She: If everything works with logic, then why can’t it predict what happens next.
Me: Logic doesn’t mean if this then that. It means if this, then that, that, that or something else, with a probability defined by this function.
She: Your probability function is just an excuse to not accept God. I’ll accept logic when it can tell me what happens next. Till then, I’ll go with my God.
Me: And you wondered why I started smoking!
(Just another conversation with Ma many years ago, that just came rushing back while reading something)
For a believer, God can be a powerful, inspiring force. For a non-believer, God is irrelevant but can it be a handicap in not having that powerful belief giving you that extra drive?
A believer should derive his satisfaction from his belief in his God. Why should he bother a non-believer as long as the non-believer doesn’t consciously cause an affront to his religion?
Similarly, a non-believer should derive his satisfaction from being independent and not relying on what is possibly just a figment of imagination served to keep the masses in check. Why should he bother a believer as long as the believer doesn’t consciously force him to submit to his particular belief?
Let it go.
P.S.: Brilliant documentary. Loved it. Would’ve definitely cried had partner not taken my hand over just as the Imola section began. Loved it :|
‘I suspect you’re thinking of Pascal,’ Finkler said, finally. ‘Only he said the opposite. He said you might as well wager on God because that way, even if He doesn’t exist, you’ve nothing to lose. Whereas if you wager against God and He does exist…’
‘You’re in the shit.’
‘I wish I’d said that.’
‘You will, Finkler.’
The Finkler Question by Howard Jacobson