Goodreads Bookshelf
Something else on religion
All the religion talk got me thinking about something again. I believe it was the lovely and talented Pimme who commented on someone's blog (Jane's?) about relgion, putting forth the argument that it's better to hedge your bets with religion, that if you believe in God and do what you're supposed to (whatever that would mean, given the variety of opinions on the matter) and if religion turns out to be false you haven't really lost something because you're just dead like everyone else, but if you don't believe and you're wrong, the price of being wrong is eternal damnation. This is an old argument that even has a name that I've forgotten. Nonetheless, I must respectfully disagree with Pimme and whoever it was who originally came up with the argument. Okay, and anyone else who's made the argument over the years. A few things argue in my mind against this...
In the first place, is this really believing, or is it acting as though you believe? That is, sort of going through the motions in the hope that it will get you a reward at the end. It just seems like if you don't already believe a bit more than you disbelieve, that you can't talk yourself into believing just because many conceptions of god include punishment if you don't do what he/she/it tells you too (but then, if you wanted people to believe in your god, that would be a pretty good thing to tell them, wouldn't it?).
Anyway, even disregarding this, there's another reason to mistrust this argument. It's simply not true that "if you believe and you're wrong you haven't lost anything." In every traditional conception of God, God demands something from you, some code of behavior, restrictions on what you can and can't do. So if you choose to believe one of these conceptions of god, isn't it true that you also have to follow these rules or you risk the eternal damnation that this argument points to? Sure, in our modern age, there are lots of conceptions of god in which he/she/it doesn't ask much of anything from us, but that conception raises a question: how do we know that god doesn't want anything else from us? For centuries on top of centuries, the people who claim to speak for god had told us that he wants us to do this and that; on what basis do we water down our conception of god to a nice old man who forgives pretty much everything or just doesn't ask you to do anything more than be vaguely good? So it seems likely that if there's a god that he/she/it wants something from us. And if this is the case, then the fact that god limits what we can and can't do, say, or think, it's no longer true that we haven't given up anything by believing in God.
This is particularly true of Christianity, the religion with which I'm most familiar. Besides all the rules, which are familiar enough to most believers, there are a host of places in the Bible where Jesus makes some pretty radical statements about what we should be doing--pronouncements that sound remarkably like giving up everything you have on this earth. Whether that's renouncing your family to pursue your spiritual goals or whether that's selling everything that you have in order to follow your religion, it's all right there in the scriptures. There's a passage a young man tells Jesus that he's always followed all the commandments and wants to know what else he needs to do to be saved and Jesus tells him to sell everything he has and give it to the poor and come follow him. I've been told by Christians who were obviously a bit uncomfortable with this passage in our materially-comfortable world, that this injunction was really just for this one guy, that he needed to do it because he was too attached to his possessions. Uh huh. And you're not, right? And never mind the example of Jesus and his disciples: they set an example of poverty, did they not? Or "it is far easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." Consider that every middle-class person in America today and maybe even a lot of "poor" people live materially better than the wealthy did in Jesus' time; suggest anything to you?
On the other hand, against this sort of reasoning, I've been told that this is only for those who want to be perfect in their faith. To this, it seems to me that if you really believe (as opposed to just sort of believing), how could you want anything else? I mean, if there is a god and this eternal reward god's offering depends on god's decisions regarding your soul, how could you not want to be as perfect in your faith as you could be? If religion is true, what could be more important than god and religion? It suggests to me that one of three things is true of a lot of Christians: either they don't read the book their religion is based on, they're not, as a group, good readers, or they don't really believe strongly enough to act as they are called to do. Or, I suppose, it could be that the book their religion is based on is such a big book, saying so many different things that contradict each other either explicitly or implicitly that they can find something to support whatever they want to believe rather than putting it all together.
My point in the preceding couple of paragraphs has been to show that, in fact, religion--if truly believed and practiced--demands a lot from you, not even just some rules to follow, but a lifestyle of renouncing worldly success (which could mean lots of different things) in favor of heavenly success. So what have you lost if you believe in God and you turn out to be wrong? You've lost a chance to live this life--you know, the one we can be prettty confident that we have, as opposed to the heaven that might exist--in a manner closer to the truth.
I suppose ultimately my point here is that you have to determine for yourself what's the true nature of reality and then live in accordance with the implications of that determination rather than simply choosing to believe something because you're threatened into it.
What do you think?
I suppose ultimately my point here is that you have to determine for
yourself what's the true nature of reality and then live in accordance with
the implications of that determination rather than simply choosing to
believe something because you're threatened into it.
And have the
courage and the integrity to accept whatever consequences follow from your
choices.
Well said, John.
Visit me @ http://www.journalscape.com/rhubarb/
Thanks, Sarah.
"...they can find something to support whatever they want to believe rather
than putting it all together." Kaching! I think you got it. Besides,
some of that stuff is really rather contradictory if taken at face value.
In one place, it's judge not lest ye be judged and let those who are free
from something or other (guilt?) cast the first stone. And then in other
places, it's if someone does X, then stone em! And yet other passages are
just plain not obvious to understand and people are left to ponder (or
listen to someone else who claims to know because someone else told them!)
what the point is supposed to be.
Visit me @ http://www.theloonybin.blog-city.com/
Yes. Certainly, if I ever believed in Chistianity again, it
would not be as a Biblical literalist, unless it happens to be a lot more
consistent in the original Greek and Hebrew!
I couldn't respect a God who was more concerned with how I behaved toward
him than how I treat other people. I don't believe but I like to think that
if I'm wrong I'll be forgiven as long as I was a good person. If He's
really willing to subject me to eternal damnation simply because I didn't
talk to Him (and He's never given me any reason to talk to Him) then we
were never going to see eye to eye anyway.
MrDan
Visit me @ http://alien.blog-city.com
I hear
where you're coming from an am largely sympathetic. If there is a
god, I'd certainly rather have it be yours than the one that most organized
religion preaches! :) Of course, most of the "evidence" (if that's the
right word in this case) for Go comes from people who say that God has very
definite ideas about how you should behave toward god and toward other
people.
I've always wondered what nonbelievers turn to when every person around
them has let them down. The bottle? Drugs? There are countless stories
of the forlorn who turned their lives around once they found God, when
nobody else would listen.
Depends on the person, of course. For myself, I tend to go in two directions: in the first place, I turn to other people, and they've been pretty good for me, either because I don't need a whole lot or because my expectations are generally pretty realistic; in the second place and ultimately, I rely on myself.
When I said "hedge your bets", I wasn't implying that you should "pretend" to believe. I meant that you SHOULD learn to believe, because if nothing comes of it, nothing lost. At least you lived a good life and found peace, and made the world a better place for others while you were here.
Even though that came early in my entry, it was an afterthought, and probably shouldn't have made it in, because I really didn't think you meant that, only that it might be difficult really to believe based on this strategy if you weren't already more than half-convinced. Partially because it seems like this argument is essentially "you should because it's good for you" not "you should because there is good evidence and logic to support belief."
If Jesus returned in my time, I'd have no problem giving up all my possessions to follow Him. But in the meantime, we all need a place to live in, a job, and some sort of transportation to get around with.
Sure, I wouldn't either, though it seems to me that a strong element of the Christian faith is living your life just as if He was present in the world.
As for losing a chance to live this life, I don't feel that I'm missing anything due to my beliefs.
Call this, I suppose, a difference of opinion, because of what I believe the life of a believer should entail (at least if that believer was me) vs. what you do.
I enjoyed reading your thoughts on this matter! It's hard to get some people to talk about religion, but I appreciate the fact that you had a lot to say about it.
Visit me @ http://pimme.blog-city.com
Thanks,
Pimme. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on the matter as well, and any
time you want to know what goes on in the mind of an unbeliever, just ask!
;)
It seems to me that this is an incredibly difficult path to tread. John
and I have had this discussion several times and there are many areas where
we agree, but a few where I am somewhat catious of his more extreme views
than mine. Nonetheless, to a certain degree I have to agree with John on
this one. Score!
The difficulty I find is in
the ability for the world's major religions to enact change. As we look
upon the eve of the conclave to choose a new pope, many are wondering how
well this pope will adjust to the many stimuli that will ask of him to
change or stay firm. Meanwhile, we are watching in the Middle East as
formerly theocratic and dictatorial Islamic nations are attempting to cope
with a balance between Islamic ideals and Western advancement. Cultural imperialist! ;)
In each of these areas,
people are having their largest problems with strong social change: the
role of homosexuality and the modern construction of heterosexual marraige,
as well as the role of women in society. The result is a not so inclusive
brand of conservative theology that makes me wonder how righteous their
following truly could be.
We as a human race have learned much of our
existence far beyond what could have been assumed in the early days of most
modern religions. We have evolved and restructured ourselves, often
becoming more understanding and open. However, in some cases, choosing
religion does have its disadvantages because you have to chose the level of
intolerance that arrives with it. Perhaps it is possible to choose outside
of religion and become more accepting and more "Christian" than if you were
literally!
Nonetheless, the ultimate truth in this whole debate is that
each individual must truly decide for themselves.
Visit me @ http://lostinbroaddaylight.blog-city.com
Okay, other than more or less clever quips, your thoughtful
response deserves some response itself. As far as each individual choosing
for himself or herself, absolutely true, though I don't think that rules
out "proselytizing" by interested parties or debate about the beliefs and
the manner of arriving at those beliefs. On such an important question, it
seems important to look at many different possibilities and choose from
there, always with the option to revise (even if, in practice, the
revisions may be minimal or never happen). All of the issues of interaction
between organized religions and cultural change are both interesting and
important, both for themselves and for this topic as they relate to the way
we view religions, I suppose (which sticks a little more to my OP!).
Again, thanks for commenting, my friend.
You make a great point about what you DO give up by choosing to go along
with whatever religion. Thanks.
And how do you know you've picked the right one if you do. Every religion says theirs is the one true religion, naturally. Naturally. And most everyone can see that they can't all be right, even if they can't really ponder the idea that theirs might be one of the false ones.
Also, I have a problem with the idea of God being completely intangible. You can't hear, see, touch, taste, or feel God. People claim to hear God talking to them, and so on, but how do they know it's really God and not their own minds talking back at them?
I have trouble with an intangible God who must exist solely within one's own head.
Visit me @ http://confessionsofalibertine.blog-city.com/
Chalk it up as part of the great retreat of God, perhaps? No
doubt it's the way we're put together, but we're all awfully trusting of
personal, subjective experience. Which isn't to say that our experiences
aren't valid, but we've got to understand the limits of perception and be a
bit skeptical...