Issue 113
News: Pascal's Wager.
Once, a teacher of mine, noticing my cynical attitudes towards religion, mentioned Pascal's Wager in class, noting that it would most likely benefit a person to believe in a God just in case God does exist, he won't throw you into the firey flames of Hell. This is one of the few real arguents that Jack Chick has ever tried to posit for the existence of a god, with his bizarre Conspiracy Theory of Everything aside. Of course, my response to the wager is on so many levels that it would have been hard for me to explain the flaws in the argument for him without throwing the class very much off track. Here I can explain my position without regards to time or the fact that, due to my Hyperlexia, it is often easier for me to write my thoughts than say them out loud. Even if we are to assume that there is a God, who demands obedience to himself to the point where John Lennon (a philanthropist and critic of Organized Religion, as "Imagine" will attest) is more likely to endure eternal punishment than his assassin, who was a Born-Again Christian before and after the assassination. Even if one accepts this as true, if one was to be convinced that this arguement is valid, it won't be enough to actually strengthen belief as much as a possibly feigned belief. For example (since one of the most recent books I've read is Under the Banner of Heaven, a book about Mormonism), suppose I was to tell you that if you were to move to Utah, you would stick out less if you were a Mormon. You may take my advice to heart, you may attend services at the local ward, and you may even get a lot more of Napoleon Dynamite than the average person. But does this mean that taking my advice make the transparently inconsistent story of Joseph Smith any more realistic? Of course not, because feigned belief, even if it is intended to being about real belief, will not always (or, possibly, often) advance beyond that state. Of course, this does not even take into account the idea that there was a different god (say, Baal) than the one being posited in the original examples, who is angry at not being worshipped. Of course, many apologists seem to be oblivious about this idea, since I have yet to find any rebuttals to some of the points I came up with, especially the second one, although on the first point, even Pascal himself it wasn't intended as the be-all and end-all argument. Of course, I should note that completely rendering redundant an argument for the existence of a deity isn't even close to the same thing as disproving it. There may be a god, or there may not be, or there could even be a God who is so either incompetent or evil that it would be best if he wasn't worshipped, like in Philip Pullman's works.
Band Name of the Day: The Marital Vegetables, from an episode of top Gear. It shouldn't take too long to figure out what it means.
Film Idea of the Day: None this week.
Review of the Day: Twitch and Shout. (Lowell Handler) This is quite possibly the first authobigraphical account of a man living with Tourette's Syndrome, and a very interesting account of life with Tourette's which may end up with some elements incorporated into Lucky...ing (Issue 111). This book may be hard to find, but it is worth it.
Quote of the Day: Kaitlin: "Well we can't ask God for help unless you believe in God."
Chauncey: "Well I can't just magically believe in something that I don't believe in."
Kaitlin: "Of course you can, Chauncey."
Chauncey: "You mean, if I pretend hard enough I'll believe?"
_________Wonder Showzen. Episode: Space.
Link of the Day: These geniuses think Star Wars is a religion of its own. This had better be a parody.
Once, a teacher of mine, noticing my cynical attitudes towards religion, mentioned Pascal's Wager in class, noting that it would most likely benefit a person to believe in a God just in case God does exist, he won't throw you into the firey flames of Hell. This is one of the few real arguents that Jack Chick has ever tried to posit for the existence of a god, with his bizarre Conspiracy Theory of Everything aside. Of course, my response to the wager is on so many levels that it would have been hard for me to explain the flaws in the argument for him without throwing the class very much off track. Here I can explain my position without regards to time or the fact that, due to my Hyperlexia, it is often easier for me to write my thoughts than say them out loud. Even if we are to assume that there is a God, who demands obedience to himself to the point where John Lennon (a philanthropist and critic of Organized Religion, as "Imagine" will attest) is more likely to endure eternal punishment than his assassin, who was a Born-Again Christian before and after the assassination. Even if one accepts this as true, if one was to be convinced that this arguement is valid, it won't be enough to actually strengthen belief as much as a possibly feigned belief. For example (since one of the most recent books I've read is Under the Banner of Heaven, a book about Mormonism), suppose I was to tell you that if you were to move to Utah, you would stick out less if you were a Mormon. You may take my advice to heart, you may attend services at the local ward, and you may even get a lot more of Napoleon Dynamite than the average person. But does this mean that taking my advice make the transparently inconsistent story of Joseph Smith any more realistic? Of course not, because feigned belief, even if it is intended to being about real belief, will not always (or, possibly, often) advance beyond that state. Of course, this does not even take into account the idea that there was a different god (say, Baal) than the one being posited in the original examples, who is angry at not being worshipped. Of course, many apologists seem to be oblivious about this idea, since I have yet to find any rebuttals to some of the points I came up with, especially the second one, although on the first point, even Pascal himself it wasn't intended as the be-all and end-all argument. Of course, I should note that completely rendering redundant an argument for the existence of a deity isn't even close to the same thing as disproving it. There may be a god, or there may not be, or there could even be a God who is so either incompetent or evil that it would be best if he wasn't worshipped, like in Philip Pullman's works.
Band Name of the Day: The Marital Vegetables, from an episode of top Gear. It shouldn't take too long to figure out what it means.
Film Idea of the Day: None this week.
Review of the Day: Twitch and Shout. (Lowell Handler) This is quite possibly the first authobigraphical account of a man living with Tourette's Syndrome, and a very interesting account of life with Tourette's which may end up with some elements incorporated into Lucky...ing (Issue 111). This book may be hard to find, but it is worth it.
Quote of the Day: Kaitlin: "Well we can't ask God for help unless you believe in God."
Chauncey: "Well I can't just magically believe in something that I don't believe in."
Kaitlin: "Of course you can, Chauncey."
Chauncey: "You mean, if I pretend hard enough I'll believe?"
_________Wonder Showzen. Episode: Space.
Link of the Day: These geniuses think Star Wars is a religion of its own. This had better be a parody.
Labels: Religious Right
posted by DerekAxe at 8:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home