Special Feature I: A Funky Letter

Here's something a friend of mine wrote to someone concerning the ignorance of faith. I decided to present it as a special feature for all to enjoy. I need not comment on it since the letter reflects my ideas exactly. Funny that. So.... enjoy!

------,

Though while the prospect of a better afterlife may be immensely appealing does that make it sensible? Though I consider myself “an open minded atheist” I question the validity of basing our emotional stability on the prospect that “we are well looked after”. I simply see too many contradictions with religion as a whole to accept the concept of an afterlife though I have no right or intention to convince anyone that there is not. I simply would recommend that people question why it is they believe what they do, as a false sense of security that does nothing in the long-run, save perhaps encourage ignorance. Finally I come down to a perspective that I share and I’m sure my friend feels the same: due to our mortality and nature we want answers, and since we have no immediately “confirmed” arbiter that provides relief or security we develop or accept existing beliefs. This is fine but to the issue of “great life after death,” if it truly is a basis of personal security then it becomes probable that a great majority of individuals are embracing Pascal’s Wager. Now I do not have the time or patience to attempt to explain the theory in full (please look it up if you require more clarity, sometimes its good to do non-compulsory research). The theory essentially describes the potential wagers surrounding god and religion, expressing it much as a gamble or “wager”. Roughly, the 4 wagers are: 1) God exists and you believe in him and you win the jackpot, heaven is your playground. 2) God exists and you do not believe in him, so apparently you go to hell (I’m not even going to get started on that today). 3) God does not exist and you don’t believe in him, you loose nothing but gain nothing, best to have lived an exciting life. 4) God does not exist and you believe in him, you gain nothing except a false sense of security until the point of your demise, and loose nothing (unless you wasted your life adhering to a certain restrictive moral/ethical code at which point you wasted your one chance to truly live your life). Personally I understand the rationality of the wager and many people directly or indirectly take the wager whether they realize it or not. The largest problem with the wager however is one of faith, for if I were a religious man and only so on account of outcome 1 of the wager, then my faith would not be of my own free will but directly influenced by fear of my own mortality. This could imply that since my faith is fear induced I not only plead ignorance but I have also chosen my faith due to physical external factors which could imply that I would be unworthy of heaven, as my faith is not “true” as per say one who embraces religion out of free choice, not out of fear. Therefore based on my personal understanding of the world and the weighing of the evidence I would be embracing wager 3.
I’m not suggesting that I am correct on any of this (I keep in mind that I only have little “t” (Human) knowledge) but I do feel it is imperative that everyone questions their position on religion (from atheists to fanatics) and that they try not to isolate their scope by blocking out all forms or reason, because lets face it folks; though none of us want to admit that we’re wrong, at the same time we can’t all be right.

Just some thoughts to digest…

Cal Funk