I really have to stop being catty and resume being constructive
Reading Curry's post on religion.
Does it count if you don't know if you have faith or not?
I used to think I was a freethinker. A rationalist. Because, well, because it was cool to be one. Back then when I was 15. Then came the whole personal crisis part of my life and suddenly it wasn't cool to be an athiest anymore. Bad things happened to good people and things really didn't make sense. Agnostism is a very schizophrenic attitude and takes a lot out of you. The constant worrying if you're going to hell competing with the satisfaction of knowing, nay believing, that hell didn't exist. Or at least it doesn't in Hinduism. Or does it? Are you just left by the wayside at the end of time? Or are you just born again and again until you're a snake and the Kingdom is closed until further notice? Then come the engineering years and that doesn't help any. A scientific approach is very detrimental to one's strength of belief. Then you get to the point where you're not interested in the Future and thereafter. You just want to get through the present and only facts matter. Maybe you have your own personal God. Maybe you believe through fear and dare not question. For centuries people in India have believed in the oddest of superstitions with eyeless faith. Where did it all come from? How can people in such numbers so willingly lead (sacrifice?) their lives for something unseen and untouched and completely illogical? Is that divine motivation? It would have to be - I still have faith in humankind if nothing else.
Blaise Pascal said, "The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know." And he was a scientist. He originated the theory of probability (amazing the things you learn on the GMAT). "Men have contempt for religion and fear that it is true. To cure this it is necessary to commence by showing that religion is not contrary to reason; then that it is venerable, and worthy of respect; next to make it amicable, and make the good wish that it were true; and finally to show that it is true." As he puts it - either God exists or He does not exist. So why not gamble? Place a wager. Bet that God does exist. "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists."
Sounds perfectly logical to me. But still... I have no faith for that logic. If scientists can live with both reason and supernatural, why can't I?
3 comments:
"If scientists can live with both reason and supernatural, why can't I? "
Hear Hear ;)
Personally, I think it's a waste of time worrying about other-worldy items (afterlife and such). The good news is that faith is not exclusive to the super natural realm.
"I still have faith in humankind if nothing else." This is the only kind of faith that matters, you're a believer, innit? Most people have a tougher time making this leap than believing in a God. Pascal's idea that that to "gain all" one must believe in God comes from his condition, I think, of being immersed in a non-dual religious environment. It's easier to lead a good/just life if you believe in Judgement Day (God is but a tool for judgement).
Today, we've gone far beyond this type of simple logic. But people haven't lost faith. God may be dead but humanity lives on, and like you and I and many others of our post-modern/jaded generation our brains leave us no choice but to believe only in ourselves, personally, and humanity, generally. If that makes us better people and allows us to think about our actions and their effects then who needs supernatural existance?
End of essay. I can only speak of religion in essay format.
Quite frankly, at the end of the day, I think religion is a waste of time. However, wot is goose for this gander may be pate for most.
Post a Comment