What if We're Wrong?
What Dawkins said is the basis for my Outsider Test for Faith. If the point of such questions has to do with Pascal's Wager, well, that's ignorant and irrelevant when dealing with the number of religions making similar threats of judgment after death. Dan Barker turns the tables and asks the Christian what if you are wrong?
25 comments:
Okay, fine... what if I AM wrong? What HAVE I lost?
A few less notches in my belt related to sexual conquest. Well, GETTING them hasn't helped, and leaving it alone has increased my peace of mind, and my relationship.
The selfish and unending pursuit of material gain: Well, seeing as getting 'stuff' is always trying to hit a moving target, throwing off the bonds of covetousness has freed my money for more useful matters, like retirement investing, or putting money away for my kids schooling. It's made me learn a little about auto repair to keep my 'relatively' new car as new as possible.
It's taken my focus from myself and placed it on more altruistic aims... and then taken those altruistic aims, and removed even the minor self-serving aspects from them.
I suppose, the big difference for me than most though, is that, whether it pans out as true or no, it's the lifestyle I'd rather live regardless. In the end, it HAS turned out better than the alternatives.
I'll second that motion.
What you've lost is a lifetime wasted believing in foolish ideas. The Flat Earth Society justified their irrational beliefs in much the same way, shrugging off their erroneous thinking as harmless.
In fact, it was the fear of sailing off the edge of the earth that stunted discovery, innovation, and the advancement of knowledge. Unfounded religious beliefs do the same.
If you're going to live a life that promotes social harmony, live it because it provides a net benefit, not because you believe that an invisible friend will reward you after you die.
SJ what you have only shown that you yourself subscribe to foolish ideas. All credible historians of science believe that the idea of a flat earth was essentially non-existent in the middle-ages among persons with any serious education (or anywhere else for that matter) so the idea that discovery was stunted by such a belief is foolish from start to finish. I think Barker is just being immature in such a question, of course Barker is not exactly famous for his academic or philosophical prowess. Frankly im not that big a fan of pascals wager, except that its a good conversation starter, but it doesnt prove anything thus I would never use it as an argument for the Christian faith in and of itself to begin with. Pascal didnt mean it to be used that way either, if you look at the Pensee's, it was just an idea he was throwing out.
Metaphyzxx, you're ignoring the fact that you're likely be just as altruistic regardless of whatever religion you'd been brought up in (so long as you had a healthy living situation, etc). I don't know your life-story, and maybe Christianity came and offered advice at a time when you most needed it, but realize other religions and secular institutions do the same thing all the time.
That aside... What if you're wrong about Buddhism and you've set your quest for nirvana back several lifetimes?
What if Jesus wasn't the messiah and the real one came and went unnoticed in the 1940-50s?
What if we're all wrong about Mayan beliefs and we're coming up on the end of the world in a few years?
Have you prepared for those eventualities? If not, why not? From my point of view, they seem equally likely.
What if you're wrong, and you've destroyed the lives of millions of homosexuals throughout history? What if the Crusaders were wrong, and their barbarous ravaging was not sanctioned by the Lord Almighty? What if the Inquisitors were wrong, and they were torturing thousands of innocents to a slow, painful death for a god that never existed? What if Jim Eliot, Nate Saint, Ed McCully, Pete Fleming, Roger Youderian, and countless other martyrs were wrong, literally giving up their lives for nothing (and leaving their families without fathers/husbands in the process)?
What if the Hebrews were wrong, and they committed genocide for a bloodthirsty god who was never there in the first place?
Surely you see the point.
Actually, that issue is addressed in my last paragraph. It just so happens that I classify myself as a christian, because it most fits my own understanding of God. To be honest with you, researching Jason's Christadelphian background makes more sense to me than the standard evangelical rhetoric, so I'm willing to explore it.
The issue regarding other religions however tends to be answered by the sense of purpose. While it's true, that I might have been equally as altruistic natively, the fact is that I WASN'T. Faith in God, through Jesus, even if illusory has indicated to me that making the right choice is doable, though likely to be reviled...
Christianity for me, establishes precedent. God is not bound by any rules but his own, but He IS bound by his own rules. Do I understand all the time; far from it. At the same time, I didn't understand the reasoning behind my parents advice growing up either, but time ended up showing me that they knew better. He's looking from a different perspective than I. Kind of like, if I knew then what I know now and whatnot.
And SJ, where in my original response did the promise of the afterlife EVER get mentioned? As far as I'm concerned, Heaven is the consolation prize for a Christian... If God's sole purpose for 'salvation' was to Get to Heaven (the infamous Get Out of Hell Free card), then the best thing you could EVER do for a new convert would be to bust a cap in their head and send them there sooner. Pretty sure that's how Jim Jones probably reasoned. So MY belief in God DOES have a net benefit... a life better lived. Leave the "Flat Earth" stuff out of it.
Okay, fine... what if I AM wrong? What HAVE I lost?
Countless Sundays (or Saturdays, if you are SDA or Jewish) that could have been put to better use than listening to a man spout fairy tales (help a neighbor repair his home; toss the football around with a family member; whatever); money that could have been put to REAL use (that money you use to pay your preacher and maintain your pretty church could have saved starving families) and a personal dogmatic cost (it requires you to subscribe to one and only one idea of the universe without any reliable evidence to support that idea and without the potential to change your idea without damning your soul eternally).
I am actually one of the people here at DC who have no problem with a utilitarin acceptance of religion. If religion makes you happier, I've got no problem with that under a few conditions.
First, you have to realize that there is no reliable evidence that you are right; you believe because you want to and it makes you happy, not because it is necessarily true.
Second, you have to realize that what makes you happy might not work on others, so it is not ok to mislead others when prostelytizing (which comes back to the first condition: when prostelytizing, you have to openly admit that your only real hook is that your religion makes you happy, not that you have reliable evidence for its truth).
That is why I actually support the UU's even though I don't believe in theism of any kind; I recognize that spiritualism DOES make a lot of people happy, and so long as it is approached openly, humbly, and without presumption of truth, I think it is fine (although not for me).
I find religionists like this to be harmless; Daniel Dennett refers to it as "belief in belief" and I think he is correct. As long as you aren't lying about your faith and stating it as proven fact, or trying to push it on other people by misleading them as to the evidence, then I got no problem. The problems come when believers insist that they are correct without sufficient justification, which unfortunately tends to be the rule with religion rather than the exception.
I do wish you would realize that YOU made those changes, not God; I think it is important for you to realize that you have the power in your life, and that you can turn your life around into something better. But, if you need to believe in God to make your life better and you neither harm nor mislead anyone in the process, nor make unjustified claims to truth, I wish you all the best.
Evangelical Christianity does not fall within these restrictions, which is why I am motivated to fight against it.
All credible historians of science believe that the idea of a flat earth was essentially non-existent in the middle-ages among persons with any serious education (or anywhere else for that matter)
Yeah, he's right; most educated belief in the flat Earth began to die out after Aristotle in ancient Greece. However, belief among early Christian scholars remained divided long after this through the 6th century C.E. (which is firmly in the Middle Ages) due to the corrupting effects of literal scripturalism on science (see St.John Chrysostom, St. Athanasius, Lactantius, Diodorus of Tarsus (as per Photius), Severian Bishop of Gabala, and Cosmas Indicopleustes) There is also serious disagreement as to what the common man thought about the topic throughout the Middle Ages. Christian scholars of the time also knew that the other side of the world HAD to be uninhabited, because all man had derived from Adam, and there is no way primitive man could have gotten to the other side of the world (see Pope Zachary's proclamation against Bishop Vergilius, 8th centure C.E.). And yet they were stunningly wrong in their religion-based conclusions, weren't they?
I think Barker is just being immature in such a question...Frankly im not that big a fan of pascals wager
Unfortunately, your co-religionists are not so enlightened. This is by far the most common apologetic I hear in public (that is, not in a forum designed for apologetics, like this one). And while Pascal himself did not think that the wager proved Christianity, he did think it was a strong argument against agnosticism, for which he has been thoroughly eviscerated through the centuries by any philosopher looking for an easy target.
Wow, Shygetz, you're good!
Caleb, actually, I don't see the point. I was never in a crusade. I was never in a witch hunt. I've never been in the military (though I'm considering changing that). I've never oppressed a homosexual. I regard all sin equally, from lying to auto theft to unmarried sex to murder... It's all the same. Not necessarily the same tangible result, but the cause boils down to the same thing.
As for the ancient Hebrews... it seems a foolish argument, considering that one doesn't HAVE to be a religious zealot to commit genocide. It's just easier to blame religion if it's present when it happens. As far as THEY were concerned, the land was supposed to be theirs anyway, and the conquest was to be the collective reminder of God's favor... Kind of like communion is for Christians.
$0.02
Metaphyzxx, I would assume that, like most people, you don't wish to be self-deluded.
You seem now to recognize that a life motivated by generosity and love is intrinsically better than one motivated by hedonistic selfishness. I doubt that will change if you question whether the factual claims of christianity are true or not. Even if Jesus didn't rise from the dead that shouldn't make the ideal of compassion that he represents for you any less powerful.
That being so, what reason is there not to rigorously question your beliefs?
Should that not be what a mature individual, desiring to have as true an idea of the way things actually are as possible, would want to do?
If you're wrong, its not only sexual conquests and material gain that you may have lost. You've also lost the chance to know the truth.
That would only seem like no great loss to someone who doesn't care about truth and is glad to embrace self-delusion.
If that accurately describes you then there's nothing else to say.
But I doubt it does. So welcome to our little arena of intellectual debate.
I'm not sure if it has been brought up yet, but there is yet another catch to Pascal's wager that offers incentive to avoid Christianity out of a list of religions.
The Quran seems to indicate that there is a special, more terrifying torment awaiting in hell for those of the Christian faith who accept the doctrine of the Trinity ("Where are my partners, whom ye have imagined?"), in accordance with Hadith interpretation.
Therefore, if the Muslims are indeed correct about God (Allah), then Christians will likely be in much worse shape than adherents of other religions.
Don't misunderstand me - I consider Pascal's wager as intellectually devoid as the next rational thinker. I am simply pointing out that, supposing it did correlate to a logical view of reality, it would hardly indicate Christianity as being a necessarily better choice than any other religion - as sick as Yahweh is, Allah strikes me as even more loathsome, and if I had to spend eternity in one of their hells I would likely choose Yahweh's (particularly since the Tanakh does not even necessarily indicate there is a hell, or any life after death at all).
And, as one final note in regard to your comment:
As for the ancient Hebrews... it seems a foolish argument, considering that one doesn't HAVE to be a religious zealot to commit genocide. It's just easier to blame religion if it's present when it happens. As far as THEY were concerned, the land was supposed to be theirs anyway, and the conquest was to be the collective reminder of God's favor... Kind of like communion is for Christians.
You have just set about trying to justify the slaughter of entire cities down to the last child.
And you've done so out of purely religious motives.
Beliefs have real world consequences.
It matters.
Amen to that, David.
Shygetz, NOW we get to someone that actually is speaking to ME.
First, let's get down to basics. I'll wholly admit that the personal changes made in myself were made by me. What my faith had done was provide a motivation to get me to make those changes, empowered me to keep striving in them regardless of evidentiary results. To be honest with you, the forces empowered by my faith were well in place prior TO my proclaimation of faith, it's just that there's now a purpose to which I now attatch that drive.
Regarding the 'countless' sundays wasted... they were wasted already, as in most circumstances, I most likely would have just slept in till 10/11 or so. Now I rise early for the opportunity to do something for someone else.
The 'wasted' money, last I checked a charitable donation is a charitable donation. I share the vision of that cause, and thust that cause gets my support. Plus, I'd rather see to it that my pastor is well supplied, as I wouldn't want some outside organization to be able to buy his silence. You shoot straight with me, you get my endorsement...
You see, MY God is an empowering God. I don't wait around for 'miracles', I do what I can to make them happen for others. I get off my ass and do what I can to make a difference. The thing MY God provides for me is the answer to my personal and eternal INTERNAL question... Why?
God is the foundational answer to my "Why" question. Knowing MY God isn't going to help anyone. You've got to know him yourself, for yourself. In the end, I've LOST nothing. At least, nothing that ends up being WORTH having in my little microcosm.
David, actually, you're touching on EXACTLY what I'm seeking. Truth. Period.
First thing, you can't judge another society based on the rules of your own. Trust me, I've had my share of issues with the apparent change of nature in God between the Old and New Testaments. Their government, their laws, their punishments. Regardless of how the United States feels about Iran, it's not our place to judge their government... history will do that.
I mean, were the call to arms come up, and all "christians" were called to "Fight for the Gospel", I'd require a LOT more than someone's say-so that it's what God wants, seeing as he's not trying to establish a nation for anyone.
What my faith had done was provide a motivation to get me to make those changes, empowered me to keep striving in them regardless of evidentiary results. To be honest with you, the forces empowered by my faith were well in place prior TO my proclaimation of faith, it's just that there's now a purpose to which I now attatch that drive...The thing MY God provides for me is the answer to my personal and eternal INTERNAL question... Why? God is the foundational answer to my "Why" question.
Might I offer a different motivation that might lead to similar results? This is a good summary of why I get up in the morning. Maybe it would work for you too.
Regarding the 'countless' sundays wasted... they were wasted already, as in most circumstances, I most likely would have just slept in till 10/11 or so. Now I rise early for the opportunity to do something for someone else.
Perhaps your church was different from mine, but at my church we rarely did charitable deeds during church. Church was about maintaining the faith; charitable deeds ocurred at other times.
I spend Sunday mornings with my family (pretty much like I spend Saturday mornings). Remembering how I felt about church when I was my kids' ages, I think I have more meaningful interactions with my kids on Sunday mornings now than I would in church.
The 'wasted' money, last I checked a charitable donation is a charitable donation. I share the vision of that cause, and thust that cause gets my support. Plus, I'd rather see to it that my pastor is well supplied, as I wouldn't want some outside organization to be able to buy his silence. You shoot straight with me, you get my endorsement...
Well, certainly from a tax standpoint you are right. But I think you'd agree with me that some charities are more deserving than others. I understand that you share a vision of the Christian cause, but I share visions of lots of causes. However, I have a limited amount of money to spread around, so some causes I support get neglected financially.
For example, is it more important for your pastor to preach the gospel, or for HIV-infected children to have anti-retroviral drugs. 'Cause every dollar you send to your pastor could go towards that (or cancer research, or helping the homeless, etc.) My point is, there is a REAL cost to religion. If that cost is worth it to you, fine; it's your time and your money. But everyone should realize that it's there.
Dawkins singularly failed to answer the question.
Because the question was vague and/or pointless. I don't blame him for not stepping directly into Pascal's dumb wager. What if he's wrong about the existence of a god in general? Who knows? What if he's wrong about the existence of the Christian God? It's a silly question that signifies nothing--he goes to Hell, but if a jealous Wotan exists, Christians go to Hell so it's a lose-lose proposition.
metaphyzxx: The issue regarding other religions however tends to be answered by the sense of purpose. While it's true, that I might have been equally as altruistic natively, the fact is that I WASN'T. Faith in God, through Jesus, even if illusory has indicated to me that making the right choice is doable, though likely to be reviled...
You're content to settle with Christianity simply because you happen to have been born in a predominantly Christian nation? That seems a pour method for picking the one true religion to me. It's only going to end up in a world full of diverse and conflicting one true religions. (Like the world we have.)
Christianity for me, establishes precedent. God is not bound by any rules but his own, but He IS bound by his own rules. Do I understand all the time; far from it.
That could also describe Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and many more. Simply because Christianity has defined the concept of a god in such a way that it's appealing to you isn't an argument for Christianity any more than it is for the other religions.
metaphyzxx: First thing, you can't judge another society based on the rules of your own. Trust me, I've had my share of issues with the apparent change of nature in God between the Old and New Testaments.
But the common Christian argument is that their god is the only source for morality. Do you agree with that? If this god's demands for us are rational or consistent, shouldn't this morality be consistent across time?
Whoa, lots of response to make.
B H, you make the false assumption that I'm a christian just based on heritage. I rejected it on that notion, and returned to it after further exploration because it answered questions that the others didn't. I've investigated Buddhism, Confusism, Islam, and had a nice span of time studying Taoism, some aspects of which I still practice...
Regarding the morality issue, yeah, God is set as the standard for morality... Not Government. Last I checked, it IS the atheists that advocate the separation of church and state; One that I wholly support. We, looking from a perspective of american government don't really have the option of judging the Law, as handed down by Moses. What we see as 'unfair' someone in Iran might see as what happens on Tuesday. Someone else's opinion only holds weight if that person's approval matters. In this case, God really wouldn't care if you LIKED what he says, any more than he'd 'care' if you liked the sky being blue.
Shygets,
Valid question, but in the end, I "DO" believe that it's more important for my pastor to preach the gospel. At the same time, I also consider the fact that:
a: My CHURCH pays my pastor's salary, not me (just like my taxes don't pay the president's salary, the Dept. of Treasury does). My money goes in a pool with the money from the myriad other contributing members of my church for use at the local level. AIDS research is fine... but the mother with 5 kids that needs help with her rent is a little more relevant to me. That's a use that my money can go to that yields tangible results.
Don't get me wrong, I do see your point, and religion DOES have a cost. But when MY religion results in doing something to make a difference in my surrounding community. I hate pulling her name up into this, but do you think Mother Theresa was a good person? Why? Most likely because of the good she DID, not necessarily her beliefs. All the same, her BELIEFS are what motivated her to DO that good.
I hate pulling her name up into this, but do you think Mother Theresa was a good person? Why? Most likely because of the good she DID, not necessarily her beliefs.
Actually, I'm not sure if Mother Theresa was a good person. But I concede your point; of course there are wonderful people who do wonderful things in the name of their religion. And if the ONLY way to get them to be good people is to convince them that God is watching them, then I can accept religion on utilitarian grounds.
But that doesn't make it right, just potentially useful. And there are many people who do not find utility in religion, and yet remain there for various reasons.
I'm never wrong.
Those times I wuz wrong don't count, cuz, cuz... see point #1.
I once THOUGHT I was wrong, but it turned out that I was wrong.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
I think I would take Pascal up on his wager if it meant I could bang that girl in the pet shop. No, I don't mean *in* the pet shop - I mean the girl that work in the pet shop. Ok? Why would I fantasize about having sex in a pet shop??
Or, a million bucks. Then I could get a big medallion and just lure her to myself with my unbuttoned shirt.
Anyway, IF the Bible were true, the ones who God is most certainly coming after (ie: want to put the hurt on) are the Trinitarians because they worship Jesus - the "Man of Sin" mentioned several times in the Bible. They bear the hateful Trinity number on their foreheads. The worshiped Jesus is the antichrist:
2 Thess 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;4 **Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God**.5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Note that it does not say "they worship the wrong man" but rather, they worship a man, a creature, as if he is God.
So here:
Re 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.Re 13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.Re 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.Re 14:7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.Re 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,Re 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
Trinitarians deny that Jesus came in the flesh - ie: that he was just a man - a sinner.
Bill Rosshttp://biblshockers.blogspot.com
B H, you make the false assumption that I'm a christian just based on heritage.
Ah, then if you say so, I did. The argument still stands that these other religions are just as likely to produce the positive effects you mentioned, at least for other people.
Regarding the morality issue, yeah, God is set as the standard for morality.
You mentioned having trouble with it, and I'd urge you to take more time looking into morality in the Tanakh then. If the Lord of Joshua is the source of your morality...
Post a Comment