Re: Couple of questions.

John Blake wrote:

I consider Phil's threat to be bogus, just as was my example of the
parents threatening their child with the bogey man. There is no
evidence for what Phil claims to be the result of my disbelief and the
only reason for the claim is an attempt to scare people into becoming
believers.

I don't suppose this was Phil's intention as he genuinely seems to
think he is right, but I'm sure this is the origin of the threats made
by religions over the centuries. It's a good tactic as it has worked
very well as many people claim to believe in god "just in case".

Two things.

1. I don't see how you get from "there is no evidence for this"
to "it must have been invented to scare people". Here's another
possible explanation: the original purpose of the idea of hell
was to enable people to enjoy imagining their enemies suffering.
(Bertrand Russell made much of this idea, ISTR.) Or: the original
purpose of the idea of hell was to allow people to retain a
(doubtless unjustified, but still very common) belief that
eventually Justice Will Be Done. (It's far from clear that
hell as generally understood would count as justice, but for
this purpose it suffices that some people might have thought
it did.)

It's certainly possible that the idea of hell was invented
to scare people with, but it doesn't seem to me like the only
explanation, even given that there's no evidence for hell.

Incidentally, if the original purpose *was* to scare people,
I bet it wasn't originally to scare people into becoming believers
but to scare believers into acting or thinking in particular ways.

2. Let's suppose that the idea of hell *was* originally
cooked up as something to scare people with. So, originally,
saying "if you do / don't do that, you'll go to hell" was
a threat. I don't see how you conclude that *now* it's a
threat even when said by someone who sincerely believes
that there really is a hell, and whose intention is to
help you avoid it rather than (as such) to control your
behaviour.

I think that to decide whether something is best considered
a threat or a warning, you need to look at the intentions of
the person who says it. I think most people who say things
like "repent, or you're in danger of hell" or "don't use
ouija boards, or you're in danger of being attacked by
demons" (1) sincerely believe in the danger and (2) are
mostly saying what they do because they want to save people
from going to hell or being attacked by demons, rather than
because they want to control anyone. (I also think *some*
people who say such things are, indeed, doing it as a way
to control others' behaviour. Those people are threatening
rather than warning.)

--
Gareth McCaughan
..sig under construc
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Couple of questions.
    ... evidence for what Phil claims to be the result of my disbelief and the ... reasons why I think Phil's statement isn't a threat. ... to scare people with. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: OT Question about Interpol
    ... They are the two aspects of the Republican plans: scare the Hell out ... of everybody and make everything Obama does a threat to their lives, ... ambulance was called "simply because an Obama friend fell off a surfboard." ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: This should scare the hell out of you....
    ... Clinton elected President twice, and Governor of AR three times. ... but it doesn't scare the hell out of me. ... hungry for money and could care less where they get it from. ...
    (misc.legal)
  • Re: This should scare the hell out of you....
    ... Clinton elected President twice, and Governor of AR three times. ... but it doesn't scare the hell out of me. ... hungry for money and could care less where they get it from. ...
    (misc.legal)
  • Re: Liberals. Any comment aout Joe Biden?
    ... Buckeyes win but not without a scare. ... Fickell should be fired. ... I don't think it was a bad call, I thought it was a hell of a play be the ... Indiana player. ...
    (rec.sport.golf)