is it harsh? Nothing is nothing, neither harsh nor better. You could say that when things die they go back to the place they were in before they were born.

[tasmlab]

I came home after work today, and my cat's kitten had died for unknown reasons. I  let out a breath of regret and unceremoniously buried the poor thing in the backyard. I was struck by the conundrum I would have been in if I had children. Would I tell the child that the kitten was going to a better place and run the risk of causing the damage possible for a belief in religion? Or would I tell my child the possibly harsh truth that nothing happens when we die? What appropriate ethical actions can you guys envision for a possible way of dealing with this point of ambiguity? 

 

We had this situation with our children (age 3, 6, and 8), except it wasn't a kitten, it was grandma.  We went with the truth and nothing shocking came of it.  Kids tend to believe and except reality pretty well as they get a new dose of it at every turn.

 

I can't say the 3 year old totally gets it at all, but it's not like one explanation is more comforting than the other at this age.  Three is pretty young.

 

As an aside, I always thought the "death" conversation would be something to approach with a certain tact and elegance when they were at some higher age, but it comes out much quicker.  Somebody dies in at least half of over Disney film, they find dead animals walking on the beach, people have dead relatives, etc.  It just sort of blurts itself out around age 3-5.

[Sumeet]

I don't see why parents would need to buffer the discussion of a dead pet with "better place" platitudes, unless they have already been indoctrinating the child into some sort of religion. Absent that indoctrination, the child was already an atheist by default to begin with... after all, it's not as if the child was born with a pre-existing notion of a magical afterlife.

[J. D. Stembal]

The discomfort in the death discussion belongs entirely to the parent, not the child.

 

I know a mother who secretly bought replacement fish for her son when they died, and they died frequently, rather then explain what happened to them. After six weeks or so of this charade, she gave up and explained to her son that the fish had died. She ended up explaining to her son that everything is made out of stardust, so we are the components of dead stars that are constantly recycled and reused. You could call that the scientific hippy atheist explanation of death. While the explanation is factually true, it is thickly colored by environmentalism. This is the same mother who confirmed that anthropogenic global warming is killing the polar bear habitats when her son learned about it in second grade. He ended up freaking out on her in the car because he thought driving was effectively murdering polar bears.

 

It's the religious households that will have the hardest time discussing the death of pets and relatives. Eventually, "Does Sparky have an immortal soul?" and "Did Grandpa go to hell?" will have to also be answered or deflected.

[Cronus]

I don't believe that "he's in a better place" strictly implies heaven, I think it can be used as a euphemistic phrase. 

[ribuck]

The discomfort in the death discussion belongs entirely to the parent, not the child.

 

Exactly.

 

Telling the truth is best for the child. It doesn't need to be upsetting. You can have a warm, positive ceremony of rememberance as you bury the pet. You can plant a memorial tree above it, and explain that the nutrients will feed the cycle of life. Indeed, there is an old Asian saying: "If you want a mulberry tree to thrive, plant it over a dead donkey".

 

Children often develop a fear of death around the age of five, when they come to understand its permanence. But it's a fear of their own mortality, not a fear on behalf of their former pet kitten.

[Devon Gibbons]

Forensic Psychologist Faye Snyder's father died and her son Scott Clifton, age 5, asked where he went and she told him he went into the ground and became flowers. Upon returning from the funeral she presented her son with a rose.

 

This is a simple empirical explanation. If you composted and gardened the phenomenon would be even easier to convey. I do not think a child of 3 years old would really get it, but the periods of development in children do slide a bit so I think there'd be no harm in giving them an early experience nonetheless. 

[ribuck]

... I do not think a child of 3 years old would really get it, but ... I think there'd be no harm in giving them an early experience nonetheless. 

 

It's always good to give children information before they need it. That way, when they are ready to understand it they will feel like they "already know it". This avoids the traumatic discovery of a previously-unknown fact.

 

For example, with adopted children they should be told from the start about their adoption. It is then something that they have "always known", not a sudden and traumatic discovery.

 

The same with the nature of death. If they have always known that a dead animal goes back into the earth and becomes part of new living things, they'll apply that to their own mortality when they become aware of it. Like marginalist says, it's easiest to explain this as an incidental aside when helping children to discover how composting and gardening work.

[tjt]

Forensic Psychologist Faye Snyder's father died and her son Scott Clifton, age 5, asked where he went and she told him he went into the ground and became flowers. Upon returning from the funeral she presented her son with a rose.

 

This is a simple empirical explanation. If you composted and gardened the phenomenon would be even easier to convey. I do not think a child of 3 years old would really get it, but the periods of development in children do slide a bit so I think there'd be no harm in giving them an early experience nonetheless. 

 

This is where I am at personally when it comes to explaining death, it is comforting. I was sheltered; my parents didn't speak about death and  they prevented me from having my own experiences with death (for example, they didn't allow me to go to funerals as a child... according to them, that was no place for a child. So, frustratingly, death still freaks me out a little.

 

But anyways, after reading this post, I realize that it might not be beneficial for a small child when an adult explains death using this approach. It sort of skips over the concept that grampa is no longer grampa--he doesn't have thoughts, he's no longer conscious, his mind is not working, his body is not functioning--now it is just a corpse. So grampa did not go into the ground and become flowers, the matter that made up his body did. In this forensic psychologist's example, I feel that the rose essentially replaced heaven as the afterlife. Which could be considered comforting, but maybe a little misleading for a child. It's as if you are telling the child that grampa lives on through the rose. Well, no, he doesn't. Grampa is gone forever. I don't know, those are just my thoughts on the fly.

 

Having said all of that, for some reason I still like this explanation.

[Devon Gibbons]

This is where I am at personally when it comes to explaining death, it is comforting. I was sheltered; my parents didn't speak about death and  they prevented me from having my own experiences with death (for example, they didn't allow me to go to funerals as a child... according to them, that was no place for a child. So, frustratingly, death still freaks me out a little.

 

But anyways, after reading this post, I realize that it might not be beneficial for a small child when an adult explains death using this approach. It sort of skips over the concept that grampa is no longer grampa--he doesn't have thoughts, he's no longer conscious, his mind is not working, his body is not functioning--now it is just a corpse. So grampa did not go into the ground and become flowers, the matter that made up his body did. In this forensic psychologist's example, I feel that the rose essentially replaced heaven as the afterlife. Which could be considered comforting, but maybe a little misleading for a child. It's as if you are telling the child that grampa lives on through the rose. Well, no, he doesn't. Grampa is gone forever. I don't know, those are just my thoughts on the fly.

 

Having said all of that, for some reason I still like this explanation.

"Grampa is gone forever." - I can take that to be a little misleading for a child as well.

 

But I understand what you mean.

 

It is a very rudementary and crude sketch of a very intricately complicated virtuous ethicist. In this case, I would add that Grampa is aesthetically gone, but his principles, the true grampa, live on in what he has taught us in how to sustain ourselves and how to live morally (if he wasn't an old grouchy dick of a man. And if he was, you can nevertheless tell the kid he makes pretty flowers). 

 

For example, with adopted children they should be told from the start about their adoption. It is then something that they have "always known", not a sudden and traumatic discovery.

Yeah, and adopted children already know they are adopted unconsciously and beyond just telling them, you must treat them with more respect and create a bond that is strong enough to make up for the kids broken attachment. Fish knows when its water changes.

 

If they have always known that a dead animal goes back into the earth and becomes part of new living things, they'll apply that to their own mortality when they become aware of it. 

Precisely.

 

 

 

Hospitals, mortuaries, and morgues, graveyards - all kinds of people profit on death too. Get them to look at the bright side of things too  .

[CallMeViolet]

I really like the flower idea... but yeah it would be better to explain the life cycle with it...

Not to mention it's not true nowadays with how we prepare our dead... :| but it would be true.

I don't think it's ever good to hide death... imagine how much easier it would be to explain the death of a person provided you already explained it with a fish?

If you never give them the idea our minds and body's are separate or whatever the hell a soul is?!! Some strange mystic core being; they probably wouldn't believe in it and see themselves it's crazy when they are exposed to it.

Though you really should homeschool... You don't want them exposed to harmful crap like religious/ government indoctrination. so early on especially...