Latest Post
The Moral Ambiguities resulting from 'Heaven'
I don't believe in Heaven. The reason people do - in fact, the reason anyone believes in any kind of afterlife - is relatively clear to me, though. The simplest way to explain it, without meaning to be crass, is that Heaven is simply wishful thinking; it is an idea created by humans to fill a gap, popularised as a reward to sweeten the deal. I certainly don't want to die, which is a sentiment I would conjecture the majority of humans share - but if I'm not going to die, there has to be somewhere for me to go when I 'appear' to die, right? Not necessarily. Naturally, any form of scrutiny renders the idea of heaven idea fallacious. Wanting something that is impossible on human terms will not increase the odds of it actually happening, however much we might persuade myself that it will. This is all by the by - the point I want to make is, can the idea of an afterlife actually be harmful? On a personal so-called 'spiritual' level perhaps not, but for humanity as a whole, it poses some interesting moral questions. Consider the following thought experiment. You are presented with two beings, identical in all but their lifespan. The first is predicted to live for fifty years, the second for fifty thousand. Both are wrongly accused of a crime, the penalty for which is fifty years of incarceration, without compromise. You are allowed to select one to go free. No genuine moral person would pause for thought at this point. The answer is most definitely that the first being, with the shortest lifespan, should be freed - his incarceration would take him up until his death, while the second being would only serve a thousandth of his life imprisoned unjustly. One message that could be taken from this scenario is that we are more likely to take action to help a person in need when their suffering is all they will ever know, when there is nothing for them afterwards. The natural counter to this is that a religious believer considers any human worthy of heaven, if they earn their place; yet the fact is that without heaven, we are not given an excuse to allow unnecessary suffering of any kind. One only has to look at the long list of celebrated religious martyrs (Jesus is the one example everyone knows - hanging on a cross for three days would have been slightly more difficult to bear if the place he was so damned eager to go didn't exist) to see thatthe idea of heaven is a moral brick wall - one which impairs the human ability for reason.
Featured Post
"Finland School Shootings: The Sad Evolution Connection" I'll pause to let you observe that heading for a second. This is the latest attack on evolution - AnswersInGenesis.org have asserted that Pekka-Eric Auvinen was not out of his mind, he was simply a Social Darwinist. Out of respect for the dead, I'm surprised they even tread near this topic, shamelessly using a tragedy to attempt to give evolution a bad name. Could it ever be possible for both sides of this so-called debate to stop reasoning based on the heinous acts of historical figures, or even modern day people, who have simply got it wrong? Even if the inquisition was in the name of Christianity, or if Hitler was an atheist, they're both completely irrelevant. I'm no Christian myself, but I at least recognise that those who do believe in a god mostly have the best in mind, and do have sound moral principles. Similarly, atheists don't feel empty inside, or lacking something. But this is an entirely seperate discussion; the point is, if religion or atheism should be criticised, it should be on the basis on whether it is rational - or not - to believe in an all powerful entity. - Daniel
Welcome to BlueSunCorp
Various thoughts from the minds of Daniel Brain and Richard Davidson
Recent Posts
