atheist

[Jonathan Lighter]

If you don't know whether you believe, the chances might be greater that you
believe than if you're "sure" you believe.

Because if you don't know whether you do, you might. But if you're "sure"
you do, you might be deluded. Just which situation is more likely is not
certain.

But that would be okay too, on my friend's interpetation, because if you
don't believe, but simply try to act and think as though you believe, God
should look on that attitude favorably, even if you don't really (heh heh)
believe.

OTOH, if you don't know whether you believe and in fact you don't, you have
lost Pascal's Wager, just as if you're "sure"  you don't, because either way
you're rejecting not just belief but the opportunity to think and act as
though you believe.

How can you know whether you believe or not?  Well, naturally, you
can't know-with-certainty any more than you can  know-with-certainty
anything that's in your fallible mind.  All you can do is to try to think
and act as though you believe, in the expectation that God will be
pleased because either A) you really do believe or B) you don't really, but,
to the best of your ability, you think and act as if you do, perhaps in
order to (heh heh) work the odds.

But suppose you try, cynically, to act and think as though you believe even
though deep down you don't, just so that you can (heh heh) work the odds.
Theoretically, God might frown on that sort of behavior, but my friend has
learned that the determination to think and act as though you believe is
commensurable with really believing, and a lot better than just thinking you
believe but not constantly trying to think or act as though you do. That's
Sloth!

However, the more you try to think and act as though you believe, the more
God will smile and, through grace, will eventually enable you to believe for
real.

So, if you don't believe already, through grace or of your own free will,
 the way to beat Pascal's Wager is to think and act as though you believe,
even if you don't.  Unless it turns out that God frowns on those who simply
try to (heh heh) work the odds.

Which is what you're trying to do as soon as you take Pascal's Wager,
although perhaps the wager is an exception.

JL
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 1:01 PM, <ronbutters at aol.com> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       ronbutters at AOL.COM
> Subject:      Re: atheist
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hmm. I don't know if I believe or not. How do I even know that it is an
> important question? I just try not to be anxious.
>
> ------Original Message------
> From: Jonathan Lighter
> Sender: ADS-L
> To: ADS-L
> ReplyTo: ADS-L
> Subject: Re: [ADS-L] atheist
> Sent: Dec 20, 2009 11:10 AM
>
> As Pascal observed, remaining neutral is not the safer bet at all, if by
> "safe" you mean, "to my (heh heh) advantage."
>
> If God exists and demands that you believe in Him, remaining neutral isn't
> good enough. You do your believing or you don't.  Neutrality is disbelief.
>
> If you're a Greek pagan and don't believe in much of an afterlife for
> anyone
> but great heroes and fiendish villains, you may have nothing to
> lose through neutrality. You go to Hades and become a shade of your former
> self regardless. (Unless Pascal's God is real, in which case you might get
> a
> pass as a "virtuous pagan," especially if you were in the ground before the
> First Century AD.)
>
> On the other hand, if you fear that God punishes and rewards everyone
> eternally in an afterlife, the safer bet is to believe.
>
> Just to (heh heh) work the odds. Know what I mean?
>
> JL
>
>
>  On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:
>
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > -----------------------
> > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > Poster:       "Joel S. Berson" <Berson at ATT.NET>
> > Subject:      Re: atheist
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > At 12/19/2009 11:26 PM, Laurence Horn wrote:
> > >At 9:41 PM -0500 12/19/09, Joel S. Berson wrote:
> > >>At 12/19/2009 09:19 PM, Mark Mandel wrote:
> > >>>  3. and he chooses to behave as if there is no God.
> > >>
> > >>Risky.  The probabilistic expectation is greater if one chooses to
> > >>believe in God.
> > >So you're wagering with Pascal then?
> >
> > Now that Larry has refreshed my memory, so that I know whom to look
> > for at the casino, yes.
> >
> > And in response to Dave Wilton:
> > >The safer bet is remaining neutral and not believing in any.
> >
> > The safer bet is to believe in one (in the right one?  in the right
> > several?).
> >
> > Joel
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> "If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>



--
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org