Belief in God for pragmatic reasons?

Listening to Stephen King on NPR the other day (he just won a lifetime achievement award from the national book foundation) talk about religion got me thinking. He seems of the mind that belief in God (whether true or no) should be chosen for pragmatic reasons (shades of William James rise from the altar). That things will go better for you if you believe in God. What say you to this?

good question marshall. although stephen king does not seem to be the preeminent contemporary philosopher…his arguement is very similar to pascal’s wager. i’ll agree with it, as long as i can make a classic socratic arguement, this god is not external but found internally, within ourselves and should be the guide of which we live our lives (aka our authentic selves).

Where it differs from Pascal’s wager is that for a pragmatist, the payoff is on Earth (things will go better if you believe in God) whereas with Pascal the payoff is in the afterlife. It’s like the payoff is getting closer to us all of the time.

I think it depends on who you are. For some people, life without a notion of a god is unbearable. Of course such people would be happier believing in God, and as long as they respect other viewpoints, I think it’s only reasonable for them to exercise their faith. I’m an agnostic; I would find it difficult to hold myself to any concrete notion of a supreme being and am therefore happier NOT believing in a god. But I don’t feel myself necessarily superior to those who can’t create meaning for their lives in the face of an inherently meaningless universe; I undersand that such people have a psychological and existential NEED to believe in a god.

only for you, marshall…

“233. According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the posopisitions…there is here and infinity of an infinetly happy life to gain, a chance to gain against a finite number of chances to lose, and what you stake is finite…and so our proposition is of inifite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss…–Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side? you will be faithful, honest, humbe, grateful, generaous, a sincere friends truthful. certainly you will not have those poisonious pleasures, but will you not have other? i will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life” – pene’es, blaise pascal

the focus of the wager is on the finite bet you are taking on the infinite – it necessarily rests on your life only – the payoffs may be eternal but pascal also sees that there are finite payoffs at play.

logo, i agree with you. especailly about how someone who needs religion cannot be said to be better than someone who doesn’t

Again I despair at the subtext of such an argument as King’s, that atheists have no reason to act in a honourable or unselfish manner, that believing in God makes one a good person as you follow a set moral code. The underlying argument is that aethists have no reason to act in a moral way. This is quite patently false.

However he could have been referring to this all in a mundane way in that believing in God causes him less hassle than not believing as he lives near a bunch of Bible bashers and so by saying that he does he avoids their attention.

On a different note, one who advances such an argument as King’s seems to be lacking something to me, namely faith. Which is the reason why Pascal’s wager is a crock of s**t.

Statistically, religious followers tend to live longer than the non-religious. Perhaps this is due to a less stressful life, in that, you are not responsible for accepting reality with all of its problems. You can simply put anything and everything off as God’s plan and know that everything will end merrily at the gates of the afterlife. Religion is a veil blinding an uneasy reality. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

From: phenomenal graffiti

Well, there is a psychology book out that states that religious belief is one of the four invulnerabilities against depression. It does veil one from a hostile reality because one can say that it is ultimately: “God’s will” and go off from there in a merry way.

Jay

That can’t be right. One of the most committed Christians I know deals with severe chronic depression. Almost killed himself on several occasions. Maybe religion makes depression less likely, but the word invulnerable is a little strong. Just read Kierkegaard.

To: Logo

Well, that is what’s in the psychology book anyway. Religious belief is held to be an invulnerability factor against depression. But as you know there will be (like your friend) exceptions to the rule. I think if one were to believe the book a rubric such as “in general” would have been in order.

Best,

Jay M. Brewer
phenomenal_graffiti@yahoo.com

The way the belief in God is interpreted and definitions of “God” really go a long way. This can be beneficial or detrimental based on the reasoning. The same goes for a disbelief in God, which again, is based upon how the reasoning impacts your psychological and intellectual comfort zone.

To put this in perspective, the belief in God now could become quite detrimental to this level of comfort we experience if you accept the possibility that hell in eternity may be an option for you. This can be a very unsettling notion to consider and encourage fear.
On the other hand, heaven can be quite comforting now as well. This all based on how you define God and the parameters surrounding such a definition.

No heaven, no hell, and no superhuman invisible man that can only be proven through ancient superstitious proposition brings me the greatest level of “comfort.” Intellectually, the psychological comfort is not there through the biblical sense. Again, the definition of “God” and the parameters are of the utmost importance here and how they impact yourself personally. Using “God” to shine a light in the darkness can be comforting, the problem however lies in the interpretation of what you are seeing (or that you may not really be seeing anything at all).
Intellectually however, I can find comfort in the pantheism advocated by Spinoza in which “God” is just an analogy of “nature.” However the biblical supernatural God, with the miracles, the propositions, the contradictions, … carries a great deal of concern as it does benefit in my opinion. Not only intellectually, but emotionally as well.

I belief in God for pragmatic reasons. I don’t look at it as a guy with a beard on a throne in heaven, but I do want to believe that there is more to life, than what science is telling us.

Science, and the evolution theory to be more specific, is a belief also. Because some 500 years ago man came up with the idea that with observations the world could be known. But I have my doubts about how objective science is. Because in my view (almost) everything is subjective (how could you know the whole picture?), and believe in God also. I don’t want to believe that life is meaningless.

Wasn’t one of the great victorian fossil hunters a Bishop who died of heartbreak in realising there was no god?

Matt. Apropos your earlier remarks, “On a different note, one who advances such an argument as King’s seems to be lacking something to me, namely faith. Which is the reason why Pascal’s wager is a crock of s**t.”. I think i agree, pragmatists are more interested in the “cash value”, as William James says, than actually getting to know God, which is what faith is about. Incidentally, even Christians remain divided over Faith vs. Works and one can find verses to back both up.

Trix. Thanks for the quote. I still think that the payoff in this life is an ancillary consideration for Pascal as compared to eternal bliss in the after life. But not being a betting man i haven’t delved deeply into his wager.

Matt’s comments about the possibility of Stephen King placating the Christians is very relevant, especially for a public figure. Who will ever know how many have recanted under public scrutiny when secretly they were atheists or agnostics?

That the universe is meaningless is your opinion and is a view which coincided with the rise of science.
As science was developed within a religious paradigm, and it’s development ended the paradigm and created it’s own, that of scientism, it attempted to eradicate subjectivity in preference for objectively referenced truths based on physical facts+ mathematical and logical truths.

Within the paradigm of scientism, an individual who asserts a religious view, is considered irrational by those who support the current scientific paradigm, that is, the individuals feelings have been ruled out as not consistent with the objective physical fact referenced paradigm of scientism.

I like science btw, and support objective notions and the idea of knowing and pursuing optimal truth{not absolute} but there’s more to life than that which is contained and constrained within the mindset of a devotee of scientism.

The truth is that science can devastate irrational God concepts, but cannot harm any logically justified God concept.

Science and more specifically “scientism” is a mythology, that which supports the Physical Realm of Reality …doesn’t mean that science cannot be used to develop objective truths which have a tremendous range covering people and matter.

You’re confusing the proper application of science with the quasi-religious assertions of it’s devotees, IOW, hardcore supporters of scientism usually share a common raft of beliefs which deny a Supernatural realm as it is beyond the reach of the paradigm of scientism, it cannot be physically measured by a scientific device, and thus is a said not to exist, but it’s existence is given credence via the individual and is known intuitively.

I don’t think that’s entirely true. I would instead suggest that religious belief requires the utmost in responsibility. Can you really say that it is easy to give up any chance of leading your life the way you want, and instead handing your life over to a god you can never be sure is there? I would agree with Aquinas, that religious faith must start from agnosticism. How easy is it, really, to depend on some intangible, unknowable idea for everything in your life?

I’m still an atheist, but I would think that a true faith in god would be just as exhausting as trudging one’s way through life without the support of god. For that, I respect those who are religious. Even if I do think they’re horribly mistaken.

That last post there is mine, everyone. I thought I was logged in. Blah.

Smithigans Wake wrote:

It is quite interesting really, Stephen King has taken the point that has long been a part of Jewish faith. It is the assumption that God is there that keeps believers moving. Because the believers life (according to Christ) is an active life, the meditation on whether there is someone out there doesn’t take so much time up. The evidence that the world provides, that someone semed to want life here, and the instructions of the Torah seemed to be enough.

Of course the responsibility part is important. You should live your life as though you could at any time be held to account for what you have done. The alternative is what we have seen over and over again throughout history: Irresponsibility, frivolous and thoughtless leadership that has costed the lives of uncountless millions. Unwarranted suffering has been caused by meglomaniacs who themselves have wanted to be regarded “divine”. That is precisely where Christianity dissents.
Shalom
Bob

Accountability, either forced upon one (last judgement) or taken up freely (conscience). Accountability is important.