Re: Pascal's wager (was ID *does* require a designer! (but it does not need to identify who ...)

From: Ralph Krumdieck (ralphkru@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU)
Date: Mon Dec 11 2000 - 11:07:48 EST

  • Next message: Susan Cogan: "Re: Pascal's wager (was ID *does* require a designer! (but it does not need to identify who ...)"

    >Dear Steve
    >
    > >>>>>
    >I was reading the Koran the other day and it threatens me with eternal
    >punishment unless I become a Moslem. But I don't bother attacking
    >Moslems because I believe in my heart that there is *no* chance that
    >Islam is true and so Mohammed's God is no more a threat to me than
    >the Tooth Fairy.
    >
    >That Chris gets angry at the Christian God and Christians tells me that
    >despite all his philosophising, Chris still believes in his heart that
    >the
    >Christian God is real enough to be a threat. If He is real enough to
    >Chris to be a threat to him, then to Chris His probability cannot be 0.
    ><<<<<
    >
    >(not a mind reader but) Chris probably gets annoyed at Christians in the
    >same way that Christians get annoyed at Mormons and JWs who come to the
    >door. No one gets annoyed at Unitarians because they mind their own
    >business.

    Hallelujah! :)

    >Would you be satified if Chris read the Q'ran and became a Moslem? Then
    >the Christian God wouldn't be a threat to him.
    >
    >I've been a Christian as long as I can remember but the philosophical
    >arguments for Christianity no longer compute and I don't have an adequite
    >response to Chris'es arguments. I have concluded that the
    >evidentialist/philosophical arguments are all a bunch of hooey. As Chris
    >notes, the standard evangelistic approach - "all you gots to do is
    >believe" - is assinine. You would laugh if I said, "All you gots to do is
    >believe that the moon is made out of green cheese," but it amounts to the
    >same thing.
    >
    >I can only think of three sources of belief. Cultural - you believe in
    >(Christianity, Islam, ) because you you were raised and trained to
    >believe. Second, you believe as a result of data analysis and/or personal
    >experience - I prefer to call this "knowing," not "believing." Third, we
    >believe because of an existential/metaphysical experience. In some way,
    >the Holy Spirit (in the case of Christianity) testifies to our spirit. I
    >am convinced that true Christianity only comes through an existential
    >encounter. (So we be sneaky and pray for Chris in secret <G>)

    Oh, I'll bet Stephen already is! :) I agree with you here, Bill. I think
    this
    existential/metaphysical experience is what most fundamentalists call
    being "born again". If you are ready to have such an experience, it is
    likely to happen. We tend to find what we're looking for, which is just
    another variant of "you just gotta believe".
    ralph



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 11 2000 - 11:07:52 EST