Post #4155488
2026-07-28 05:21 UTC
@Drwave@mastodon.social I've often found the argument that religion is essential to morality etc to reflect poorly on the person making it.
Essentially what you're saying is that the only reason you're nice to other people is that you believe you'll be tortured for all eternity in the afterlife if you aren't.
My approach is a bit more like an inverse Pascal's wager. There's three possible scenarios:
1) There is no god, I made the world a better place, and I meet my eventual demise knowing I did the best I could with the hand I was dealt.
2) There is a narcissistic god who just wants adoration from his people and cares more about you singing his praises regularly than you being an otherwise Good Person. In this scenario, I'm probably going to hell. But I want no part of an afterlife ruled by a deity who only cares about himself anyway. He can keep it.
3) A god exists who couldn't care less about what you think of him and just wants to see people be nice to each other. If he offers me a seat in heaven I'll take it.
But unless you want to go to the heaven in scenario 2, the presence or absence of said deity doesn't affect how you should live your life.
Replies (2)
-
@Drwave@mastodon.social 2026-07-28 05:45
@azonenberg@ioc.exchange I would change “you’re” with “they’re”, but yea.
-
@CliffsEsport@mastodon.social 2026-07-28 13:39
@azonenberg@ioc.exchange @Drwave@mastodon.social "the argument that religion is essential to morality" IMHO many logical flaws with that argument. The appeal to authority to start, closely followed by what religion(s) are moral. Also takes as an axiom that religion(s) is moral, which based on the evidence is hard argument to make IMO for the vast majority of dominant religions, at least if you know anything about history or current events.