Re: virus: Faith vs Relig
Eric Boyd (6ceb3@qlink.queensu.ca)
Tue, 23 Mar 1999 15:40:35 -0500
Hi,
Snow Leopard <juliet784@hotmail.com> writes:
<<
I guess when I say ‘religious’, I mean those who put whatever faith
they have in their priest, the name of their church, or the
traditions, rather than the God those things are supposed to point to.
>>
We come from profoundly different view points. When I say religious,
I mean people who have spent the time to look into issues, spent the
time to look into themselves -- those rare people who are in control
of their own divinity. They are the phaithful, to use the new term.
When I say "faithful", I mean those who ignore themselves and trust
somebody else to make their decisions for them -- be it the priest,
the church, the traditions, the bible, or whatever they think their
God to be.
The reason I come from this angle is that there are *many* religions,
and members of them all have the potential to *be religious*; not
with-standing the fact that some religions lack gods, and faith.
<<
The bare definition of the Christian faith is “Jesus Christ, the
perfect Son of God is the only thing that can save us from our own
wrongdoings. All you have to do is let him live through you,
accepting him as Lord and Savior.”
>>
Well, you've summed up what *Paul* said Christianity was. Now do you
care to find out what *Jesus* said it was? Or *James*?
Or how about -- horror of horrors -- what *you* personally have found
of value in Christianity?
<<
Personally, I don’t understand what there is to lose. I remember
learning to ride my bike, I couldn’t keep the confidence to keep
looking ahead unless my father’s hand was on the seat, holding me up.
Even if the hand wasn’t there, it’s the confdence that counts. So, if
there is no God, then I have a confidence that makes me comfortable.
At what cost? If there is no God, then I am acting well, but there’s
no one to answer to, if God is all in my mind, than a projection of a
God-concept, coming from me encourages me to live right, and it’s just
my conscious.
On the other hand, if there is a God, the one that I believe there is,
then he’s happy with me, at least to some degree. And, to be brutally
honest, I’d rather have more than I need, than need more than I have.
>>
This argument is known as Pascal's Wager, after Blase Pascal, who
first made it. There are many refutations available, but consider
this:
Calvin: Well. I've decided I do believe in Santa Claus, no matter
how preposterous he sounds.
Hobbes: What convinced you?
Calvin: A simple risk analysis. I want presents. Lots of presents.
Why risk not getting them over a matter of belief? Heck, I'll believe
anything they want.
Hobbes: How cynically enterprising of you.
Calvin: It's the spirit of Christmas.
- Calvin & Hobbes comic by Bill Waterson
Pascal's Wager, although at first convincing, has some serious flaws,
not the least of which is that it assumes one can *choose* to believe
whatever one wants to. Next on the list is that Pascal's wager does
not consider the fact that perhaps choosing to believe in the *wrong*
God could have infinite negative consequences, balancing off the
infinite positive consequences of belief in the correct god.
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church
we're just making him madder and madder"
- Homer Simpson, "The Simpsons"
ERiC