I'd like to pose a little thought experiment -- a hypothetical scenario with two different outcomes -- and ask you to describe carefully (and in earnest, please) what your reaction would be to each outcome. Here's the setup:
Within the span of a single night, let's say that 200 people (men and women), who are literate and native speakers of, say, 10 different languages, all wake up with a compulsion to write down some statements that have come into their heads, and send this piece of writing to the New York Times. On receiving these 200 letters, folks at the Times immediately notice the diversity of sources but a consistency of content.
Reporters quickly establish that all 200 letters are saying the same thing, and that the 200 sources are all independent of each other, with no chance of communication between the 200 individuals before they wrote and sent their letters. Each person who sent a letter is found and interviewed, and it is confirmed that each one had a similar experience but no knowledge of the other people involved -- there was no hoax. The content of all the letters begins something like this:
quote:
The statements on this page originate not from the person who is putting these words to paper, but from an entity that is using 200 people in this manner in order to make it clear and irrefutable that these statements were not invented by any human.
Now, consider these two cases:
A. The statements assert that one particular religion is actually "correct", and this religion is identified by name -- but if you happen to be religious, it turns out that this "correct" religion is not the one you currently hold to. Of course, the message is too brief to go into detail about all the questions people like you might have about the beliefs espoused by this one correct religion, but people who practice it are said to be "on the right track."
B. The statements assert that all the known religions are "wrong" in some respects; it may be that none of them is completely wrong in every respect, but the core point is that none of them is completely right. In addition, the statements clearly say that the universe is about 14 billion years old, the earth is about 4 billion years old, and life developed and evolved entirely without supernatural cause or guidance. Of course, it can't go into a lot of detail, but people who practice science are said to be "on the right track."
I'm interested in hearing from all positions on the "Dawkins Scale" (from 1=entirely religious to 7=entirely atheistic), with particular attention to: What conclusions do you make, given this new evidence/revelation? Do you accept it, reject it, or await/pursue further information? What leads you to choose the course that you think you would take? Which of the two outcomes would you be most comfortable with?
You may elaborate or even substitute the outcomes if you like, but I'll reserve the right to declare some diversions off-topic. For example, if you happen to be Roman Catholic, you could consider the religion in scenario A to be, say, Buddhism or Mormonism (or you could explore both cases), whichever you think would make the most interesting discussion from your perspective. But in any case, please consider (and respond to) both A and B.
(Moderators: I'm not sure where to put this... either "Miscellaneous Topics" or "Faith and Belief"; probably the latter is more likely, since I don't expect this to depend much on real evidence.)
autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
™ Version 4.2