Hacker News Reader

Comment by thaumasiotes | Hacker News Reader

> I mean, it will probably do absolutely nothing. But, if it does have an effect, I will be eternally (literally) grateful for their help in the afterlife.

This is Pascal's Fallacious Wager, the idea that (as you've instantiated it here) Mormonism is the only religion that might potentially be correct. Either the Mormons are right, or everyone is wrong.

But if you believe the Mormons might be right, you have no way to exclude the possibility that the Mormons are wrong, but somebody else is right. In which case the baptism might cause you eternal harm.

View on HN

This is close, but not really Pascal's Wager. For one, I do not currently practice any religion. But if I did, I'd have to pick one exclusively, to the detriment of the others. So of course his wager is a weak argument.

But with posthumous baptism, it is someone else doing the thing. And multiple different religions can all claim me as their own. There can be overlap, maybe. (Or maybe not, who knows? We're in angels on the head of a pin territory here)

So, if the Mormons baptizing me causes me eternal harm, then both of the following would be true:

1. They do have supernatural powers after all. (i.e. Mormon rituals have an effect on souls, deities, etc.)

2. But their belief system is wrong.

I guess one can construct a system where both #1 and #2 hold, but I don't see it as being nearly as likely as either one in isolation.

You forgot #3: if posthumous baptism actually caused harm, it would mean that whichever belief system is "right" punishes people for choices outside their own control (i.e., the actions of others).

Even if that's in the realm of possibility, it sounds pretty unreasonable in the context of deciding one's eternal fate.

Wouldn't it be as unlikely that a deity would reward you for the deeds of others?

Oh this is a rabbit hole I don't think we want to climb down.

I know I invited 'unlikely' in but let's not make it too welcome or we'll be here all week, or until dang tells us to knock it off.

Mormonism's belief is not that you will be rewarded because some one posthumously baptized you, but because you accepted that baptism in the after-life. All are rewarded according to their own decisions/desires.

Edit:

Well actually, Mormonism is a Christian faith that teaches that salvation comes in and through Jesus Christ, so it really isn't your actions or their actions- but the actions of Jesus Christ- taken on your behalf, that leads to salvation- if you accept it. But it isn't so much a reward as it is an act of mercy.

That is still rewarding you for the combined effort why wouldn't an infinitely powerful being redeem you himself?

Right, I am sorry, as soon as I hit reply I realized the mistake I made and edited my comment. I was so focused on the baptism thing I wasn't seeing the whole picture :)

I am pleased that it is possible to have so reasonable and pleasant a discussion here even on contentious topic.

Me too :) Theology can be a very fascinating topic when it is discussed in a reasonable and pleasant manner!

Um, I mean, the contention of Mormonism (and Christianity in general) is that He did.

That same being endorsed baptism by undergoing it himself.

This may seem contradictory, but becomes much more tractable if you're open to the idea that "redemption" is just an abstraction, with multiple inputs, some provideable by Providence, some provideable by others, and some provideable only by the subject in question.

The idea that the actions of a stranger can have permanent harmful effects on you is both (1) historically common as applied to supernatural effects, and (2) completely normal in ordinary life.

The very common beliefs that your soul might be damaged by someone mutilating your corpse, or stepping on your grave, aren't noticeably different from the belief that your soul might be damaged by someone anointing your corpse or a representative of your corpse.

The commonality of these beliefs doesn't affect how likely I think they are to be true.

This idea has me curious. What religions believe that the independent actions of others can cause you eternal harm? If I unilaterally declare every person who has ever lived to be adopted into my religion (founded 30 seconds ago), does the religion that a person conscientiously chose for themselves now declare them to be harmed by my action? If so, does a second individual or institution claiming them posthumously add to the harm?

I would be very interested to be educated on such beliefs.

The Principle of the Excluded Middle is something software developers marinate ourselves in. I was going to say, "are familiar with" but we just do it, we don't see it.

"What pendulum swing can we ride on going 'WHEEEEEEE' today?"

He says sarcastically, uncomfortably eyeballing the JAMStack bookmarks he has queued up to read...

What does the principle of the excluded middle have to do with this?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com