Scott comments:
How does it work for you, Kelly? The more people that have believed something for more time, the more chance it has of being true? So your version of Pascal’s Wager should be to become a faithful member of whatever religion currently holds that title, and, should the demographics shift enough during your lifetime to make the title-holder switch, you should too?
How about Scientology? Many, many more people believe in all that bullshit than actually believe in the FSM. (Only the mentally ill actually believe in the FSM, right?) By your reasoning, that means that Scientology is ten thousand times more likely to be true? Xenu and all?
Please.
See, this is why I so rarely start these sorts of debates. People get huffy, and it’s all very stressful. I’m only going to write about nice things, like berries and dogs (nice dogs, anyway), from now on. :-)
Scott, I don’t really think of it as a sliding scale. I’m not talking about particulars here, or about the nuances of individual religions. I’m just talking about the existence of God, just one big question, a question whose significance has had way more impact on the way we are today than the FSM or Scientology.
I’m not talking about *believing* in God, either, and I’m clearly not advising people to join any religions. I think you are misapplying my reasoning by implying this. I’m talking about suspending disbelief. It’s not a wager: I’m not trying to hedge my bets and I don’t advise others to do so either. I’m just leaving the door open a little wider for God than for the FSM.
I guess the reason why I resist lumping God in with the FSM is because I think that the mindset of viewing a belief in God as a fanciful, addlepated notion has led a lot of atheists to be, in my view, excessively scornful of *all* organized religion and of all people who believe, and dismissive of the good that a belief in God can provide for people. Of course I’m aware of the fact that many unjust deeds have been done in the name of organized religion, but I don’t think these misdeeds merit blanket condemnation of belief in God. Nor do I think that all believers deserve to be lumped with people who believe things that are manifestly contradicted by empirical evidence, or who believe things that justify evil deeds.
> I’m not talking about particulars here, or about the nuances of individual religions.
But, you are. The Judeo-Christian monotheistic God is fairly generalized, true, but it’s still one particular choice among an enormous myriad of mythical pantheons, nature spirits, dreaming deities, turtles-on-turtles, and, yes, FSMs.
Don’t get me wrong: strong agnostics should be respectful of those who believe in their religions, whatever they may be, because (a) they were probably brainwashed to believe while their brains were still young and plastic, and there’s little they can do about that, and (b) there’s good reason to think there is some biological basis for most people’s eagerness for faith. We should even be tolerant of jerks who hold up “Believe in Jesus Christ the Saviour” signs from the sidelines while the rest of us are struggling to finish a 10K run in the hot sun. I’m just not that good a person, though — I gave ‘em the finger.
You keep using the word “rational” to defend your stance of (I apologize in advance as this word has negative connotations - I’m using it strictly in the bare meaning) ignorance regarding the existence or non-existence of God.
How would you define “rational”, then?