Have you ever encountered someone who says they pray “just in case” god exists? I once heard that compared to leaving garlic above your door just in case vampires exist.
They say they want to “cover all bases”.
Nobody really knows what happens after you die. It’s not like someone can come back after dying to tell us what it’s like.
But common sense tells me there’s nothing after death. I feel that’s all atheism is – common sense.
I personally feel it’s a little dangerous to play the “just in case” and “cover all bases” game. Whether you truly believe in it or not, I feel that’s condoning religion and all the evils that come with it. It’s similar to that saying, “If you’re silent when there’s injustice, you’ve taken the side of the oppressor.”
Maybe people will say there’s a difference between just believing in god and practicing a religion but I feel the idea of god only exists for greed and power. To me, god is oppression – keeping people in their place. Make people complacent so you can control them.
Death brings out the fear of the unknown so I can kind of see why some people say “just in case” but it still gets under my skin considering everything it symbolizes.
How do you feel about people who say they pray “just in case” or to “cover all bases”? Do you think they truly believe in god at that point? Also, do you think it’s possible for some people to completely separate god from religion? Have you ever been a “just in case” person?
The “Just in Case” is Pascal’s Wager, and I always thought it was stupid, too. If there was an all-knowing god up there, it would know we were just covering our bases and not really believers. And we all know what happens to non-believers–the god who loves us all so very much happily shunts us off to a firey, torturous eternity. Because the god loves us so.
Um, different religions have different gods or none, so… can’t really cover all the bases. Anyway, I feel the same way about them as I do about any other person who prays. The only cost is opportunity cost (could be doing something useful), so hey.
And it works (kinda) in the movies:
Benny and the Mummy
Analysis about belief is nowhere more pointed than in the Western world, but ironically the history of Christianity shows how the prevailing notions can stray over time.
In Christianity, the matter has been turned on its head. Jesus contended that nothing would be impossible for a person whose faith was as big as a mustard seed. The only live issue about the “mustard seed” reference is competition between the notions that Jesus meant to indicate something that was ridiculously small, or to indicate something that was essentially non-existent. In any event, humanity’s palpable distance from being workers of the impossible is undeniable.
Instead of using Jesus’ premise of attenuated belief, Christianity (joined vigorously in many cases by atheism) has argued perennially about whether this or that person’s faith was “unshakable” (or some such) or whether this or that person would admit to the least iota of doubt.
I think belief in God is something that a person discovers internally, and is not amenable to assent or analysis (or quantification, though to the believer it would seem to be always too little.) In regard to the discussion above, I would say that nobody “really” believes in God—insofar as “belief” has taken on the connotations abroad in the Western world.
The Agnostic’s Prayer
(Roger Zelazny, Creatures of Light and Darkness, © 1969)
Insofar as I may be heard by anything, which may or may not care what I say, I ask, if it matters, that you be forgiven for anything you may have done or failed to do which requires forgiveness. Conversely, if not forgiveness but something else may be required to insure any possible benefit for which you may be eligible after the destruction of your body, I ask that this, whatever it may be, be granted or withheld, as the case may be, in such a manner as to insure your receiving said benefit. I ask this in my capacity as your elected intermediary between yourself and that which may not be yourself, but which may have an interest in the matter of your receiving as much as it is possible for you to receive of this thing, and which may in some way be influenced by this ceremony. Amen.
Heh. You have good taste in reading.
I’ve always been partial to The Agnostic’s Prayer:
Insofar as I may be heard by anything, which may or may not care what I say, I ask, if it matters, that you be forgiven for anything you may have done or failed to do which requires forgiveness. Conversely, if not forgiveness but something else may be required to ensure any possible benefit for which you may be eligible after the destruction of your body, I ask that this, whatever it may be, be granted or withheld, as the case may be, in such a manner as to insure your receiving said benefit. I ask this in my capacity as your elected intermediary between yourself and that which may not be yourself, but which may have an interest in the matter of your receiving as much as it is possible for you to receive of this thing, and which may in some way be influenced by this ceremony. Amen.
This prayer, also called the Possibly Proper Death Litany, is uttered by one of the main characters, Madrak, to shrive a man about to commit suicide for money (given to his family).
Also, Calvinists believe that there are only so many people designated to go to heaven, and they will go to heaven no matter what they do because they were pre-selected (I’m simplifying this a bit). Jehovah’s Witnesses also believe in the certain number, but as far as I know, they believe you have to earn it by, you know, believing, and also by doing acts they feel is heaven-able.
“Also, do you think it’s possible for some people to completely separate god from religion? ” I would suggest the future will include what will be a very painful process. History may prove that religion as we know it from history and tradition is no more than a theological conterfeit. “The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the Gospel and moral teaching of Christ is published and on the web. Radically different from anything else we known from history or tradition. Redefining all primary elements including the very nature of Faith, the Word, Law, Baptism, the Trinity, the Holy Spirit and especially the Resurrection, this new moral teaching is predicated upon the ‘promise’ of a precise, predefined, predictable and repeatable experience of transcendent omnipotence and called ‘the first Resurrection’ in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods’ willingness to reveal Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His Command, paving the way to confirm and justify, by faith, to the power of divine Will, Purpose, Law, covenant, and the absolute certainty of ultimate proof!”
Robert Landbeck@7,
You appear to have posted this word salad in at least a couple of places before. Why? Particularly as you don’t even link to this supposedly world-changing new interpretation.
“Suppose we’ve chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we’re just making him madder and madder!” – Homer Simpson
Pascal’s wager is utter crap, for the simple reason that you don’t just have to believe in any god — you have to believe in the CORRECT interpretation of the TRUE god(s), otherwise you might as well not believe or pray at all.
I respond to that drivel with what I call the “Aurelian Wager:” Live the best life and do the most good you can in the time you have. If the gods are just, they will reward you for doing good. If the gods are unjust, then at least you did your best, whether or not the gods reward it [and trying to suck up to unjust gods is a losing proposition anyway]. And if there are no gods and no afterlife, then you will have lived the best life you could in the time you had.