= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
atomliner comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! (5th thread, March 2013) - 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 (1750)
Those are good examples. Though I guess whether this is possible depends on your definition of "forget". Speaking of the Spanish Inquisition, I am of the opinion that the Inquisitors did not forget their core tenets but that further knowledge (however flawed) gave them new means to interpret the original tenets. You could suggest that this re-interpretation was exactly what Jesus wanted to keep people from doing, of course. The question I ask Christians, then, is "What knowledge is acceptable and how should it be attained when God doesn't encourage the utilization of all knowledge?" This would certainly be an important question for theists to answer, and may be relatively simple. I can already guess a few possible answers.
I'm assuming "to act as though ignorant of the principle in question".
I don't think its the knowledge that's dangerous, in itself. I think it's the arrogance. Or the sophisticated argument that starts with principles X and Y and leads to actions that directly contradict principle X.
For example; consider the following principles:
That's enough to lead to the Inquisition, by this route:
Looking at Principle 2, I do not wish myself, or those that I love to enter Hell. Considering Principle 1, I must try to save everyone from that fate, by any means possible. I must therefore attempt to convert everyone to <religion>.
(Consideration of various means snipped for brevity)
Yet there may be some people who refuse to convert, even in the face of all these arguments. In such a case, would torture be acceptable? If a person who is not tortured does not repent, then he is doomed to what is worse than a mere few months, even a mere few years of torture; he is doomed to an eternity of torture. If a person is tortured into repentance, then he is saved an eternity of torture - a net gain for the victim. If he is tortured and does not repent, then he experiences an eternity of torture in any case - in that case, he is at least no worse off. So a tortured victim is at worst no worse off, and at best a good deal better off, than a man who does not repent. However, care must be taken to ensure that the victim does not die during torture, but before repenting.
Better yet, the mere rumour of torture may lead some to repent more swiftly. Thus, judicious use of torture becomes a moral imperative.
(As an exercise, incidentally, can you spot the flaw in that chain of reasoning?)
And then you have the Inquisitors, and fear and terror and sharp knives in dark rooms...