Another view of "Pascal's Wager"

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Sorry, your analysis doesn’t hold up and, in addition, you have to add your unsupported assertion that the later Christians doctored the Gospels, which also is an unsubstantiated claim.

I generalized it in a sentence or two, it would take an entire book to explain the details. Asserting the Gospels were doctored is no more unsubstantiated than saying they were divinely inspired. In actuality there is evidence of doctoring and plenty of it, while there is no evidence of divine intervention. That is theology, not history.

The analysis holds plenty of merit. Read some of Bart Ehrman’s scholarship, he explains it in detail.

Of course we will disagree. I side with the scholars that believe that John has many historical problems. Most of your citations are from John, which can be characterized (generally) as a theological Gospel, not a historical one.

Sorry, there is lots available to counter Ehrman. His claims don’t hold up.

You can start a thread if you wish, but Ehrman isn’t as convincing or solid as you suppose.

No there isn’t “evidence of doctoring” unless you have a mind to ignore everything on the other side.

Start a thread, I’d be happy to address what convinces you about Ehrman.

 

[laylow]

Sorry, there is lots available to counter Ehrman. His claims don’t hold up.

You can start a thread if you wish, but Ehrman isn’t as convincing or solid as you suppose.

No there isn’t “evidence of doctoring” unless you have a mind to ignore everything on the other side.

Start a thread, I’d be happy to address what convinces you about Ehrman.

Would be interesting, but I really don’t have that much time. I do not spend all day on here.

 

[rstrats]

MPat,
re: “…your wish is not my command.”

Of course it isn’t. I simply thought you might want to support you assertion that you could choose between being an atheist or being a Catholic.

re: “And I answer that I do not believe you one bit.”

That of course is up to you. There’s nothing I can do about that.

re: “So, that’s the challenge. I even gave you the right answer. It shouldn’t be hard.”

I’m afraid I don’t understand the challenge. But your challenge, if it can be called that, is to demonstrate (in real time) your ability to consciously choose to believe things. I suggested the use of leprechauns as I imagined you didn’t already have a belief in them.

 

[rstrats]

tafan2,
re: “So how do we come to believe enough to ask for that gift? [i.e., the gift of faith]”

But the issue is how we first obtain the belief. I maintain that it isn’t through consciously choosing to have it.

 

[IWantGod]

Would be interesting, but I really don’t have that much time

Great…But you hand time to bring it up.i see.

 

[laylow]

No there isn’t “evidence of doctoring” unless you have a mind to ignore everything on the other side.

You appear to ignore the other side. I have read the counter-arguments and do not see they to be satisfying or convincing.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

No there isn’t “evidence of doctoring” unless you have a mind to ignore everything on the other side.

You appear to ignore the other side. I have read the counter-arguments and do not see they to be satisfying or convincing.

Start a thread.

Drive by remarks get us nowhere.

 

[Russell_SA]

“Most certainly it would be “safer” to be a theist?”
I think you mean “deist” on that last point.

Belief is not a choice you can make. Belief is the conclusion you make after assessing reality as you experience it and running your analysis about that experience. Such as A + B = C. “A” and “B” is your experience/data about reality and “+” and “=” is your applied logical thought to the situation. You can’t help but conclude/believe “C” is the result. The only way to change the belief/conclusion is to change the (name removed by moderator)ut or change the applied logic to the equation. That comes from education and experience. Run this experiment: Go sit in a chair and then choose to believe you are not sitting in a chair. You can lie to everyone else around you and profess you are not sitting in a chair till they believe you; but you can not lie to yourself.

So this is why Pascal’s Wager came up it seems to me. Fake it till everyone around you can’t tell that you are faking it. Fake it long enough till you convince yourself since you stopped thinking about the counter conversation and concerns you started out with that never got addressed. Out of sight out of mind, safe-space, religious echo chambers help with this. So this implies that salvation by your deity relies on works, not belief. Guess all these atheists are going to heaven as well even though we don’t believe these claims at all.

 

[MPat]

re: “And I answer that I do not believe you one bit.”

That of course is up to you. There’s nothing I can do about that.

It is nice to see you stayed consistent here.

MPat,

re: “…your wish is not my command.”

Of course it isn’t. I simply thought you might want to support you assertion that you could choose between being an atheist or being a Catholic.

Ah, but the challenge you made doesn’t work otherwise.

For let’s note that will is not just random. It chooses among options based on motivations (yes, some of those motivators can be arguments meant to make the truth of proposition more likely). Thus, if the will is to choose one option at one time and a different option at another time, motivations have to change significantly (or be extremely well ballanced).

And all you can offer is a request of a random stranger. It is a very weak motivator.

But your challenge, if it can be called that, is to demonstrate (in real time) your ability to consciously choose to believe things. I suggested the use of leprechauns as I imagined you didn’t already have a belief in them.

You know, this challenge is also silly, because it would not demonstrate anything useful even if I would have given you the answer you requested. What would you expect to do in that case?

Also, I already gave you an example of belief I hold because of motivations that have little to do with its truth: P=NP.

I can also give an example of belief you hold because of motivations that have little to do with its truth: the very belief that beliefs can’t be chosen.

For you know, you didn’t offer anything like a proof of this belief. But it is easy to see how convenient it is (once in a while). For example, one convenient conclusion is that you can’t possibly hold a belief dishonestly. (Of course, I pointed out another, inconvenient conclusion - that neither could anyone else.) Another convenient conclusion is that you do not have to make an effort to reexamine your beliefs - it would happen automatically after getting more evidence.

And you know, things like that can be strong motivators…

 

[rstrats]

MPat,
re: “For you know, you didn’t offer anything like a proof of this belief.”

The best I can do is to offer the fact that I have never been able to consciously choose any of the beliefs that I have, nor has anyone that I have asked to demonstrate their stated ability to consciously choose to beilive things done so.

 

[Gorgias]

Pascal’s wager isn’t gonna save you. If there’s a God, he’ll see through your petty attempt to get into heaven. He would want real followers, not people who believe in him to play it safe

sigh

Pascal’s wager is all about talking to a rational audience who might wish that they have faith, and giving them a mathematical way to approach it. He’s telling them “if this is what you want, then just do it, and let your faith build naturally as you seek it.” He’s not telling them “fake it” or “play it safe” – he wants them to achieve a real faith, and this is his approach.

 

[Gorgias]

nor has anyone that I have asked to demonstrate their stated ability to consciously choose to beilive things done so.

You’re asking the wrong people, then. Or, at the very least, you’re asking folks who don’t think on a regular basis.

Ask anyone who calls themselves a ‘convert’ or ‘revert’ to the Catholic faith. They’ll tell you a story of a conscious decision.

 

[MPat]

MPat,

re: “For you know, you didn’t offer anything like a proof of this belief.”

The best I can do is to

Yes, that’ s really the best you can do.

It is nowhere close to “proof”.

If you’d offer that in favour of personal “agnosticism” about choosing the beliefs, that would sound semi-plausible.

But when you offer them in support of the belief that beliefs can’t be chosen, that becomes evidence against your view.

I have never been able to consciously choose any of the beliefs that I have

First, let’s note that you do not say you were ever trying to do so.

Second, as Gorgias points out, if that was true, it would mean that you were never reasoning.

Third, can you describe how, in your view, do you make any sort of decisions?

Fourth, can you describe how do you expect to know if you succeeded in choosing a belief? How would you know you ended up believing something?

I have, nor has anyone that I have asked to demonstrate their stated ability to consciously choose to beilive things done so.

Actually, I did point out the belief I hold because of things that have little to do with its truth (which is not known) - P=NP. You, um, haven’t shown much interest in that.

Thus, that is not something you are willing to count as “demonstration”.

Thus, can you describe what you would be willing to consider to be a “demonstration” here? And, most importantly, why?

Also, let’s note the pretty obvious alternative explanations for not getting the demonstrations: that you are not a good researcher (you aren’t noticing them) and that you are not a good manager (that you aren’t motivating people well enough). Have you done anything to rule those explanations out?

 

[rstrats]

MPat,

Look, I really don’t want to argue with you. All I would like is for someone who thinks they can consciously choose to believe things to actually demonstrate their ability. I suggested the use of leprechauns because I assumed there wasn’t already a belief in them.

 

[Gorgias]

MPat,

Look, I really don’t want to argue with you. All I would like is for someone who thinks they can consciously choose to believe things to actually demonstrate their ability. I suggested the use of leprechauns because I assumed there wasn’t already a belief in them.

Hold on a second. You’re asking for something that neither makes sense, nor is what ‘belief’ is all about. (It’s taken me quite a while to ‘get’ it – but now I think I understand what this particular agnostic/atheist red herring is all about!)

You’re not asking “please demonstrate the use of your reason and the resulting belief”, are you? What you’re really asking is “please demonstrate that, contrary to your reason, you can make yourself believe something that you hold to be false.” That’s what the game is here, isn’t it?

And if that’s what’s really in play, then it’s an unreasonable request. Because belief is all about engaging our senses and our intellect, and coming to a conclusion in which we can believe.

What you’re asking for is exactly the opposite (and that’s why it’s unreasonable!): asking our will to take a path opposite to what our intellect is telling us!

So, yes: if you want to see reason leading to belief, all you have to do is look. But, if you want to see reason being disregarded… well, perhaps a strident atheist or agnostic is your best bet.

 

[rstrats]

Gorgias,
re: " Because belief is all about engaging our senses and our intellect, and coming to a conclusion in which we can believe."

So where does the choice come in?

 

[IWantGod]

I suggested the use of leprechauns because I assumed there wasn’t already a belief in them.

I think you used it as an insult.

 

[rstrats]

IWantGod,
re: “I think you used it as an insult.”

How so?

 

[IWantGod]

There is a reason why most people choose not to believe in leprechauns. Can you guess what it is?

 

[rstrats]

IWantGod,
re: “There is a reason why most people choose not to believe in leprechauns.”

That may be their preference, but could they make the leprechaun choice as their belief?