You walk into the office tomorrow. As you walk to your desk a co-worker, Gordon, stops you and says, "I'm going to blow Mary's fucking head off."

How do we assess a threat like that? It clearly has very serious implications if Gordon is being sincere, so it's important that we be able to analyze the sincerity of given pledges to do harm.

Fortunately, this is something we're very good at, thanks to a certain branch of epistemology that I'll explain later. First, let's go over a few potential crystalizations of our scenario:

First, let's say that Gordon has worked with you for several years, that Mary is the boss, and that Gordon has said the same thing (or some variation thereof) to you every single day without incident. He has never acted violently or strangely - but has acted rather grumpily - around you.

How likely do you think it would be that Gordon actually intends to harm Mary?

Now let's say that Gordon is a new employee. He never talks to anyone, including yourself, and a few times while looking over into his cubicle you've seen him browsing snuff websites. He always seems to be a bit jittery/anxious.

How likely do you think it would be that Gordon actually intends to harm Mary?

Now let's say that after Gordon stopped you, he pulled a gun out of his belt and pointed it at Mary's head while he told you about killing her.

How likely do you think it would be that Gordon actually intends to harm Mary?

The credibility you give to Gordon's threat is all based on observations; his past behavior, whether or not he's currently armed, etc. Depending on the threat, it might even be based on observations you have about the world (If Gordon, in the second scenario, had said, 'I'm going to have Mary beamed into outer space,' the threat wouldn't have the same credibility despite Gordon's antisocial behavior).

We call these obsevartions evidence, and the process of formulating hypothesis's from evidence is the epistomology known as 'science'. Registering whether or not Gordon really meant what he said happens at a subconscious more than a conscious level, but it follows the procedure of science nevertheless.

Science is the only way we learn things about our surroundings, including the intentions of other people and the possible dangers of performing a given action. Science requires evidence to act upon; if you have no relevant information, you can formulate a reasonable hypothesis. If I had merely given you the scenario of Gordon stopping you at the office and threatening to kill Mary, without providing any extra details, you could not reliably guess whether or not the character intended to act on his word.

At worst, what you could do is insert your own bias and preconceptions into the scenario to craft false axioms (in psychology, this is known as 'projection') and attempt to resolve your feelings about Gordon's threat from there (Perhaps you feel that all men are violent, for example, and so decide that Gordon likely does mean to cause harm).

Later in the week, after the incident at the office, you go to Church (and depending on the outcome of the scenario, are possibly consoled. ). During the sermon the preacher informs you, "If you are not saved by Jesus Christ, you will go to Hell,"

This is, again, a threat with some very serious implications if it is credible. Even moreso, in fact, than Gordon's threat - as Hell entails eternal torment/damnation. Gauging the credibility of this threat is therefore arguably even more important than gauging the credibility of Gordon's threat earlier in the week... and yet, if you're honest with yourself, you're bound to see the obvious problem:

The threat is completely empty. Unlike the hypothetical scenarios with your co-worker, there is nothing for you to observe and no experience for you to draw from. You can't scientifically draw a conclusion. All that you have to work with is the statement, your own preconceptions and your own bias.

Have you ever wondered why everyone's visualization of Hell (and Heaven, for that matter) is so different?

Just think about it.