Philosophy
18/02/2015
Comprehending The Unfathomable
“Religion is for people who are scared to go to hell. Spirituality is for people who have already been there” (Bonnie Raitt). Religion seems to be a source of comfort for certain people. In a world where all one knows is what he (or she) can touch, see, hear, taste, and smell, it is an incredibly daunting feat to think upon that which does not feel, sound, taste, or smell like anything. That is, to think upon death. Death is an incredible thing for it has been an apparent fact of life for as long as it (life) has been around and it is an occurrence which happens right out in the open for anyone to see; available for anyone to readily study. Humanity has been thinking upon and studying death for as long as it has been around and has yet to turn up any definitive answers in regards to what happens to one’s consciousness after death. It is a paradoxical train of thought to try to imagine consciousness simply ceasing. For to imagine requires consciousness, therefore even if one could successfully imagine a lack of consciousness, one would be using one’s conscience in doing so and thus have counteracted one’s own thought experiment before it had even begun. This is precisely where religion comes into such use and applicability. Religion carries an extremely strong connotation of belief in the supernatural, that is a belief that something more exists than what one can simply touch, see, hear, taste, and smell. Most often the ‘more’ which is believed in has to do with either an ‘afterlife’ or a ‘life-cycle’, a way of thinking which circumnavigates the requirement to imagine consciousness ending. Those whom believe in an ‘afterlife’ believe that when the body dies the conscience (spirit/soul/mind et cetera) is transported to another plane of reality where it will exist (consciously) for the rest of time. Those who believe in a ‘life-cycle’ believe that when the body dies the conscience (spirit/soul/ mind et cetera) is recycled and placed again into an entity in this plane of reality, and although the conscience will not recall its time in the old entities, it will nonetheless continue to be conscious. It is a primal instinct built into the brain of all human beings: to fear the unknown. Something which cannot be fathomed by one is a direct example of just that, the unknown, and thus when one imagines (or attempts to at least) a total termination of consciousness after a death event, the mind reacts with fear and as a result seeks ways to avoid that which it fears (the total termination of consciousness). In seeking such ways many minds come to rest on religion in order to avoid the unfathomable conscience termination, deciding instead to believe in ‘iffy’ things based entirely on ‘iffy’ evidence.
W.K. Clifford argues that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence” (147), this statement absolutely applies to religion. Were I to walk out to my car one morning, put the key in the ignition, turn it and not have my engine turn over as a result, and then for the following two days do the same thing with the same result, I would be mad to, again, attempt to start the car on the fourth day. I likely would be mad for trying to start the car on the second and third days as well! The evidence I gleaned on the first day has clearly demonstrated to me that the car is not able to be started, and by the second day I would have no doubt that my results were not askew. Contrastingly: suppose I walk out to my car one morning, turn the key in the ignition, the engine turns over and I drive to work. When I’m done work I drive the car back home. Would I be a fool to simply assume that when I got up the morning after that my car would once again start? Certainly not, for the evidence supports the contrary. Suppose then that I should desire to believe in God and so I join a Christian congregate. My fellow Christians inform me that all I must do is worship the Lord Jesus Christ (God) and my entire life will be filled with happiness and joy and good things of all kinds, for the Lord is generous to those whom praise. I proceed to follow all the Christian rituals honestly and exactly and fill my heart with an honest love for Jesus Christ. Nothing really changes until one day starts the series of unfortunate events and all these horrible things are happening to me, is my belief in God still justified? Absolutely not! The evidence has shown quite clearly that God doesn’t exist, or if he does he does not exist for the same purpose people believe him to. On the other hand if I were to be in the same situation and suddenly began a series of fortunate events then this would be ample evidence to show that Jesus Christ exists because I love and worship him and magnificent things began to entreat my daily life. They said it would happen and it did: theory, evidence, proof.
Some out there may counter this argument by saying that it does not matter if there is or is not a God: if there is not and one does not believe then no harm nor foul. If there is not and one does believe then the only real cost has been one’s Sunday morning sleep-in time. If there is a God and one does believe then one is rewarded with eternal salvation. If there is a God and one does not believe then one is reprimanded with eternal damnation. Obviously on a cost/reward matrix one may as well believe in God. This is called Pascal’s Wager, after its founder Blaise Pascal. There are however, two fundamental issues with Pascal’s Wager:
1> Faith to a religion costs a whole lot more than just one’s Sunday morning sleep-in time, religion requires one to do life’s actions in a particular way that comply with the faith. These particular ways are often not at all a comfort to the religions followers, for example salat and zakat are two Islamic traditions which mean prayer and giving, respectively, salat decrees that one must pray to Allah five times a day, every day. For someone trying to run a business, or go to school and work part-time, five daily prayers can be a substantial amount of time required cut out of these other responsibilities. Zakat happens once a year where Muslims are required to give a certain percentage of their annual earnings to the faith, once again it is clear to see how this might impede a struggling school student or a man trying to feed his family. If Allah does exist then these are minor prices to pay for salvation, but if not then these become hefty prices for the average man’s life.
2> The second, and truly the most instrumental, flaw with Pascal’s Wager is that it assumes that God, if God so exists, is a ‘P.K.G.’ God, that is an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being. It must be supposed that this is the case because if God is not P.K.G. then God is not God. The problem here lies with the fact that God is inherently all-good, and if God is all good then there is no reason to suppose that He would be judgmental of others. What I propose is that if there is a God and if there is a heaven and if when people die they go to this heaven, then there is utterly no premise to suggest that God would turn anyone away from his Promised Land, for He is not judgmental, he is all-good. Therefore whether one believes in God or not, if there is a God then one will undoubtedly be admitted to the Promised Land.
To summarize, even when dealing with something as circumstantial as religion one ought not believe something which is not supported by evidence. Should one believe something which presents evidence contradicting its existence or function, then one is a fool to continue to believe in that thing until such a time as an ample rebuttal of evidence has suggested otherwise.
Works Cited
W.K. Clifford. “The Ethics of Belief”. Louis P. Pojman, Lewis Vaughn. Philosophy: The Quest for Truth. 9th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. 143-148. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment