![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This is more or less a memo to myself dealing with a subject I intend to discuss with others in the near future. Feel free to comment on it, if you wish, but it may not make a great deal of sense outside of its natural context.
A writer writes about the tenets of a fictional faith or philosophy. Dealing with unprovable concepts such as the nature of the soul, or the place of the soul within the universe, it cannot be proven to be true or false scientifically. And some people feel that it makes a great deal of sense to them, and begin to practice this faith in real life. They believe the tenets of the religion, though they know it originated in fiction. They think that, on purpose or by complete accident, the author created something of true merit when that fictional religion was designed. Is this belief logically equivalent to other faiths which are equally unsupportable by scientific facts? Does its "fictional" or "unreal" origins automatically count against it? If so, why? If not, why not? What standards can reliably be used to judge a system of belief which is not based on objective or quantifiable facts? Can beliefs even be compared logically, or is it impossible to find fair criteria by which to make such a comparison?
Hmm... perhaps arguments about the relative "validity" of different spiritual beliefs ultimately comes down to very different criteria being used to compare them by the different sides?
A writer writes about the tenets of a fictional faith or philosophy. Dealing with unprovable concepts such as the nature of the soul, or the place of the soul within the universe, it cannot be proven to be true or false scientifically. And some people feel that it makes a great deal of sense to them, and begin to practice this faith in real life. They believe the tenets of the religion, though they know it originated in fiction. They think that, on purpose or by complete accident, the author created something of true merit when that fictional religion was designed. Is this belief logically equivalent to other faiths which are equally unsupportable by scientific facts? Does its "fictional" or "unreal" origins automatically count against it? If so, why? If not, why not? What standards can reliably be used to judge a system of belief which is not based on objective or quantifiable facts? Can beliefs even be compared logically, or is it impossible to find fair criteria by which to make such a comparison?
Hmm... perhaps arguments about the relative "validity" of different spiritual beliefs ultimately comes down to very different criteria being used to compare them by the different sides?
