I think the analogy with treason is good but not in the way you mean, the fear of apostasy is not really that of a single unbeliever but that it might spread. Even if we ignore the group cohesion and self interest reasons for not wanting this, there are good altruistic reasons.
Imagine there is a drug that is pleasant in the short term but causes extreme suffering in later life, because individuals don’t rationally calculate the effect of it at the time your society has banned it. If you know an individual is using it you might try and persuade them to stop personally, but if they start using it publicly, or worse telling others how awesome it is and that they’ve suffered no bad effects you would want to take stronger action for the good of others. (Imagine someone telling your kids to its cool to smoke.) All that seems perfectly rational. Now multiply the harm of “disease in later life” to that of “eternity in hell” and you can see why well intentioned people might support apostasy laws, especially if they allow people to publicly recant, at best sincerely and saving themselves, at worst insincerely but limiting the harm.
The problem is not that apostasy laws in themselves are irrational, if hell existed a lot of things would be justified in preventing it, its that they″re based on a flawed premise.
I think the analogy with treason is good but not in the way you mean, the fear of apostasy is not really that of a single unbeliever but that it might spread. Even if we ignore the group cohesion and self interest reasons for not wanting this, there are good altruistic reasons.
Imagine there is a drug that is pleasant in the short term but causes extreme suffering in later life, because individuals don’t rationally calculate the effect of it at the time your society has banned it. If you know an individual is using it you might try and persuade them to stop personally, but if they start using it publicly, or worse telling others how awesome it is and that they’ve suffered no bad effects you would want to take stronger action for the good of others. (Imagine someone telling your kids to its cool to smoke.) All that seems perfectly rational. Now multiply the harm of “disease in later life” to that of “eternity in hell” and you can see why well intentioned people might support apostasy laws, especially if they allow people to publicly recant, at best sincerely and saving themselves, at worst insincerely but limiting the harm.
The problem is not that apostasy laws in themselves are irrational, if hell existed a lot of things would be justified in preventing it, its that they″re based on a flawed premise.
Thank you for helping me remember what it felt like to think that way. The Dark Side Will Make You Forget indeed… :P