So,
I have karate practice and then I need to update my resume. I've been invited to apply for a position in civilization. Following that, it's back to work on the kitchen. Luckily for me, Lenore from top online colleges offered to write a guest post. As you can see, I have taken her up on her offer. Enjoy.
The Dangers of an Afterlife
The other day, I got involved in a good old-fashioned religious war over the internet. Normally I try not to waste my time too much on these matters as most people have no choice that they're irrational idiots (let me rephrase to say that not all religious people are irrational idiots, just the vocal ones who shamelessly press their beliefs upon everyone else). But I think it's important to raise awareness and promote a healthy questioning of one's beliefs.
Anyway, at some point in the argument, I got to talking about how life is infinitely important, to which some guy responds, asking why we should "ascribe any importance at all to this life?" Seriously? I wasn't sure if he actually believed the implications of his question or was just attempting to peel into my own beliefs, but either way, his mere suggestion was absurd.
I began explaining that if you can't value this life, the concept of value must be nonexistent. I go on to say that not appreciating the value of life is a disservice to society, which he also questions. Finally I decide to pull out the big guns and laid down this verbose rant:
The ability to value anything is predicated on being alive in the first place; therefore your question was absurd to begin with. Valuing anything at all without valuing life itself is completely intellectually inconsistent, so to question why we should value life is to question why we should value anything at all. Suffice it to say that I think that's a silly discussion to have. Now you are questioning the seemingly innocuous assertion that valuing life makes you more likely to positively impact your society. Who could disagree with that?
The argument shortly derailed after that. I went on to continue valuing my own life and live in a way that reflected that system of value while my internet opponent continued to live in coherence with a system created thousands of years ago that promises a paradoxically perfect and eternal life in exchange for (apparently) not valuing his current life.
Why is it that, in most arguments involving religion, religious people ask these super foundational questions when the irony is that questioning foundational assumptions is what usually causes people to deny their religions? It doesn't bother me at all when people pray, but it does bother me when prayer, rather than action, is all someone needs to absolve their conscience.
Of all the reasons to be religions, being granted a perfect afterlife seems to be the absolute worst. It just seems to have a "screw everyone else on the planet, I'm going to Harvard (or Yale or Heaven or whatever the hell they call it)" type of attitude to it. We have enough cultural elites telling us how to live as it is, I'd rather not have yet another group of people tell me why I need to get involved in yet another pyramid scheme.
This guest contribution was submitted by Lenore Holditch, who specializes in writing about top online colleges. Questions and comments can be sent to: holditch.lenore @ gmail.com.
Recent Comments