Why Atheism?

I like this summary of the problems with Pascal's Wager from Godless Geeks.


From "Why Atheism?" by Mark Thomas

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm

"Pascal’s Wager

There is an argument for belief in God that is called Pascal’s Wager, named for Blaise Pascal who conceived it. The argument goes like this: Either there is a god or there isn’t. If you believe in God, and God exists, then you win big time and go to Heaven. If you don’t believe in God, and God exists, you lose big time and go to Hell. If there is no god, then you haven’t lost much by believing. So the obvious choice is to believe in God, because it’s simply the best bet.

Pascal’s Wager has several faults. The biggest problem is that it’s not a proof of any god’s existence; it’s just an argument for believing, a method of extorting the gullible thru fear. Like many other such arguments we have discussed, it also fails to denote exactly which god it refers to. Pascal’s Wager could be applied to any god that offers rewards and punishments. Taken to the extreme, following the wager would necessitate betting on the god with the worst hell, so it could be avoided. It's impossible to know which god to worship, and which (perhaps jealous) gods to spurn. I doubt if many Christians would convert to Islam if the wager were presented by a Muslim who told them that Muslim Hell is worse than Christian Hell and Muslim Heaven is better than Christian Heaven.

Pascal’s Wager assumes that the chosen god's mind is knowable, and that he doesn't mind people believing in him for explicitly selfish reasons. Perhaps he actually prefers independent thinkers such as atheists, not obsequious followers. Since the Christian god Yahweh is on record as having lied, there's no way to know his intentions. It would be quite possible for a true believer to discover on Judgment Day that the destination was not Heaven. Yahweh, in his infinitely mysterious ways, had other plans; and there would be no appeal or debate with an omnipotent being.

Another problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it implicitly assumes that the odds of the two possibilities are similar. Since the odds of the Christian, Jewish, or Muslim god existing are zero, the wager creates a false dilemma. The wager even goes against the doctrine that many religions have where gambling is sinful. Note also that the existence of the wager and the fact that so many people think that it's relevant illuminate the lack of actual evidence for God.

Pascal’s Wager also depends on the idea that you don’t lose much by believing. This has been false for many who have trusted in their god for help or guidance, instead of seeking reality-based solutions. People have fought, killed and died for their belief in their god. Far too many have died because they (or their parents) chose prayer instead of medicine. Swords, bullets, poison, and poisonous snakes have killed many who thought that they were protected by their god. Even without these more dramatic effects, believers often devote significant time, energy and money to worshipping their god.

Beliefs in a god (and the often concomitant ideas of divine punishment and reward) too often make people more willing to accept inequalities in this life. Low-paid factory workers and slaves were taught that their rewards were in the afterlife, so they should be meek and obedient in this life to ensure their (imaginary) rewards. Even the factory and slave owners could think that they were part of their god's divine plan, and thus deserved their earthly rewards.

God-belief has real expenses that can be large or destructive.

The last problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it completely ignores and even denigrates intellectual integrity and honesty; the wager assumes that people can believe something just because they want to. As an example, let’s talk about belief in Santa Claus. Don’t we have more respect for a child who figures out that Santa doesn’t exist, and says so, rather than continuing to lie so he can get more presents? It’s a sign of growing integrity and maturity for children to stop believing in Santa. Similarly, adults can give up belief in a god when they realize that there’s no real evidence for their god. Christians can quit being “sheep” or “children of god” and become intellectually honest.

The loss of intellectual integrity and honesty engendered by Pascal’s Wager gives some insight into how apparently rational people can behave so irrationally. By accepting the wager, they have (perhaps implicitly) given up these important traits."

Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution

It is interesting how many churches have finally come to terms with the scientific discoveries of the age. I know it must hurt many Christians to think that what they have believed so whole-heartedly is now being debunked at every corner but there is really no choice.

This from Jonathan Dudley:

But beyond a certain point, this reasoning breaks down. Because no amount of talk about "worldviews" and "presuppositions" can change a simple fact: creationism has failed to provide an alternative explanation for the vast majority of evidence explained by evolution.

It has failed to explain why birds still carry genes to make teeth, whales to make legs, and humans to make tails.

Full article here:Article

Ayn Rand

A friend called me a few nights ago and asked me if I had read Ayn Rand. It is really funny because I had just gotten the documentary about her. The following is email exchanges between my friend and me.

ME: I watched the documentary and tonight I watched The Fountainhead. I haven't read the Anthem yet but it will move up on my list. I think she is simply marvelous dalin'

Friend: Maybe I need to see the documentary you saw.....because I was turned off from the one I saw... maybe my thinking has changed since the 1980's....will look into Fountainhead.Signed on with Netflix.....took a look at a few Ayn Rand documentaries and then cancelled netflix. She had an open 15 year affair with total disregard for the other women...if someone can be that cruel to another, then respect went down hill, for me anyways.

ME: That's too bad. She really has a lot to say. Have you read the Anthem? What did you take away from that?

Friend: Anthem was very short read. Enjoyed it. The ending was predicable (darn it). The guy found freedom and his next goal was to convert the others. And that is what I found predictable...we all are always trying to convert, convince, others to our way of thinking and living. But in truth fact of life...everyone is different and needs to follow their path and that path is right for them, save causing anyone harm, as then they are fringing on another's right to lead their life.

ME: I am reading Anthem right now but I don't think I see it the same way you do. She wrote it as a slam against collectivism. He philosophy is objectivism and Individualism.

Friend: I understand that...but still predictable ending, can't be denied This is in no ways disputing Ayn Rand, as I am looking forward to reading more of her works...but.....the ending is a form of collectivism.


ME: Haven't gotten to the end yet but knowing her philosophy, one would expect the outcome. As to converting people to her way of thinking, I don't think that is what she intends. In fact her entire focus is on the individual and not the collective. In the Fountainhead she demonstrates that through architecture, in that the one guy that tries to be different is ostracized. In the closing argument he puts forth his premise that all the great things that have been accomplished in this world were accomplished by those who chose to be different. Ayn Rand is the champion of "being different". She was born into Communism, thus the reason for the Anthem. She writes the way she saw the collectivism of communism and the inability of her character (herself i.e. mankind) to be different.
I find her reasoning interesting in that she sees altruism as slavery. She believed that the work is it's own reward and that doing for others and self-sacrifice are an abomination to humanity.
She saw the United States as the greatest invention in the world. Capitalism is the cornerstone of her philosophy and the US is the king of Capitalism.
I am interested in studying her more fully and have moved it to the top of my list. Her books are rather expensive so I will need to get to the library but I plan to read them all; then decide where my philosophy lies in reference to her's.

Friend Yes, I would like to read more also. And discuss with you. I was interested in her works in the 80's. But lost interest after viewing the documentary. I do greatly lean towards individualism, as I am sure you can agree I do. But Ayn Rand fell into this catch phrase " it is hard to walk the talk". So I am not disputing the philosophy just the life performance of the writer. I agree with you she did not intend...but the ending is the ending and this just illustrates that humans subconsciously are trying to get others onto their own page "King" is another example of collectivism.
ME: I think to a large extent she did walk the talk. She lived as she saw fit without regard to others which is the crux of individualism. I may not agree with the actions she took but I will always agree that she had the right to take action as she saw fit. In the documentary I saw it seemed that she was living the epitome of individualism. She absolutely refused to have her work altered. It was hers and no one had the right to make changes even if the majority judged her wrong. I love the idea just think it is hard for me to "walk the talk" even though I would like to do so.

Serious Question

Mark 16:17-18 (King James Version)

17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.


Okay so I am rereading the new testament and here's a puzzle. What exactly does this tell us?

I know that some who call themselves Christians do play with snakes and some have died. So if they misunderstood this verse then, what does it mean?

Osama is dead

I know this is old news now but I have needed a few days to process this whole mess. I've listened to the news and read the newsfeeds, scanned the blogs and thought hard about it. I didn't know how I felt.

People in my own family were celebrating and asking for proof at the same time. I remained quiet. I didn't know how I felt.

I'm still not sure. Should I be glad that a person is dead, even as bad a person as the leader of America's number one enemy in the War on Terror? I don't know, it doesn't feel right. I don't believe the death penalty is real punishment for the offender. I think the family and those left behind suffer much more than the offender.

So now, we are rid of Osama but are we any safer? Is it logical that his followers will fold up their tents and go home? Does anyone think we have won the war? Are our troops coming home now? My son-in-law just left for Iraq...doesn't sound like they are coming home to me.

What bothers me most about this whole affair is the celebration of someone's death. I know he was responsible for some terrible things but are we any better that those who celebrated the destruction of the Twin Towers when we stoop to their level? I don't think so.

Biblical Scholar Interview

Okay I do have more to say.

Nothing more to talk about

I post this as perhaps the final post about god on this blog because like this video...there isn't anything else to say. Then, who know what mood will strike.