Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: conservative_crusader
"Perhaps He would punish them for believing in Him, but then not behaving well enough, while he let the non-believers off because "they didn't know any better""

Now I may be way off base here, but if I understand correctly, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Seriously, if the people had a chance to believe in him, but didn't, then the god(s) would punish the people for refusing him to begin with. Christian beliefs often teach a doctrine that covers this: If there's someone stranded on an island, and dies having never heard the gospel, would he go to hell? The general idea, is that if this person looks at his surroundings and believes there is a god, then he would receive a reward of sorts. This is only possible if someone has never had the opportunity for salvation according to some Christian beliefs.

This argument and numerous arguments like it presume the conclusion that all possible Gods would consider belief to be a rewardworthy state of mind. Someone who believes may exclude behaviour from their lives (such as (for the sake of argument) open-minded investigation of the mechanics of the universe) that God might consider more praiseworthy.

An alternative argument is that God may not care one way or the other whether we believe or not but Anti-God (an inferior but very powerful being who God also doesn't care about) punishes believers only; and in such a situation it is belief that carries the negative payoff.

"This doesn't follow when the beliefs may be mutually exclusive. Picking none may be not as bad as picking the wrong one (and may even get you THE REWARD for reasons like the one I suggested in the last paragraph) ."

I cannot agree with this either, why would the deity you are characterizing punish humans for at least seeking him out? Answer: He wouldn't.

Some faiths are very clear that adherents to rival faiths get worse punishments. Just because you don't believe that of your God it doesn't make it impossible.

I will agree that Christian beliefs reflect that if someone has the opportunity to convert from one religion to Christianity, and never do, then they will receive eternal punishment, but I also believe that if someone never has the opportunity to convert, then they would still receive a lesser reward.

That may be your belief but I am not aware that the bible has anything to say on the matter.

"I think the point here is that "choosing" to believe in one of the available deities is not a true option. We don't "choose" our beliefs in any meaningful way. They enter our minds like viruses. We may be persuaded by reason or adopt faith but such actions are rarely truly volitional in the sense that we choose what to have for dinner."

there are contradictions to both sides of the argument here. For example: in Israel, one might have the option of becoming Jewish, or Muslim, or perhaps even Christian, but in a place like medieval Europe, you might be forced to be a Catholic. However, in modern society, I can think of very few scenarios where this actually applies. If you can I'd be interested to hear them.

I think you may have slightly misunderstood me. I am not talking about membership of a church, or the appearance of belief (unless you think that "faking it" may be good enough for God, which I suppose is as valid as any other position). I am talking about true inner belief. History shows that numerous medieval europeans (up to and including some Popes IIRC) didn't actually believe in God at all. Although they were members of the church that did not reflect their beliefs. My contention is that inner belief (surely what Pascal's reward is available for if belief is relevant at all) is a state of mind that cannot be chosen. You cannot choose your beliefs. They happen to you.

I'm not to fond of the dinner analogy you use either. Much better to use one like opening a door before you walk through it. If you don't open the door, it's gonna hurt on the other side. And if there is more than one door (I'm not saying there are necessarily, but "if") picking which door to open.

If the doors are beliefs, I maintain that you cannot "choose" to open any of them. I could tell you today that I'd decided to become a Christian in order to benefit from Pascal's wager (if I didn't accept the refutations at the top of this post) but I still wouldn't believe. You can't make yourself believe something.

Just curious... I suppose I could figure it out from reading all your posts, but are you affiliated with agnosticism or atheism, or any religion at all?

I am an atheist. Nobody has shown me an argument that convinces me that any deity exists, though I don't discount the possibility. I think that wikipedia characterises my position as "weak atheism".

629 posted on 12/14/2004 3:05:27 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 623 | View Replies ]


To: Thatcherite
"This argument and numerous arguments like it presume the conclusion that all possible Gods would consider belief to be a rewardworthy state of mind. Someone who believes may exclude behaviour from their lives (such as (for the sake of argument) open-minded investigation of the mechanics of the universe) that God might consider more praiseworthy."

So does post #126 qualify as investigating the mechanics of the universe?

"An alternative argument is that God may not care one way or the other whether we believe or not but Anti-God (an inferior but very powerful being who God also doesn't care about) punishes believers only; and in such a situation it is belief that carries the negative payoff."

A very interesting argument, this one bears thinking about. But it shows a lot more speculation on your part that I would care to accept. I'm not sure I'm willing to take that leap of faith. But lets look at this: Why would a god punish people for wanting to seek him out? If nothing else, this "Anti-God" of yours would have revealed himself through some miraculous act, and taken on the role of a god. My argument, is that wanting to obey someones rules should never make someone angry. Therefore wanting to abide by the creator's rules should not make him angry.

"Some faiths are very clear that adherents to rival faiths get worse punishments. Just because you don't believe that of your God it doesn't make it impossible."

Very true, I do agree with you here. If you are say: a Muslim, and you have the opportunity to convert to Chritsianity. And if you refuse, and Mohamed was actually not a prophet, the bible says that you would be cast into the lake of fire. However, I did not argue against that. I am saying that it is better to believe in a god, than it is to not believe in a god. Because these same faiths you refer to, believe it is better to believe in a god than it is to not believe in one. Thats right if I were a Muslim, my idea would be Atheist < Christian < Muslim. A member of any presently known faith would not be: Other Religion < Atheist < Us.

"That may be your belief but I am not aware that the bible has anything to say on the matter"

It's in one of Paul's letters I believe. I'm a little to lazy to look it up right now, but if you're really interested in fining out, try all the books in the new testament that begin with the word: PAUL.

"You cannot choose your beliefs. They happen to you."

How can you "not choose your beliefs," if they're not forced on you? If someone is really interested in seeking the creator, and they are not compelled by some other force to accept a canned god, they are entirely free to choose their faith by what they find convincing. Beliefs are not like a disease, in much the same way whether being a conservative or a liberal or a moderate is not like a disease, it's what you are convinced of. You can be convinced otherwise. An example of this would be a conversion from one belief system to another. People are free to choose their faiths.

Also, lets play with this analogy of yours. Believing in a god would be like choosing to eat. In some instances the food may be poisoned, but if you refuse to eat, then you're going to die anyway. Or perhaps, you are deathly allergic to all but one type of food, and you don't know what that food is. However if you still refuse to eat, you're going to die anyway.


" You can't make yourself believe something."

Sure you can. I do it every day. You need to bear in mind though when I make myself believe something I rarely change my mind, but I am quite capable of believing something else.
637 posted on 12/14/2004 7:56:17 PM PST by conservative_crusader (The voice of truth, tells me a different story. The voice of truth says do not be afraid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 629 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson