Salvation, not by faith or works, but by selfishness
Offline Let's assume for a moment the validity of Pascal's Wager. Certainly one cannot will oneself to believe that something is true (except perhaps through self-induced brain-washing); however, the acceptance of the logic behind Pascal's Wager might prompt a person to begin searching for God by going to church (or mosque, synagogue, temple, etc.), praying to God, reading religious scriptures, spending time seriously contemplating religious issues, and making an even greater attempt to love others and do good in the world than he might otherwise. This "searching" might lead to one "finding" God or being rewarded by God with a transformation of character that results in sincere, profound (and salvific) belief.
So where's the problem? The problem is that any way you spin it, Pascal's Wager rewards selfishness.
A person who embarks on a journey to discover God, if motivated by Pascal's Wager, is motivated by a desire to avoid eternal hell-fire and instead be rewarded with infinite, unending bliss. Or perhaps the individual is a bit more this-wordly and is hoping that by finding God, he will have a better, more fulfilling, more meaningful earthly existence. Take away the threat of hell and the promise of heaven, take away all talk of reward and punishment, cost and benefit, and Pascal's Wager loses all of its persuasive force. Even if a transformation of character does occur en route to finding God, the journey is ultimately rooted in self-interest, pure and simple. This means that a person is condemned to hell not because he does not love God, but because he lacks the intelligence to choose the option that benefits him most in the long-run, whether this is a result of ignorance or short-sightedness. The person who is convinced by Pascal's Wager and makes the right "bet" is no less selfish than the person who rejects Pascal's Wager; rather, he's just better at assessing what will most likely best ensure his long-term happiness and well-being.
This brings us to a related issue. Insofar as love is a choice, it is selfish. All religions that have some concept of hell will claim that people go to hell because these people don't love God and/or don't love other human beings (or, more broadly, other sentient beings). If a person already loves God and others, then presumably he's in good shape; in other words, he doesn't have to worry about going to hell. Even religions that require one to believe certain things in order to bypass God's wrath would likely claim that an individual who truly loves God and others will be motivated to accept the truth out of love for God (and thus belong to the right religion) or else will be rewarded by God with the gift of being able to recognize and accept the truth. So what does a person do if he does not already love God and others, or loves God and others less than he loves himself? Perhaps he's damned and can't do anything about it at all. Perhaps feelings like love are beyond our ability to choose or control: we either love or we don't and nothing can be done about it one way or the other. On the other hand, perhaps love can be chosen. Perhaps the individual with a dearth of love in his heart can make a decision to commit himself to moving past his own selfishness so that he can love God and others with all of his being (note: one can take this latter view regardless of whether one is a determinist or libertarian).
However, choices must be motivated by something. They don't arise in a vacuum and they don't arise spontaneously with no preceding causes. What could possibly motivate a person to "choose" love? What else? Self-interest. Why would a person who lacks love or loves imperfectly make a decision to cultivate love, devotion, compassion, and obedience to God? I can't think of any other reason except rational self-interest.
This presents a problem for anyone who is religious, regardless of their religion, because no one who is religious will want to maintain that salvation is by selfishness. Ask anyone who is religious, and I'm sure they will tell you that it's just the opposite: selfishness doesn't save, it damns. But if we analyze the situation as I have above and accept this analysis as correct, then the dichotomy is not between love and selfishness, but rather between one type of selfishness and another type of selfishness. The person who rejects love of God and others is damned by his own short-sighted selfishness, and the person who embraces love of God and others is saved by his long-sighted, more rational selfishness. Salvation then is a reward for properly assessing the long-term costs and benefits of living a life of obedience to God. We could even go so far as to say that salvation is a reward for intelligence, for making smart decisions. This reduces religion to an elitist platform that religious individuals would very likely find distasteful.
The correct way of understanding our existence is as conceptually created entities superimposed upon our changing mental and bodily states.
- Login to post comments
I personally dont believe there is a religious person on earth that does something not from selfishness.
Anyone that claims that is deluded about himself.
Later, AdamTM
- I'm the guy that gets called when the other guy is not around-
- I didnt feel the love! ...Wait...was that something? ...no, no its gone -
TWATWAFFLE FOREVER
I pretty much agree.
Even religious 'morality' seems to based on appeal to selfishness. You do the 'moral' thing not because you really want to 'do the right thing', but to avoid punishment and/or try and secure some ultimate reward. Seems purely selfish to me.
This is not to say this is how every believer actually makes moral decisions, but it does seem to be the 'logic' behind the dogma.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
In their defense, (I seem to be beoming the official "theist's advocate" on this site!) the aim of the wager is to appeal to a 'selfish non-believer' to give up this non-belief and selfishness. But I'm not really into defending teh wager so I won't press this issue.
To the defense of religion in general, most of us don't mean 'selfishness' to mean 'self interest'. When we say that someone is being selfish in a bad way, we don't merely mean that they are looking out for their interests, we mean that they are following certain desires at the expense of other people.
That kind of selfishness isn't really in their interests as it is in all our interests to get along with people rather than having to be at odds with them all the time.
So the fact that a religion involves self interest doesn't make it 'selfish' in the bad sense. Ofcourse, if a particular theology condemns something like atheism or humanism for being 'selfish' then they're certainly being inconsistent. I think it's those kind of claims that you had in mind when you made this topic.
I ask a stranger to help a very old, doddering, WW2 veteran to safely cross a busy street and they do so...
and then later
I asked another stranger to help the same old. doddering, WW2 veteran to cross the street and offered to pay them a $1,000 for doing so.....
would these two examples of good deeds have moral equivelancy ?
The effect of the kind actions is equal in both cases, helping an old man to avoid harm, but which of the two helpful strangers would most be most deserving of our respect ?
Christian morality is a system of "ethics" that is motivated by self-interest in that it exists within a framework of Divine coercion ( much like a lab rat whose behaviour is controlled through reward and punishment )
Perhaps selfish motives are too strong a term for some theists to swallow but theistic morality still remains a system based upon self interests....ie, good deeds coupled with dubious motives.
One of my favorite "thought experiments" for Christians is this:
You die and appear at the gates of heaven. Jesus appears before you, pulls you aside and says quietly, "We made an error in our calculations and there's only room for one more in heaven. See that man over there - he is a good man, but he didn't live a life of dedicated sevice as you did. The only way he can get into heaven is if you give up your spot. Of course that means you will spend eternity in hell. The choice is yours. What will you have me do?"
Another good one is "Would you serve god if you found out that satan wins?"
My Artwork
I would always follow satan, no matter who wins, here are some examples why:
Hell is the opposite of heaven, and as mentioned in another post on this forum, you dont have free will in heaven. Meaning, in hell you have free will.
Satan is the oposite of god. Therefore he doesnt care about you, hence he leaves you the fuck alone.
I think hell is atheist heaven, free thinking, warm, the tree of knowledge, great atheist minds to discuss matters with and all that outside the reach of some shizzo god that wants to control everything.
Someones punishment is another persons reward
Also given the fact that everyone that goes to hell is EVIL, hell is a paradise for evil ppl.
Its like sending prisoners to an isolated island...all you get from it is Australia.
Later, AdamTM
- I'm the guy that gets called when the other guy is not around-
- I didnt feel the love! ...Wait...was that something? ...no, no its gone -
TWATWAFFLE FOREVER
Dude, that is awesome ! Totally strips away all that "I only serve God because I love him
" bullshit. You should be a shrink wavefreak, ha ha !
I agree that selfishness and self-interest are two different things. So what we should say is that any type of attempt to convert non-believers, whether using Pascal's Wager or not, must appeal to self-interest, not selfishness. But I would think this is nonetheless problematic for theists. I can't imagine any theist being comfortable with the realization that salvation could be a reward for self-interest.
Of course, even someone who truly loves God is acting out of self-interest. Isn't love itself ultimately rooted in self-interest? Don't we love others because of what they do for us? At the very least, don't we love others because this feeling of love makes us feel good? If it were possible to separate love from the satisfaction and joy it brings, would there still be motivation to love and care for others?
Both of these are good questions. In my opinion, anyone who would willingly choose hell to save someone else from hell would quickly regret it.
As for the second question, I imagine most Christians would avoid answering the question by saying that if Satan wins, then Satan is more powerful than God, and therefore it is Satan who is the true God. Then they would argue that God is by definition the Supreme Good, that God gets to define what is good, so they would worship him no matter how evil he might appear. In fact, this is often how Christians will respond to skeptics who criticize the Judaeo-Christian concept of God as presented in the Bible: God's morality is beyond our comprehension.
The correct way of understanding our existence is as conceptually created entities superimposed upon our changing mental and bodily states.
Exactly. The above statement illustrates a system of morality based upon intimidation and implied threats (ie, Hell, God's trump card )
Sounds more like a Roman Caesar at work, where what is good is defined arbitrarily, and evil is simply to question or refuse the current "definition".
Ideally, we would act to comply with the will of God strictly and solely out of love for Him and others, this is , however, quite contrary to human nature, and something that we, as humans are well aware of.
We, ourselves, take steps to ensure compliance with human laws. As an example, taxes are the price we pay for the benefits we derive as citizens of the state. Ideally, we should pay taxes gladly since we all derive these benfits. The state, however, in its wisdom, realizes that such may not be the case, that some individuals will not pay taxes honestly, thus attaches penalties for failure to comply with tax laws.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
At least the better human derived systems of justice have proportionate, finite punishment, and appeal processes, so do seem to be morally superior to one based on unquestioned obedience coupled to extreme punishment reward system...
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Okay, so both God and the IRS ensure compliance by threat of force, still why would that engender a sense of love and devotion among the governed ?
Speaking of human nature, I would tend to think that such a relationship framed around brute force would inspire fear and resentment. Is that the reaction God was aiming for ?
And, ideally a God whose standard is perfection should create humans who have no desire to disobey him. Hence there is no need to endlessly torture them for not jumping when he snaps his fingers.
IMHO the god-ordained quality of free will would not be a viable defense as most Christians claim that in Heaven they will be incapable of sinning yet miraculously retain free will.
This begs the question: If God can indeed implement a condition in which his spiritual creations are incapable of sinning yet retain free will....then why not create Adam and Eve in that fashion from the very beginning and avoid all the carnage and suffering?
Just sharing my thoughts with you totus_tuus, ...if I remember you correctly you are not the stereotypical Christian in your beliefs and perhaps your perspective is different from what I have stated.
In other discusions, namely the ones which deal on the contradictions of god's atributed qualities, when asked about the contradiction posed by a being both omniscient (knows all) and at the same time capable of learning (which is included in the quality of omnipotence), someone posted thats since god is the big muck-a-muck, this is, superior to all that is natural, is therefore aptly capable of possesing supernatural qualities, so as to not be restrained by the non-contradiction principle.
What christians state here on the "capable incapacity" to sin (even to me it sound odd, is it and euphemism like dis-able?) is nothing more that a contradiction, and they say once we get to heaven WE will also be beyond contradictions!!! Does this mean we will be like god too? It seems that way, so from now on I'm gonna clean my act up the christian way, so when I get to heaven the first thing I do is kick god's ass, and since I'll be able and unable to do so, I know I'll can!!!!!
Lenore, The Cute Little Dead Girl. Twice as good as Jesus.
Which is why the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory makes so much sense to me. There's more to the "after-life" than eternal bliss and eternal damnation. If humans realize that punishment must be tailored to the severity of the crime, certainly a God of justice, mercy and wisdom realizes this as well.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
Hmmm....mebbe the IRS was a bad choice for an example. LOL!
But seriously, moral human laws are instituted fro the benefit of all. Thus, the stop sign which is such an annoyance to me when I'm in a hurry exists for my benefit as well as for the benefit of others. The same with the tax code. I derive certain benefits from membership in the state, those benefits must be funded in some manner. To derive those benefits, I must pay taxes, but I'm certainmy taxes fund more than those programs from which I benefit. I still love my country regardless of how irksome I find the IRS.
There are those divine restrictions I'd rather not live by, but they exist for the benefit of others, as well as for the benefit of myself. I'd really like to be able to observe those restrictions out of love for my God, and the love of others, but quite honestly I'm incapable of doing so, hence the knowledge of negative repercussions of my actions helps me to conform to those Divine restrictions, even if not out of perfect motives.
Again, this points to the fact that there is something other than eternal bliss and eternal damnation. I'll be honest, as much as I try, I come nowhere near the perfect love of God and others that will merit me any kind of reward. The best I can hope for is the cleansing of some form of temporary punishement after I die, a purgatory if you will.
I agree that this is a difficult concept. The best that I can say is that when in the presnce of the perfect love of God, I will have no desire to sin.
Another tough question, but I'll make my answer as to the point as I can. I don't know why. I just really don't.
While I like to think of myself as not being stereotypical anything, I think you must have me confused with someone else. I'm a very orthodox Catholic, a very loyal son of the Church, I don't think there's very much that's new, or innovative in my beliefs. I pretty much toe the Catholic line, as it were. I sense that there may have been a compliment hidden in this statement, and if so, and you haven't mistaken me for someone else, I thank you.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
Yes, I may have confused you with another theist that I have shared with on this forum ( middle-aged brain syndrome ? )
Nevertheless you being a theist, and especially a theist who adheres to a clearly defined doctrinal viewpoint, it is always pleasant to discover that my skeptic's questions are not immediately dismissed with a quote of "thus saith the Lord!" which ususally means how dare I question their spiritual beliefs.
( As you know reasoned debate isn't always a given on this forum .... and being human I admit that I'm not always given to reasonable responses myself. OOPS !
)
I thought so! LOL.
Believe me, my faith is nowhere near perfect. There are times when I seriously question articles of my faith (ie, how does that cracker become the Body of Christ, how can this man forgive my sins, what is the point of suffering), it's not an easy journey. I spent a period of time seriously doubting God, I was miserable, my life was a mess. I seriously understand your doubts, but find my life easier with a God in it.
Determining the will of God is never as cut and dried as 'thus saith the Lord'. Folks a lot smarter, and a lot holier than I have wrestled with manyy of these same issues for years. Take for an example Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest thinkers the Church ever produced, while much of what he wrote is very laudable (and I am a big fan of most of his work), some leaves much to be desired.
The Church is an istitution which thinks in centuries, as she must. One of my favorite examples is the Church teaching on birth control, which she actually pronounced on in a somewhat expedited fashion. The Lambeth Conference, at which the (I think) Anglican Church redfined its thinking on the subject prompted many Catholics to call for a reconsideration of Catholic teaching on birth control, yet it took until 1965 and Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae before the Church reiterated her position.
LOL. No worries, I suffer from a chronic lack of patience myself, and have been known to get quite exasperated and frustrated while posting here. A very "un" Christian trait, I must say. I believe I may have even snapped at you a copla times before, which is how I knew you had me confused with some else. LOL.
As you can see, I'm actually in a pretty joyful mood today, though.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
I'd leave that decicion to someone else. Maybe I'll stay in the purgatory for a while longer
.
Unless Jesus was "testing" me with this decision. That's another possibility. I wonder if he does this to everyone who dies?
Yeah, I would. Same question as if "Would you fight for the allies if you found out in advance that the Third Reich would win?" Working for an evil cause would be worse than death.
Trust and believe in no god, but trust and believe in yourself.