Another view of "Pascal's Wager"

[IWantGod]

You seem not to be reading what I am writing. I explained that I had no choice. The evidence that was presented was not sufficient for me to take a position that the Christian God of the bible existed. I did not choose that position nor did I specifically want it.

Be presented with the evidence. Accept it or reject it. Belief or non belief will automatically follow.

You didn’t discover the evidence that you feel is sufficient to compel belief?. Or rather you simply don’t feel compelled to believe for whatever reason?

But what of faith? Would i be correct in saying no religious idea, or being, will ever be important enough for you to just have faith (in the absence of compelling evidence) even if your sense of moral worth/dignity and meaning metaphysically depended on it being true, and you want to have scientific evidence.if you are expected to believe in the Christian concept of reality?

Do you realize that some people, when confronted with a possibility they feel compelled to have faith in it’s reality because what it describes speaks to their desire for existential fulfillment? And by existential fulfillment i don’t mean like having wings or the promise of some sensory pleasure, but rather ideas that directly affect our psychological well-being and identity when presented with the world. A person may pursue this faith and yet not contradict the evidence available since the opposing view is not self-evidently true either.

I mean, have you taken on agnosticism as a life principle and thus do not feel faith to be of any value. Or do you literally think that you are incapable of faith?

I think if somebody values something enough, then a leap of faith is possible. What we value can compel us to faith because the object of faith makes rational sense of our desire for meaning, purpose and moral value and identity.insofar as it makes our desires existentially intelligible as well as fulfilling them at the same time. I don’t believe that the only compelling reason for faith is evidence, it just a matter of whether or not one feels that faith is necessary in their personal lives. But I think you have made it clear that faith in God is not a necessary need for you. You see no value in it in so far as living your life or expressing your identity is concerned. Am i correct? And thus you need convincing before you would accept or put your trust in a certain belief about life and how you should live it, you require evidence…

I don’t remember you ever explaining just what it is that would compel you to believe in God. Are you looking for absolute certainty or are you looking for reasonable belief? What is reasonable belief to you? Is logical necessity enough (in terms of mere theism)? Or are you more like Thomas in that you need to put your finger through the crucifixion holes to believe it (in terms of religion)?

 

[Sophia]

No, I’ve been pretty consistent in my assertion that the request “to choose something that is incorrect” is a red herring.

Yes, you have been consistent - consistently incorrect. On one hand you assert that one can always choose to believe or not to believe, and then you say that it is incorrect to demand to choose something that you know is false. Can’t you see the contradiction?

What I’m not saying is what you keep challenging me to say: that beliefs are chosen arbitrarily.

Nowhere have I said or insinuated that they are “arbitrary”. I said that they are not volitionally chosen. Non-volitional is not arbitrary. If you would take time and study neuro-science, you would understand this.

 

[Gorgias]

On one hand you assert that one can always choose to believe or not to believe, and then you say that it is incorrect to demand to choose something that you know is false. Can’t you see the contradiction?

No. I can, however, see the blatant illogic in your proposition “force yourself to believe something that you don’t believe.”

Nowhere have I said or insinuated that they are “arbitrary”. I said that they are not volitionally chosen. Non-volitional is not arbitrary. If you would take time and study neuro-science, you would understand this.

So, your whole argument is based on the premise of “not consciously chosen beliefs”? Oh, that makes your argument even more weak! It turns into “yes, you choose your beliefs, but you don’t consciously realize it”.

 

[Sophia]

No. I can, however, see the blatant illogic in your proposition “force yourself to believe something that you don’t believe.”

So finally you abandon your original assertion, namely: “you can ALWAYS choose what to believe”. It was about time.

So, your whole argument is based on the premise of “not consciously chosen beliefs”? Oh, that makes your argument even more weak! It turns into “yes, you choose your beliefs, but you don’t consciously realize it”.

The idea of unconscious choice is an oxymoron. If only you would investigate neuroscience (even on a superficial level) you would realize the difference between the information processes that happen in the grey matter and the white matter of the brain. If I remember correctly, I suggested that you learn about this subject many times. You never even answered it. No wonder that you keep repeating the same error. Consistently, I know.

 

[MPat]

Whether we accept evidence or not is always a personal decision. Whether it can be presented in some cases, such as legal matters is different. But we leach make the call whether it is acceptable or not and whether it is valid or not ourselves. Nobody makes these calls for us.

So, you have no way to explain how one can have a standard of evidence set by law or precedent and would like to distract us from that point.

If you neither accept or reject evidence, then it is by definition inconclusive.

Every time someone says ‘I don’t know’, they are telling you that the evidence with which they have been supplied is inconclusive.

We’ll see how that works…

Unreasonable people exist. They may well believe, erroneously and unreasonably, that they can accept evidence as being valid as to a particular proposition’s validity yet still choose not to believe it. Neither of us think that is reasonable so let’s ignore it.

And why should we do so? Just because one does not think something is reasonable does not mean one does not actually do that “something”.

Also, let’s note a complete lack of evidence here.

As regards to not wanting to change my mind, you are missing the point. If the matter is important enough (large flywheel) and enough evidence has been presented and accepted so that a strong belief is formed (it’s spinning quite fast) then if you are prepared to change your mind then a much larger body of evidence is going to need to be accepted to reverse the spin.

Let’s look at the account of your “deconversion”:

Then as I grew older and more questioning (as all children do), I started an internal debate abojt what all these stories were meant to actually represent. When it came time for my confirmation (in the C of E) and there were some relatively serious conversations about what was expected of me, I cam to what was then an uncomfortable realisation that I was meant, not just to accept what I was being told, but to believe it as well.

Do you notice the inconsistency? You claim that you made a decision because you had lots of evidence, and yet in your “deconversion account” not a single shred of evidence is mentioned.

Let’s contrast that with accounts of people who actually changed their mind after looking at some evidence (Edward Feser: The road from atheism, Total Conversion » John C. Wright's Journal). They do tell us about that evidence. And you do not.

And there is a simple (but unpleasant) explanation: you do not have any.

Not a shred.

Just an act of will (the one that, in your view, can’t possibly achieve belief).

Even if we’d assume that you saw no contrary evidence, by your account of psychology it should have resulted in you declaring “Inconclusive!” - and becoming an agnostic.

So, when we look at actual evidence, your position falls apart.

 

[Bradskii]

My personal beliefs are moot. They were brought up as an indication of how you cannot decide to believe something and that decisions on what is acceptable evidence is entirely personal. And I’m damned if I am going to sit here and write out a shopping list of reasons for your edification.

It was an uncomfortable position for me to find myself in. All my family and all their friends and all my friends were church going Christians - I literally did not know anyone who wasn’t Christian. It would have been easier to decide to believe. I certainly did not choose not to. But as we have seen, that is impossible anyway.

That’s what the discussion is about. It’s about acting as if you believed. Going to church as if you believed. Taking mass as if you believed. Because the odds are in your favour if you do, according to Pascal. At best I would paraphrase it as: ‘give it a go - what harm could it do’.

If you accept that premise, then you’d better make a list or all religions and work through them acting as if you believed. Because the odds will be in your favour and hey, what harm could it do…

And if you’d like to start talking about faith as oposed to belief or as it relates to belief in a religious sense, then by all means start a new thread. I’d be interested.

 

[Bradskii]

If some people use (or need) faith to give them a sense of ‘existential fulfillment’ then that is entirely their prerogative. If you do, then go for your life. I won’t argue against that. It’s an entirely personal matter.

 

[IWantGod]

If some people use (or need) faith to give them a sense of ‘existential fulfillment’ then that is entirely their prerogative.

More importantly it makes their experience as personal beings intelligible. But yes, it is their prerogative.

It’s an entirely personal matter.

Faith is always personal. But i think you would agree that making intelligible sense of our personal nature is important to, would you not agree…We don’t just want to do things for no rational reason do we.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

If some people use (or need) faith to give them a sense of ‘existential fulfillment’ then that is entirely their prerogative.

More importantly it makes their experience as personal beings intelligible. But yes, it is their prerogative.

It’s an entirely personal matter.

Faith is always personal. But i think you would agree that making intelligible sense of our personal nature is important to, would you not agree…

Indeed. And I’d hope that you would agree that each person makes sense of it in their own way. The Christian, the atheist, the Budhist, the Hindu etc.

 

[IWantGod]

Indeed. And I’d hope that you would agree that each person makes sense of it in their own way. The Christian, the atheist, the Budhist, the Hindu etc.

Great. I would like to know how the atheist makes intelligible sense of their natural desire to survive given metaphysical naturalism.

 

[IWantGod]

How do you make sense of any emotional experience including guilt given a purely materialistic.foundation for your experiences?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Indeed. And I’d hope that you would agree that each person makes sense of it in their own way. The Christian, the atheist, the Budhist, the Hindu etc.

Great. I would like to know how the atheist makes intelligible sense of their natural desire to survive given metaphysical naturalism.

Well, the clue is in the name. Natural desire. It helps propagate the species if you really enjoy not being killed. This is something that is not obvious to you?

 

[Bradskii]

How do you make sense of any emotional experience including guilt given a purely materialistic.foundation for your experiences?

You are going to have to study some evolutionary psychology I’m afraid. This would be a good start: Evolutionary Psychology Primer by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby.

It’s off topic so if you’d like to start a new thread I’d be keen to discuss it. But you need to read up on it. The linked primer is not really that long.

 

[IWantGod]

It helps propagate the species

Are you saying our desire exists “because” it will help propagate our species? If so, that sounds remarkably purposeful. But i don’t think you meant that, you being an atheist and all. I think you meant that our natural desire for survival causes us to seek ends that facilitate that effect. Also when i say “Natural desire” i mean only that instinctual desire to survive, we experience it more commonly when we have a flight or fight experience in the presence of danger. But that aside, your explanation is clearly not an intelligible explanation of our desire to survive, as in why such a goal directed impulse would exist given metaphysical naturalism, not to mention the fact that are internal body operations tend to act toward that end in conjunction with that impulse until it breaks down.

What you have given Is a description of what that desire is doing, in other-words you are describing it’s effects. At best you are showing us the intrinsic limitations of science when describing reality.

 

[IWantGod]

evolutionary psychology

This is a very weak dodge.

Evolutionary psychology, as a science, has nothing to do with intelligibly explaining why desires exist in relation to metaphysical naturalism. I am asking a metaphysical qeustion. Science can only describe the effects of our desires, and while they explain it in a teleological manner they cannot possibly mean it that way in the context of the scientific method (even though, interestingly enough a teleological description is the only way we can intelligibly describe what organisms are doing internally and externally). Otherwise you would be agreeing with the idea that teleology exists in nature which is a philosophical concern, not a subject of science.

 

[MPat]

My personal beliefs are moot. They were brought up as an indication of how you cannot decide to believe something and that decisions on what is acceptable evidence is entirely personal.

You didn’t form an actual argument.

And, as you can see, that evidence really points to the contrary conclusion.

And I’m damned if I am going to sit here and write out a shopping list of reasons for your edification.

Ah, yes. And the grapes must be sour.

Of course, my point is that if your decision really was based on evidence, you would have mentioned it, and it would have been for your pleasure, not mine.

It was an uncomfortable position for me to find myself in. All my family and all their friends and all my friends were church going Christians - I literally did not know anyone who wasn’t Christian. It would have been easier to decide to believe.

That’s just one motive. That does not demonstrate that there were no motives for being an atheist.

And, um, somehow the description does not make it sound like a very strong motive…

I certainly did not choose not to.

You certainly claim so.

That’s what the discussion is about. It’s about acting as if you believed. Going to church as if you believed. Taking mass as if you believed. Because the odds are in your favour if you do, according to Pascal. At best I would paraphrase it as: ‘give it a go - what harm could it do’.

Um, what are you replying to here? Maybe you should quote the relevant parts of posts…

If you accept that premise, then you’d better make a list or all religions and work through them acting as if you believed. Because the odds will be in your favour and hey, what harm could it do…

Ah, yes, the standard “multiple religions” trick.

The one that ignores the facts that:

1. Religions generally prefer other religions to atheism.
2. Evidence for different religions is not equal.

 

[IWantGod]

evolutionary psychology

This is a very weak dodge.

Evolutionary psychology, as a science, has nothing to do with intelligibly explaining why desires exist in relation to metaphysical naturalism. I am asking a metaphysical qeustion. Science can only describe the effects of our desires, and while they explain it in a teleological manner they cannot possibly mean it that way in the context of the scientific method (even though, interestingly enough a teleological description is the only way we can intelligibly describe what organisms are doing internally and externally). Otherwise you would be agreeing with the idea that teleology exists in nature which is a philosophical concern, not a subject of science.

 

[IWantGod]

evolutionary psychology

This is a very weak dodge.

Evolutionary psychology, as a science, has nothing to do with intelligibly explaining why desires would exist if metaphysical naturalism were true. I am asking a metaphysical qeustion. Science can describe the effects of our desires and the context in which desires emerge, but while they explain it in a teleological manner they cannot possibly mean it that way in the context of the scientific method (even though, interestingly enough a teleological description is the only way we can intelligibly describe what organisms are doing internally and externally). Otherwise you would be agreeing with the idea that teleology exists in nature which is a philosophical concern, not a subject of science.

 

[benjamin1973]

The problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it’s a false dilemma. It’s not “Accept Christ or nothing.” It’s accept Christ, or Krsna, or Buddha, or something that’s been long forgotten, or something we haven’t discovered yet. . . or a million other possibilities. . . or nothing.

This is why (full disclosure) I’m agnostic rather than Catholic. With so many different religions, I have either to choose to see them all as completely false except just one, or to see the commonalities among them all: existence of something, and a universal moral code based on love and understanding.

 

[benjamin1973]

Ah, yes, the standard “multiple religions” trick.

The one that ignores the facts that:

1. Religions generally prefer other religions to atheism.
2. Evidence for different religions is not equal.

1. Demonstrate that you’re not making this up, please. While it makes sense, I don’t know it to be true.
2. Ironically, other religions would agree with you-- but they would insist THEIR religion is the one with the best evidence.