Jonathan Haidt's Happiness Hypothesis put into words something for me that I had been thinking for a while but was unable to express. That there is a strong connection between emotions and morality. He speaks of elevation and disgust as being the two extremes that lead to how we respond to situations in which we find ourselves that end up with a moral context.
Elevation is that emotion that leaves you feeling like you have had a 'spiritual experience'. That warm glow when something is just amazing.
I have just started Yoga classes. Partly to become more bendy but mainly because of an attempt to get better at controlling and relaxing my mind. I am convinced that it is not so much about spirituality, but emotional and mental control that can allow you that same feeling of elevation.
I used to say I was spiritual but not religious. Now I would refer to myself as an athiest, and not spiritual... but someone who really believes in the power of emotions and thought.
Whatever it is, post Yoga class feels pretty good. Now time for my head to hit the pillow.
4 comments:
What is your take on 'Pascal's Wager' for the 'logical' reason to believe in God?
I think it is a good argument for those that try to think rationally about religion.
I am weary of getting into too much of a discussion of that sort here since people get a little hot under the collar.
Email me about it and I will happily chat more.
I am not convinced by Pascal's Wager. You could use the same argument to not go to work every morning since there is a chance that you will be hit by a car or a train.
Plus it is quite a negative approach, it argues that you must act a certain way because of the punishment consequences of acting another way.
I do agree it is a negative approach, but I find it one of the most compelling rational arguments to believe in God.
We can talk about it when I get to London. There in 2 weeks. You will have to explain a bit more how the argument relates to not going to work. Maybe you can convince me into taking a longer holiday :).
I know this question is not directed to me but still...
One issue is that that there are indefinitely many gods you could choose to believe in, so it says nothing about being a christian or whatever. The modern response is that it's okay to just believe in god, all religions are different paths to the same god (which obviously many religious people deny). But that still assumes that god rewards the simple act of "believing" and punishes disbelief, but how on earth do we know this??
Another problem is the way it's based on infinities ("heaven" infinitely good, "hell" infinitely bad). The idea is that if there's infinite upside to belief that it's worth believing not matter how unlikely it is to be true. But if we assume that belief impacts on the odds of going to heaven, then surley actions and things like prayer also do. So ANY action that has ANY probability of helping us get to heaven has an infinite payoff and we should do it.
So if believing in pascal's wager means believing that every waking second should be devoted to increasing the odds of going to heaven, but nobody does this. They usually claim that their current belief system is sufficient to get them to heaven, but this is only a good retort if they are literally 100% that there is no possible way they could be wrong. Given human frailty I don't see how anyone can claim this.
But at the end of the day it only really counts as a reason why we could benefit by believing in god, not evidence that he exists. It's really really difficult to consciously believe something simply because it will benefit you. If someone offered me a billion rand to believe the sky was green I could not actually believe it, though I would put on as good a show as possible to convince him that I did.
Post a Comment