RE: An Interview with @sircork - One of the SP Delegators of PAL (Peace, Abundance, and Liberty) (I Cried)
Hey there. So the organ donor thing. One thing. Two things. It doesn't jive, in my mind, with "Integrity is what you do when nobody is looking." - Donating an organ - giving something after you're dead and can't be thanked for it - That's integrity, right?
And because "It won't hurt if I do and I'm wrong, but I'd hate to not believe and be wrong." doesn't apply. It doesn't hurt you maybe, but it does hurt the world as a whole. Some people need those organs in order to live life with less suffering.
Far be it from me to tell you what you should do based on your own belief systems, but I feel like there's a puzzle piece missing in your logic train. And one's train should always have complete puzzles. Are you open to conversing about this, logic step by logic step?
I opened with "it's controversial and makes some people mad" .... i understand your position. I really do. And perhaps you are right. But are you CERTAIN?
I am certain that it really helps other people. This is demonstrable. I am uncertain about whether or not it hurts me. This is not demonstrable. Therefore, logically, if I value others as highly as I value myself, it shakes out in favor of donating.
It's one thing to pray AND support modern medicine. It's another entirely to pray INSTEAD of supporting modern medicine. It undoes any logic there is to Pascal's wager.
I know you said "it's controversial and makes some people mad"; I'm not mad, but I am eager to convince you, so that you can be a greater force for good in the world.
You'll be trying to change a life long belief set, my friend. On a very obstinate son of a gun. But I do appreciate the WHY of your motive and in pretty much any other respect I'd be in solidarity with you on the side of the forces for "good in the world!"
Well, let's talk it through logically. What percentages do you put on the various possibilities. Feel free to be general or specific.
(Admittedly, I see very little evidence for God, and I think Pascal's wager doesn't work because I see definite downsides to belief in god if there isn't a god. But this isn't about me. This is about examining how you see the world and trying to help you detect any logical inconsistencies if there are any, and ... well, I guess it is about me - if there are no logical inconsistencies, then I need to change my point of view to yours. I do believe there is one reality, and if we could understand and know everything, we would all agree on everything and solve all the world's problems by working together.)
BUT I want to honor other people's closely held beliefs while examining their logic.
Beyond this door, is either certain death. Or absolutely nothing. No one knows. Percentage of probability? Unknown and cannot be computed with no comparative analysis or empirical historic data on previous threshold crossings.
You gonna go thru that door? Or not.
Well, if going through the door absolutely saves other human lives and reduces their suffering, then yes. It's not just a matter of my own self-interest, after all.
I'll be less popular for it, but I'm not sure it's a risk I'm prepared to take with my eternal or not afterlife or not.
It's not about popularity. Popularity doesn't matter after death.
If you want to play with Pascal's wager, as it seems you do, what makes you think that this position of yours isn't what will keep you out of heaven? Doesn't God want us to be kind? Isn't it kind to help those who need help? Aren't we expected to be Christlike, and didn't Christ give of his blood to save humanity?
Caveat that I'm trying to use your own sense of logic in this, I am not convinced of the existence of God or Christ, but since you're concerned about the risks associated with a possible afterlife, doesn't NOT being an organ donor carry the same unknown and unknowable risks that BEING an organ donor does?