Very good question. In fact one of the very few good rational questions religious people can ask is this one.
So here is the answer. First, the position atheists take are not the best one. (Yes surprisingly).
The most scientific approach is to accept that WE DO NOT KNOW what happens after death.
Now the response to the question more directly. If, there is indeed a God that is infinitely merciful towards us, he should after all understand the position a non-religious person takes. The non-relgious person is relying on his intellectual capabilities, his sincerity and honesty in understanding the world presented before him. The most clear abilities we human have is not our mystic psychic abilities but our clear capacity to conjecture, question, experiment and understanding capacities. Knowledge in science is never private and always open to all at the same level. Do we also have supernatural capacities that are not obvious? Who knows, we may have it. But that is shrouded in doubt to be very least. So as a simple human being I have really two options to guide my path. One is to rely simple well understood (god-given) abilities to understand the world or to forgo it and rely on faith that is cloudy and not at all well explained.
To me, it is then, overwhelmingly more probable that, if I were a god, I would love and appreciate those creatures of mine that followed the simple, logical and clear path. And I would find little virtue in faith and such things. Clearly because, I did give him the capabilities to reason things. And I also made the world in a way that validates the existence of reason very very very well. So, accepting science is accepting God in the most honest and graceful way possible.
Now, even if the science were to lead my creation to incorrect conclusions, I would still prefer it by a big margin, simply because the effort is so pure and honest. A student who tries his best to come up with an answer logically and fails is much more honorable to one who simply guesses and gets it right.
If I as a tiny insignificant human can be kind enough to understand this simple principle, then the real God should pose no danger at all to the rational minds. A rational mind is an open mind. A mind enlightened by not cloudy ideas and faith, but knowledge obtained through hard work and honesty. So God will love it.
And the final point is, if the God is indeed the kind that I hope to be, then He might actually punish the ones that did choose the path of believing in things that he did not make obvious. And moreover there are so many religions to choose from. How can tell with any degree of authority that hiduism is better than chrisitianity for example (without lack of generality)? So the pascals wager (google it) can backfire too. You dont know if you are the ones that are making God unhappy as well. And that God could be a God of a different religion as well.
So, a chrisitian or muslim or whover, is in no better position to hope for better time after death. As a matter of fact a rational person has all the more chance he made the right choice in the eye of God.
So here is the answer. First, the position atheists take are not the best one. (Yes surprisingly).
The most scientific approach is to accept that WE DO NOT KNOW what happens after death.
Now the response to the question more directly. If, there is indeed a God that is infinitely merciful towards us, he should after all understand the position a non-religious person takes. The non-relgious person is relying on his intellectual capabilities, his sincerity and honesty in understanding the world presented before him. The most clear abilities we human have is not our mystic psychic abilities but our clear capacity to conjecture, question, experiment and understanding capacities. Knowledge in science is never private and always open to all at the same level. Do we also have supernatural capacities that are not obvious? Who knows, we may have it. But that is shrouded in doubt to be very least. So as a simple human being I have really two options to guide my path. One is to rely simple well understood (god-given) abilities to understand the world or to forgo it and rely on faith that is cloudy and not at all well explained.
To me, it is then, overwhelmingly more probable that, if I were a god, I would love and appreciate those creatures of mine that followed the simple, logical and clear path. And I would find little virtue in faith and such things. Clearly because, I did give him the capabilities to reason things. And I also made the world in a way that validates the existence of reason very very very well. So, accepting science is accepting God in the most honest and graceful way possible.
Now, even if the science were to lead my creation to incorrect conclusions, I would still prefer it by a big margin, simply because the effort is so pure and honest. A student who tries his best to come up with an answer logically and fails is much more honorable to one who simply guesses and gets it right.
If I as a tiny insignificant human can be kind enough to understand this simple principle, then the real God should pose no danger at all to the rational minds. A rational mind is an open mind. A mind enlightened by not cloudy ideas and faith, but knowledge obtained through hard work and honesty. So God will love it.
And the final point is, if the God is indeed the kind that I hope to be, then He might actually punish the ones that did choose the path of believing in things that he did not make obvious. And moreover there are so many religions to choose from. How can tell with any degree of authority that hiduism is better than chrisitianity for example (without lack of generality)? So the pascals wager (google it) can backfire too. You dont know if you are the ones that are making God unhappy as well. And that God could be a God of a different religion as well.
So, a chrisitian or muslim or whover, is in no better position to hope for better time after death. As a matter of fact a rational person has all the more chance he made the right choice in the eye of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment