The following post is an adapted excerpt from Proof of God: An Ontological Adventure, chapter 3, titled "Routines, the Glass Eye and the Will to Believe". This chapter explores the concepts and constructs of faith and the will to believe. In effect, we chose our faith and our beliefs as an act of will.
On the other side, if you chose to wager that God does not exist, and he does, there is hell and damnation in the wake. If you are correct and God does not exist, you face the same fate as the believer who is wrong -- oblivion. Pascal suggests believing in God is your best bet based solely on the expected outcome. The truth and veracity of the results are still in question, but we are still likely to believe solely on the anticipated positive outcome associated with the belief. There is no benefit is God exists in this wager against God view. The benefits are great only if you believe that God exists, if you wager correctly and a large wager is likely made accordingly.
This discussion is expanded in my soon to be published book, Proof of God: An Ontological Advantage. There is physical and scientific support for atheism. Atheism is supported by facts found in experience of the natural world. Metaphysical naturalism, a belief that many atheist hold, explains existence through science and the natural world. This is a belief not based on a desirable outcome but a belief based on cold and hard scientific facts. The outcome is cold and indifferent. What does one look forward to with this belief? If you all you can look forward to at death is non-existence, a negative expression of Descartes "cogito ergo sum", or in English "I think therefore I am", with thinking being proof of one's existence, may be called the “anti-cogito” as it can be described and stated as such, “I do not think therefore I am not.” This anti-cogito is inconceivable to most, because most cannot imagine themselves as a non-existent and this is not a favorable outcome for the believer, so not accepted, or even comprehended by most. I am not sure non-existence is a possible state to comprehend, because you still can only imagine yourself -- see yourself -- in a non-existing place or space which is still somewhere and, if you are imagining yourself somewhere, you still exist in that place even if the place is oblivion or a void of some kind. Furthermore, as we are always thinking, we cannot imagine not thinking, because if we did we still would be thinking of not thinking. The permanence associated with our own existence gives way to the desire to believe in an after life, a favorable concept and outcome, the desire to exist even beyond death which is comprehensible to most.
Faith is to believe in something as an act of will. Will is to desire something and make it happen. Therefore, faith is founded on the will to believe. Will has created massive structures like the Hoover Dam, initiated world wars, forged technology where telescopes view the universe back to the first moments of creation, and created philosophical works that fostered revolutions in scientific, practical and speculative thought. All we experience, all of existence is the effect of natural forces and the will and its subsequent actions from conscious beings. Action is the vehicle of the will.
The philosopher, William James, in his work "The Will to Believe" suggests that we believe based on certain criteria, criteria not necessarily based on evidence. We are apt to believe based from our will to believe based solely on the outcome of the belief. He cites the case of "Pascal's Bet with God". It is not a proof of god so much, but a wager on God's existence. Accordingly, the odds are fifty/fifty, God exists or he does not. But what are you willing to wager knowing that believers go to heaven with all the perks and benefits of everlasting life. If you are wrong and God does not exist, oblivion abounds. On the other side, if you chose to wager that God does not exist, and he does, there is hell and damnation in the wake. If you are correct and God does not exist, you face the same fate as the believer who is wrong -- oblivion. Pascal suggests believing in God is your best bet based solely on the expected outcome. The truth and veracity of the results are still in question, but we are still likely to believe solely on the anticipated positive outcome associated with the belief. There is no benefit is God exists in this wager against God view. The benefits are great only if you believe that God exists, if you wager correctly and a large wager is likely made accordingly.
This discussion is expanded in my soon to be published book, Proof of God: An Ontological Advantage. There is physical and scientific support for atheism. Atheism is supported by facts found in experience of the natural world. Metaphysical naturalism, a belief that many atheist hold, explains existence through science and the natural world. This is a belief not based on a desirable outcome but a belief based on cold and hard scientific facts. The outcome is cold and indifferent. What does one look forward to with this belief? If you all you can look forward to at death is non-existence, a negative expression of Descartes "cogito ergo sum", or in English "I think therefore I am", with thinking being proof of one's existence, may be called the “anti-cogito” as it can be described and stated as such, “I do not think therefore I am not.” This anti-cogito is inconceivable to most, because most cannot imagine themselves as a non-existent and this is not a favorable outcome for the believer, so not accepted, or even comprehended by most. I am not sure non-existence is a possible state to comprehend, because you still can only imagine yourself -- see yourself -- in a non-existing place or space which is still somewhere and, if you are imagining yourself somewhere, you still exist in that place even if the place is oblivion or a void of some kind. Furthermore, as we are always thinking, we cannot imagine not thinking, because if we did we still would be thinking of not thinking. The permanence associated with our own existence gives way to the desire to believe in an after life, a favorable concept and outcome, the desire to exist even beyond death which is comprehensible to most.
In the same view of rational thought, proof of God may be supported by the logical proofs constructed by many philosophers throughout the ages. Philosophy offers logical proofs of god's existence -- the ontological proof and "The Five Ways" are examples -- proofs based on reason both a priori (from pure reason) and a posteriori (from only our experience). In contrast, many, if not most, believers prefer proving God's existence through revelation of the word and the invocation of the holy spirit --nothing to do with reason. Our will to believe is often founded on some basis –our outcome based will to believe, our faith in what is a desirable outcome --no matter how weak or strong the evidence is to support another view.
No comments:
Post a Comment