Let's suppose this was even true, what would it matter?
There's this weird assumption in popular culture that somehow the moment near death contains more truth than other moments, as if right before passing we have some "ah!" moment. But the opposite seems far more reasonable: as we get closer to death our reasonings will become increasingly distorted.
For example, a common narrative is "on their death bed they had wished they had focused less on career and more on family." Of course that's what you'd think on your death bed! You're likely scared, feeling alone and wish there was someone with you. You also don't have to worry about rent, gaining the respect of your peers, what you're going to do with your free time, retirement etc.
The idea that the moment of death brings some sort of grand understanding only makes sense if you presuppose there is some grand sense behind it all. Otherwise it's just the final moment of a long process of physical, emotional and mental decline.
If you're Catholic, it's significant as one's last chance to turn away from sin, discard this life, and join Christ in an eternal life that isn't this one.
If you're not, then think of it like an actuary: at every moment in your life, you have to live with the sum of your past and future choices, adjusted as need be. At the last moment, you have no more uncertain future choices, so it's clear what the optimal path was, so naturally you have regret.
> Let's suppose this was even true, what would it matter?
Your analysis begs the question. It assumes the secular worldview, but that's precisely what a deathbed conversion repudiates. To a Catholic, deathbed conversions matter a great deal because Catholics don't conceptualize death (or life) in the same way as a secular person.
You're just reiterating my point. Even if this where true, it doesn't add any information. For a Catholic it simply affirms their Catholic worldview, however for someone with a secular worldview it is also perfectly inline with their existing views.
As such the statement "Surprisingly" make no sense, since this information is not "surprising" to anyone, even if it were true (which is it very likely not).
Of course is matters. Not because it indicates some "grand understanding" or "aha" just because it shows how we spend our entire lives trying to look life head-on without flinching but, in the end, we almost all flinch.
"Sinner actually going to heaven, not hell" priest declares to grieving family. I wonder how many so called 'deathbed conversions' actually happened, vs how many were completely fabricated.. and not in the sense of some one wearing robes tenting their fingers and laughing maniacally, but instead trying to 'offer salvation' and taking literally any movement or noise as confirmation.
I don't see where that article in any way engages with what GP says; it appears to use "confession" in a more metaphorical appeal to religiosity as a concept rather than to a specific spiritual ritual.
I plan on doing that - just in case the pearly gates are truly guarded by someone who requires you believe in a specific God.
It's called hedging your bets
If there are multiple possible gods, and you get punished more for believing in the wrong one than for not believing in one, you might be better off without it.
This is precisely the perpetual Catholic slander that Christopher Hitchens referred to regularly. A lie told by believers about several prominent freethinkers.
It goes both ways. On the one hand the religious want to claim eveyone as one of their own, especially in death-bed conversions. On the other hand, there are the rabidly anti-Catholic types who make up lies about people having been abused without evidence, as we see in this thread. Or the atheists who conveniently forget that quite a lot of "free thinkers" were religious.
Wittgenstein was not a Catholic because he had no faith, but he was respecful of Catholicism, had many Catholic friends, and asked for a priest to be present as he died. There's no evidence he formally converted.
What of it? What would Wittgenstein say to the syllogism, 'Some Catholic priests are child abusers, Wittgenstein was a Catholic in childhood, therefore Wittgenstein was abused by a priest'?
The only sources for the claim are evangelic Christian websites, and this specific thread. This thread is actually one of the top results for the search now. I've spent a lot of time reading Wittgenstein, and reading about Wittgenstein. This was never mentioned in any credible source I've come across.
Well, as mentioned in the article, at the time of writing the Tractatus, Wittgenstein was deeply moved by the kind of spirituality found in Leo Tolstoy's work. However, it's the explicit purpose of the Tractatus to draw a demarcation line between propositions of logic (and by this, meaningful sentences of philosophy) and any mystical or spiritual feelings, thoughts, or faith. So it really doesn't matter at all.
There's this weird assumption in popular culture that somehow the moment near death contains more truth than other moments, as if right before passing we have some "ah!" moment. But the opposite seems far more reasonable: as we get closer to death our reasonings will become increasingly distorted.
For example, a common narrative is "on their death bed they had wished they had focused less on career and more on family." Of course that's what you'd think on your death bed! You're likely scared, feeling alone and wish there was someone with you. You also don't have to worry about rent, gaining the respect of your peers, what you're going to do with your free time, retirement etc.
The idea that the moment of death brings some sort of grand understanding only makes sense if you presuppose there is some grand sense behind it all. Otherwise it's just the final moment of a long process of physical, emotional and mental decline.