My reaction...
Of course, this assumes that people place a value on self-preservation over
everything else.
No matter how hard we try, and how careful we are, we will eventually die.
Knowing and accepting this fact leads some to ask the question "What's the
point?" Well, the answer is often leaving some sort of legacy behind by
which you will be remembered... and generally this would take the form of
taking some action that improves the lives of others.
So, if you feel that you can make the lives of your friends, family, etc.
better by killing someone, then committing this act would leave a positive
legacy because of the good you see it bringing to people. It doesn't matter
if you die or not, because you know you will die eventually anyway. You
would be becoming a martyr or hero for a cause, and that cause does NOT
have to be religion.
So, even without religion, it would not prevent people from committing such
acts. The premise his argument is based on is one of self-preservation and
that religion provides a means of overriding the instinct of
self-preservation. Religion is not the only thing that can override it
leading to actions such as what happened.
To me this appears to be nothing more than the exploitation of a great
tragedy to attack religion.
Religion is also the coping mechanism many have been using to deal with
this tragedy. As such, it has given many people the strength to go on under
extremely adverse conditions. Without their belief in religion, I think an
argument could be made that many of the rescue/recovery workers would not
be there and that people would not be returning to work. So, despite the
possible evil that has been done under the guise of religion, lots of good
has come from it as well.
Just my two cents for the day...
- Marc
G. Marc Turner, MEd, Net+
Lecturer & Head of Computer Operations
Department of Psychology
Southwest Texas State University
San Marcos, TX 78666
phone: (512)245-2526
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
