I notice that d-C has a “de-conversion wager”:
This is supposed to be a clever take-off on Pascal’s wager—as if the reasoning were reversible. Let’s see about that, shall we?
“Whether or not you believe in God, you should live your life with love, kindness, compassion, mercy and tolerance while trying to make the world a better place.”
How does atheism define “better”? What’s the frame of reference?
“If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will have made a positive impact on those around you.”
i) How does atheism define “positive”? What’s the frame of reference?
ii) In the short term, why wouldn’t I have something to lose? Ripping off your fellow man can be very lucrative.
iii) It’s true that, in the long term, an atheist has nothing to lose—since an atheist has nothing to gain. Put another way, since an atheist is already a loser, he has nothing additional to lose. Kinda like trying to rob a nudist of his gold cufflinks.
But, of course, that wager cuts both ways. Even if he ultimately has nothing to lose by being kind, loving, compassionate, merciful, and tolerant, he ultimately has nothing to gain by being loving, compassionate, merciful, and tolerant. Put another way, he ultimately has nothing to lose by being mean, cruel, merciless, and intolerant.
“If there is a benevolent God reviewing your life, you will be judged on your actions and not just on your ability to blindly believe in creeds- when there is a significant lack of evidence on how to define God or if he/she even exists.”
i) There is, not doubt, a significant lack of evidence that she even exists. In that one respect, the de-conversion wager got it half-right. So the de-conversion wager is certainly pertinent to feminist theologians.
ii) If the contributors to d-C define Christian faith as “blindly believing in creeds,” then that would help explain why they became apostates. It’s easy to lose your blind faith in creeds.
iii) How does atheism define “benevolence”? What’s the frame of reference?
iv) How are the contributors privy to the basis on which God, if there is a God, will judge our actions? I don’t quite see how a nonexistent God could tip his hand. And if God is indefinable, then it would be even harder to predict his judicial criteria.
Why is it that people who assure us that they left the Christian faith for intellectual reasons always sound so anti-intellectual?