In a recent episode of House, a man in a hospital bed, in pain and hours from death, wishes he could just get it over with and go to heaven. Dr. House, of course, tells him that there is no heaven. Dr. Wilson says to House, "why did you do that? You don't know for sure that there is no afterlife. What harm does it do for this man to have a few hours of hope?"
Eloquently put. And yet... aren't we all terminally ill, and in pain? Maybe not so much pain, and maybe we have decades left instead of hours, but aren't we in the same existential position? What harm does it do for us to believe in heaven, or in reincarnation, or something else.I think this is the wrong question. We are constantly bombarded with messages from advertisers, schools, governments and religions that seek to modify our behavior. The messages range from innocuous to misleading to malign. A lack of critical thinking puts a person at such a disadvantage in life.
I say focus on the critical thinking. If critical thinking leads you to warm fuzzy feelings about an afterlife, good for you. I find it does not. I see multiple belief systems that can't all be true at the same time, and a lack of evidence from which to judge which belief system is more likely to be true. Overly analytical perhaps, and not very comforting, but the flip side is that being less deluded than most gives me an advantage in the here and now. Your mileage may vary.
Department of Synchronicity: just before posting, I found yet another modern restatement of Pascal's Wager in an email:
"I would rather live my life as if there is a GOD, and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out there is."
Is there a podiatrist in the house?
I've only been blogging for 4 days, I have maybe half a dozen readers, and one of them really does have Godzilla feet in her closet!
"Actually, I have the Perfect Godzilla's feet in a box in my closet."
OK, I'm convinced. Seeing is believing. St. Anselm's argument is valid.
3 comments:
At first glance, Pascal's wager appears logical, nothing to lose and everything to gain. Think of it as a free lottery ticket with a billion dollar payoff. The problem is, that if there is a God that is anything like the God that most people would like to believe in, would he really honor such a self-serving and cynical "bet"? God wants you to believe because of an emotional commitment to Him, not for a shallow calculation like Pascal's wager. He probably reserves some really low residence in Hell for such people (if God gets to make the choice where souls end up and not Satan).
Equally absurd is the ontological argument of Anselm. Imagine a perfect being. One aspect of perfection is existence, since existence is more perfect than non-existence. Therefore, that perfect being much exist. (I hope I am summarizing this correctly). The problem is that I can also imagine a perfect Godzilla, and therefore that perfect Godzilla must exist. But it doesn't. As far as I know.
Actually, I have the Perfect Godzilla's feet in a box in my closet.
I am not looking for an advantage either so I don't feel the need to limit myself to linear logic. In communicating to other people it is really useful, so as not to confuse them. I don't mind being confused, it gives me something to think about.
I like to consider myself a co-creator with the powers that be in the story of my life. This may also indicate that the rest of you don't exist outside my conceptualization of you.
I prefer magical thinking as in poetry, the juxtaposition of conceptual components that create a shift in perspective.
Post a Comment