The primary difference between the two potentially motivating fears is that the legal system can be deceived as to whether or not one is telling the truth, so John Q. Witness might believe that he could perjure himself and get away with it. An omniscient supreme being, on the other hand, would both know if a witness told the truth and be able to hold the witness inescapably accountable. I suspect, though, that you're right about an empirical test being difficult to establish.
Brad Pardee
Professor Lipkin wrote:
Alternatively, we might simply say to a witness, your testimony is subject to the laws of perjury, and you're legally required to tell the truth whether you swear an oath or not. There's probably not much divergence between those motivated to tell the truth by a fear of legal consequences as by a fear of religious consequences. I might be wrong about this last point, but I'm not sure there could be an empirical test establishing such a divergence.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
