On Agnosticism
Pascal aimed to show how, all things considered, people should believe in God based on the possible pros (eternal bliss) versus the possible cons (eternal suffering). But he begged the question, which God or gods? What about the other possible standards of God or the gods? What if God banishes everyone who believes in him to hell? Sure there is no proof that God would do this, but is there proof that he’d send anyone to hell? Is there proof in Hell? The tangible aspect to all these questions is how their answers will affect our lives on Earth. Will my belief in God limit me to marital sex? Will my uncertainty drive me insane? Will my lack in belief in God ruin me of morality? Morality seems to be the biggest issue at hand.
If two people lived the exact same objectively moral lives, one of them believed in God, one of them didn’t, would God send the disbeliever to hell? Obviously one’s own religious background might force there answer, but if the question of God is actually on the table, the answer seems to favor “no.”
People often try to use the theory of evolution to refute the idea of God, but it still seems possible that some being initiated the evolutionary process (I believe this is a form of Deism). The fact remains, that with or without God, we are here in the universe that is currently best explained (in terms of usefulness and explanatory power) via such theories as evolution. Whether the principles and laws that guide these theories are dependent or independent on God are, for us, irrelevant to our moral actions. Answering whether or not God does or does not exist is not required to answer the question of whether murder or theft is wrong. In other words, people can try and be the best people they can be regardless of their belief or lack of belief in God. Either way, decisions should be formulated based on this world, because this world is either all there is or (in any relevant sense) this world is reflective of its creator, God.
"If two people lived the exact same objectively moral lives, one of them believed in God, one of them didn’t, would God send the disbeliever to hell? Obviously one’s own religious background might force there answer, but if the question of God is actually on the table, the answer seems to favor “no.”"
ReplyDeleteI've been Christian for just about a year now, and that same question is one I'd present to all the Christian groups on campus who'd ask me about my religious beliefs. I was somewhat consumed by a spirit of conflict and I loved to debate with them and show them how "delusional" they were.
The problem lies in that you posit the moralistic concepts of "right" and "wrong" as isolated from any reference point. How do you assert a reference point for such transient concepts?
Now for me the answer is found in my belief in God (of the Judeo-Christian variety if you want to get technical), you reference the context of the Judeo-Christian tradition in the punishment, but then if that is the case, I feel you must also place the criteria for judgement within the same context. "Sin" is not merely just some rule that one should avoid breaking. I define sin as being an act which separates you, rips you from God. Now if I view God as good,the absolute representation of good from which all of my understanding of God must come from, then a life which is separated from God can never be equally "good" as one who is living within the heart of God.
If you’d like a more in-depth discussion on this, I’d be more than happy to oblige.
PS: What do you think of Pascal’s wager?