[107] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: Objectivist morals (was RE: LIVING WAGE SIT-IN AT HARVARD (fwd) )
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Cyrus R Eyster)
Fri Apr 20 12:13:41 2001
Message-Id: <200104201613.MAA01081@technomage.mit.edu>
To: Benazeer Noorani <benazeer@MIT.EDU>
cc: Ray Jones <rjones@pobox.com>, "Josiah D. Seale" <jdseale@MIT.EDU>,
"Prez H. Cannady" <revprez@MIT.EDU>, mit-talk@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:14:08 EDT."
<v04020a1db705fed22756@[18.238.2.202]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 12:13:12 -0400
From: Cyrus R Eyster <cyruse@MIT.EDU>
Benazeer Noorani <benazeer@MIT.EDU> wrote:
>Actually, any person who has true faith in a higher being of some sort
>really shouldn't admit the possibility of being wrong. Once you've made the
>decision to "wager" your soul's eternal destiny (if you believe in souls
>and eternity) on the existence and benevolence of one being, it seems
>kinda silly to also believe that you may in fact be wrong. At the very
>least, it would certainly piss off the god you subscribe to.
It seems like people are in a tough situation with respect to choosing a
faith, since for people who haven't personally met (or whatever) a higher
power, it comes down to picking a religion just on somebody's say-so, whether
that be parents, clergy, or whatever. I do not think that a higher power
worthy of the title would banish me to hell (or whatever) just because I
couldn't pick the right religion in the absence of compelling evidence. I
also think that such a higher power would understand if I was a little
tentative about my faith, as long as I kept trying to find more information
about the situation. Besides that, I think that the truly religious (as
opposed to the folks who are in it just as an excuse to put other people
down) are all headed in pretty much the same direction, just from different
angles.
>At least the average theist is placing a bet. If you sit on the sidelines,
>there's zero chance that you'll win.
Unless there's no game being played.
Cyrus
