Pascal's Wager

[SezMe]

I don't think that agnosticism is nessessarily inconsistent with a God belief. One could say that it is not possible to know whether God exists yet still believe that God exists.

I agree, but that was not my point. I asked about agnosticism and Christianity. The core belief of Christianity is that Jesus, the earthly manifestation of god, appeared on earth, died for humanity's sins, and returned to heaven. How you can subscribe to this and yet still remain uncertain of the existence of the god that put it all in motion is, in my book, inconsistent.

The responsive post by valis says to me that (s)he is not concerned with such issues but just finds something rewarding in what they read in the bible and became a Christian as a result. Ya know, I can accept that. In fact, I'll take 1000 of people like valis over one of the ilk of Dobson any day of the week.

BTW, welcome to the fora, dv82matt.

 

[SezMe]

This wussy liberalistic view of Christianity I consider rank hypocrisy. The only authority that defines Christianity is the bible. Either it's an authority, or it's not an authority. If you can ignore some of it, you can ignore all of it. Are you saying that you can believe that murder is fine and dandy and still be a good Christian?

Look out! Here goes an atheist defending Christianity!

I think you are making the same mistake that fundamentalist make - you are reading the bible literally. What you denigrate as "wussy" and "liberalistic" can better be understood by viewing the bible as metaphor. It is a series of stories that describe (in an admittedly obtuse way) an ideal way of life, namely that old, simplistic saying "God is Love". For example, the stoning of sinners means to throw out your bad thoughts and behaviors.

Now you can insist that Christians have to follow every "jot and tittle" of the bible but then you are being just as dogmatic, rigid and judgemental as people like Falwell, Dobson, etc. In my mind, the real enemy today is not religion, per se, it is rigid dogmatism wherever it is found. Sure, that POV is fostered by religion but it doesn't HAVE to. But that attitude can creep in without religion - you're dangerously close to being an example.

 

[thatguywhojuggles]

A: Beats me, what happened five minutes before the big bang?

This is like asking what kind of person was I before I was conceived.

 

[jimtron]

Are you saying that you can believe that murder is fine and dandy and still be a good Christian?

In the OT of the Bible, god often encourages murder. The Ten Commandments forbid murder that is against the Jewish law--not all killing, if I'm not mistaken. Most Christians believe that killing people is OK sometimes, don't they?

It seems to me all Jews and Christians cherry-pick from the Bible, even fundamentalists. How come no one (that I've heard of) follows the part that says that disobedient children should be stoned to death?

 

[Wowbagger]

In my opinion Atheism is just as much a religion as Scientology or Christianity or any other faith.

The key difference is that atheists tend to think scientifically, and a good scientist builds their beliefs on scientifically determined facts.
A good atheist (and not all of them are) will change their views as the science changes. Religious believers, and other believers of an ideology, will hold on to their beliefs even when evidence strongly contradicts them.

Q: How can you belive in things for the sake of beliving in them when there is no proof, and how can you pick one belife system over another when they are all equally likely?

A: the answer is that the quetion applies to Atheism as well as religion.

It does not apply to scientifically minded atheists. Their belief system is based on what there is evidence for. Of course, some people who call themselves atheists might not really be scientifically minded. But, don't be fooled into thinking science is the same as religion.

Q: What about <Insert logical inconsistency in religion of your choice>?

A: Beats me, what happened five minutes before the big bang?

Nobody believes in the Big Bang all willy-nilly, just for the sake of it. Or, if anyone does, they are a fool.

The "Big Bang" provides a scientific model for the origins of our known universe, based on observations made in the cosmos, and in studies of physics. Like all models, it is provisional - it is subject to change, depending on the outcome of future evidence.

Many people are under the mistaken belief that there was "nothing" in the universe before the Big Bang. Technically, this might not be true. Scientists refer to the "time" before the Big Bang as the "Initial Condition" of the Universe.

What was the Initial Condition like? Well, unfortunately science can not determine that conclusively, yet. But, that does not mean the Big Bang model doesn't hold any value. It is meaningful to scientists because it provides a useful explanation for what goes on in their physics experiments.

So, "5 minutes before the Big Bang" is anyone's guess, right now. However, I would caution against asserting the supernatural, here, and calling such an appeal "science". Science doesn't work like that. Only your personal philosophy might.

 

[Kimpatsu]

I think you are making the same mistake that fundamentalist make - you are reading the bible literally. What you denigrate as "wussy" and "liberalistic" can better be understood by viewing the bible as metaphor. It is a series of stories that describe (in an admittedly obtuse way) an ideal way of life, namely that old, simplistic saying "God is Love". For example, the stoning of sinners means to throw out your bad thoughts and behaviors.

This is the sin of present-mindedness in modern historicity. The question is not whether you can read the Bible as metaphor; you can read anything, including recipes for making chicken fajitas, as metaphor if you so choose. (See "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris for just such an example.) The real question is whether the authors of the various books of the Bible intended their writings to be read as metaphor and interpreted accordingly, and of course, the answer to that is no, they did not. There are some metaphors--for example, the Judgement of Solomon is really about partitioning the kingdom to keep warring princes from tearing apart their father's legacy--but exhortations to stone unbelievers are not some convoluted plan to manipulate readers into doing the opposite by means of reverse psychology; such rulings mean exactly what they say--take unbelievers, adulterers, those who work on Sundays, etc., and kill them. Any attempt to pass off the intended meaning as otherwise is another sin--political spin, which is dishonest.
Let's face it: the Bible is a barbaric Bronze Age text that urges murder, rape (which has long been a weapon of war), genocide, and the cruel treatment of women. It even condones slavery. And there's no getting around that without resorting to the kind of mental gymnastics that would make George Orwell proud.

 

[Kimpatsu]

So, "5 minutes before the Big Bang" is anyone's guess, right now.

FYI, "5 minutes before the Big Bang" is nonsensical. Time began at the Big Bang; there was no time before that, so to ask what came "before" is as meaningless as asking what would happen if an unstoppable force struck an immovable object.

 

[Wowbagger]

FYI, "5 minutes before the Big Bang" is nonsensical. Time began at the Big Bang; there was no time before that, so to ask what came "before" is as meaningless as asking what would happen if an unstoppable force struck an immovable object.

True enough. I did not intend to mean "5 minutes before the Big Bang" literally. I was only alluding to the parent post's verbiage.
It is the nature of the Initial Condition that is anyone's guess right now.

 

[dv82matt]

I agree, but that was not my point. I asked about agnosticism and Christianity. The core belief of Christianity is that Jesus, the earthly manifestation of god, appeared on earth, died for humanity's sins, and returned to heaven. How you can subscribe to this and yet still remain uncertain of the existence of the god that put it all in motion is, in my book, inconsistent.
…
BTW, welcome to the fora, dv82matt.

Hmmm... I'm not sure I understand. Is it that the Christian God belief is too specific for agnosticism to apply to it? That is you can believe in some sort of general idea of God and be agnostic but the more you flesh out your concept of God the more of a stretch agnosticism becomes.

Thanks for the welcome.

 

[politas]

I think you are making the same mistake that fundamentalist make - you are reading the bible literally. What you denigrate as "wussy" and "liberalistic" can better be understood by viewing the bible as metaphor. It is a series of stories that describe (in an admittedly obtuse way) an ideal way of life, namely that old, simplistic saying "God is Love". For example, the stoning of sinners means to throw out your bad thoughts and behaviors.

Now you can insist that Christians have to follow every "jot and tittle" of the bible but then you are being just as dogmatic, rigid and judgemental as people like Falwell, Dobson, etc. In my mind, the real enemy today is not religion, per se, it is rigid dogmatism wherever it is found. Sure, that POV is fostered by religion but it doesn't HAVE to. But that attitude can creep in without religion - you're dangerously close to being an example.

Actually, my point is that as soon as you have individuals making up their own interpretations, the bible loses any claim as an authority. If I can choose to believe that the passages about stoning adulterers is merely a metaphor, what's to stop me deciding that the part about Jesus rising from the dead is just a metaphor? Or the part about him being born in a manger? Or any other part? What makes any single part of the bible more authoritative than any other?

I think fundamentalists are a pretty scummy bunch generally, but the concept of fundamentalism is at least an honest one.

 

[Rasmus]

Hmmm... I'm not sure I understand. Is it that the Christian God belief is too specific for agnosticism to apply to it? That is you can believe in some sort of general idea of God and be agnostic but the more you flesh out your concept of God the more of a stretch agnosticism becomes.

Well, I think it is theoretically possible for someone to believe in a god, no matter how specific, and yet be an agnostic.

I am guessing, though, that such a person would be drooling lots and not be able to eat without assistance.

We are not talking about a general guess about which world view is more likely. It is not the same as believing that it will rain tomorrow. To actually believe in a god requires a big step that I think rules out agnosticism.

And the more specific a religion is, the more impossible it becomes to stay agnostic.Agnosticism is an intellectual outlook on a question; and frankly I don't see how you can have the capability of understanding what it means and entails and *still* come to the conclusion that the Christian God is as real as the keyboard I am typing with now.

 

[Kimpatsu]

True enough. I did not intend to mean "5 minutes before the Big Bang" literally. I was only alluding to the parent post's verbiage.
It is the nature of the Initial Condition that is anyone's guess right now.

Fair enough.
The IC is a hot topic in cosmology right now, not least because certain strides have been made in the understanding of Planck Time. And theists accuse atheists of having no sense of wonder...!

 

[SezMe]

Hmmm... I'm not sure I understand. Is it that the Christian God belief is too specific for agnosticism to apply to it?

No. It is believing in an effect without a cause. In the present case, a Christian has to believe that god "sent" Jesus to earth to redeem mankind ('cause if you don't believe that, you're not a Christian, by definition). So god is the (sole and only) cause and Jesus is the effect. But then to be unsure of the existence of god, would necessarily imply an uncertainty about the Jesus and the resurrection.

QED.

 

[SezMe]

The real question is whether the authors of the various books of the Bible intended their writings to be read as metaphor and interpreted accordingly, <snip>

I disagree. All kinds of literature is read and interpreted in a different manner than the author originally intended. Doesn't mean the reader is wrong, it just means that the meaning is open to interpretation.

That the authors of the bible wrote for a different audience than in 2006 and intended a different meaning for their audience does not mean that the 2006 audience cannot get their own meaning out of it.

Bear in mind, I think the bible is a mess, that people read all kinds of meanings into it, cherry-pick it to death, blah, blah, blah. Practically, I completely agree with your position. But I am pointing out that if someone like dv82matt can get an important message out of it by doing a very selective reading of it, so be it. Who cares, as long as he keeps his interpretation to himself. If he starts prosyletizing, legislating, or in any other way forcing his views on someone else, particularly me, then all bets are off.

 

[SezMe]

Actually, my point is that as soon as you have individuals making up their own interpretations, the bible loses any claim as an authority.

The bible does not make any claim to authority; Christians (people) make claims of authority about the bible. (Sorry if that is nitpicking and missing your point.)

Repeating part of my previous post, if dv82matt finds that the bible has some "authority" for his personal, private philosophy, then I don't think that he has to interpret the bible to get that authority matters to him.

If, however, he wants to impose that interpretation and authority on anyone else, then he is up ◊◊◊◊'s creek. So the difference between us is that we are using authority too broadly. I mean in a private sense, you mean in a public sense. If we are talking "public authority" then I completely agree with you.

 

[politas]

I agree, but that was not my point. I asked about agnosticism and Christianity. The core belief of Christianity is that Jesus, the earthly manifestation of god, appeared on earth, died for humanity's sins, and returned to heaven. How you can subscribe to this and yet still remain uncertain of the existence of the god that put it all in motion is, in my book, inconsistent.

Because that's not what agnosticism means. Agnostics claim that the question of whether god exists or not is something which cannot be proven, leaving it as a matter of faith to believe or not believe.

In truth, most people are agnostic.

 

[Darat]

Actually, my point is that as soon as you have individuals making up their own interpretations, the bible loses any claim as an authority. If I can choose to believe that the passages about stoning adulterers is merely a metaphor, what's to stop me deciding that the part about Jesus rising from the dead is just a metaphor? Or the part about him being born in a manger? Or any other part? What makes any single part of the bible more authoritative than any other?

I think fundamentalists are a pretty scummy bunch generally, but the concept of fundamentalism is at least an honest one.

It’s a very common misconception in the USA and UK, that the Bible is the authority for a Christian.

We tend to believe this because both countries predominant religion is based on protestant Christianity. But it should be remembered that this is a relatively “new” version of Christianity that still represents a minority of Christians.

Your question is answered by what is and always has been the dominant form of Christianity, i.e. what we call Roman Catholicism. In very simplified terms "The Bible" is not to be interpreted by your or I, indeed there is no real reason for us to ever even read the Bible, according to RC the “church” provides people with the doctrine they should follow. And ultimately the matter of what is “metaphor” or “literal” is decided by God’s representative on earth i.e. the Pope.

 

[NiallM]

Of course there are costs involved in being religious.

Some of them may even be financial. Here's a few:

Time. Many religions demand a significant investment of time to observe their rituals. This may be daily, weekly, monthly, whatever. There may be a daily requirement for less formal activities, but it's all time.
Money. Tithing still exists in many churches. Some churches may also demand pilgrimages for atonement etc. These are not cheap.
Restriction of mating potential. Many churches frown on a member's marrying outside their religion.
Loss of family. Sometimes changing religion will ensure separation from your own family as will leaving their religion.
Health. JW anybody? They're not the only religion to come down against blood transfusions.
Education. Do I need to cite how the fundamentalists are trying to destroy science education to fit it in with their literalist interpretations of events in their holy books?
Freedom. Many decisions are simply taken away from the adherent, to be made in accordance with the rules of the holy books.
Life Experience. Many of these are frowned upon or outright banned by Churches, even though legal in secular society.
Civil Rights. In many churches, women have a subservient role and cannot participate fully in ceremonies and are considered incapable of interpreting scripture themselves.
Self-respect. Many religions regard common and natural human bevaiours as sinful and stimulate an over-powering sense of guilt among its adherents as a way to keep them on the straight and narrow. Hell, in xtianity, the child is guilty of serious sin even as it is born! No wonder they cry immediately.

These are just a few of the costs at the personal level. At the level of society there are more:

Violent tensions between religious groups which break out into war. Frequently.
Repression and censorship of literature, philosophy, science.
The weak and the less-intelligent being preyed on for their money.
Dehumanising of those of other religions.
Religious lobbying which impacts sections of society.
Application of religious laws which apply to even non-adherents of that religion.
Exclusion within society of minority religions or disbelievers.

These are merely a few. I could add many more, but the point is made that the costs are very high indeed.

 

[NiallM]

Dup

 

[valis]

To be a faithful Christian (edited to add: according to the beliefs of all the major sects I'm aware of), you're not allowed to think like that, because when faced with such unfathomable things like how the universe was formed, you're required to believe that God did it, and reject other possibilities, including the possibility that we don't know and may never know.

I am allowed to think any way I please. As someone mentioned above being a Christian means you belive Jesus was God or the Son of God ( even that is disputed). Nothing else.

That's a cost: giving up some of your freedom to reason for faith, even if it's a cost you're gladly willing to pay.

I can still reason just fine thanks. I have reasoned that I will belive God created the Universe until proven otherwise. As soon as there is one scintilla of evidence otherwise I will consider it. Also I think about these matters all the time and try to apply reason to them.

I agree with that outlook, but the difference is that an atheist or agnostic doesn't have to worry whether they'll suffer eternal torment if they reject their former conclusions (or give up their lack of conclusions), based on new scientific-based evidence.

A: I spend 0 time worrying about going to Hell or suffering eternal torment, it simply is not something I think about.

B: I don't mix science and religion. Religon to me is for areas beyond science.