That Pascal dude sure makes it tough for us Atheists. What is more important?: living the life of a righteous believer so that we can have an opportunity at life everlasting in heaven, or live a life that most likely will be just as righteous, but possibly being rewarded with an eternity in hell because we didn't believe in God or suck up to him.
First off, which God are we supposed to suck up to? There are over 3400 potential Gods to choose from according to Godchecker.com. Many Christians say, that according to their interpretation of the bible (written by many different men and maybe even some women), we must accept Jesus Christ to ensure our place in heaven.
Of course, the Christian cult than breaks off even more, and each sect has different rules to get into heaven, or stay out of hell. Most of these sects allow for do overs if you did something really bad, or even if you did lots of really terrible things, just as long as you die sincerely accepting Jesus as you personal saviour. Some sects say that Jews are exempt because we a chosen, we don't have to accept Jesus to get in. Of course, most say that Jews don't get in because we turned our back on Jesus.
Then you have those Muslim, Hindu, Scientology, Jewish, etc. beliefs to deal with.
And many Muslims believe the suicide bombers are Martyrs, and they are the closest you can get to their God (personally I would think hell for them....but). Most Orthodox Jews believe that Jews must follow (or at least try as hard as humanly possible to follow) the 613 Mitzvot (commandments). Of course, you can't do that and accept Jesus at the same time unless you are Jew for Jesus, who by covering a couple of religions, take Pascal even more seriously than mono religious people.
You have the Buddhists who believe that some sort of Kharmatic force dictates what our next life is going to be. I still don't get where 6.5 billion people reincarnated from. It couldn't be people. Must have been insects. But what were todays insects in their past lives? At least if they are right, we don't have to worry about accepting God or Jesus, or Mohammed.
God, if he exists, got so fed up with people believing in biblical fairy tales, he tried to show a new generation exactly how easy it is to start a religion based on ridiculous claims when he guided the Mormons in their beginnings. But few realized the parallels.
When Christians like Ray Comfort ask, why not accept Jesus since you are not guaranteed to get into heaven without accepting him, ask him/her if you should also accept Mohammed and Allah too and the teachings of Joseph Smith as well. At least there is historical proof Mohammed existed, same with Joseph Smith. And we all know that according to South Park, Mormonism is the right religion, and only Mormons get to go to heaven.
Pascal was a Christian. I think he tested out at least 2 different Christian sub cults. He had a revelation when he had a near death experience in his early 30's, but it didn't stop the sickly Pascal from dying in his late 30's. He was a genius when it came to probability theory. Too bad he didn't know what we know today when it comes to the universe and evolution, or he would know that the probability that God and/or heaven exists is as close to zero as anything can get.
Some people say that all religions are just different paths to the same destination. I couldn't agee more, except the final destination is not heaven but "Dust In The Wind."
Getting back to betting on Atheism, I say that if God exists, he put absolutely no evidence on this planet or the universe to prove it to me. My bet would be that God wouldn't want people who were that gullible to be that close to him, in heaven. In fact, he would embrace only Atheists, who dealt with real evidence. He would only want to be with those don't believe in fairy tales. He needs the intellectual stimulation. He doesn't need dummies.
And if God doesn't exist, which of course he doesn't, Atheists like me can live our lives realizing that this is our only shot to be conscious beings, and we have the choice to make the most of it or the least of it.
I have been thinking of you and Pascal since we met online and you gave me all the great advice. But I didn't want to mention it to you because I was afraid that I might sound pushy. I really admire your conviction- its great to see. But yes, Pascal would make it tough on you. There is a middle ground that you might find interesting. Martin Buber, a religious existentialist, in his book, I and Thou, lays out a philosophy that you might appreciate. In it, the divine presence rests in between the real give and take interactions that exist when two people communicate openly. Its really a powerful way of thinking about the divine in a way that you might be able to appreciate. All the best. A.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a betting man so I disregard Pascal entirely. JA is right. If I am to consider choosing everlasting afterlife, which god will I have to choose to get it?
ReplyDeletePascal would have us believe that were dealing with 50-50/either-or odds. Those odds are not too bad. Even I might be willing to play that game! Yet, when the odds jump to 100,000 to 1 that I'd pick the right god, manage to serve this god the right way, AND there actually being an afterlife as promised, well that bet is just too rich for me. I'm out!
Turn Pascal around. If I die and find out there is no god, then I would have spent my whole life mistakenly wallowing in the service of something false and imaginary. Think of the pain you'd feel finding out that your spouse never really loved you and your committment to her wishes, needs, and desires was a total sham. I won;t risk wasting my life away on something that no one can prove exists or can't seem to agree on how, where, and why it exists either.
Martin Buber tries to play the Philo Judeas of the 20th century, blending existentialism and Judaism. It's basically new age and even perhaps kabbalistic nonsense. You can spin Judaism any way you like and twist any philosophy into Judaism, but the bottom line is that GOD DOES NOT EXIST. All the syncretism in world will not make it ok to put chazir in your cholent. I have seen all kinds of theological mutts created in the minds of people seeking to reconcile something sensible with something ridiculous. Religions can be pointed any direction one wishes, which sort of tells me that religions really say nothing definitive at all.
ReplyDeleteAmishav says: "Thinking about the Divine is way that you might be able to appreciate"
How about thinking about the 'divine' in a way that matches REALITY?
Jew Thinker, Atheism is the only way based on evidence. If God exists and heaven exists, he will understand and appreciate Atheists for being realists.
ReplyDeleteAmishav, Pascal really isn't tough on me. I'm not searching or trying to protect myself. I'm happy just absorbing reality. No need to waste time on supernatural beliefs. Life is too short.
SA, part of the Pascal gamble is that if Atheists are right, we would not know the difference any ways so who cares. The gamble is that if there is a God, by believing in his doctrine and if you pick the right religion, you get to go to heaven, and you risk going to hell if you are wrong.
I agree, that some new religions try to fit everything in. The thing is, that they can't fit God in in any realistic way because that is where superstition has to come in. Even the Vatican is accepting scientific discovery these days. I find that encouraging.
I would change the right columns with this:
ReplyDelete"There are toooo many religions out there so we dont know what will happen."
We might even have to do to evil to get to heaven. >:)
JA,
ReplyDeleteI think you missed the point. Pascal is presenting a wager which he claims is 50-50 and has no risk factor. My assertion is that there are indeed any number of risk factors to consider that drive up the odds.
Consider: If this god chooses to remain so well hidden, in spite of its being eternal and infinite, then why are we looking for something that obviously doesn't wish to be found? If I go into my office and shut the door, it means that I don't wish to be disturbed.
sl, one quick point. Call me AJ or Bacon, Taj, or Beaj. JA is the Jewish Athiest, I'm the Atheist Jew:)
ReplyDeleteI don't think that Pascal ever gave the odds as being 50-50. Remember, he was a mathematician, and he most likely would not have assigned percentages. Since he was also a devout believer, he might have even thought that the chances that there was no God or heaven could have been much lower than 50%.
Why does a life have to be sinful without God?
ReplyDeleteI was being sarcastic about God existing. See Lya's comment for example.
No God exists should be changed from Fun to Reality,
Another point that destroys the idea of the wager. Something that I have thought for years: Saying that you believe something is not the same as believing it. I could say that I believe in G-d, or that JC died for my sins, but I can't force myself to believe it, even if the consequences are grave. This is especially damning (no pun intended) for christians for whom creed is everything and deed is (almost) nothing. An omnicient G-d will certainly know you are a phoney trying to avoid hell.
ReplyDeleteJewish thinker, you seem very hung up on definitions. The graph on my blog is just an example. I usually look for jpegs or gifs to add some color to my blogs.
ReplyDeleteEven your definition of Atheist isn't mine. Look at the header for my blog page: An Atheist is someone who denies the existence of God. Yep, that is me.
Jewish freak, I think the idea of believing in God according to Pascal is actually accepting that God exists and try to live up to his code, whatever his code is according to the mortals of the time who make Gods rules.
You can define me however you like. I don't see any evidence God ever existed, and I don't see any evidence Leprechauns ever existed. I feel God has as much of a chance existing as Leprechauns do.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I don't use the term skeptical atheist, I define myself as an atheist.
ReplyDeleteYou can label me however you like, but I basically told you the way it is. Nobody can prove 100% that God doesn't exist or that Leprechauns don't exist. I know that there is no need for a God to explain anything and there is nothing that leads me to believe God ever existed.
To me there is no proof Jesus even walked the earth as a man. But using your logic, you can not be sure that Jesus was not the son of God, so that would make you an Agnostic Christian, if I want to start making up definitions.
This is why definitions are stupid. And the argument about what degree an atheist is is ridiculous. It depends on the definition, and there is no absolute definition.
But you can call me what you want.
Maybe you should define everything because terms like "righteous" "atheist" "sin" and "moral" are very subjective terms. Especially when theists and non theists are having discussions.
I should have said that subjective definitions are stupid.
ReplyDeleteThere is plenty on the internet to do with Atheist morality, but then again, it is a very subjective subject.
I have done posts on it.
Here is one you might find interesting.
Personally I believe morality has evolved in us as a way of surviving and carrying on. I think that culture and nurture also play a role in defining what is moral.
The religious points of evil, morality and righteousness to me can still have merit as an atheist, because instead of God's rules, I just look at them as man made rules (attributed to someone who doesn't exist). So in other words, an Atheist can commit a sin, not in God's eyes but in the eyes of mankind.