Another view of "Pascal's Wager"

  • Thread starter Thread starter laylow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You realize there’s a difference between believing someone when they tell you what they think and believing someone when they try to explain the nature of the universe to you right?
Actually, a huge problem with studies that rely on self-reporting to gauge the prevalence of beliefs is that many people don’t tell the truth. It’s called the “halo effect”. Studies that rely on observable behavior often give much different results than those based on self-reporting.
 
Last edited:
But Russell’s point stands, God would know what evidence a nonbeliever WOULD be convinced by. God gave you enough evidence to believe, but he didn’t give someone else the same.
 
But Russell’s point stands, God would know what evidence a nonbeliever WOULD be convinced by. God gave you enough evidence to believe, but he didn’t give someone else the same.
So, first, what exactly is wrong with that?

If it had been shown that the atheist was not “fooling himself”, but using all evidence he had to the full extent, we could discuss if not giving him more evidence is not an injustice. But if he hasn’t used the evidence he had, it is not unjust not to give him more.

Second, still, why should more evidence be given? Every student would pass the exam, if right answers were listed during the exam, but it is not unjust if the answers are not given and some students fail.

Third, that assumes that atheist actually would believe if he’d get some specific evidence. That is also not certain. Several atheists have claimed that no evidence would persuade them, for they would rather choose an explanation “Very advanced aliens did it.”.
 
Would you say most theists generally using all the evidence? Do Christians use all the evidence Islam offers? Do Muslims use the evidence Hinduism offers? So your classroom analogy presumes only one set of answers are given, when many are given even if only one is true.
 
Would you say most theists generally using all the evidence? Do Christians use all the evidence Islam offers? Do Muslims use the evidence Hinduism offers? So your classroom analogy presumes only one set of answers are given, when many are given even if only one is true.
Since you have decided to concentrate on my second point, let’s simplify it.

So, let’s say that it is just that some got lucky and some did not get lucky. What exactly, in your opinion, would be wrong with that?
 
People all have probably some characterization of a disorder. Whether mental, psychological, physical, health, etc. Now, as for when people do horrible and terrible things - evil and wrong. The Christian view calls that original sin, since the fall. Now nihilists do not know what to call it. Maybe on some ground of behavioral psychology. But they cannot determine it is wrong. Because there’s no moral agent, but spontaneous events which become determinate factors through nature and down to animal life. So, a nihilist, does not bear to any purpose/reason for anything. For even to call something wrong. Hence why the root word of nihilist is nihil - an absence, a nothing.

Nietzche went into a mental hospital because the idea/consensus of nihilism has no ground for the mind or the soul of the person. But an abyss. And that is why he went insane. Napolean also falls into that classification of character. Ideologies and philosophies that have no bearing on moral common sense take people down into an alarming abyss of the mental/psychological nature. An extreme; a form of destruction. A delusion.

Christianity has a vision, the devil (satan, the dragon) that swept a third of the stars, and angels, fell.

Interesting even if you call it folklore, or legend - a story. The element of truth is, and so does it stand. That namely there is reason. That without the grounds of faith in something, the mind has no real idea, and loses sense. And so the person falls just like the seven headed hydra illustrated in Scripture. So the element of truth still stands, while the nihilist abyss opens wide and vast. Wherefore the illustration of Scripture sets up as the place of the devil. Who destroys and devours as a lion.
 
Last edited:
Ah yes makes sense. Stupid doctors thought it was neurosyphilis.

You don’t need theism to make determinations about right and wrong. You can’t extrapolate them into universal moral truths without it but people form their own opinions every day. When enough of us agree on something, we’re able to create a law, or new societal mores.

One might consider that Nietzche’s mental break seemed to occur after witnessing an animal being beaten. Certainly can’t just claim he was without ideas of right and wrong.
 
Ah yes makes sense. Stupid doctors thought it was neurosyphilis.

One might consider that Nietzche’s mental break seemed to occur after witnessing an animal being beaten. Certainly can’t just claim he was without ideas of right and wrong.
That still suffices to why he went insane. An STD kinda spells out the underlying theme of nihilism. An absence of morals. There’s no meaning. No objective right or wrong. No moral ill. So it still works and applies to his fate.

But for a Christian, he or she can change. Choose not to do it. Seek the ever loving mercy and embrace of Christ. It’s not easy. Of course nothing is easy. Even that is seen through the struggle in molecular biology. However, we know that a human being needs love. Animals need something like love to a certain degree/extent. But human beings need it more. And actual love. That intimate message which is so endearing on the Cross. The man, who we call Jesus of Nazareth. He was not just a man, but God’s only begotten Son. Now, a nihilist may not believe in God. And no sense to reason that Jesus was the Son of God. Yet, He didn’t just claim it. He lived it. No human being could or ever did. Much of the lore/legend of ancient Greece, and Mesopotamian beliefs beforehand. And then their intertwined fate into Roman culture. But, Christ was claimed to have risen from the dead. The martyrs and Christian’s willing to die upon that. Not a nihilist absence, but a true and real entity. For even the one called doubting Thomas had to touch the wounds, to see and to believe. Which he said, “My Lord, and my God.”

It’s not easy. It’s a hard and difficult path. The world is full of dark alleys and stairways. Even the allegory of Plato’s cave is still a most difficult path for anyone to follow. But all it takes, at least as first steps in the right direction, is faith.

I try to pray and ask before the Blessed Sacrament a gift from Jesus. To know He is there. To love Him, to Adore, and to Believe. So my heart might be content. it’s not easy. And I certainly don’t have the burden that most people more awful circumstances have. I ask for certain miracles, but I am also not going to put my faith in a miracle, but in God, in Christ, and in His Church. Tempered with right reason.

Nietzche was one individual who had his share of hard breaks and a cross to bear in life. But none of them even compared to the suffering and treatment of the people’s who are called Jewish. Their suffering during the Nazi Holocaust occupation, Nietzche’s suffering could not compare. And yet his beliefs stirred the pot, so-to-speak, in the German public. And that philosophical view was something Hitler adhered to - the nihilistic basis.

The root of Nietzche’s problems, just as Three Shepherd children relayed to the rest of the world from an Apparition (whether you take this to be true, or are skeptical.) The fact and matter of the element of truth, nonehteless which still stood. That the nihilistic doctrine - the errors of Russia - did spread. And that was Neitzche’s.
 
Last edited:
Your desire to stigmatize mental illness and degenerative diseases is abhorrent. I truly hope neither you or the ones you love are ever left suffering from one.
 
Your desire to stigmatize mental illness and degenerative diseases is abhorrent. I truly hope neither you or the ones you love are ever left suffering from one.
The disease was a consequence of his own choice. His idea’s surrounding nihilism was the marker for which was the man’s basis for making choices in his life. And hence, he caught an STD by making a bad choice. Much of which comes by where his moral basis fell. It’s not saying the man could not had changed for the better. Or that he was just doomed. But nihilism did not land him a hand to choose not to do evil. Which is what STD reflects.

Placing this view of “stigmatizing mental illness and degenerative disease” has nothing to do with my desire. It’s just an obvious fact. The man chose a nihilist fate/destiny in all his thinking and pre-occupations. Which includes a pre-cursor on the relationships he was forming. And that settled on the idea’s he thought with.

With that, I also concluded rightly that his writings and authorship on the nihilistic view were greatly received by Stalin, Hitler, Sanger, and aligned with the Japanese world at the time. Which nevertheless caused one of the most severest and destructive forces man has ever let out on the face of earth. And, I made a point, that this man who suffered was nothing in comparison (i.e. paled in contrast to) the abhorrent treatment of the Jewish people in Germany. Which was the sole basis of the nihilistic view. And that was let out on the world through the pre-occupation of World War II. And today, the nihilistic view still survives/lives through the course of euthanasia and eugenics.

But, I will beg the question to you. What is worse, the suffering of the mental illness Neitzche suffered, or the developmental life of an unborn human being, being destroyed in his or her mother’s womb?
 
Last edited:
MPat,
re: “Then what I mean by ‘will’ and ‘choice’ and what you mean by those same words has little in common.”

So it would seem.
 
MPat,

re: “Then what I mean by ‘will’ and ‘choice’ and what you mean by those same words has little in common.”

So it would seem.
So, do you understand the meaning of those words as I use them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top