Our scientific knowledge of death remains limited. Research has focused on identifying physical changes when life ends, but what happens beyond that remains unknown. Science, for now, can only examine the body, leaving the personal experience of dying a mystery.

Despite this, societies have always found ways to define and cope with death. Without complete scientific understanding, we rely on long-standing sources—particularly religion—to shape our beliefs. Even today, in an age of scientific progress, religious views on death continue to influence billions. Major religions, including Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, teach that death is not the end of existence. This contrasts sharply with the modern social perception of death as a final end. But if neither science nor major religions support this view, where does it come from?

One possible explanation is that we trust only what we can perceive with our senses. However, since religious beliefs about life after death persist widely, this does not fully explain the shift in perception. It may instead reflect a broader societal change—one that distances people from religion and redefines death outside of both science and faith.

There is a common misconception that science and religion oppose each other in defining death. In reality, science has made great strides in understanding the body, but it has yet to prove or disprove any form of non-physical existence. Since the body clearly ceases to function at death, any continued existence would have to be non-physical—something religions have long addressed.

Psychologically, our response to death follows predictable stages, as outlined by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. When we lose a loved one, their existence ends from our perspective. But if we truly believed that death was not the end, would our grief follow the same pattern? Likely not.

Historian Philippe Ariès described how Western attitudes toward death have changed over centuries. Strikingly, society’s shift in mindset has followed the reverse pattern of personal grief adaptation. While individuals typically progress toward acceptance, culture has shifted in the opposite direction—from acceptance to denial. From the Middle Ages to the 19th century, attitudes toward death evolved through acceptance, depression, bargaining, anger, and finally denial. By the 20th century, death had become something society sought to avoid thinking about altogether under everyday circumstances.

This avoidance may also shape our broader mindset. When death is ignored, we may become more focused on short-term pleasures, living only for today. However, history suggests that society has likely gone through these cycles before—straying from and returning to an acceptance of death. Religious teachings, at various points in time, have served as reminders that death is a natural part of life.

Interestingly, Death and Adjustment Hypotheses suggest that morality declines, and materialism rises as society moves further from this acceptance. This shift has made it even harder for us to accept death. The idea of absolute cessation is challenging for humans to adjust to, and avoiding thoughts of death only delays the inevitable need to confront it.

In the end, while science continues to explore the mysteries of death, our attitudes toward it are shaped by history, culture, and belief. How we choose to understand and cope with death influences not just our grieving process, but the way we live our lives.