Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield

I read this book several years ago. I thought it was very good. I was raised in The Church of Christ which is a very new testatment church.
I actually liked the book because everyone has questions. Mine has been for a long time
If God knows the end from the beginning of each life before that soul is created why would he do it if he knew it would be condemed to hell. Also Job is confusing because Satan had been kicked from heaven long before Job was born but there Satan was temping God.
So yes I believe 'thinking' is essential when reading the Bible

Also, i am delighted that *real* Christians are taking back their religion. For too long, the fundamentalists who are Christian in name-only have held the spotlight and have probably done more damage to the Christian faith image than any event short of the Crusades and Inquisition.

Oh wait ... Iraq ... Guantanamo ...

Never mind.

Problems with Pascal's wager:

1. You do potentially lose, depending on what the definition of "living as if God existed" is: You may have squandered the most valuable asset you have -- your time on Earth ... your life. Myriad opportunity costs, as well, depending on definitions.

2. There is no definitive identification of "how to live as if God exists." Whose God? Anyone who claimns they know the will of God is probably merely projecting their own perceptions, biases, and desires on a more powerful figure. The Religious Right are the modern-day Pharisees, corrupted by a need to make sure no one else has motes in their eyes.

Finally: I don't believe that a person HAS to have religion in order to lead a virtuous/good life ... despite what the fire-and-brimstoners would have us believe (up until they give the address to which we should send our checks).

But Pascal's wager didn't address morality, it addressed belief.

Essentially (and with appropriate courtesies to Wikipedia) the Pascal's Wager is:

You live as though God exists.
If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
If God does not exist, you gain nothing and lose nothing.

You live as though God does not exist.
If God exists, the text is unspecified, but it could be implied that you go to limbo, purgatory, or hell: your loss is either null or infinite.
If God does not exist, you gain nothing and lose nothing.

So then the question becomes, If I want to show love to another person, should I:

Live as if God Exists
+ Encourage others to pursue either something which is null or has infinite potential for gain

Live as if God does not exist
+ Encourage others to pursue either something which is null or has infinite potential for loss?

There are, of course, criticisms of the wager, but most rely on a criticism of the nature of God -- assuming his existance which is more an agnostic point of deliberation than an atheistic one.

A fair and balanced piece. Thank you! Whether G-d exists or not, we are all called to love our neighbor, and our world, and be thankful for the amazing lives we have. How beautiful is it to just fell the sun on your face, to wake up the the songs of the birds.

God has a plan. Accept His son Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior or face the consequences. 6% of the population is openly admitting they prefer to spend eternity in Hell. Don't join them there!

At the risk of being lit up like a Christmas tree for intolerance: There's 6% of a nation intentionally losing Pascal's wager.

If the cornerstone of faith is gulibility, then the cornerstone of a lack of faith is narcissistic pride.

???What's dangerous about the world today is not belief in God???or secularism or unbelief???but ruthless certainty. If 2008 is the year when we can begin, in private and in public, to concede that we don't know all the answers, then let us say amen.???
Now that???s the part I have trouble with. Why is certainty suspicious? Just because we are too lazy to do our homework and hence justify our laziness by vilifying everyone who has searched for the answers?
Or is in our postmodern culture everyone who is a convinced atheist or a true believer a potential danger? Dawkins seems pretty sure God does not exist. Keller seems pretty sure he does. And although they try to convince people to take their positions, I haven???t heard that either of them did that by killing their adversaries???
The question about God???s existence is too important to be left unanswered. If his claims are true, the only way to live a good life and to enjoy his presence in the afterlife is to serve him. If we think his claims aren???t true, this is the only life we have and we better make it a good one. Pretending the question doesn???t exist will give us false hopes about a potential afterlife and a lifelong feeling of guilt because we don???t exactly live a good life.
I have found an answer. Have you?

I do wonder if Ms. Miller has any idea about what some of the words she uses really mean. She damns secularism which simply means "indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations " Oh, how dare anyone not care about religions that mean nothing to them and which never fulfill their promises? I hate to tell her but people have been atheists and agnostics for 1000s of years and the sky hasn't fallen yet. And "hyperrational"? What indeed does that mean?

Ms. Miller seems like one of those "moderates" that just want atheists to sit down and shut up. How dare we write books just like "moderates" and "evangelicals". Why doesn't she accuse them of being "strident. She is no better than those people who wanted "equal rights" for people of color back in the 60s but only if they wouldn't be so "strident" about it. She is a hypocrite of the finest caliber. I find it a pity that Newsweek would print something full of such baseless claims and demands of appeasement.

Cal25sailor: When we "believe in" something like global warming, that's not "faith"--that's evidence-based reasoning. We believe the earth is getting warmer because of evidence. Religious people do not believe the things they believe because of evidence, but because of faith. And since "belief" and "faith" are synonymous, to say your belief is based on faith is no different than saying your belief is based on your belief, which in other words, means your belief is based on nothing except itself, and is almost certainly wrong.

"Doubt, says Keller, is the cornerstone of faith"??? What kind of idocy is that. Faith is the absence of doubt even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The number of nonbelievers in America is far higher than 6%. According to a Harris poll earlier this year which anyone can read online, 15% of Americans said there was probably no such thing as a god, and a further 16% were unsure. Only 68% actually claimed to believe in one. The American Religious Identification Survey and every other credible study on religiosity in America has confirmed these figures. This article is nothing but propaganda, which is what you'd expect since the editor of Newsweek happens to have a personal grudge against atheists.

Newsweek, you lie.

The number of nonbelievers "inched up" from 2% to 6%? You could also say it tripled!

PS - just because Dawkins has an active website doesn't mean he's running it himself - think "webmaster."

I find that the article merely pigeon holed people into those that 'know' the answer and those that don't.

I find that a little off the point - Dawkins himself has said that 100% proof that a uber being exists is impossible to either credit or discount. Therefore if one honestly looks at the different arguments, sees, like myself, that the probability that one exists, let alone sending his 'son' to earth is so unlikely that the only reasonable course is to go through life as if he doesn't exist.

This seems like a typical over simplification of the issue.

I wouldn't surprised if many people feel this way.

I find that the article merely pigeon holed people into those that 'know' the answer and those that don't.

I find that a little off the point - Dawkins himself has said that 100% proof that a uber being exists is impossible to either credit or discount. Therefore if one honestly looks at the different arguments, sees, like myself, that the probability that one exists, let alone sending his 'son' to earth is so unlikely that the only reasonable course is to go through life as if he doesn't exist.

This seems like a typical over simplification of the issue.

I wouldn't surprised if many people feel this way.

Lisa miller has missed the point!

\Dawkins makes the point that one cannot be sure about God in his books. That is his thesis. Dawkins lives his life as an atheist but will quickly concede that he is in actuality an agnostic about the existence of a creator. (as he has done during many itelevision nterviews) Logically he must be agnostic about it, so he follows logic.

What Dawkins is sure about is evolution. Does that make him Dogmatic? Certainly not! As a professor working in this field of research science, he has proven his briliance many times over and has a talent for expressing how evolutionary theory works. Those folks who dogmatically follow scripture cannot abide by this... Who then has a mind that is closed? Dawkins has read his Bible, and knows it well. How many Christians have read Darwin?

America has never been as Christian as it is today, why is a voice of reason such a bad thing?

I am disgusted that an esteemed publication such as Newsweek would post such tripe as this. Lisa Miller has obviously not done her research. Prof Richard Dawkins post only about once a week on his own website, I know since I am a regular reader of richarddawkins.net. The rest of the work is done by appointed admins. Dawkins also never proclaimed definite atheism, only practically atheist and technically agnostic. It is intellectually weak to be definitely sure. There is also polls that show that atheism may be as high as 30% in the USA. Polls are easy to manipulate, many people would state Christian only for cultural reasons, or belief for agnostic reason. It could also be said that one might read the result wrong. Allowing for error in your article or referring the source by a link would be better journalism. Stating conclusions as fact is showing how unprofessional you are. Good day to you.