= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jack comments on We prosecute CEOs for failing to do due diligence. But with people, we call it 'faith' - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (40)
It's problematic that the case of Josephine is the least realistic of all the examples. Religious people, in my experience, never believe that killing has no moral consequence. On the contrary, they often believe murder would get them sent to a very nasty end of the afterlife.
I don't know how unrealistic it is.
Josephine's reasoning is exactly the reasoning Muslim suicide bombers offer for their willingness to inflict "collateral damage" by setting off explosions that kill both infidels and Muslims. Also, medieval justifications for torturing heretics (so they'll recant and therefore avoid the greater harm of going to Hell).
Either that or if they kill people that those with power in their tribe consider enemies they will get an awesome after life!
Yes, though "killing people that powerful tribe members call enemies" doesn't seem to require any superstitions. I'm unsure about how belief in reward/punishment afterlives (that map onto social beliefs about morality) actually alters behavior. Presumably it makes people more fervent but I'm not so sure (witness Marxism).
I don't think you need to be superstitious to commit the fallacy of choosing a belief that is less accurate intentionally. All you need to do is buy into the meme that all belief is good. I know plenty of atheists-by-default who still think that there's nothing odd about intentionally choosing to believe something arbitrary.
Of course not. In the same way not killing people doesn't require any superstitions.
Yes.