Based on probability, if one had to make a choice, is it more reasonable to be an Atheist or a Theist

[Bradski]

Well said.

 

[Nixbits]

Peter Plato:

There is, for example, the fact that a particular kind of God – Aquinas’ Ipsum Esse Subsistens – is far more explanatorily necessary than the gods of Mount Olympus. Therefore, you have something other than evidence by itself as good reason and justification for accepting the existence of the God of classical theism rather than “the rest” of the gods, too – explanatory necessity.

This is intriguing. Peter, would you mind explaining what you mean by ‘explanatorily necessary’ with respect to the Christian God compared to the gods of Ancient Greece? I can see how one God-concept might be thought more sufficient at explaining the universe we see, but I’m struggling to understand what might be meant by ‘more necessary’ at explaining things.

 

[MatthewTrainor]

Choosing via Pascal’s Wager sounds like an agnostic hedging her bets and leaning to one side to be safe or accepted or etc.

Yes, Pascal’s wager is hedging the bets, it was my somewhat cynical response to the OP’s question on believing or not based only on the odds. The balance of my post highlights the dangers of taking this approach.

But…if you are not certain there is a God, but decide to believe there is a god anyway to be on the safe side…wouldn’t an all-knowing god know you don’t truly believe?

Well there is some nuance to be nudged out what we are discussing. There is the sort of belief where one is firmly convinced based on a personal assessment of the objective evidence, there is the belief, with as much conviction, that is rooted more in faith, and then there are those who aren’t as sure but choose to believe in spite of their doubts. All who believe in God choose to do so, it’s just that for some this choice is easier to make. God can distinguish each one.

To be sure, God does not smile on those who profess a religiosity purely for the public esteem they believe it will bring. “When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.” Mt 6:5
However, occasional doubts and lapses in faith can happen to anyone.
Mt 14:28-31:

Peter said… “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.”

He said, “Come.” Peter got out of the boat and began to walk on the water toward Jesus.

But when he saw how (strong) the wind was he became frightened; and, beginning to sink, he cried out, “Lord, save me!”

Immediately Jesus stretched out his hand and caught him, and said to him, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?”

Even Peter, after he had actually walked on water himself and while he was within arms reach of Jesus, had doubts and sank into the sea. Jesus later built his Church upon Peter. (Mt 16:18-19)

And if this all-knowing god still gives you the benefits of hedged-bet believing…then wouldn’t this same all-knowing god give the same benefits to the atheists?

It depends… If the atheist were invincibly ignorant of the existence of God (e.g. someone who was born, lived and died in the former U.S.S.R.) then God could extend his mercy. On the other hand, if someone chooses to be an atheist for selfish reasons (rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints) then they are undoubtedly on much thinner ice.

In the end, everyone should make the investigation of the spiritual world a part of their life. It is truly a never ending quest. It is my understanding that the vast majority of those who undertake this task with an open mind eventually become believers.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This is intriguing. Peter, would you mind explaining what you mean by ‘explanatorily necessary’ with respect to the Christian God compared to the gods of Ancient Greece? I can see how one God-concept might be thought more sufficient at explaining the universe we see, but I’m struggling to understand what might be meant by ‘more necessary’ at explaining things.

If you think about what “evidence” really means and how it is arrived at you will begin to get an inkling.

Suppose you go outside in the morning and underneath the exhaust pipe of your car you see a 30 cm long stream of gelatinous red stuff that appears to have come from your car during the night.

It might be “evidence” of something (say Cause A) but only if that “something” would be the only necessary and sufficient explanation of the evidence. Otherwise, if something else (Cause B) could explain the existence of the red stuff, then the red stuff might not be actual evidence of the first (Cause A). The evidence can only count as evidence and that only to the extent that the explanation of the existence of the evidence is necessary (and sufficient.)

You could claim the red stuff was evidence of someone dumping ketchup behind your car, but if the red stuff does not have the chemical composition of ketchup, your evidence fails as evidence for its explanation because there is no necessary explanatory connection between the cause and the evidence.

For evidence to count as evidence a necessary explanatory connection must be established or the evidence isn’t actually evidence for anything.

The atheist who keeps dismissing evidence for God does so on the grounds that the evidence can be explained in other ways, but this isn’t true. Quite often, in cases such as cosmic origins, why there is something rather than nothing, the origin of life, the sources of morality, the existence of consciousness and intentionality there is no sufficiently good explanation the atheist can point to. They merely dismiss a very good explanation on the pretext that the evidence doesn’t exist for that explanation, but the reason the evidence doesn’t;t exist for them is because they have a priori dismissed the most plausible and necessary explanation: God.

Clearly, the gods of Mount Olympus do not explain – nor are they ever proposed to explain – the existence of the universe, the origin of life, why there is something rather than nothing, etc., etc., Ergo, all gods are not the same, explanatorily speaking.

 

[Nixbits]

Peter Plato:

Clearly, the gods of Mount Olympus do not explain – nor are they ever proposed to explain – the existence of the universe, the origin of life, why there is something rather than nothing, etc., etc.,

Aah, I see. My confusion was due to your terminology. I would consider that the gods of Mount Olympus are not a sufficient explanation for the existence of the universe etc. By contrast the Christian God is claimed to be a sufficient explanation, meaning that the existence of God completely explains the existence of the universe etc. I would contend, however, that the Christian God is not a necessary explanation. In other words, it has not been demonstrated that the Christian God is the only possible explanation for what we observe. Of course, it may be that no-one currently has an explanation for these things.

As you described, causation requires necessity and sufficiency. All the claims in the world that God is a sufficient explanation are useless until there’s also demonstration of necessity.

 

[PRmerger]

In other words, it has not been demonstrated that the Christian God is the only possible explanation for what we observe.

But the God of classical theism is.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Here is how I arrived at that answer:

If you choose Islam and Islam is true:
If you choose Islam and Judaism is true: (no idol worship)
If you choose Islam and INCLUSIVIST Christianity is true:
If you choose Islam and Hinduism is true:
If you choose Islam and Atheism is true:
If you choose Islam and any other form of inclusivist religion is true (most of them):
If you choose Islam and EXCLUSIVIST Christianity is true:
If you choose Islam and Mormonism is true: telestial kingdom? outer darkness?

But:

If Islam is true, and you choose any other religious belief: hell forever. And, Islamic hell is FAR worse than Christian hell nowadays.

There is only one case where you’re at risk by choosing Islam (exclusivist Christianity being true). (I mean, the telestial kingdom doesn’t really seem so bad).

However, for every other religious belief, you’re at risk of hell if Islam is true, and at risk of multiple hells if others are true.

Are you not motivated by this kind of reasoning? It seems a little crass doesn’t it? That’s why Pascal’s Wager doesn’t really work…in my opinion.

Two points:

1. With regard to each of the religions listed above, what do they believe and why do they believe it? Simply choosing Islam on the basis of the above calculus without actually researching the What and Why is insufficient. For example, if genital mutilation, honor killings and jihad are abhorrent to God, how will engaging in such practices be helpful in any way?

Christianity is stronger in the WHY department than all other religions. Digging into all of these groups reveals why I can make this statement with confidence.

1. Pascal’s Wager does not address either the What or Why question. Instead, Pascal’s Wager offers a reasonable justification for moving forward in faith for the person who has been moved by the What and Why but still finds it difficult to commit to acting on that knowledge. PW says, “Remaining on the fence is not smart; acting on the information you agree with is the best bet.”

And btw, Islam is clearly monotheistic while Hinduism is not. These two religions are mutually exclusive

 

[Aloysium]

. . . . All the claims in the world that God is a sufficient explanation are useless until there’s also demonstration of necessity.

There is nothing more necessary than the existence of everything. The question then becomes as to the structure of existence, which includes knowledge, action and its source. Evidently some don’t bother trying to go beyond the veil, remaining satisfied with not having found the tangible in a world of images (aka proof).

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In other words, atheists of this type think it most probable that the God claim is wrong … They admit the possibility that they may be wrong.

And if they are wrong … have they gained or lost immeasurably?

Pascal was right. God gives us the right to choose, creating in us the inability to ascertain with certainty that he does or does not exist. It’s called free will. Some use their free will smartly … others are fools in their hearts. They fool only themselves.

 

[IWantGod]

And if they are wrong … have they gained or lost immeasurably?

Pascal was right. God gives us the right to choose, creating in us the inability to ascertain with certainty that he does or does not exist. It’s called free will. Some use their free will smartly … others are fools in their hearts. They fool only themselves.

To be fair, if there is a possibility that God doesn’t exist, then they are not necessarily fools in a strictly logical sense. However i would rather be a fool than think that this life is just a meaningless collection of events, because to me that is not really a life worth fighting for. Its just an illusion precisely because it is meaningless.

That’s where faith comes in to the spotlight. The question is then, what is the value of faith and is it worth the sacrifice. I think the value is infinite and is definitely worth the sacrifice. There is nothing to lose. If there is no God then in a sense we are all fools to think that getting up in the morning and paying taxes is worth the effort!!! I’d rather be a criminal because there is no such thing as sanity or reason in that world.

That is the essence of pascals wager.

 

[FollowChrist34]

To be fair, if there is a possibility that God doesn’t exist, then they are not necessarily fools. However i would rather be a fool than think that this life is just a meaningless collection of events, because to me that is not really a life worth fighting for. Its just an illusion precisely because it is meaningless.

That’s where faith comes in to the spotlight. The question is then, what is the value of faith and is it worth the sacrifice. I think it is.

That is the essence of pascals wager.

Well said. I once heard a Jesuit priest defend Christ to a Jewish rabbi with much the same argument: “I believe in Christ as a loving, merciful God and even if I am wrong I am incapable of believing or willing otherwise. It would contradict my will and reason, deny my freedom.”

It is actually basic Christian doctrine (and true I think) that grace received from God is enabling the exercise of faith in the believer, a state of election if you will… (faith that you are somehow freely choosing to accept, of course but if God is giving you the grace…gets complicated - another thread. I end up with election on this one; then with faith comes freedom. Otherwise man is God’s equal. This would be a good thread. Off topic here.)

 

[Peter_Plato]

Denmark: where unhappy people kill…themselves.

Haiti: where unhappy people kill…others.

The choice is a no brainer for me. I’d much rather be at risk for suicide than be a victim or (even worse) the perpetrator of a murder.

You realize that article you linked to suggests Haitians are happy because they’re forced to live in the moment just to survive the misery of the daily struggle for survival, meanwhile rich westerners have time to mourn missed opportunities and worry about the future.

One solution for regret and anxiety is gratitude and mindfulness. They’re both free. How about the solution for dirty water, corrupt governments, filth, violence, chaos, natural disasters, disease, and economic collapse? Not so simple and not so free…

A little update on why the people of Haiti are where they are.

the-american-catholic.com/2016/07/20/the-clinton-foundation-made-millions-off-destitute-haitians/

Apparently, some “rich westerners” have more than “time to mourn missed opportunities,” they also seem to have a lot of time profiting off the misery of others.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

A little update on why the people of Haiti are where they are.

the-american-catholic.com/2016/07/20/the-clinton-foundation-made-millions-off-destitute-haitians/

Apparently, some “rich westerners” have more than “time to mourn missed opportunities,” they also seem to have a lot of time profiting off the misery of others.

Yes, “helpful harry’s” have been profiting from the misery of others since the ethic of compassion became institutionalized and bureaucratized long ago. It’s disgusting isn’t it?

Think about it: for generations, billions of dollars have been flowing from industrialized countries to pits of poverty and despair the world over: why are those places still pits of poverty and despair (except countries with exploding marketing economies)? Wave after wave of missionaries, social workers, NGO workers, troops, and others over decades just can’t seem to retain progress. Why? It’s a very complicated question that can’t be answered in this internet forum, but suffice it to say I am equally disgusted by the fraud, waste, and abuse of “helpers.”

I personally know the president of a large “Christian” charity. He wears a fat gold Rolex, drives several BMWs, and owns a few multi-million dollar homes. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against wealth. However: his wealth comes from donations by people probably much worse off, meant to benefit destitute waifs. Ridiculous.

Please don’t think I am a devotee of Nietzsche or Rand: it’s just that I think the ethic of compassion should be more personal and less institutionalized. I believe in compassion, but history has shown it isn’t the poor and downtrodden who abuse it: but the “helpful harry’s” who’s “life mission” is to “help the poor.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I personally know the president of a large “Christian” charity. He wears a fat gold Rolex, drives several BMWs, and owns a few multi-million dollar homes. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against wealth. However: his wealth comes from donations by people probably much worse off, meant to benefit destitute waifs. Ridiculous.

Yes, ridiculous.

Mother Teresa, not so ridiculous.

 

[tonyrey]

Careful, you’re confusing the articles of faith with the first principles of knowledge. While both admit of no demonstration, the reason for this indemonstrability is very different. The first principles of knowledge are obtained by sense-perception, and are thus said to be self-evident.

The first principles of knowledge are obtained by introspection! First and foremost we are aware of our mental activity and then we infer the existence of physical reality from what we perceive. We have immediate and direct knowledge of our thoughts and feelings whereas it is not self-evident that there is a world or other persons because we are in the “egocentric predicament”.

The truths of faith on the other hand, far from being self-evident, are very obscure even after revelation and deep study of them. This is very different. The first principles of knowledge are undemonstrable because the principles of demonstration (the laws of logic, etc.) are gathered from perception. That is, the first principles of knowledge are a priori with respect to the principles of demonstration. The truths of faith are not a priori, since they have to be revealed to even be known. The articles of faith are simply too sublime to admit of demonstration. The truth they contain surpasses the power of created reason. That’s a very different reason for the lack of proof.

We don’t need to have faith in our existence but we do need it for everything else. Our mind is our primary datum and sole certainty. In other words like charity knowledge begins at home! We do need faith to believe in the Supreme Mind but even more faith to believe in material objects. As Quine pointed out they are “posits” whereas our mental experiences are the very foundation of all our knowledge and therefore much closer to spiritual reality -which is certainly far more sublime and meaningful than what we perceive with our senses - which tell us nothing about the nature of truth, goodness, freedom, justice and love.

I hope this was helpful,
Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

It is indeed. God bless…

 

[tonyrey]

As you described, causation requires necessity and sufficiency. All the claims in the world that God is a sufficient explanation are useless until there’s also demonstration of necessity.

Belief in physical necessity presupposes the existence of rational minds…

 

[Trident_H]

Yes, “helpful harry’s” have been profiting from the misery of others since the ethic of compassion became institutionalized and bureaucratized long ago. It’s disgusting isn’t it?

Think about it: for generations, billions of dollars have been flowing from industrialized countries to pits of poverty and despair the world over: why are those places still pits of poverty and despair (except countries with exploding marketing economies)? Wave after wave of missionaries, social workers, NGO workers, troops, and others over decades just can’t seem to retain progress. Why? It’s a very complicated question that can’t be answered in this internet forum, but suffice it to say I am equally disgusted by the fraud, waste, and abuse of “helpers.”

I personally know the president of a large “Christian” charity. He wears a fat gold Rolex, drives several BMWs, and owns a few multi-million dollar homes. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against wealth. However: his wealth comes from donations by people probably much worse off, meant to benefit destitute waifs. Ridiculous.

Please don’t think I am a devotee of Nietzsche or Rand: it’s just that I think the ethic of compassion should be more personal and less institutionalized. I believe in compassion, but history has shown it isn’t the poor and downtrodden who abuse it: but the “helpful harry’s” who’s “life mission” is to “help the poor.”

Well said man. I agree with you in the hundreds of percent.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, “helpful harry’s” have been profiting from the misery of others since the ethic of compassion became institutionalized and bureaucratized long ago. It’s disgusting isn’t it?

Think about it: for generations, billions of dollars have been flowing from industrialized countries to pits of poverty and despair the world over: why are those places still pits of poverty and despair (except countries with exploding marketing economies)? Wave after wave of missionaries, social workers, NGO workers, troops, and others over decades just can’t seem to retain progress. Why? It’s a very complicated question that can’t be answered in this internet forum, but suffice it to say I am equally disgusted by the fraud, waste, and abuse of “helpers.”

I personally know the president of a large “Christian” charity. He wears a fat gold Rolex, drives several BMWs, and owns a few multi-million dollar homes. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against wealth. However: his wealth comes from donations by people probably much worse off, meant to benefit destitute waifs. Ridiculous.

Oh, this is vile and heinous indeed.

 

[Nixbits]

Nixbits:

it has not been demonstrated that the Christian God is the only possible explanation for what we observe.

PRmerger:

But the God of classical theism is.

Yet many millions of Buddhists, Hindus and atheists, to name just a few, disagree with you. It has not been shown that the God of classical theism is the only possible explanation. The failure of any other belief system to account for something that classical theism accounts for, doesn’t mean that we’ve determined which one is actually correct. It may be that no belief system or world-view can currently account for some of the things we observe. Classical theism doesn’t win by default just because it seems to be able to account for it.

Postulating an omnipotent, omniscient creator-god is to create a panacea. It can account for anything, by design, but only by providing a bigger mystery. Explanations tend to be in terms of other things that we understand. By appealing to a bigger mystery it removes all explanatory power.

 

[Nixbits]

Aloysium:

Evidently some don’t bother trying to go beyond the veil, remaining satisfied with not having found the tangible in a world of images (aka proof).

And some remain dissatisfied and continue to look for the proof, determined to try to find the real answer and wary of accepting whatever seems to be sufficient with no demonstration that it’s also necessary.