.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

proving God

Odd and bemusing conversations going on at Sir Humphreys about Free Will and God. They are a couple of my favourite topics, but it seems rather pointless to participate.

It is odd because in my opinion:
  1. God is not somethng you prove
  2. proof is over-rated and over-worshipped
  3. God (or whatever) is as "natural" as anything else
  4. it seems like lots of people who comment on those are there to prove themselves right and make everyone else agree with them. As opposed to listening and to expanding their ideas and maybe seeing that they might actually be saying the exact same thing a lot of the time

Perspective really makes such a difference.

Comments:
Other things:

a) Define "God". When people talk about God, many times they're talking about different things. It's possible to believe absolutely in one definition yet disbelieve absolutely in another definition yet be agnostic about another. Most definitions of God are neither provable nor disprovable.

b) While "proof" may be overrated, belief is definitely overrated as well. Besides, "proof" per se is a thing that seldom truly exists, at least proof in the mathematical sense. There are arguments and so on, but very few of them would constitute "proof".

c) There's always Pascal's wager: it's a safer bet to believe in God, because if you're wrong, then no real harm done, but if you disbelieve in God and you're wrong, well then you may be going to a very bad place.

d) Then again, there's also Homer Simpson's argument: what if you believe in the *wrong* god? Then the real god is going to be *mad* at you!

e) Believe or don't believe. Why do people care so deeply about what *other* people believe?

For me, the credo of The Church of the Apathetic Agnostic probably represents my views most accurately: "We don't know, and we don't care."
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?