Various Views on Religiousity
Below is proof that I occassionally get long stretches at work that need filling. . . .
Pascal's Folly
Back in college philosophy, I learned of Pascal's Religion, an attempt by that venerable gentleman to explain logically why one should embrace Xianity. There are, he postulated, four separate possible outcomes for souls, depending upon one's faith in life and the realities of the afterlife revealed to the newly dead:
a) One believes in God, and God exists;
b) One believes in God, and God does not exist;
c) One does not believe, and God does not exist; and
d) One does not believe, and God exists.
Of the four separate possibilities, three are either of no consequence or are of positive consequence. Who cares what faith one embraces if the afterlife does not exist, after all? Only the final possiility poses a danger to the immortal soul, now facing condemnation in hell.
Well, Pascal, allow me please to disagrees.
Pascal's simple algorhythm for eternity only applies if one regards the Official Church -- in his neighborhood, the Roman Catholic one -- as th only possible religion worshipping the only possible God. He completely disregards any of the thousands of, well, pagans and heretics worshipping happily in their own damned neighborhoods.
Further complicating his equation: the utter condemnation those other churches, synagauges, mosques, temples, huts, shrines, et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseum offer to those outside their walls. It is, I'm sorry, simply not enough to pick a faith and worship away. One must, from hearing everyone pontificate, pick the faith Actually Chosen By God.
Otherwise, it's down to the Fiery Hole, soul.
2) Agnostics Need Love, Too
I've been in many discussions with the faithful. Almost invariably, they equate "agnosticism" with "atheism".
No, no, no. Bad equivication. No biscquit.
Look at the words. The prefix "a", meaning "without", is the only similarity. There are completely different attachments to this prefix, meaning differences can be found.
"Gnosticism" is a fancy Greek way of implying knowledge. In fact, for the purposes of this rant, just equate "gno" with "know". They are pronouned the same, no? That should make it easy.
Is there a god? The faithful say "I gno there is." And the Agnostic? They don't gno, don't ya know.
(The english language and its bastardized rules dictate the simple neumatic (sp?) "gno = know" in both meaning and pronunciation not apply when saying "agg-nost-ic", meaning many miss the fact that the proper prefix is "a", not "ag", a prefix that, as far as I know, doesn't exist, making necessary deconstruction of the word a bitch.)
Atheism is more concrete. Atheists flat-out tell you that there is No God. A-theist, or "without god."
Therefore, there are three possibilities when it comes to belief in God: I know there is; I know there isn't; and I don't know.
Therefore, agnostics are not atheists. Have I made this clear?
Try as I might, I cannot get many to accept this. I was having a heated debate about the various worth of various positions on this topic with two co-workers, whom I sometimes call Nichols and McVeigh. They aren't sedititionists, but are pretty right-wing. I came up with this illustration to cut through the preconceptions.
Let's say five people were discussing religious faith at dinner. The Jew would proclaim, "There is but one G-d, and the Jews are His Chosen People."
The Xian would preach, "There is only one God, and Jesus Christ, His Only Begotten Son, was sent to earth to guide the faithful to the path of righteousness."
The Muslim would say, "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is His Prophet."
The atheist would assert, "There is no god! None, never!"
And the agnostic? How would he contribute? He would likely say, "Please pass the salt."
You see, Gentle Readers, agnosticism recognizes that it is logically impossible to discern reality beyond the veil of death, the reality described, proclaimed, and averred by the faithful. It takes just as much faith to deny the unprovable than to affirm it.
The faithful take a different, mistaken tack. They fail to see the logical inconsistancy in their faith, and for good reason; denying this logical impossibility of detecting God's existance defines faith. As Martin Luther once put it, "Logic is the enemy of faith." Therefore, they see everyone without God as literally without God, or a-theist, including those that may not consider themselves without God, but rather simply see themselves as unable to either confirm or deny, and are therefore uncommitted to the issue.
They don't "sit on the fence," as the saying goes. They are not "failing to choose." They have discerned that there is no merit in even posing the question for serious consideration. Just pass the freakin' salt already.
(Ah, but what was it that Jesus said? "If you do not love me, then you hate me with all of your heart?" Gee, I wonder why adherents to his teachings might have trouble grasping the agnostic position. . . . )
It cuts both ways, of course. One of my new favorite bumper stickers reads, "Radical Agnostic -- I don't know, and neither to you!"
Pascal's Folly
Back in college philosophy, I learned of Pascal's Religion, an attempt by that venerable gentleman to explain logically why one should embrace Xianity. There are, he postulated, four separate possible outcomes for souls, depending upon one's faith in life and the realities of the afterlife revealed to the newly dead:
a) One believes in God, and God exists;
b) One believes in God, and God does not exist;
c) One does not believe, and God does not exist; and
d) One does not believe, and God exists.
Of the four separate possibilities, three are either of no consequence or are of positive consequence. Who cares what faith one embraces if the afterlife does not exist, after all? Only the final possiility poses a danger to the immortal soul, now facing condemnation in hell.
Well, Pascal, allow me please to disagrees.
Pascal's simple algorhythm for eternity only applies if one regards the Official Church -- in his neighborhood, the Roman Catholic one -- as th only possible religion worshipping the only possible God. He completely disregards any of the thousands of, well, pagans and heretics worshipping happily in their own damned neighborhoods.
Further complicating his equation: the utter condemnation those other churches, synagauges, mosques, temples, huts, shrines, et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseum offer to those outside their walls. It is, I'm sorry, simply not enough to pick a faith and worship away. One must, from hearing everyone pontificate, pick the faith Actually Chosen By God.
Otherwise, it's down to the Fiery Hole, soul.
2) Agnostics Need Love, Too
I've been in many discussions with the faithful. Almost invariably, they equate "agnosticism" with "atheism".
No, no, no. Bad equivication. No biscquit.
Look at the words. The prefix "a", meaning "without", is the only similarity. There are completely different attachments to this prefix, meaning differences can be found.
"Gnosticism" is a fancy Greek way of implying knowledge. In fact, for the purposes of this rant, just equate "gno" with "know". They are pronouned the same, no? That should make it easy.
Is there a god? The faithful say "I gno there is." And the Agnostic? They don't gno, don't ya know.
(The english language and its bastardized rules dictate the simple neumatic (sp?) "gno = know" in both meaning and pronunciation not apply when saying "agg-nost-ic", meaning many miss the fact that the proper prefix is "a", not "ag", a prefix that, as far as I know, doesn't exist, making necessary deconstruction of the word a bitch.)
Atheism is more concrete. Atheists flat-out tell you that there is No God. A-theist, or "without god."
Therefore, there are three possibilities when it comes to belief in God: I know there is; I know there isn't; and I don't know.
Therefore, agnostics are not atheists. Have I made this clear?
Try as I might, I cannot get many to accept this. I was having a heated debate about the various worth of various positions on this topic with two co-workers, whom I sometimes call Nichols and McVeigh. They aren't sedititionists, but are pretty right-wing. I came up with this illustration to cut through the preconceptions.
Let's say five people were discussing religious faith at dinner. The Jew would proclaim, "There is but one G-d, and the Jews are His Chosen People."
The Xian would preach, "There is only one God, and Jesus Christ, His Only Begotten Son, was sent to earth to guide the faithful to the path of righteousness."
The Muslim would say, "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is His Prophet."
The atheist would assert, "There is no god! None, never!"
And the agnostic? How would he contribute? He would likely say, "Please pass the salt."
You see, Gentle Readers, agnosticism recognizes that it is logically impossible to discern reality beyond the veil of death, the reality described, proclaimed, and averred by the faithful. It takes just as much faith to deny the unprovable than to affirm it.
The faithful take a different, mistaken tack. They fail to see the logical inconsistancy in their faith, and for good reason; denying this logical impossibility of detecting God's existance defines faith. As Martin Luther once put it, "Logic is the enemy of faith." Therefore, they see everyone without God as literally without God, or a-theist, including those that may not consider themselves without God, but rather simply see themselves as unable to either confirm or deny, and are therefore uncommitted to the issue.
They don't "sit on the fence," as the saying goes. They are not "failing to choose." They have discerned that there is no merit in even posing the question for serious consideration. Just pass the freakin' salt already.
(Ah, but what was it that Jesus said? "If you do not love me, then you hate me with all of your heart?" Gee, I wonder why adherents to his teachings might have trouble grasping the agnostic position. . . . )
It cuts both ways, of course. One of my new favorite bumper stickers reads, "Radical Agnostic -- I don't know, and neither to you!"