Brown
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 12,984
Barbara Walters of ABC News (USA) aired a report about people's beliefs about heaven.
My reaction is that the report was interesting. Many were interviewed, and a number of conclusions seemed pretty clear:
I cannot imagine making any single decision of immense importance where there is such an absence of knowledge upon which to base the decision.
Moreover, the report left me scratching my head as to what benefit there may be in belief in heaven. Some said it was comforting, others said it changed one's behavior (but not necessarily for the good, as illustrated by some of the interviewees), others said it was useful for explaining things to children. Even assuming that the concept is useful for these or other purposes, it would seem strange to adopt a concept that is designed to prevent people from facing reality.
Walters asked some hard questions, but they weren't too hard. She could have been more pointed while still being polite. Some Buddhists hold that those who are born deformed deserved it. Some Christians, if pressed, will say that every person who does not believe as they do will be condemned to hell, without exception, and tough titty for them.
The killjoys, of course, are the atheists. They were the ones who were most seriously challenged about their proof for an absence of heaven, and the response was appropriate: the burden of proof is on the one asserting the existence of heaven to prove it. No one else seemed to be seriously challenged about proof. Faith was deemed just as valid as knowledge.
Skeptical voices such as that of Susan Blackmore were more palatable, but no one wants to hear that heavenly experiences have a physiological explanation.
My reaction is that the report was interesting. Many were interviewed, and a number of conclusions seemed pretty clear:
- No one has any objective proof that there is a heaven;
- There considerable disagreement as to what heaven is like;
- There is hardly any agreement as to what a person must do to get to heaven;
- There is no consensus as to those who will be excluded from heaven;
- Belief in heaven does not necessarily lead people to engage in good conduct;
- If heaven exists, it is a very nice place, although there is no agreement about what would make it nice.
I cannot imagine making any single decision of immense importance where there is such an absence of knowledge upon which to base the decision.
Moreover, the report left me scratching my head as to what benefit there may be in belief in heaven. Some said it was comforting, others said it changed one's behavior (but not necessarily for the good, as illustrated by some of the interviewees), others said it was useful for explaining things to children. Even assuming that the concept is useful for these or other purposes, it would seem strange to adopt a concept that is designed to prevent people from facing reality.
Walters asked some hard questions, but they weren't too hard. She could have been more pointed while still being polite. Some Buddhists hold that those who are born deformed deserved it. Some Christians, if pressed, will say that every person who does not believe as they do will be condemned to hell, without exception, and tough titty for them.
The killjoys, of course, are the atheists. They were the ones who were most seriously challenged about their proof for an absence of heaven, and the response was appropriate: the burden of proof is on the one asserting the existence of heaven to prove it. No one else seemed to be seriously challenged about proof. Faith was deemed just as valid as knowledge.
Skeptical voices such as that of Susan Blackmore were more palatable, but no one wants to hear that heavenly experiences have a physiological explanation.
