"But my exposure to Islam has not made me more convinced that Christianity is correct; at least, not yet. Nor do I find myself convicted that Islam is closer to the big T than Christianity."
This has been my experience of pretty much every religion I've been exposed to. Every time I start learning about a new faith tradition, part of me wonders if I'm going to end up being convinced that this one is The Truth. Instead, in every case I find things in the tradition that make me think, "How cool is that!" and things that make me think (at best), "Well... that's kinda weird...."
"Agnosticism sounds attractive, but then where does Pascal's wager fit in?"
I'm not, as you know, a fan of Pascal's wager. For one thing, "wagering for" the Christian god (as he presupposed) necessitates "wagering against" the Muslim god, so by his logic you are (literally!) damned if you do and damned if you don't. His logic would presumably lead you to opt for the religion that promises the worst torture for those who get it wrong, which is hardly a fantastic reason for adopting a faith tradition. But more importantly, his assumption is that the heart of religion is holding a particular opinion about the existence or nonexistence of a particular supernatural entity, which is, I think, a false premise. And anyway, what kind of god would reward someone for being that mercenary? (Not to mention that, if you're Muslim, betting in the first place is haram.)
I think this is getting back towards the topic I was going to talk about, namely whether religions are about truth claims. Certainly religions embody worldviews, which bear some kind of relation to capital-T Truth, but is affiliating with a a religion really about creating a Pascalian decision table?
no subject
"But my exposure to Islam has not made me more convinced that Christianity is correct; at least, not yet. Nor do I find myself convicted that Islam is closer to the big T than Christianity."
This has been my experience of pretty much every religion I've been exposed to. Every time I start learning about a new faith tradition, part of me wonders if I'm going to end up being convinced that this one is The Truth. Instead, in every case I find things in the tradition that make me think, "How cool is that!" and things that make me think (at best), "Well... that's kinda weird...."
"Agnosticism sounds attractive, but then where does Pascal's wager fit in?"
I'm not, as you know, a fan of Pascal's wager. For one thing, "wagering for" the Christian god (as he presupposed) necessitates "wagering against" the Muslim god, so by his logic you are (literally!) damned if you do and damned if you don't. His logic would presumably lead you to opt for the religion that promises the worst torture for those who get it wrong, which is hardly a fantastic reason for adopting a faith tradition. But more importantly, his assumption is that the heart of religion is holding a particular opinion about the existence or nonexistence of a particular supernatural entity, which is, I think, a false premise. And anyway, what kind of god would reward someone for being that mercenary? (Not to mention that, if you're Muslim, betting in the first place is haram.)
I think this is getting back towards the topic I was going to talk about, namely whether religions are about truth claims. Certainly religions embody worldviews, which bear some kind of relation to capital-T Truth, but is affiliating with a a religion really about creating a Pascalian decision table?