The World-View Pill

[ST88]

This is a variation on a "snap your fingers" question.

Assume that there exists a pill for changing someone's world-view. There is no back story as to how it was developed and there are no real-world strings attached. No extreme personality changes or sociological repercussions are a part of this question. Just a pill that changes people's outlook.

For Christians: If this pill could change someone's world-view so that they become, let's say, perfect Christians (whatever that might mean to you), would you push for it to be distributed to everyone in the world?

For Athiests and agnostics: If this pill could change someone's world-view so that they no longer believed in God (whatever that might mean to you), would you push for it to be distributed to everyone in the world?

FOR BOTH:
If not, would you try and stop it from happening if someone else undertook this? If yes, would you be willing to sacrifice the rest of your life in order to devote it to the logistics of making this happen?

I'd like to leave this open to deists and other world-views also. Where on the scale of ethics do you think this falls?

[potwalloper.]

For Athiests and agnostics: If this pill could change someone's world-view so that they no longer believed in God (whatever that might mean to you), would you push for it to be distributed to everyone in the world?

What a dilemma.

On reflection, of course I would never consider pushing for this to be distributed to everyone in the World in pill form.

I would simply put it in the water...

Ooops - forgot the rest of my life bit.

The simple answer is no - it doesn't bother me enough and you only have one life after all!

[mrmufin]

For Athiests and agnostics: If this pill could change someone's world-view so that they no longer believed in God (whatever that might mean to you), would you push for it to be distributed to everyone in the world?

That's an interesting question, and I'll offer two answers based on the lack of data about the pill provided.

If the effect was temporary, then, yes, I would probably try a variety of different worldview pills, and encourage others to experiment as well.

If the effect of the pill was permanent, I'd have a bit more reservation. I probably wouldn't encourage its use, except in extreme cases (and you can let your kinky li'l imagination walk amok as to who might qualify as an extreme case) . I think that our philosophical differences can be a valuable tool in understanding one another; diversity of opinion matters.

In either case, I probably wouldn't ban it. But I would like to know... if the pill removes someone's belief in the gods, does it replace those beliefs with anything else?

Regards,
mrmufin

[BeHereNow]

I believe the way things are, is the way things are supposed to be.
No pill.

I enjoy experimentation as much as mrmufin, but I wouldn't want someone to slip me a Mickey. That ain't cool. I owe them the same courtesy.

[ST88]

If the effect was temporary...
If the effect of the pill was permanent

For the purposes of this question, the effect is permanent and this trait is passed on to offspring in perpetuity.

if the pill removes someone's belief in the gods, does it replace those beliefs with anything else?

It's interesting that you ask this question. The intent was to replace world-views. If the pill promulgated Atheism or agnosticism, then the beliefs that replace the current set would be in line with either of those philosophies. But because both of these are based on non-Belief (with a big B), then Belief in this way would end.

Does this question imply that you believe that belief in something is desirable and/or necessary?

[mrmufin]

Does this question imply that you believe that belief in something is desirable and/or necessary?

No, not necessarily. Would the pill be labeled for its removal of an established belief, or a specific newly adopted belief that it delivers? For example, if a Christian wanted to become, say, a Hindu, could the transition be done with one pill (the Hinduism supplement) or two pills (one to erase Christianity, then another to install Hinduism)?As well, I don't really regard weak atheism or agnosticism as worldviews, but more the lack of a worldview.

Regards,
mrmufin

[ST88]

Would the pill be labeled for its removal of an established belief, or a specific newly adopted belief that it delivers? For example, if a Christian wanted to become, say, a Hindu, could the transition be done with one pill (the Hinduism supplement) or two pills (one to erase Christianity, then another to install Hinduism)?

That's an interesting twist. The way I meant it was, if this question were posed to a Hindu, then the pill would be a Hindu pill. It would be interesting to take a temporary Buddhist pill and see what that's all about from the inside. But the question was about a permanent shift in thinking worldwide towards just one "Way".

As well, I don't really regard weak atheism or agnosticism as worldviews, but more the lack of a worldview.

I regard "world-view" as one's applied philosophy of life. Atheism is simply the atheist's world-view, etc.

[Amphigorey]

For Athiests and agnostics: If this pill could change someone's world-view so that they no longer believed in God (whatever that might mean to you), would you push for it to be distributed to everyone in the world?

<b>No</b>

If not, would you try and stop it from happening?

<b>Yes</b>

I'm not interested in proselytizing. And even though I'm an atheist, I believe religious diversity makes life more interesting. So I would never seek to control the whole world's "world-view". And yes I would try to stop it from happening. World domination by anyone is not a good thing. Diversity is how humans explore wider possibilities. Exploration and experimentation are hallmarks of intelligent life. And I hope we all agree humans are intelligent?

Where on the scale of ethics do you think this falls?

I would say its worse than Fascism, Dictatorships, or forced sterilizations.

I'm wondering if you're asking what are the ethics of proselytizing? Or is that taking your argument too far? Should that question be another thread? I think it would be a good one.

[dangerdan]

Na, I don&#8217;t like the sound of that pill.

The problem with the question is that it would radically change someone&#8217;s personhood. One&#8217;s evolution and formulation of opinion, as well as the opinion itself, is very important to their self identify. So effectively you are changing their personality.

But putting this aside, it sounds like the post-pill-person is rather dogmatic in belief. It sounds like they would not be able to comprehend or lend weight to any evidence or arguments that are contrary to their current beliefs. This is never good.

[ST88]

But putting this aside, it sounds like the post-pill-person is rather dogmatic in belief. It sounds like they would not be able to comprehend or lend weight to any evidence or arguments that are contrary to their current beliefs. This is never good.

In my opinion, this is the crux of the matter. Evangelical Protestants are assumed to be fond of a one-world Christian popluation. I remember reading a Bush administration flunkie saying something to the effect that if Osama Bin Laden could flip a switch and instantly kill every non-Muslim in the world, he would.

Is diversity of world view really that important? Dogmatic or no, imagine a world full of people who believe in the same things that you do. Since scientific inquiry wouldn't be affected, why would having religious people around be a good thing?