Would you become a Catholic in this world? Or are you willing to admit that maybe your rejection of Pascal’s Wager has less to do with a hypothesized pro-atheism God, and more to do with a belief that it’s wrong to abandon your intellectual integrity on the off chance that a crazy deity is playing a perverted game of blind poker with your eternal soul?
I don’t think I would be able to bring myself to worship honestly a God who bestowed upon us the ability to reason and then rewarded us for not using it.
I don’t think I would be able to bring myself to worship honestly a God who bestowed upon us the ability to reason and then rewarded us for not using it.
I don’t follow your reasoning. Because God made us able to do a particular thing, we shouldn’t be rewarded for choosing not to do that thing? A quick word substitution illustrates my issue:
“I don’t think I would be able to bring myself to worship honestly a God who bestowed upon us the ability to murder and then rewarded us for not using it.”
“I don’t think I would be able to bring myself to worship honestly a God who bestowed upon us the ability to murder and then rewarded us for not using it.”
I certainly wouldn’t like such a God. He’d be better than a God who bestowed upon us the ability to murder and then rewarded us for using it, but what kind of God would bestow upon us the ability to murder?
It does. It just doesn’t if you accept the premise that intelligence is, in and of itself, good (and murder is not).
I accept that premise, of course, and your assertion that it was not intended to be generalized as such. But still, within the framework of this hipothetical world, that simply cannot be true. In fact, it cannot be relevant. It is not a moral question at all; more of an utility vs principles thing.
In the original Pascal’s Wager, as I recall, false (outwardly) adoration does score you points. I seem to recall him saying that “at least you wouldn’t be corrupting the youths” and “you may become convinced by habit”, at least.
So yeah, I would try my best (and probably fail) to aquire that reward, if it was shown to be worth it.
On the other hand, on such a world, it probably would not. Heaven for the weather, Hell for the company, et al.
I don’t think I would be able to bring myself to worship honestly a God who bestowed upon us the ability to reason and then rewarded us for not using it.
Would you want to, if you could? If so, given the stakes, you should try damn hard to make yourself able to.
I don’t follow your reasoning. Because God made us able to do a particular thing, we shouldn’t be rewarded for choosing not to do that thing? A quick word substitution illustrates my issue:
“I don’t think I would be able to bring myself to worship honestly a God who bestowed upon us the ability to murder and then rewarded us for not using it.”
I certainly wouldn’t like such a God. He’d be better than a God who bestowed upon us the ability to murder and then rewarded us for using it, but what kind of God would bestow upon us the ability to murder?
My statement does not generalize in that way, and was not intended to do so.
It does. It just doesn’t if you accept the premise that intelligence is, in and of itself, good (and murder is not). I accept that premise, of course, and your assertion that it was not intended to be generalized as such. But still, within the framework of this hipothetical world, that simply cannot be true. In fact, it cannot be relevant. It is not a moral question at all; more of an utility vs principles thing.
In the original Pascal’s Wager, as I recall, false (outwardly) adoration does score you points. I seem to recall him saying that “at least you wouldn’t be corrupting the youths” and “you may become convinced by habit”, at least. So yeah, I would try my best (and probably fail) to aquire that reward, if it was shown to be worth it. On the other hand, on such a world, it probably would not. Heaven for the weather, Hell for the company, et al.