Risk, Reward, and God

[notjeffgoldblum]

If you believe in God, and he turns out to not be real, then you have lost nothing, but if he is real, you've gained everything.

Assuming God is as benevolent as many would like to believe she is, I'd like to present the following thought for discussion:

If you don't believe in God, and he turns out to not be real, you've gained everything, but if he is real, you've gained everything.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

What is God?

There is a myriad of possible notions we could explore with regard to that topic, which one do we have in mind here?

 

[Eileen]

What is "real"? What is "true"? What is a "lie"? Sometimes I think that is so much more relevant than "What is God?"

Also, what is "everything" and "nothing"?

 

[swordpath]

I think there is something lost if you spend a life time devoted to a God that turns out to not even exist. Maybe it doesn't matter after you die but for the life spent on Earth. I realize many are not this way, but I know a number of people that arise in the morning and then sleep at night, having spent their entire day devoted to study, worship and fellowship within the confined box of their faith and religion. While they may mean well and carry out their ministry with good intention, they're still called to "save the world" which leaves those of us who aren't like minded feeling isolated and looked down on.

So to those who are totally immersed, I do feel its a risk. Lost nothing? Well, you've spent the one life you have misfocused and then disregarded other trains of thought.

 

[Totenkindly]

I think there is something lost if you spend a life time devoted to a God that turns out to not even exist. Maybe it doesn't matter after you die but for the life spent on Earth. I realize many are not this way, but I know a number of people that arise in the morning and then sleep at night, having spent their entire day devoted to study, worship and fellowship within the confined box of their faith and religion. While they may mean well and carry out their ministry with good intention, they're still called to "save the world" which leaves those of us who aren't like minded feeling isolated and looked down on.

So to those who are totally immersed, I do feel its a risk. Lost nothing? Well, you've spent the one life you have misfocused and then disregarded other trains of thought.

That tends to be how I look at it now, from the outside.

IMO the question of existence shouldn't really be, "Where are you going when you die?" which tends to be just self-serving and protectionist [i.e., it's all about hedging your bets to maximize your personal profit], I think it's much better for it to be, "How am I going to live today?"

Life starts right now.
So whatever Big Things exist (God, truth, etc) logically should be relevant right now.

 

[Rachelinpa]

to those who are totally immersed, I do feel its a risk. Lost nothing? Well, you've spent the one life you have misfocused and then disregarded other trains of thought.

Well, I certainly do not agree with narrow-mindedness and blind devotion. However, if you are immersed in what you truly believe (however misdirected), then I would not consider it a life lost.

it's much better for it to be, "How am I going to live today?"

Agreed. I think the question should be two-fold. What am I living for? Followed by, how am I going to live? Matching your actions with your set of values and beliefs in order to experience the richest life possible.

 

[swordpath]

I think it's much better for it to be, "How am I going to live today?"

Backed.

Well, I certainly do not agree with narrow-mindedness and blind devotion. However, if you are immersed in what you truly believe (however misdirected), then I would not consider it a life lost.

The faith and belief itself, no, you're right. However, an immersion can easily lead to narrow-mindedness and blind devotion. Even if God is legit, it's wrong. Doubly wrong and unfortunate if he's not.

p.s. Did I create a word when I said "misfocused"? I think so.

 

[notjeffgoldblum]

What is God?

I was speaking of the judeo-chrIslamic God.

 

[Orangey]

Assuming God is as benevolent as many would like to believe she is, I'd like to present the following thought for discussion:

What's up with the last quote?

"If you don't believe in God, and he turns out to not be real, you've gained everything, but if he is real, you've gained everything."

How will you have gained everything if you don't believe in God and he turns out to be real? Are you suggesting that God will reward equally those who believe in him and those who don't?

 

[swordpath]

^pretty sure that's a typo.

 

[Orangey]

^I thought so, but then I got thrown off by his inclusion of the word 'benevolent'.

 

[notjeffgoldblum]

It wasn't a typo.

Are you suggesting that God will reward equally those who believe in him and those who don't?

Yes. My concept of an "all-benevolent" God would do this. Kind of like how some parents still love their children even though their children might despise them for some or all of their post-pubescent lives. The parents don't love their children any more or less because of their actions.

Real love is unconditional. I don't think it is asking too much to expect unconditional love from God, of all beings. If it is too much to ask, it would be an understatement to say I am not impressed.

 

[Totenkindly]

Yes. My concept of an "all-benevolent" God would do this. Kind of like how some parents still love their children even though their children might despise them for some or all of their post-pubescent lives. The parents don't love their children any more or less because of their actions.

Real love is unconditional. I don't think it is asking too much to expect unconditional love from God, of all beings. If it is too much to ask, it would be an understatement to say I am not impressed.

Hmm...

How do you deal, then, when one of your children is being horribly taken advantage of by another one who has no desire or inclination to change? What's your mechanism for justice and protecting the weaker from abuse?

(In my mind, it's not really a question of whether "God" would "love all his children" or not, any parent would grieve over a lost child; it's a question about the power dynamics and love vs selfishness.)

 

[lowtech redneck]

It wasn't a typo.



Yes. My concept of an "all-benevolent" God would do this. Kind of like how some parents still love their children even though their children might despise them for some or all of their post-pubescent lives. The parents don't love their children any more or less because of their actions.

Real love is unconditional. I don't think it is asking too much to expect unconditional love from God, of all beings. If it is too much to ask, it would be an understatement to say I am not impressed.

I agree, and that's why I base the utility of theism (and all things associated with it) on the basis of how it impacts life on earth. However, I think people who are able to believe in "God" usually derive more utility out of life than those who do not. I think most people have certain metaphysical wants that need to be satified in order to fully enjoy the present, so theists (generally speaking) gain much more than they lose through their beliefs.

 

[notjeffgoldblum]

How do you deal, then, when one of your children is being horribly taken advantage of by another one who has no desire or inclination to change? What's your mechanism for justice and protecting the weaker from abuse?

I don't think taking the measures necessary to fix this problem require any trade-off when it comes to love.

I agree, and that's why I base the utility of theism (and all things associated with it) on the basis of how it impacts life on earth. However, I think people who are able to believe in "God" usually derive more utility out of life than those who do not. I think most people have certain metaphysical wants that need to be satified in order to fully enjoy the present, so theists (generally speaking) gain much more than they lose through their beliefs.

I think this has to do with one's opinion on what constitutes a good life. When considering the ability to live a "normal" life, there is no question that theists tend to have the utilitarian advantage on the whole. However, when I study the lives of those I personally consider to be truly great, the proportional amount of theists dwindles significantly.

 

[Orangey]

I agree, and that's why I base the utility of theism (and all things associated with it) on the basis of how it impacts life on earth. However, I think people who are able to believe in "God" usually derive more utility out of life than those who do not. I think most people have certain metaphysical wants that need to be satified in order to fully enjoy the present, so theists (generally speaking) gain much more than they lose through their beliefs.

Could you explain better what you mean by the bolded part?

And notjeffgoldblum, I don't think any Christian would say that their conception of God is one of conditional love. It's just that God's love doesn't stop him from punishing those who don't believe in him (or her, whichever). Actually, framing it as an act of punishment may be wrong, since the free-will-ers will undoubtedly say that God doesn't punish anyone, but the individual chooses his/her fate by choosing to believe or not. I don't buy it (for several reasons that I won't get into now), but I think that it preserves the idea of a benevolent God while also including eternal damnation.

The point: God still loves you even if he knows you're going to burn. Sort of like (to draw from your parenting analogy) when a parent knows that their child is going down a path of destruction by their choices in life, but continues to love them anyway. Their love, however, doesn't stop the consequences of the child's choices from happening.

 

[Totenkindly]

I don't think taking the measures necessary to fix this problem require any trade-off when it comes to love.

I do think it's easy to have abstracted ideals... that do not conform in the least bit to practical reality.

What specific measures would you take to fix this problem that would not result in a trade-off and would be effective?

The point: God still loves you even if he knows you're going to burn.

lol. Okay, that caught me off-guard.

Sort of like (to draw from your parenting analogy) when a parent knows that their child is going down a path of destruction by their choices in life, but continues to love them anyway. Their love, however, doesn't stop the consequences of the child's choices from happening.

I agree. The mom of a murderer on death row can still love her child and still think that he needs to be punished for what he's done. That's what's not being considered here.

 

[lowtech redneck]

Could you explain better what you mean by the bolded part?

Check the "why is it good that God exist" and "death-what's the problem?" threads.

 

[notjeffgoldblum]

And notjeffgoldblum, I don't think any Christian would say that their conception of God is one of conditional love. It's just that God's love doesn't stop him from punishing those who don't believe in him (or her, whichever). Actually, framing it as an act of punishment may be wrong, since the free-will-ers will undoubtedly say that God doesn't punish anyone, but the individual chooses his/her fate by choosing to believe or not. I don't buy it (for several reasons that I won't get into now), but I think that it preserves the idea of a benevolent God while also including eternal damnation.

The point: God still loves you even if he knows you're going to burn. Sort of like (to draw from your parenting analogy) when a parent knows that their child is going down a path of destruction by their choices in life, but continues to love them anyway. Their love, however, doesn't stop the consequences of the child's choices from happening.

I like to compare the concept of people condemning themselves to hell to idea of criminals sending themselves to jail. It just doesn't happen. Criminals commit crimes and they may well know that they are acting in contradiction with the wishes of the vast majority of society, but the fact remains that it takes something besides their crime to actually put them in jail. God sends people to hell, not people. (then again I don't consider the concept of heaven to be all that appealing but that's a whole 'nother thread)

 

[notjeffgoldblum]

I do think it's easy to have abstracted ideals... that do not conform in the least bit to practical reality.

I don't think we are on the same page when we think of the abstracted ideal that is love. If we were, I would need no explanation. I still haven't been able to explain it. It's a feeling.

I agree. The mom of a murderer on death row can still love her child and still think that he needs to be punished for what he's done. That's what's not being considered here.

I think it is usually fruitless to compare god to "real life" analogies though. My conception of God lives outside of social constructs. (I know... I started it )