“”Because belief depends on hostile others, it is necessary for us as believers not to think what the others are thinking, else it could pull us across the defined boundary into another system of belief.
|
| —James P. Carse, The Religious Case Against Belief
|
Stuff I am working on[edit]
Thought experiment 1[edit]
Let's say some shit accident happens which may or may not involve death and/or personal injury. Deeply religious people will have the following responses ready at their disposal for most outcomes:
- If nobody is injured: "Thank <Insert name of deity> that everyone is fine."
- If someone died: "<Insert name of victim> is in <Insert name of Good Place for Afterlife> now.[1]" or "<Insert name of deity> likes <Insert name of victim> so much, now <Insert pronoun for the aforementioned deity> is summoning <Insert pronoun of victim> to <Insert name of Good Place for Afterlife> through this tragedy[2]."
- If someone is heavily/permanently injured/disabled: "By the <Insert name/section of scripture with similarities>, our faith is being tested; we will have unbreakable faith no matter what happens; it's in <Insert name of deity>'s plan to make <Insert pronoun of victim> stronger than ever."
Thought experiment 2[edit]
Argument: We should be happy about the death of any individual who is with a religion which asserts a good place for the afterlife (Heaven in the derivation, other religion is a matter of substitution of names)
Derivation:
- Assumption: The religion that the victim was with asserts that going to heaven after death is a good thing
- Assumption: The religion that the victim was with asserts that if one belongs to their religion, he/she goes to heaven after death
- Observation: the person died (Assumption: we don't have sufficient information on causes of death, so we assume it is within the rules).
- Conclusion from 2 and 3: The religion that the victim was with asserts that said person goes to heaven.
- Conclusion from 1 and 4: Death of said person is implicitly a good thing (from his/her own perspective)
- Inference: We should congratulate said person's family member(s) for [the belief that] said person is in heaven
What we observe people do is somehow different:
- Observation: Somehow being happy about the death of an individual is treated as if it is a bad thing, which contradicts the previous derivation.
- Suggested explanation: It is suggested that the mortals who still lives (family members) 'misses' those who are in heaven.
- Inference from 2: we should suggest them to wait for their turn, also be aware of any hidden rules regarding front-running afterlifes.
- Observation: 3 is still kind of disrespectful to the family members.
So the Dilemma is as follows:
- If we aren't happy when someone religious died, then it is disrespectful to their beliefs/religion (We are implicitly accusing that their religion is incoherent) or the individual themselves (that we implicitly accuse them breaking certain rules and not going to heaven)
- If we are happy about their death, then it is disrespectful to their family members
Some may say such things are valid, others say it is utterly ridiculous. Some even implying the general case is valid but not the specific cases.
I am confused.
Random Quote from CP?[edit]
|
Followin' yer shameless POV pushin' on Talk:Barack Obama, Andy has determined ye be a Nazi. Like all vandal site swabbies, 'tis apparent that ye be a sock of AmesG. After much debate, twas decided that ye will be blocked. Ye best t' remember that this be t'trustworthy 'cyclopedia, an' ov'rly critical comments, such as yers 'bout Phillip J. Rayment be pointless an' futile an' t'will be reverted. In conclusion, if ye think ye were blocked unfairly, an' would like to discuss this, please send me an email.
Completely insincerely, Karajou 18:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
|
|
- ↑ That also happens to be the same thing said about the <Insert name of aquatic lifeform people kept as pet>, which is then promptly flushed down the toilet.
- ↑ How would that be a tragedy if the victim is front-running the afterlife?
|
