Dear colleages,
[I wrote this message a few days ago, but it got lost. It may be a
little outdated, but I hope it is still useful.]
> Pascal's formulation did not include the possibility that you would
> be eternally damned if you *did* follow (his) God's
> teachings. (i.e., that there is a God different from his Catholic
> God who would punish him forever for worshipping a false God).
The idea that a person who honestly seeks God but fails to find him for
any reason (except egoism or pride) will be punished, is absolutely
contrary to the Catholic faith. I might give some references, but this
is not the place.
I also feel horrified by an educational system that puts an
eleven-year old girl in the dilemma of accepting a despotic God or
resigning to be condemned for ever. I am sure that when a little girl
says: "God cannot be that bad", he feels happy and only regrets she
was not told how good he really is. But this is a personal opinion and
I will not try to justify it here.
There are other assertions I disagree with, such as "all theologies
are wrong by definition", "God as defined in public discourse
(especially in the US, the Islamic world, and observant catholics)
[is] an anthropomorphic, omnipotent parent-surrogate", "the concepts
of God, prayer and revelation are inconsistent with reason", "faith is
an anti-intellectual approach and must be rejected", "in this life,
religion is a divisive and destructive force", "Einstein was an
atheist" or that he was a pantheist because he believed in a
non-personal God. As a scientist, I am surprised that other scientists
can speak with such a lack or rigour and respect in a scientific list,
especially in one which has nothing to do with these questions.
In my opinion, it is correct to discuss in this list whether the
probability of the existence of God is a meaningful concept, because
this question is closely related with the notion of probability. Some
UAI members might also be willing to discuss how to select and weight
the evidence for/against a certain idea of God in a particular
formalism of uncertain reasoning. I also respect those who try to
discuss it as a decision problem, although I am skeptical about the
utility of this kind of discussions, in which it is so difficult to be
objective.
In any case, these questions are controversial enough by themselves,
without any need to complicate them with doctrinal issues, subjective
experiences and personal opinions which --though some of them are very
interesting-- have nothing to do with the topic of this list. I guess
there are many Internet forums for dealing with more or less the same
questions from other points of view. Perhaps Bruce should make this
list moderated again for a certain time?
Best regards,
Javier D�ez
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
F. J. Diez Phone: +34-91-3987161
Dpto. Inteligencia Artificial Fax: +34-91-3986697
UNED. Senda del Rey E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
28040 Madrid. Spain WWW: http://www.dia.uned.es/~fjdiez
