= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Brillyant comments on Open Thread, November 15-22, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (257)
In my experience, people holding on to very, very small probabilites can be unhealthy. Misplaced hope can be harmful.
I don't think it is quite this cut and dry. Religious people will assert they are certain, but I think there is a significant level of doubt there. People do use heaven as a way to cope with the loss of a loved one -- it is perfectly understandable, but I think it ultimately often prevents them from grieving and acheiving healthy and proper closure.
The phrase "sure and certain hope of the resurrection" is rather telling. :)
Ideally, how people feel about things would be based in real-world consequences, and a chance of someone being not dead is usually strictly better than the alternative. But I can see how for a small enough chance of resurrection, it could possibly be outweighed by other people holding on to it. I still hope that isn't what's going on in this case, though. That would require people to be feeling "I'd rather have this person permanently dead, because at least then I know where I stand."
That's a pretty insulting way to put it. Consider an alternative: I'll rather spend my only short life living it to the fullest than worrying about people, including me, who will very likely permanently die no matter what I do to help it.
In that case, the best solution would be to let the loved person freeze and then pretty much ignore them (i.e. spend only as much thought about them as we usually spend on dead people).
Sure. But self-modifying to feel differently is hard.