Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Thatcherite
"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 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.

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.

"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'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.

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?
623 posted on 12/13/2004 4:26:23 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 616 | View Replies ]


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 ]

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