Page 4

! For the most part, the ever loosening fingernail grip on some kind of belief in some kind of God, which the majority hold onto, swings on a modern re-imagining of Pascal's wager—a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal—that since Godʼs existence cannot be determined, it is better to assume there is a God than be proven wrong when itʼs already too late to change your mind. The problems with this are multifaceted. Not to mention the embarrassment you might face when finding yourself standing at the proverbial pearly gates, before a different god than the one you were expecting to find, the wager also fails to resolve the problem of what to do with everyone still alive back on earth, who are busily worshipping the wrong god while you helplessly look on. What kind of paradise would it be, to know youʼre powerless to save those who are still in the land of the living from making the same mistake you did? ! For fear we get bogged down in the facile egomania which surrounds the question of who is and who isnʼt entitled to a second bite of the cherry, it might be argued that there is only one capitalised ʻGʼ God, who regardless of an individualʼs particular religion is collectively worshiped by everyone in their own way—a sort of all roads lead to Rome bargaining—that the indefinable something we call God, but which is in-fact merely the unknown, doesnʼt really care one way or the other what we call Him / She / It so long as we believe He / She / It is out there, keeping us in-check like an intergalactic CCTV camera in the sky. Of course, no matter the tautology, this doesnʼt actually fix anything, since the theology which defines exactly how the God of Christianity wants His individual adherents to behave and what they are to believe in, not only varies greatly within just that one faith, but it flat-out contradicts the demands placed upon followers of another faith and all while each religion claims—often on pain of death to all who question it—to hold the one uniquely true definition of God over and above the assertions made by everyone else. ! Outlining this problem, in the past, has led to some of the most disingenuous and muddy responses I have yet to receive on any other subject—and yet it is of fundamental importance as to the reliability of everything which follows. If you cannot demonstrate the basic existence of your particular God, especially while denying the existence of any other gods, no amount of appealing to the holy texts specific to your religion of choice changes the fact that the whole purpose of those texts, i.e., the reason they were written at all, was in an attempt to corroborate the factual claim of Yahwehʼs existence against the nonexistence of any other gods—which as Pascal conceded cannot be empirically validated in any case—least of all by borrowing from one set of assumptions and pronouncements in order to defend multifaceted branches of further apologetics, which stem from specific proclamations, such as thou shalt not place any other gods before me—which is as clear an indicator one could wish to find that quandaries of this sort have plagued monotheism from the very beginning. ! Regardless of this, respondents willing to answer the charge, invariably do so by insisting it is either the wrong sort of question to ask and based upon flawed thinking, or choose to completely ignore it in any case by appealing to a reverse in the burden of proof which insists it is the non-believer who must demonstrate that gods do not exist, when by virtue of Occamʼs razor the inverse is in-fact the case. Further they often bury this logical fallacy under reams of received opinion about the personal habits of liberals as a whole— as if we would all hang out together in gay bars and binge drink ourselves to death on the blood of sacrificial goats were it not for those pesky Christians. Not that I am innocent on all counts of occasionally erecting a straw man argument from time to time, in order to provoke a reaction. But on an email-by-email, blog-by-blog level, I would be playing a very long game of chess indeed if I had turned a blind eye to successive correspondents, presented with the various arguments herein, who will recoil in often sublime arrogance by having it pointed out to them that their attempts to move a pawn on the board which has already been taken do not constitute a legitimate tactic, regardless of their insistence to the contrary. Indeed a general failure on the part of respondents to acknowledge much

Profile for James Gardner

The pursuit of happiness  

Work in progress

The pursuit of happiness  

Work in progress

Profile for arsearse
Advertisement