Compassion vs. Truth

I have many good friends in various religions that believe in afterlife. This is an important part of their belief system.

I have already figured out, and proved in a reasonably scientific manner, as reported in previous blogs, that there is no afterlife, neither reincarnation or heaven or anything else.

I haven’t tried telling them. There is a problem in that it is extremely hard to educate someone to abandon a major pillar of their life. So the communication would be difficult and even more difficult with people who do not think logically or scientifically, and lack even a basic education in scientific reasoning and factual bases. However, even if that could be surmounted, there is another problem.

I don’t want to hurt them.

Compassion battles with truth in many situations, ranging from a lovers’ “little white lies”, to the repetition of national myths (“We are the best nation with the best system of government”, e.g., communism and others), to the subject under discussion. Some seekers of truth believe that truth is its own reward, that it is a higher goal than anything else. Often these people are sociopaths, unable to feel any sympathy, who are clever enough to rationalize their desire to be appreciated as a grown up version of the momma’s boy who was praised for being smart. Some may have other psychological origins. Most of us, on the other hand, feel both compulsions: truth is an enabler and should be supported whenever possible, and compassion is an emotional drive and one that keeps society functioning smoothly as well. How on earth can we come up with some rules of thumb to decide when to go along with the lie, and when to confront it?

So, what’s the point of truth about the afterlife? We at SGI believe that the goal of humankind is here in this life, and we should not throw away happiness now for the prospects of a better reincarnation or some new world for whatever a soul is. But that does not mean everybody needs to understand that this is it. That might do just the opposite, and make the recipient of the “Bad News” (sorry, your death is the end of it all) any happier at all. On first blush, only those that care a lot about it, so much so they sacrifice their happiness here, should be helped – but they are the ones whose happiness might be most impinged upon by the bad news.

We might coin a term “referred happiness” to mean the good feelings (lots of endorphins, dopamine and so on) that thinking about how great the afterlife will be. What is SGI trying to promote, when they say they want people to be happy here and now? If a person is happy here and now because they have some imaginary friend, should we tell him that there is no one there? And prove it unmistakably? This might be a suitable substitute discussion topic for people who cannot discuss afterlife questions rationally. If false and imagined things are providing happiness, should they be forcibly removed?