Monday, August 23, 2010

A Contemporary Dilemma for Agnostics

Given the limitations of language, a good argument can be made for defining everyone as agnostic.  No matter whether or not we believe or don’t believe, we don’t, and we can’t, know.

It doesn’t take much observation, however, to know that eliminating some of the myths about religion have the potential for devastation to the lives of many believers.

To some it seems logical that the sooner such ideas as some sort of “life” after death, a life that is a continuation of whatever life had been lived while on earth, the better off the human race will be with that particular political tool removed from discourse. 

What, though, would be the effect of an overnight elimination of “life after death?”  How would that play with the millions of people who are not engaged in politics?

Page 233 of The Cabal, by David Hagberg, Hadid speaks of his recently killed wife and son, ”They are waiting for me in Paradise.  This I truly believe and it gives me comfort.”

Emma Darwin so wanted to believe in afterlife that she is reported to have influenced her husband’s writings to mitigate the obvious nihilistic conclusions of his theory of evolution.

Virtually daily reminders of the promises of rewards in afterlife remind us of how this myth can be used as a tool to ensnare believers into political acts.

But what about the families of those so deluded?  What can be offered to them to ease their pain?

Where is their comfort?

Sphere: Related Content

No comments:

Post a Comment