Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] More on Pascal's wager [was: Famous atheistchanges his mind]

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Rick Buford wrote:

> Ya, so could I, but it's why a brought it up...for the exact reason you 
> stated. Once one starts anthropomorphizing events, one gives up the need 
> for a "real" answer because their faith sustains.
> 
............................
> 
> While I believe you should count yourself lucky that German isn't your 
> first language, I still don't see why God had to be involved here.


Basically we have a different world view.  I now see all events as the 
result of the hand of some greater power influencing our lives in a 
matter that he sees fit.  This makes perfect sense to me, and the more I 
look, the more obvious it becomes to me.  You see that this way of 
looking at things is pointless, and that as the human race frees itself 
from these shackles of religion and superstition, it will make greater 
strides in its quest for greater civility and scientific knowledge.

To you, my arguments seem circular - look, I say, God did this, but then 
he did that, because it was his will, and ultimately all that happens is 
according to his perfect will, so God really is in charge.

But to me, your arguments seem circular.  There is no need to see God's 
hand in this situation, because that is not scientific - we should `a 
priori' assume that there is no God, and then we would see world events 
as they truly are.

I am frustrated, because to me the hand of God is so obvious in world 
events - the story of Alexander the Great, God blessing the American 
Revolution but not the French Revolution, Rome spreading the gospel to 
the Germanic tribes, and beyond, before itself falling, but still 
leaving behind the Roman Church to continue to spread the gospel, etc, 
etc.  Or in my own life - even in my scholarly pursuits, how often I 
attribute some piece of mathematics revealed to me as a gift from God as 
a direct result of prayer - just like Mike's sister who prays for her 
car to start.

Perhaps you too are frustrated with me, because how can such an 
intelligent man not see that man no longer has need to believe in a 
greater power.

It is difficult (but not impossible) for a person to change from one 
world view to another.  Perhaps they have to see some deep contradiction 
in their current way of thinking, as happened to me in 1986.

But is it not possible for someone to see it from the other person's 
point of world-view - to somehow pretend to think like the other person 
thinks, at least so that one can at least try to understand the logic by 
which they think?


> Isn't 
> it all about free will? How did God intervene if we're supposed to have 
> free will?
> 

So for example, if I told you that these kinds of questions have 
occupied theologians for centuries - that I have found that pondering 
these questions to be more intellectually stimulating than even the 
mathematics that is my profession?  I could go on and on about this 
issue, but to you it would seem pointless, like arguing about how many 
angels fit on a pinhead.

Or for example, I was reading on the internet the report from the 
priests who originally met to decide whether Joan of Arc was the real 
deal (this wasn't the trial but when the French wanted to check her 
out).  The report seemed to me so well written, so much in command of 
scriptural principals, in short something of an intellectual masterpiece.

Or when I read the writings of Augustine from the 4th century, he seems 
so clear and profound in his thinking, and it is no wonder to me that 
1200 years later he played a dominant role in the Protestant 
Reformation.  He displays a mastery of his subject that shows him to be 
so opposite to a bumbling idiot.  Yet this great mind, in his book, "The 
City of God" explains at length how God has intervened in the fortunes 
of latter day Rome, supporting her when she was faithful, and punishing 
her when she was not.  He displays precisely the kind of "circular" 
reasoning that makes me think that God sent a hurricane to drive out the 
British army from Washington DC in 1814.

I am not asking you to say Augustine is right, but do you not see that 
you cut youself off from appreciating some of the greatest minds in 
history?  It is not that you might disagree with him, but if for a 
moment you cannot imagine yourself into his theist worldview, you cannot 
even appreciate his writings.

I feel honored to have been allowed to appreciate some of the great 
intellectual achievements of our race.  In Mathematics, I can appreciate 
and feel the genius of Archemedes and Newton.  With my hobby of 
computers, I can learn the principles and ideas behind Unix, or TCP/IP, 
and see both their inner beauty, or their inner ugliness.  Or in music I 
can listen to Beethoven or the Beatles, and they sooth or excite my 
soul.  Perhaps I don't appreciate Piccasso or painting in general, and 
perhaps Shakespeare or the lyrics of modern songs go over my head, but 
at least I know that these people were great even if it is because I 
respect other people's say so.

But so many people simply reject "religious thinking" as some spurious 
unneeded appendage on human intellectual thinking.  They do not realise 
how poor they have made themselves.  To not even open their eyes and see 
that there is something mighty and interesting, to not even open 
themselves up to the possibility that these religious thoughts that 
occupied much of the great minds and universities in times past, and 
played such a prominant role of people's thinking - that these thoughts 
might contain a depth and a subtlety, and even a discernment so that the 
thoughts of Augustine can easily and quickly be seen to be so much 
higher and deeper than those of any "Bob Smith" who might knock up some 
religious theology over a weekend, and then try to hawk it on the free 
market of ideas.

Honestly, it seems to me that you are being shown something beautiful 
and wonderful, and you just want to avert your eyes away from it, or 
allegorically scream "I'm not listening, I'm not listening."  I might 
show you a beautiful passage from the scriptures, and rather than choose 
to see the beauty, you prefer to knock holes in it, or try to find 
superficial contradictions.  It is as if you might judge a wonderful 
meal by the quality of the typesetting on the menu, and refuse to taste 
it because they incorrectly spelled "mustard."

Is everything obvious the first time you look at it, or are there some 
concepts or ideas whose wonder and beauty is revealed only after much 
thought and study?  And are not these more difficult things usually the 
greater and more subtle ideas?  And do you not have to first approach 
these subjects with humilty, to presume that apparent inconsistencies 
are perhaps because of our feebleness of mind rather than because this 
subject is just trash?

Believe me - I tell you that if you truly look with an inquisitive and 
humble eye, you will see something beautiful.  But don't just believe 
me?  Don't just believe your gullible relatives?  Or don't just believe 
those "believers" whom you think probably belong in a mental 
institution.  Also believe the great minds of the past.  Wonder why 
Jewish scholars find such fascination in studying the Torah, so that 
people with great brains are willing to devote their whole lives to it. 
  Or believe US Presidents from the past, many of whom were very willing 
to quote scripture or theistic ideas to push their agendas.  Or believe 
the hearts of the many tribes that used to make up Europe who were 
civilised by the gospel.  I am not asking you to research some book that 
"Bob Smith" wrote last weekend, but a belief system that has steered 
whole civilizations.

"Seek and you will find."  The truth is there, and I tell you, it is the 
greatest thing you can ever find, if only you will seek it.

Best, Stephen
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion