Hi,
Snow Leopard <juliet784@hotmail.com> writes:
This Theorem is a rule whose intention is to make your decisions *for you*. As such, I disagree with it on principle -- each decision should be made on it's own terms, with all of it's context and subtle shades. But more than that -- I'll often disagree with what the Theorem would advise. For instance, killing yourself painlessly right now will save yourself all the pain and struggle of life here on Earth (least pain) -- and get you into Heaven sooner (most benefit). According to the Theorem, killing yourself is the "better choice to take". Why do you not therefore kill yourself? (and your loved ones)
The answer, of course, is that the above guide to decisions/actions is overly general and fails to account for the richness of life (specifically the value of suffering), and the overall context of each decision: it is a mindless rule which may sometimes be helpful, but cannot (by itself) justify a decision.
(For the logically minded: rules are *conditional* statements: if this then that. Unless one also affirms the antecedent, in addition to invoking the rule, the rule provides no justification. The justification therefore comes from affirming the antecdent.)
<<
Now, even if I thought your sources were reliable in “disproving” the
validity of the Bible, even if I could believe it as truth, look at
what you stand for. If you saw a person talking to another about a
family crisis, and the listener says, “I will pray for you,” you’d
call ‘em “sick”.
>>
No. I understand perfectly where that person is coming from, and would *never* call them "sick". (although I might call them "lazy" or "self-righteous": see below) However, I might point out that rather than do something which will have a positive effect only on the doer (prayer), it might also be benefitial to do something for the sick person: send them a card, visit them in the hosptial, consult doctors, etc. etc. This way, you will not only be making yourself feel better, but also making them feel better. "Hands that help are far better than lips that pray..." (Ingersol, I think -- does anybody has a reference for me, I can't seem to find mine!) Fortunatly, most Christians do carry through on their prayers with action.
<<
On the other hand, if nothing else, it is psychologically beneficial,
to know someone is doing what they can, [which you would see as
nothing] to help a situation, or to do what you can in a situation
that otherwise cannot be affected. Better to do nothing and feel like
you’re doing something than to do nothing at all.
>>
I disagree with the last statement. That sort of empty activity -- doing nothing, but feeling good about yourself for doing it (a good example is preaching about the environment, but *doing* nothing) -- is almost evil in it's social overtones. It is a type of self-righteousness that is killing this planet. Far better that people doing nothing continue to *feel* that they are doing nothing: that might motivate them to get out there and *do something* to help us all.
<<
If there’s no God, I haven’t lost anything. I’ve gained a
peace-of-mind, and security concerning the afterlife. And if I’m
wrong, when I die, I’ll meet some all-forgiving entity that’s
open-minded and RATIONAL? Either way, I’m in good shape.
>>
This argument is known as Pascal's Wager. It basically reveals theological belief for what it is: gambling. You are wagering your valuable time (=your life essence) now for the *huge* but *unlikely* payoff of a reward in "the afterlife". Myself, I avoid gambling... especially when the payoff is so unlikely that in fact we are not sure *anybody* has *ever* won. But, Pascal's Wager is supposed to be off topic for Virus, so I'll shut up now...
ERiC