starting in the wrong place (The atheist delusion)

by Curtis , Monday, May 26, 2008, 21:46 (5810 days ago) @ dhw

Dear Dhw, - You make an interesting observation that my stock market analogy is akin to Pascal's Wager. I didn't see that but there is some parallel. I think the stock market analogy may be a weaker form in that it does not posit Hell but simply points out that it may be a wasted life, from the sense of leaving a legacy. - However, I don't think that either wager is a basis for faith. I think both are intended to point out that not making a decision is important. That's all. - So, what is the minimum amount of uncertainty that would cause you to choose one or the other? - Let me clarify my statement "Agnosticism is usually 'atheism by default'" with an analogy. We are back in the medieval times and I am a lowly farmer. My land is owned by Lord Realituf. Lord Realituf is going out to battle with his army and it is not clear if Lord Realituf will return. I think there are two options open to my future: (1) I could expect Lord Realituf will return so I will take his portion of my crop and store it for him; (2) I think Lork Realituf (LR) will die in battle and I will be able to keep his portion for myself. In case (1), it is the more prudent behavior even though I don't know if LR will return. But, case (2) is enticing but far more dangerous. (Please excuse the weakness in this analogy that we know LR does exist.) - The analogy is, of course, how an agnostic chooses to live their life. They can choose to live it in a prudent, conservative fashion whereby they choose to act according to the most pious religion -- this is not what I see. Instead, I see agnostics to live like atheists. - I must agree that this site is quite unique -- the openness and seeking is not the norm. - Now, it would seem that we all agree that we cannot disprove the existence of God. This leaves the possibility that God exists. As you point out, not being able to disprove something does not mean that it exists, so we have a way to go. - Before I get to the Kalam, I want to point out we humans have a strong inclination to not want to believe in God. I think this is in our nature and that we need to be aware of it, perhaps even counter it as it rises. My reasoning follows:
(1) God owns everything because God created everything.
(2) Everything is God's property.
(2.1) At the most fundamental level, we are his possession as objects.
(2.2) At the next level we are his subjects as persons.
(3) God is the King in a universal monarchy. 
(4) He can do with us as He wills so there are no human rights.
(5) We are confused because we live in a democracy so we think we (His subjects) can disobey the king.
(6) As a King, God's commands are laws to be followed. 
(7) Not following a King's command is called treason
(8) Treason is punished with death
(9) Sin is treason so .... sin is punishable by death
(10) Our opinions don't matter if God exists
(10.1) We can say that God is not fair ... it doesn't matter
(10.2) We can say that God is hidden ... it doesn't matter
(10.3) We can say that God is unjust ... it doesn't matter - I personally must say that I like being autonomous. But, if God exists, He can demand of me whatever He wishes and my autonomy is ruined. And I don't like that but not liking it doesn't make it any less true. I find that there are many ways that I try to deny this but the brute logic is impossible to escape. - Instead, I see many people rationalize away why they cannot accept God because this would incur the loss of autonomy. - I am not accusing anyone on this list of doing this, just putting forward a warning that seeking truth is harder when your heart (i.e., emotions, will, inclination) wants to stay away from the conclusion. - The next post should begin the Kalam. I think that I will set up a separate thread for that.