One thing that I found particularly interesting about the
Second Sura in the Qur’an was the use
of fear to scare people away from being non-believers. Throughout this section claims are made about
the horrors that await the non-believers; “The disbelievers have ended up with
wrath upon wrath, and a humiliating torment awaits them (11).” These claims of pain and suffering awaiting
the non-believers continue over and over again. Also promises are made to those who believe
that they will be rewarded. I find it
strange that one should be influenced to believe based on the fear of what
happens if one does not believe. I do
not think that a person is necessarily good if they are influenced by the fear
of not believing or the appeasement of believing. What is so important about believing? Is one
necessarily evil just because they are not a believer? It seems strange to me that this notion of
believing or not is what determines your overall goodness. I think that one can be a moral person
without believing. The Qur’an almost
appears to say that a person cannot be good without the motivation that comes
from knowing that those who are good are rewarded in the afterlife. It seems to me that a person is capable of
being moral for the sake of being moral. Having perks for being good appears to add
some sort of falseness to its meaning.
Not being awarded for your morality or having no reason for being good
except for the happiness of others, seems to be much more admirable. Moreover, the use of fear and appeasement in
the Qur’an to persuade people to be believers appears to take away meaning from
the essence of being good. Due to this, acts
of good are motivated by selfish reasons instead of selfless reasons.
I completely agree! It does seem as if some people, fearing punishment and desiring reward, are "bribed" into believing in God. If self-interest plays into this belief, then how can it be pure and true?
ReplyDeleteI do think that one can circumvent this dilemma by taking a more symbolic approach (if the Qur'an allows). Since God is the essence of mercy and justice, then perhaps to believe in those ideals is to believe in Him. Verses 158 ("do good of your own accord") and 177 (share your wealth "to liberate those in bondage") suggest that there are other motives for goodness, such as compassion and self-satisfaction, aside from heavenly reward. By wholeheartedly living, breathing, and practicing charity, one can embrace God. Even without consciously accepting the "official" theological portrait of God, isn't one still invested in Him if one seeks out His core?
the 17th century French philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal attempted to explain just the phenomenon both Evan and Emily have observed. Pascal explained that when faced with the dilemma about the existence of God and possible punishment for not believing in him the rational person would almost always choose to believe because of the probability of outcomes involved. This gambling with religion has come to be known as Pascal's wager. the reason to always bet on the existence of God lies in the matrix below:
ReplyDeleteGod exists God does not exist
Wager for God Gain all Status quo
Wager against God Misery Status quo
(source: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
as shown by the possible outcomes the gambler's life only changes if he or she bets and there is a God. Among the outcomes that involve the existence of God one begets eternal happiness, the other eternal misery. Faced with the proposition of either gaining nothing with there being no God or losing everything if there is a God the option of betting against God is a completely illogical bet. It is much safer to bet on the side of God's existence because the outcome if he does not exist is fixed but the outcome if he does in fact exist is infinitely improved. The trouble faced by the Qur'an is that much of its audience was already betting on the side if God just with a different casino, such as Judaism or Christianity. this could explain the acceptance of other faiths observed in Eric's post.
Evan's point about the God in the Qur'an is not unlike my comments in an earlier blogpost about the God in Genesis. Both deities seem to be at least partly motivated by their own self interests to promote their omnipotence. Another interesting aspect to this argument found in the Qur'an in Sura 2. "But it is only the rebels He makes go astray: those who break their covenant with God after it has been confirmed, who sever the bonds that God has commanded to be joined, who spread corruption on the earth- these are the losers," (2:26-27). What intrigued me in this passage was the part "He makes go astray," implying that the rebels themselves didn't choose to stray off of God's path, but instead God willed them to as he saw signs of disloyalty in their questioning of their covenant. This proves that God doesn't necessarily solely promote goodness, because he in fact picks and chooses his true believers. Secondly, it reinforces the idea that God operates due to self interest. As soon as one doubts the covenant, he condemns them rather than helps them to see the light. This defensive nature proves to be much more for his own good than the goods of humanity.
ReplyDelete