Glad you took the time reply. I am quite familiar with Pascal’s Wager with no pressing need of looking it up, however I do appreciate your point: The statements that I made in no way conclusively proves that God exists or that he doesn’t and you would be accurate in labeling belief based solely on this premise to be of a self-serving variety. I was not entertaining any delusions that my statement provided conclusive proof or disproof of God’s existence. Nor was I in any way implying that it was the sole foundation for my personal belief in Christianity. It was simply an offering of an additional perspective for viewing a question.

While I realize that what I said was basically a paraphrase of Pascal’s Wager, it was actually C.S. Lewis’ Essays on Theology and Ethics, ‘God in the Dock’, that I had in mind as I was writing.

C.S. Lewis states, “…Christianity is a statement which, if false, is of no importance, and, if true, of infinite importance. The one thing it cannot be is moderately important.”

This statement, like Pascal’s Wager, again proves nothing in and of itself, however both present a good starting place – a place to begin contemplating what one chooses to believe or disbelieve.

Interestingly enough, the same essay put forth by C.S. Lewis has a thought-provoking response to your statement that “Mankind has worshiped thousands of gods over history. Being ‘rational’ you need to accept that the chances of your choosing the correct one out of those thousands is very remote.”

One passage in Lewis’ essay states, “…There isn’t really, for an adult mind, this infinite variety of religions to consider. We may salva reverentia divide religions, as we do soups, into ‘thick’ and ‘clear’. By Thick I mean those which have orgies and ecstasies and mysteries and local attachments: Africa is full of Thick religions. By Clear I mean those which are philosophical, ethical and universalizing: Stoicism, Buddhism, and the Ethical Church are Clear religions. Now if there is a true religion it must be both Thick and Clear: For the true God must have made both the child and the man, both the savage and the citizen, both the head and the belly. And the only two religions that fulfill this condition are Hinduism and Christianity. But Hinduism fulfills it imperfectly. The Clear religion of the Brahmin hermit in the jungle and the Thick religion of the neighboring temple go side by side. The Brahmin hermit doesn’t bother about the temple prostitution nor does the worshiper in the temple about the hermit’s metaphysics. But Christianity really breaks down the middle wall of the partition. It takes a convert from central Africa and tells him to obey and enlightened universalist ethic: it takes a twentieth-century academic prig like me and tells me to go fasting to a Mystery, to drink the blood of the Lord. The savage convert has to be Clear: I have to be Thick. That is how one knows one has come to the real religion.”

While I do respect your opinion, I like my own odds just fine.

Blessings to you as well.

(Casey – So sorry for unintentionally derailing your topic into the land of apologetics )

You have just restated Pascals wager – God exists or he dosent, I believe or I don’t – 4 possible scenarios. You might want to look it up.

Some points for your further consideration –
– Just because its rational and self-serving to choose to believe in god ‘just in case’ does not in any way form proof of his existence or non existence.
– Mankind has worshiped thousands of gods over history. Being ‘rational’ you need to accept that the chances of your choosing the correct one out of those thousands is very remote.

Blessing of Athena be with you,

flip

Robert is a fellow Christian. He’s just trying to help establish an air-tight argument. I’m sure he has made the same wager.

You asked, “The distinction between mere patterns and true design is in your mind surely?”

Actually, no. The distinction is clear in that intelligent design cannot logically be attributed to chance. William Dembski noted,

Many special sciences have already developed such methods for drawing this distinction–notably forensic science, cryptography, archeology, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). Essential to all these methods is the ability to eliminate chance and necessity.
…Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic trademark or signature?what within the intelligent design community is now called specified complexity. An event exhibits specified complexity if it is contingent and therefore not necessary; if it is complex and therefore not readily repeatable by chance; and if it is specified in the sense of exhibiting an independently given pattern. Note that a merely improbable event is not sufficient to eliminate chance?by flipping a coin long enough, one will witness a highly complex or improbable event. Even so, one will have no reason to attribute it to anything other than chance.

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.08.Encyc_of_Relig.htm

Great post – I particularly liked the last paragraph.

Mulledvine/Morschel – Your ponderings are interesting… If you prefer a more rational approach, how about just boiling the debate down to this…

What is to be gained by choosing to believe that the universe consists of a conglomerate of random patterns and evolutionary moments vs. belief in intelligent design – in a creator?

What if the theory of evolution is true? What is the price for my failure to acknowledge evolution as truth? As near as I can tell, at some point I will cease to exist and never know that I was wrong.

Now what if creationism is true? What if the world was formed by intelligent design, by a creator – by God? What if this God governs the universe in the manner laid out in scripture? What is the price for failing to acknowledge such a God? In the book that I read, the price is eternal life.

So just based on logic alone, from a simple rewards vs benefits / risks vs consequences perspective, belief in intelligent design seems inherently more rational to me.

Now I’m not the betting sort, but that is one bet I would be willing to stake my life on… and I have, in fact.

One final thought… If rocks do not inspire you to worship, then you have my sincerest sympathy – for you most assuredly have never seen the beauty of the Pacific Coastline. : )

I truly wish you success in your search for logic.