I. Death is an inevitable outcome of our lives. It is an empirical experiment with practically 100% yield [1]. Whoever lives will die. Death is an event of termination of the physical existence we know as "biological life". Nobody has ever escaped such termination of life—the physical death.

Therefore, death is one of the most reliable empirical results. In its persistence it exceeds many things one considers permanent: The sun may not rise again tomorrow (induction problem), but we will die.

II. Death is ultimately connected with life. There is no death without association with life. And although life can be thought of as eternal (the Hereafter, Paradise), the death comes only when there is a life, a form of existence. Thus, life is a prerequisite for death, it is a necessary condition for it.

So "What is life?". It is death. It is not completely death, but it is necessarily defined by death among other things, and since it makes life cease, we argue it is the most important part of the definition. What is your life? It is death. Perhaps, it is not the first thing coming to one's mind when asked such a question.

The suffering increases, and before he can turn around the patient discovers what he already knew: the thing he had taken for a mere indisposition is in fact the most important thing on earth to him, is in fact death (Leo Tolstoy, Confession).

III. So do not waste your time thinking that some idea (technology), some mere belief will make you unreachable for death. Rather most of the ideas will vanish with time (another reliable empirical result), but death will stay. Start thinking already now!

We are all terminal, the only question is: How much time do we have? (a popular movie).

You may find useful the following: Death: Practical conclusions and exercises

[1] Due to the finite sample it can never reach 100% in theory, but in practice it does.

Read more

(still a draft, to be continued shortly)

Amputation is inevitable

The patient is losing his limb to gangrene. Amputation is inevitable. The doctor has it done.

A few months later, the patient sues the doctor for he is responsible for patient's loss of the limb.

Conclusion 1: The right thing to do may not be pleasant.

Conclusion 2: When judging an action, look for possible necessities for it. In this case, ends justify means as nothing is lost via the means (amputation), except already gangrenous, whereas the ends bring benefit.

Conclusion 3: The patient is logical in his arguments! Unfortunately, being logical is not enough (contrary to everyday claims, such as: "Please, be logical!", "Let us logically decompose the argument.", "To defy logic" [1], etc…; see also Logico-Empirical chains)

Understanding the problem of Death and acting upon that understanding is that painful amputation needed to remove gangrenous delusions about life in order to lead a logically congruent and empirically solid existence.

It is no longer belief

Once the patient knows their diagnosis, they no longer believe, but face the truth. Once one faces the truth, they only have a choice: submit to it or continue as if ignorant of it. One can no longer justify the actions by saying: "I believe it is true." It is gangrenous, you know it is. So the choice is yours!

(See also below, when the patient knows not their diagnosis)

Religion enters the stage

Imagine you are reading a Scripture, your friend passes by and looks at you with wide open eyes, perplexed by the surrealism of the scene, almost smiling inside at the simpleton-friend of his who somehow evaded the achievements of science and the world of high-tech joys, childish ancient fairy tale lover become you in his eyes, he portrays you praying to a white-bearded gentleman somewhere on a cloud, observing cumbersome rituals that lead to neither profit nor bodily pleasures, so his ego cannot resist to remark: "What are you doing? And why???"

We started our Tutorial on Death using purely empirical evidence, we continued by necessity arguments and arrived at beliefs. Many people would start justifying beliefs with other beliefs only to multiply the arguments. First things first!

What we came to know during this exercise is that if you are concerned with problems of death and life, you are probably the most sane human being out there, because you ask questions about the existence itself, before asking Google about the top 10 places to visit before you die. So, the question "WHY" should be addressed to those strange aliens walking on the street, constantly distracted in their gadgets, and having no clue, although all necessary intellectual instruments to understand the problem are given to all of them. First things first!

Empirically, it seems that only that vast realm we call religion and spirituality deals somewhat consistently with Death. Indeed, what else in those vast prairies of knowledge is but concerned with life and death together. Thus, as far as these pages are concerned, religion will be defined as one dealing with the problem of Death necessarily. First things first!

And as a consequence of this necessity, it follows that religion must be conjugate to beliefs associated with things after death (or after life), which is indeed the case normally (thus, reinforcing the veracity of our definition). We know that tradition, spirituality, law, culture are typical lexicon one expects to describe religions. On contrary, we dare to postulate the very first value of any true religion: Invariably, religion is what we invoke when we want to appreciate death, life, after-life, and beliefs. First things first!

False start when criticizing religion

Perhaps, due to this perceived understanding of religions in established terms, the critics of religion stumble time and time again upon the very same issue: They start their polemic around things secondary to the main problem.

If religion solves the first problem to be solved, why to criticize the particulars. Specially, when you cannot come up with a better alternative of the solution.

They see the dots that sometimes fall off the area of their understanding (or shall we say desires?), but fail to realize that the dots are but the tips of the branches all connecting down to the trunk. Because they see the crown in aerial view over a plane, the branches appear to be randomly scattered depending on the surrounding and conditions of the country, but the tree has a 3D structure with the trunk solid and rooted firmly in one place.

By cutting the branches, they believe to uproot the tree, and this is only an illusion.

Pseudo-religions

In the vast prairies of former communist countries where atheism was spread widely, appeared a movement that is genuinely concerned with Life & Death. They are troubled by the fact that everything goes blank with death for an individual (Sheer Void). Luckily, there is this thing called Evolutionism that postulates that everything is developing and improving. So we are just cogs and wheels in this huge machinery of Evolution and when we die we have served our purpose for the best of the world that continues to evolve after us to some distant but surely worthy goal.

What is problematic with this reasoning? Even after death, it still connects you with this life we all know. You believe you are gone and blank, so nothing in this life will be of any concern to you whatsoever, because there is no you! It could be, however, a valid purpose in life to contribute to the development of the world while living (be it even with your own genes, as these adherents may believe).

Fake religions will have some of the following attributes regardless of their rhetorical support (Evolution, Scientism, Humanism, Radicalism…):

• They negate the fact of death, by mere rejection of the empirical evidence: Some believe they will never die or can live forever, both of which are yet to be shown empirically.
• The aim of their existence is within this life: Death for them is mere nuisance, not an opening or revelation. It brings them to the realisation of an end, but logical incapacity turns them back to life.
• They confuse the purpose in life with the aim of life as defined on these pages (see Purpose-vs-goal) — an easily made confusion, unless the terms are rigorously defined [2].

Indeed, many common people do one of these mistakes when reasoning about death. But the movements that arise following these mistakes are many too. Beware fake religions!

Cultural religions

This type of religions is not even a religion. If you follow your forefathers or anyone from your culture without giving slightest consideration as to why and what for, this is a form of nationalism/patriotism and ultimately a doomed thing to do.

Verily, if you think that your culture (nation, race, village, community, ideology or anything like that) is superior to all others, think about all other cultures (nations, races, villages, ideologies or anything like that) that thought likewise in history or continue to think elsewhere on the planet. Their claim is exactly like yours. If they claim the same and do not understand the superiority of your culture (that is, no doubt, best for you), what makes you think you are not falling into the same trap by not understanding them?

Starting wrong is in our culture

We call it professionalism. It is that professionalism that is instilled in our hearts during our upbringing with the aim of getting a career. Everything in the society is made to promote this highly tailored set of skills facilitating economical progress of a sort. The most gifted with skills get all the rewards (Nobel prize, Knighting and Sir-ing etc.) and sometimes think they can expand their narrow minded approach beyond the dedicated application area. And Life and Death are just subjects to these expansion efforts.

In itself, the professionalism is not a bad idea, but it is exactly when the application is expanded that we see the wrong tool applied to the problem. The situation is accentuated given the educational system no longer supports skills needed to deal with the problem.

For example, a simpleton who knows basics in logic would spot these ill-attempts easily. The good example is attempts by various professional narrow-minds to define life: "What is Life?" — the book title that floods the shelves of intellectuals. One time you'll find on those pages that Life is about existence of protein-based bodies, some other time that it is a struggle to pass your genes down to your descendants, yet another – a way to satiate your appetites. Some books will tell you about intellectual life, others about artistic. Yet others will tell about life in prison or life in sin, or life on a deserted island, or life of a civilization. So, our simpleton, given the same name the authors give to their subject, may ask "What is the definition of Life, Sir?". Is it that kind of life when we say "Robert, poor soul, had no life at all!" or "Magdalena had a life, full of glory!"?

None of these professionals passes a simple test a common student of a grammar school should be able to conduct. The implications, it seems, are numerous, but they are all too dangerous for the societies to continue this ill-equipped attempts on Life. For one, consider another simpleton who passes by a book of the sort and becomes curious of the subject — it is so interesting to know what the progress has brought in understanding of Life! — only to discover that he is just a collection of cells that eat, excrete, communicate, and sometimes rebel against the body. He may also find that his existence is pointless because passing genes, i.e. having more kids, is not in his plans.

Will he come across another book with the same name but written by an astrophysicist or theatrical critic? Maybe. But certainly, he will exhaust his effort long before he can comprehensively study all of these narrow-minded attempts on Life.

These authors have their desires above everything else! These authors are not social beings! These authors deserve isolation in the dark impenetrable corners of academia! [3] They are just millers who are distracted by the circumstances (see Miller effect).

Check your world against data

So far we have been discussing the situations when the gangrene of life is appreciated. The patient is already with the doctor knowing his verdict.

What about the patients that have not yet realised their pathology? In this situation, epistemological methods come into play.

The very basic of them all is to check your world view against data. When you enter a train, do you not check the destination? When you enrol in a course, do you not check its objectives? When you buy shoes, do you not fit them first on your feet? When you have problems with your hands, does it not make sense to inquire into them and to ask to see a doctor?

So, why do we not inquire into the most fundamental problem of life with all our effort? Why do we continue to live as we find appropriate when the world around us cries incessantly with data about our inconsistencies.

(P.S. There is always a possibility to choose ignorance at all cost. Not only can you be ignorant of your gangrene, but you could care less about treating it. Study the basic reactions to the gangrene in Four groups by Leo Tolstoy)

Afterword

Clearly, religion is much-much more than the definitions presented in this study. More yet, I am not even sure we will be using the word "religion" consistently throughout these pages because all religions, true or fake, need to be mentioned and because inventing a new word for our definitions does not seem practical. However, it is important to understand this quality of "true" religions that deals with the most basic necessity of life. It is necessary attribute of all religions, yet far from being sufficient.

Finally, we have yet not said how religion resolves the problem of death, except that it only appreciates all necessary elements involved in the problem: life, death, rational existence, necessity of belief. This, however, requires further studies.

[1] Strictly speaking, defying logic invalidates an argument as logic is a necessary condition, but having a logical argument does not make it valid, as logic is not a sufficient condition.

[2] We do not insist on the terms, but on their meaning. Their confusion is with the meaning.

[3] If you wonder why they deserve all of these, you may want to have a look at The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis, where he argues why these attempts are agenda to rationalize irrationalizable by following any desire any given moment in history gives allowance to progress on.

Read more

The miller effect in reasoning refers to situations when one ("the miller", see below) replaces the primary question or goal of reasoning ("the mill") with secondary questions and goals ("the river") and answers the secondary questions or pursues the secondary goals as if they were primary ("the river is the mill itself") or as if the primary ones did not exist. The miller effect also creates an illusion of the answer, definitiveness, and certainty, since something is really answered. In other words, the miller effect is not (necessarily) a logical flaw.

This effect is illustrated with the following:

Let us imagine a man whose only means of subsistence is a mill. This man, the son and grandson of a miller, knows well by tradition how to manage all parts of the mill so that it grinds satisfactorily. Without any knowledge of mechanics he adjusts the machinery as best he can, so that the flour is well ground and good and he lives and earns his keep.

But having heard some vague talk of mechanics, he begins to think about the arrangement of the mill and to observe what makes what turn.

From the mill-stones to the rind, from the rind to the shaft, from the shaft to the wheel, from the wheel to the sluice, to the dam, and to the water, he comes to the conclusion that everything depends on the dam and the river. And he is so delighted by this discovery that instead of testing the quality of the flour as he used to, and raising or lowering the mill-stones, clamping them, and tightening or loosening the belt, he begins to study the river. And his mill falls quite out of order. People begin to tell him he is making a mistake, but he disputes this and continues to reason about the river. And he concerns himself so much and for so long a time with this, and discusses it so eagerly and hotly with those who point out the mistake in his way of thinking, that at last he convinces himself that the river is the mill itself.

To all proofs of the error of his reasoning such a miller will reply: 'No mill grinds without water, so to know the mill one must know how to let the water run, one must know the force of its current and where it comes from—in a word, to know the mill you must get to know the river.'

The miller's argument is logically irrefutable. The only way to undeceive him is to show him that what is most important in any argument is not so much the argument itself as the place it occupies, that is to say, that to think effectively it is essential to know what one should consider first and what later. He must be shown that a rational plan of activity differs from an irrational one in that its elements are arranged in the order of their importance: which should come first, second, third, tenth, and so on, while irrational plans lack that sequence. It is also necessary to show him that the decision of this order is not fortuitous, but depends on the purpose for which the activity is planned.

This ultimate aim also determines the sequence in which the separate reflections should be arranged so as to be sensible. An argument not connected with the end in view is absurd, however logical it may be.

The miller's aim is to grind well, and this aim, if he keeps it in view, will determine for him the indubitable order and sequence of his reflections about the mill-stones, the wheel, the dam, and the river.

Without such reference to their aim, the miller's reflections, however fine and logical and beautiful in themselves, will be false, and, above all, meaningless: they will be like the speculations of Gogol's Kifa Mokievich, who calculated what the thickness of an elephant's egg-shell would be if elephants were hatched from eggs, like birds.

And such, in my opinion, are the discussions of our contemporary science about life.

(Leo Tolstoy, On Life)

Read more

Sheer void as belief

The purpose of the whole life (its goal) is necessarily associated with a belief as it is apprehended only after death (see elsewhere).

But what if I say that my belief about the end of life is sheer void? What if life has nothing afterwards, nothing tangible after death?

To address this, let us first make an important remark following general logical considerations.

Remark 1: The necessity of belief associated with the end of life does not equate to having any belief about what comes after death. This condition, being defined broadly, does not stipulate presence of inconsistent or wrongly posited beliefs. So beliefs, although a must in this context, have to be properly defined.

Void after death, no goal of life

If we assume absolute emptiness and sheer void after death, we have to necessarily conclude that the goals to be measured up against do not exist either: Nothing means nothing.

No result of the activity of life can be anticipated with such a belief. Therefore, this activity becomes without a goal. Any activity without a goal cannot be called rational.

Conclusion 1: The belief in Sheer Void after death is not rational.

Empirical tests

Test 1: slap in the face

Imagine now a person confronting you and telling you that they are believers in sheer void after life. Imagine, too, that you could slap such a person in the face. What would their reaction be?

Will they respond, for example, in the form of a counter slap or a curse on your name, or a suit in the court of law?

Any similar-in-kind reaction prompted by the slap would indicate a liar. Indeed, if they truly believed in sheer void, nothing in this life would ever be appealing to them, since they would know an ultimate destroyer of everything of this life, death. They value this life or something in it, which is altogether inconsistent with the belief in sheer void.

Conclusion 2: The true belief in Sheer Void after death, although irrational (see Conclusion 1), sometimes may delude. In this case, if an individual under the delusion values anything or anybody of this life, they behave irrational (hence, they are doubly irrational in the light of Conclusion 1).

Another type of reaction prompted by the slap can be submission: the subject of your experiment submits himself to the pain and humiliation of the ego, he has no reaction to the aggressor, no bad feelings at all. He lives completely up to the understanding of the problem of death. But… he has no strength to finish a joke we call life (this is the solution of "weakness" according to Leo Tolstoy).

Their misery is understandable, the absurd of their position is inevitable.

Remark 2: There is very little of black-and-white in matters of belief. For example, people believing in God commit crimes in sheer contradiction to the divine law. Here, we enter the realm of compassion and empathy, rather than logical or empirical. We are not machines and we are weak too… However, the arguments of this essay concern mainly people pertaining to ardent opposition of anything believable or going beyond this life, people who deem themselves super-rational at times and those opposite them not rational at all…

Test 2: inheritance law

One of the greatest minds in the history of humanity, Al-Ghazali, gives the following example.

When faced with the question of life and its purpose, people promptly refer to the greatest of the great: the Ancient Greeks, Romans, Renaissance, Humanism, Absolutism, Relativism, Rationalism, Empiricism, Positivism, Darwinism at last. Well, even they have not concluded anything positive about anything after life, we can but follow the great minds of humanity.

However, when an ignorant peasant is deprived of inheritance by his own father and told to believe that his closest next of kin made a will to give all his possession to an unknown person, this peasant seeks the proof: what did his father write in the will? who were the witnesses? who was the solicitor? had the solicitor enough expertise (maybe, even asking another solicitor to double-check)? how much was granted to that third person? how much did his father have?

But why? This very peasant a minute ago was "stoically" defending the Ancient Greeks' position on the afterlife?

The answer is very simple. When you are not interested, when something does not concern you or worse it hampers anything that attracts you, you invent excuses, you make irrelevant queries and make prompt inconsistent conclusions. In other words, you renounce your own intellect. (Al-Ghazali does not even consider the Sheer Void as an intellectually valid position due to its foundations in desires.)

Conclusion 3: Desires and whims of the ego (that is, something that strongly interests and attracts you) are the main barriers to the objective thinking.

Example 1: A counter-example for the earlier peasant could be a highly educated intellectual (e.g., PhD, MD, and MBA in one person) pondering on the meaning of life with a glass of Romanée-Conti and a piece of Epoisses de Bourgogne, reciting effortlessly here and there from Stoics, Plato, Nietzsche, and Schopenhauer. Desires afflict everyone.

Read more

1. Purpose vs. goal of life

The purpose of life is that meaning and significance that a human being imparts to his life and that influence the way one should live his life to attain a happy life (without defining the latter). In fact, the definition of what constitutes a happy life makes difference in what people consider their personal purposes in life. Example: my purpose of life is to teach children, to heal people, to become one of the best surgeons, to earn money for helping people in need, to become a president.

The goal of (the entire) life, on the other hand, is the final result of one's life, its outcome, the destination and result of all life's activities. This result justifies a human life, motivates a human being, and tells why and what he/she lives for, what he/she tries to achieve at the end of life, what he/she strives for.

Conclusion 1: According to these definitions, the purpose of life is about the process, the way we live our lives, whereas the goal of life is for the end of it, its final result.

Corollary 1: The goal, pursued in life, may create a purpose in one's life. Similarly, the goal of the entire life may create a purpose for the whole life.

Remark 1: The goal is being defined here broadly: This is a strife, desire, and yearn after some outcome that is anticipated in the end of some activity. The purpose of life though one should understand narrowly here, that is a purpose limited to this life. At this point, we do not define purpose of (entire) life, as this will be ultimately connected to the goal of life and, hence, requires additional analyses, left for the future considerations. Note also, semantically the word "purpose" may have plenitude of meanings, including "goal" itself. That is why, we restrict the meaning of these terms in the given context.

2. Importance of the end

The end of any activity is the most important as it motivates any rational being, like humans. For any activity one has to determine why he does that and what he is trying to achieve. And this will be the reason one does something.

Why do you go to the university? I want to get a diploma. If you do not get the diploma, the mission fails. The idea of getting the diploma keeps you going towards the goal.

Why do you go to the university? I want to get smarter. If you do not get the diploma, the mission can be still a success, because you want eventually to get smarter (regardless of the means you take to measure smartness).

Why do you go shopping? I want to have bread on my table. If you get a new pair of shoes, the mission fails, because your goal was to get some bread.

Conclusion 2: Deeds are made and measured by their ends. Some result(s) is anticipated in the end of any activity.

Corollary 2: Any activity ends with its goal being achieved or being in principle unachievable (perhaps, that is why linguistically "end" is equal to "goal" sometimes).

Remark 2: Going outside to have fresh air "out of sheer idleness" cannot be in essence without an end, because "having fresh air" is the end in this situation. The sheer idleness would be only irrational and possible for distracted persons. Same with mere love for doing something, like painting, woodcarving, playing football, there will be an end/goal for any such activity as well. This goal justifies the activity, however irrational or personal it is on a larger scale. This is true for the whole range of other "instinctive" activities, the goal of which may not be present all the time or in any particular moment of time in the head of men, but nonetheless each such activity has its own goal. It is important to note that the goal does not only exist in a very reasoned activity (such as goals of a project or educational goals), but also in acts undertaken rather subconsciously. In the latter case, the goal might be motivated by an emotional rush, inner feeling, instinct, aptitude or mere caprice, all of them having a goal defined sensibly or otherwise. In laboratory experiments, it was shown that human beings tend to justify their actions and name their reasons, even if these actions were stimulated from outside, for example, using brain stimulation (one lifts his arm after direct stimulation of his brain, yet the subject explains why he lifted the arm). Therefore, we justify our actions that are not even ours.

3. The end of life

The life's goal lies ultimately at its end or beyond, death. Whether the goal is achieved or not cannot be evident before death, that is while living. Therefore, what sometimes is called the goal of one's life cannot be considered as such, if it is in principle achievable during one's life.

To become a president cannot serve as the goal of your life, since if you become a president, the goal is achieved, but you are still alive and your life is now without this particular goal, hence it is not the goal of your entire life.

Conclusion 3: The goal of one's life is beyond life itself, at the very least is at its end, death.

Corollary 3: Note that the goal of life palpably affects the way you live your life, that is your purpose in life. However, the purpose in life affects what you achieve as its goal only in belief. In other words, what you consider as a goal for whole your life will perceptibly change the way you live. But one can only believe that the way of living will change the ultimate result, the goal of life (after death).

Remark 3: Your life may have some smaller goals which rather relate to the purpose of your life and which can be achieved through life. However, these cannot be the goal…

4. The end of life and belief

1. A rational being is characterized by justifying any work he does with the goal he strives for.

2. The goal of life lies uncompromisingly beyond life itself.

3. Anything beyond life and its experiences belongs to the realm of beliefs and tenets, as there is no empirical evidence of anything beyond death.

Conclusion 4: A rational living being must have beliefs about the ends life might have.

Corollary 4: Empirical evidence is able to necessitate beliefs.

Remark 4: Leo Tolstoy in his Confession [1] arrives at the similar conclusions epitomized by the following questions, re-phrases of "the question of life", "the simplest question lying in the soul of every human being", "the question without which life is impossible":

What will come of what I do today and tomorrow? What will come of my entire life? Why should I live? Why should I wish for anything or do anything? Is there any meaning in my life that will not be destroyed by my inevitably approaching death?

[1] This work is especially valuable as it summarizes human knowledge on the subject (perhaps, with the stress on the Western-Christian thought and fairly extensive emphasis on the Eastern traditions). Tolstoy was not merely speculating, because for him this question of life became as vital as breathing and eating, and sleeping.

Read more

If there exists a result of the whole life, it becomes apparent only outside of the time span between birth and death (in particular, after life, that is death; see in detail End of Life). Moreover, any reasonable activity, such as life, must have such a goal, necessarily defined through belief (Importance of goal and End of life and belief) [1].

So, how do they live, those who reckon life as having no ends? Is there any reasonable activity throughout life that justifies it given its imminent destruction?

Whatever the reason some people continue to live denying the necessity to acknowledge anything live after death, these reasons cannot be but absurd and sheer illogic (see in detail End of Life.

Here, we put some popular views on the subject for the sake of example. These examples highlight the general rules derived from the simple fact of death and serve as generalizations more or less common universally throughout cultures and ages.

Leo Tolstoy [2] puts the following four categories:

1. Ignorance. This does not even realize the question of life.
2. Epicureanism. This realizes hopelessness of life and tries to enjoy all the blessings we have without asking where to and what for.
3. Weakness. This realizes the question but waits. It does not have enough strength to act rationally.
4. Strength. This realizes the question and chooses death. Unusually strong and logically consistent people choose this path.

It is obvious that weakness as well as strength solve the problem logically correctly, if one does not assume or believe in the ends after life. The only difference is in practical consistency, rather than in the intellectual honesty.

It is true further that ignorance does not see the problem and ignores it (see also Note 1 below).

Therefore, only Epicureanism is seemingly happy with life, but is it logically so? Can we call it rational?

The true epicureanism tries to enjoy everything it does. In this case, pleasure is the aim of every activity in life and cannot be the aim of the whole life (as shown before). However, if the maximal enjoyment is the goal of the whole life, then this conclusion must be justified by means of beliefs (see earlier), because whether one succeeded in having maximal pleasure of life or not is to be known after life, earliest at death. Therefore, the true epicureanism either believes in something after life, or falls into ignorance about the question of life and thus becomes illogical.

Note 1: More recently, there is a movement of "positive thought" which holds that if you think positively ignoring negative thoughts, such as thoughts about diseases, bad luck, failures, you will be safe from them. Naturally, such positive thinking extends to death, yet empirically whether one thinks or not about it, death reaches everyone.

[1] Note that even if one thinks that life does not necessarily have a goal, they do it out of belief. In other words, they believe that life has no goals. Thus, it is a sheer belief, for example, that there is no life after death.

[2] Confession, Leo Tolstoy.

See also:
End of life | Death | Confession

Read more