I never really understood Pascal's Wager. I've often heard that it is a bad argument. So, I decided to do some studying for myself on this argument. And I think the the objections to this fall a little short. So in this blog, I will be showing you why I believe the objections fall short and why Pascal's Wager isn't such a bad argument after all.
First, if a Christian wants to use Pascal's Wager, I encourage he or she to word it correctly. I often hear Christians say "Well, if I spend my life believing in God and you don't. When I die I'll go to Heaven and you won't". I don't think this agrees even with Christian theology. The Bible says that even demons believe yet the tremble when they hear God's name (James 2:19). So it's not a simple matter of believing and not believing. One has to come to repentance and be obedient to God in order to be "saved". So if an Atheist decides to start believing in God. This does not mean he or she is saved and will live in Heaven after death. And someone who spends there life believing in God and considers themselves a Christian still doesn't make them one. This still doesn't mean they are saved themselves.
But if you were to argue that a person who is truly saved by the God who truly exists will go to Heaven and doesn't waste there life like someone like an Atheist. Then it makes a point. Atheists, what if the Christian God does exist? What will you say on judgment day? Would you wish that you would of repented and believed? You may of lived a fulfilling life on Earth. You may of done all the things you wanted to do. But you missed the main and objective reason and purpose to life.
Now, unto the objections.
The first one I usually hear is that this argument is a false dichotomy. Granted. There are more than one possibilities when it comes to religion. Christianity would be wrong and the Muslims could of been right. I would of wasted my life following a false belief system. But I am willing to admit that. If an Atheist were to say that Pascal's Wager is a false dichotomy, then he or she would actually be committing another logical fallacy. He or she would be going off topic. If a Christian and an Atheist were having a discussion and Pascal's Wager was brought up, the other religions would be irrelevant because the Christian is having a discussion about his or her faith, not any others. They would be discussion the Christian concept of afterlife and things of that nature.
Yes, the Christian is ignoring all the other possibilities. But the Christian doesn't need to worry about the other religions while in a discussion with an Atheist. Because you would be talking about if Christianity was right. Not any others.
Pascal's Wager goes around in circles if one religious person were to use it against another religious person. But it brings up a good point if it is used against an Atheist. The Atheist loses it all if ANY of religions are true. Unless there is a god that doesn't punish non-believers and allows them to still have a happy eternal life, then the Atheist has even a higher chance of wasting his life over any religious person. If Islam is true, then the Christian and Atheist will suffer. If Christianity is true, then the Muslim and Atheist will suffer. If some sort of New Age belief is true, and all the faiths lead to one God. The Atheist still falls short. It seems to me that any person belonging to any religion has a 1% more chance of not wasting there life.
And finally, what if no religion is true and the Atheists were right? That no God exists? Well, then I would of still lived a fulfilling life. I still could of done the things I wanted to do. And it was still fun to study my religious beliefs and believe in them.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Is God a he?
Why does the Bible refer to God as a he? Is God a male? Does He have a sex? If so, then why is He male and not female? These are questions that people ask quite a bit actually. It has to do with the nature of God. So in this blog, I plan to give my two cents on this.
First, I do not think God has a sex. He is not male nor female. God is spirit (John 4:24). Now, being a spirit doesn't prohibit that spirit from being a male or female. Throughout history, people have always viewed deities as male or female. But when you look at the attributes of God, you will see that it isn't trying to describe some sort of male figure in the sky judging people and what not. I think when it says God is a spirit, it is talking about a omnipresent being.
But what about the Trinity? Is the Father male? Is the son male? How about the Holy Spirit? By looking at the words "father" and "son", of course it appears to be indicating that God is male like. But does that make the Holy Spirit male like too? Just because the Bible uses the word Father and son doesn't actually make God a literal male.
It is always important to know when the Bible was written down and by whom. The people of Israel are responsible for the Bible. There society was a man ruled society. No, I am not suggesting that sexist men called God a he because they wanted to. I believe that God made Himself known in an easy way. Also, father figures were seen as the "highest" type of people. Men were seen as providers, and things of that nature. The Bible says God is a provider. So of course we and the people who wrote this down got this idea that God was male like. But this doesn't actually make Him male. He is just male like and father like in his actions. This is how God chooses to reveal Himself in scripture.
First, I do not think God has a sex. He is not male nor female. God is spirit (John 4:24). Now, being a spirit doesn't prohibit that spirit from being a male or female. Throughout history, people have always viewed deities as male or female. But when you look at the attributes of God, you will see that it isn't trying to describe some sort of male figure in the sky judging people and what not. I think when it says God is a spirit, it is talking about a omnipresent being.
But what about the Trinity? Is the Father male? Is the son male? How about the Holy Spirit? By looking at the words "father" and "son", of course it appears to be indicating that God is male like. But does that make the Holy Spirit male like too? Just because the Bible uses the word Father and son doesn't actually make God a literal male.
It is always important to know when the Bible was written down and by whom. The people of Israel are responsible for the Bible. There society was a man ruled society. No, I am not suggesting that sexist men called God a he because they wanted to. I believe that God made Himself known in an easy way. Also, father figures were seen as the "highest" type of people. Men were seen as providers, and things of that nature. The Bible says God is a provider. So of course we and the people who wrote this down got this idea that God was male like. But this doesn't actually make Him male. He is just male like and father like in his actions. This is how God chooses to reveal Himself in scripture.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
"Faith"
So, what exactly is faith? Is faith against reason? Does it take blind faith with no rational basis to believe in God? In this blog, I will be explaining how faith really works in a Christian's life.
Many skeptics, specifically Atheists, have misunderstood what faith really is. I think to a certain point, they don't bother trying to understand what faith really is. Instead, they call it a belief with no evidence or rational basis in order to make there worldview look correct.
I decided to do a simple search of the definition of faith. Faith can be defined as what I said above. But I don't see faith like that at all. Now, I'm not trying to play some sort of game with the meaning of words. As if one definition is more correct over the others. But I found one definition of faith that really went along side with how I view faith.
"belief and trust in and loyalty to God" and "belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion".
Tell me, how does one get this belief in God? How does he or she trust, and is willing to die for such a thing even? The main answer I could give is religious experience. Imagine you had a car that started up fine each day. It had no problems whatsoever. You still have to have faith that your car starts up though each day. You can't be 100% sure it will start up, because you simply do not know the future. But you are very sure that your car will start up. You are almost positive. Why is this? It's because of the past experiences you had with that car. I think all of this could be compared to holding a belief in God.
People get "faith" in God, because God is a reality to them. But at the same time, you can prove that He exists as if it is some sort of scientific experiment. But that of course doesn't mean He doesn't exist. People still trust there religious experiences. Some may be fallible. Mine might even be. However, unless someone can prove we suffer from delusions, people are perfectly rational in holding a belief in God. The personal experience in itself is an evidence for the supernatural.
Many skeptics, specifically Atheists, have misunderstood what faith really is. I think to a certain point, they don't bother trying to understand what faith really is. Instead, they call it a belief with no evidence or rational basis in order to make there worldview look correct.
I decided to do a simple search of the definition of faith. Faith can be defined as what I said above. But I don't see faith like that at all. Now, I'm not trying to play some sort of game with the meaning of words. As if one definition is more correct over the others. But I found one definition of faith that really went along side with how I view faith.
"belief and trust in and loyalty to God" and "belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion".
Tell me, how does one get this belief in God? How does he or she trust, and is willing to die for such a thing even? The main answer I could give is religious experience. Imagine you had a car that started up fine each day. It had no problems whatsoever. You still have to have faith that your car starts up though each day. You can't be 100% sure it will start up, because you simply do not know the future. But you are very sure that your car will start up. You are almost positive. Why is this? It's because of the past experiences you had with that car. I think all of this could be compared to holding a belief in God.
People get "faith" in God, because God is a reality to them. But at the same time, you can prove that He exists as if it is some sort of scientific experiment. But that of course doesn't mean He doesn't exist. People still trust there religious experiences. Some may be fallible. Mine might even be. However, unless someone can prove we suffer from delusions, people are perfectly rational in holding a belief in God. The personal experience in itself is an evidence for the supernatural.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
