What Matters Most?
When I want to tell people what I believe without getting into it, I just tell them I'm an atheist. When I want to get more in depth I explain that there may or may not be something out there (probably there is), but it's something that I can't possibly understand so I don't attempt to please it or assume that it has any involvement in my life. Whether or not there is some higher power, I would live my life in the exact same way that I do now.
I find that most religious systems distract people with promises of the afterlife and attempt to bribe them with said promises. I'm more concerned with the way I live my life and the effects it will have on those around me in the here and now. I try to have a positive impact in a way where I can be at peace with myself and my environment. I suppose I'm more Buddhist than anything, but really, I'm just what I am. I'm less concerned with faith, and more concerned with truth. I could care less if my beliefs have a name or if other people choose to believe the same thing. I expect other people to have their own beliefs and I can respect that our spiritual needs are all different (as we are all different people).
One thing I can't take though, are the people who go through the prescribed motions, "Just in case." If you don't believe, then you don't believe, but I'm pretty sure you're not going to trick god, or whoever just by going to church on occasion. This is the highest form of hypocrisy.
posted by Kara Alison @ 4:00 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Or it might also be the application of the highest degree of reason.
Ie Pascal
Pascal's argument is sound, but it makes one HUGE assumption:
Pascal assumes that god is both concerned with our lives as well as interested in exacting consequences on us (additionally, we assume that we, as human beings are able to predict which of our behaviors will result in which consequence). If this is the god who exists, then yes, the non-practicing, non-believer is in trouble.
But suppose god does exist and he/she is not interested in judging? Or perhaps he judges us using a completely different criteria than the set that is generally accepted. At that point, we're not any better off whether or not we've chosen to lead pious lives.
I dont know but dont you just apply the Pascall formula again?
Instead of, 'is there God or not?' and reasoning a la Pascal it would be in our best interests to act as if there were - does it not just transcribe to 'is there a God who cares?' and applying the same reasoning to arrive at the same conclusion.
Not that I believe in this way of living your your life.
6th Nov 2007
But again - Pascal's assumption is that we have correctly assigned both weights and values to the various potential outcomes (which we have also correctly predicted). I think it is as likely that there are infinite other possible outcomes that we have not predicted. This negates his equation altogether.
His argument only works when we are certain of possible outcomes as well as their respective probabilities.
There are only two possibilities to believe or not to believe.
That does presuppose that the value of believing or not believing is known but if it were not known then, as you suggest, it would of course be meaningless.
However the choice is not between believing in anything and believing in nothing it is between subscribing to a set of beliefs that are defined or not. So the ‘wager’ is still a good one.
Hey Stranger!!!
Dropping by to Wish you a
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year for 2008!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home