A Laughing Matter?

A view which is common today is that one's eternal destiny is not a subject worthy of serious consideration. A consequence of this view is that those who have specific ideas of an eternal destiny and how it relates to one's present condition are often regarded as being unreasonably narrow-minded and not to be taken seriously. In the following paragraphs I shall demonstrate that such a view is completely inappropriate.

Why would people have the perspective described above? Do they have any rational reason to act as if this issue is unimportant and unworthy of serious discussion and reflection? If people simply want to assume this is the case, that's their prerogative, I suppose. Simply assuming something, however, doesn't make it true or even reasonable.

Some consider various world views or traditions which are in circulation and recognize that they contradict each other when it comes to providing answers to life's biggest questions. The proverbial path of least resistance, emphasizing ethical values common to multiple world views, appears to be very attractive insofar as it allows people to avoid taking a position on the big questions. After all, if one says that the only thing that is important is being nice to other people, who would argue with that? I think its safe to say that most folks would generally appreciate human actions which make the world a better place in which to live.

Perhaps the real reason for avoiding questions regarding one's eternal destiny is that we all understand that discussions of such issues can become heated and get out of hand, and what should be a quest for truth turns into a contest to see who can score the most points. This can easily happen in situations where communication is not well planned and not orderly. Why do these discussions press so many hot buttons?

If one has concluded that the truth regarding our eternal destiny is ultimately unknowable, then someone comes along and says the opposite, does it make sense to simply dismiss what the other person says out of hand without seriously attempting to interact with it and any supporting evidence which is provided? Wouldn't dogmatically rejecting the person's view without first hearing their case be akin to claiming that one is all-knowing or infallible? Conversely, just because someone else may claim to have knowledge of such matters, it doesn't mean the person is claiming to be infallible or all-knowing. It simply means they are claiming we can have some kind of understanding of the hereafter and how it relates to this life. Granted, they may be incorrect in their view, perhaps based on faulty reasoning, but nothing is irrational about the idea of having such a view in and of itself. Furthermore, just because some people necessarily have an incorrect view (according to the Principle of Contradiction and assuming that we live in a rational universe, that is), it doesn't follow that the correct view is therefore unknowable.