Is Religion a Scam?

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7658209:

In the absence of evidence, would it be better to say “I don’t know” or to make a claim that isn’t backed up by evidence?

Well, if there is no evidence against the claim, and accepting the claim can’t harm you but can offer infinite reward, I would accept the claim, and probably also look harder for evidence.

If you believe that I’m a descendant of Heracles, I’ll give you a billion dollars worth of gold in the afterlife. This belief has no negative effects that I know of (except for the one I mention below), it has a huge potential reward, and you can’t disprove it in any way that I know of, so according to you, you would accept that belief.

There is a negative associated with accepting an extraordinary claim as true without any decent evidence. It’s called gullibility. Once people lowered their standards to accepting a claim without evidence because they like the effects, people tend to be satisfied with ignorance.

There are many other reasons why Pascal’s wager is not a good reason to believe.

 

[Pieman333272]

I’m not sure if the existence of Zoroaster and Socrates are taken as fact by all historians.

You are simply wrong. Besides your professor you have given no reason to doubt Socrates (besides your radical skeptic methedology) and most, if not all, Zoroastrian scholars state that there was a historical Zoroaster who had major influence on the Zoroastrian religion.

“Because of the reliability of classical writers and islamic authors is open to question, and the information provided by the Avesta and the Gathas is of no great help, some scholars have gone so far as to doubt the historicity of Zoroaster. But such an argument is unwarrented, because the evidence, even if it is conflicting, indisputably points to the contrary.” (The Zoroastrian faith: tradition and modern research, p.17 “Zoroaster: Birthplace”)

So, not only is the evidence for Zoroaster much more scant **and **contradictory, but the Zoroaster myth is under a position of pure ridicule by scholars! The only reason scholars have, IMO, for doubting Jesus’ existence is a vehemest dislike of the idea of Christianity as the truth.

By spending just a few minutes researching on the internet, I found that we do have writings about Tiberius and Alexander the Great that are less than 6 decades removed from his death. For Alexander the Great, we have contemporary accounts of his life from multiple writers, including some of his own generals. For Tiberius, we have tons of archeological evidence such as a bust of his first wife as well as historical evidence such as Pliny the Elder (who died less than 6 decades later) calling him tristissimus hominum, “the gloomiest of men.”

Why would you take 40 years and not 60? And the bust, if it is from his time, could have been forged to promote his myth. I’m not saying it is, but if I were willing to defend a Tiberius myth idea, that wouldn’t be impossible to advocate.

Also, archeological evidence should be considered supporting evidence. Almost every piece of evidence for something in the past could have been forged, but historians try to determine the likelihood of it being forged.

Right, but without any reliable documentation on the character, how can that be done?! (If it can, just say so, because archeological methods are beyond my focus).

 

[Pieman333272]

There is a negative associated with accepting an extraordinary claim as true without any decent evidence. It’s called gullibility. Once people lowered their standards to accepting a claim without evidence because they like the effects, people tend to be satisfied with ignorance.

And why is gullibility bad in this case, if it can even be called that? Just because you take that attitude towards Catholicism (and to be clear, I don’t) doesn’t mean you also have to apply it to Black Holes, genology of demigods, evolution, or anything deeply rooted in the hard sciences.

There are many other reasons why Pascal’s wager is not a good reason to believe.

This is really beyond my scope so I’ll direct you again to the thread Pascal’s Wager Argument.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

You are simply wrong… . .]

I’m not sure you understood my points.

Not being certain a person exists is not the same as claiming they don’t exist. Historians, I believe, usually tend to lean towards believing that Socrates existed, but not to a very high degree certainty. For Zoroaster, if you reread the portion of my post that you quoted, you’ll see that I said, “I’m not sure”. If I’m presented with evidence that the overwhelming majority of historians think that Socrates and Zoroaster existed, I’ll change my position. However, this wouldn’t change my position on the historicity of Jesus (that we can say he existed in the same way that we can say King Arthur existed, yet I haven’t been shown sufficient evidence to justify belief in the magical parts of the gospels).

Why would you take 40 years and not 60?

40 years would definitely be preferable to 60, but it wouldn’t make me believe the magical parts of the gospels.

And the bust, if it is from his time, could have been forged to promote his myth.

Any piece of historical or archeological evidence could have been forged.

Right, but without any reliable documentation on the character, how can that be done?! (If it can, just say so, because archeological methods are beyond my focus).

I’m not exactly an expert in this field, but if a document or documents say that person A did X, and archeological evidence shows that X happened, then you can be certain, to the degree that the documents are reliable, that person A did X. It should be noted that if the document or documents were demonstrated to be accurate about X happening, that increases their credibility, to a degree, about person A doing it (if they are proven right about one thing, they are more likely to be right about the other).

And why is gullibility bad in this case, if it can even be called that?

Your beliefs become arbitrary (the definition of arbitrary is that it is based off of personal choice or personal whim) I guess I’ll elaborate beyond this once you tell me whether or not you believe my claim to be a descendant of Heracles:

If you believe that I’m a descendant of Heracles, I’ll give you a billion dollars worth of gold in the afterlife. This belief has no negative effects that I know of (except for the one I mention below), it has a huge potential reward, and you can’t disprove it in any way that I know of, so according to you, you would accept that belief.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Tonyrey, since our discussion has been both long and going nowhere, I’ll try to shorten my replies to bring focus to this discussion and try not to use too much of my time on this. I’ll ask you a question that seems to me to be the center of our discussion:

If there is not sufficient evidence presented for a belief, should a person believe it or not?

Also, if ten people believe it and one person doesn’t, who has the burden of proof?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

I am not sure what you mean about “experiences in one’s mind”

I literally mean one’s subjective experience. These don’t call for evidence the same way that claims of the world outside one’s mind do. If a mentally ill person tells me that he saw a flying saucer, I may take his word that that’s the experience he had without accepting that his experience was of something real.

Since for you, there isn’t a non-material or spiritual reality, there is no point of discussing or rather developing a second objective method for dealing with the spiritual for example a pure spiritual being which is God.

I’m open to the possibility of a “non-material” or “spiritual” reality if, and only if, it manifests in some detectable way in this reality. So I’d like to hear what this second method is.

 

[Pieman333272]

I’m not sure you understood my points.

I might not have, please enlighten me.

40 years would definitely be preferable to 60, but it wouldn’t make me believe the magical parts of the gospels.

I’m not trying to make you believe the “magical” parts anymore than you want to (for now). I’m only trying to convince you that Jesus was a real historical figure, and the only reason I’m debating this with you is because you keep either missing the point or floundering your position on the issue.

Any piece of historical or archeological evidence could have been forged.

Exactly.

I’m not exactly an expert in this field, but if a document or documents say that person A did X, and archeological evidence shows that X happened, then you can be certain, to the degree that the documents are reliable, that person A did X. It should be noted that if the document or documents were demonstrated to be accurate about X happening, that increases their credibility, to a degree, about person A doing it (if they are proven right about one thing, they are more likely to be right about the other).

Right. But my argument is that we either cannot treat the document as reliable OR can’t equate it ith any archeological evidence that lines up correctly. Or both.

Your beliefs become arbitrary (the definition of arbitrary is that it is based off of personal choice or personal whim) I guess I’ll elaborate beyond this once you tell me whether or not you believe my claim to be a descendant of Heracles:

I’ll respond to that below. Part of what I’m not understand is what’s wrong, when the evidence is neutral or in favor of the positive, with your beliefs being arbitary.

If you believe that I’m a descendant of Heracles, I’ll give you a billion dollars worth of gold in the afterlife. This belief has no negative effects that I know of (except for the one I mention below), it has a huge potential reward, and you can’t disprove it in any way that I know of, so according to you, you would accept that belief.

I reject that not because there is no evidence for/against it but because I don’t have enough information. Here are just some totally honest questions I want answered first:

1. Which Heracles? The Greek Demigod, the son of Alexander the Great, a small, unrecorded greek merchant who you somehow know everything about?
2. What are some common arguments or evidence in favor of your position (note they do not necessarily have to be sound, but that would be better)
3. What are some counters or evidence/arguments against your position?
4. What practises will I have to undertake if i choose to accept this?
5. How can this help or harm me, if at all, in the present world (besides gullibility, which is being discussed)
6. What other doctrines or dogmas, if any, must I accept for the reward?
7. What else is there to know about your afterlife?
8. Why or how do you have the authoritiy to give me $1 Billion in gold coins in the afterlife?

Also, having a billion dollars worth of gold coins in the afterlife is useless, because it’s a spiritual “realm”, for lack of a better word, and even if it did have value in the spiritual realm the fact that so many people are given $1,000,000,000 in gold would cause some serious inflation. Why does the one who comes in later get more than me?

What I’m trying to say is, PW is meant for those with full or at least a decent amount of information on both decisions and a neutral or pro-decision amount of evidence in their opinion. It also relies on, from an emotional standpoint, the reward being infinite and there being some kind of negative for not accepting.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

1. Which Heracles? The Greek Demigod, the son of Alexander the Great, a small, unrecorded greek merchant who you somehow know everything about?
2. What are some common arguments or evidence in favor of your position (note they do not necessarily have to be sound, but that would be better)
3. What are some counters or evidence/arguments against your position?
4. What practises will I have to undertake if i choose to accept this?
5. How can this help or harm me, if at all, in the present world (besides gullibility, which is being discussed)
6. What other doctrines or dogmas, if any, must I accept for the reward?
7. What else is there to know about your afterlife?
8. Why or how do you have the authoritiy to give me $1 Billion in gold coins in the afterlife?

1 Any one would work for this exercise. For now I’ll say the Greek demigod, but if that can be disproven, I’ll move onto something else.
2 Pascal’s Wager.
3 The counters would be the exact same as when a Christian uses Pascal’s Wager.
4 None (you just need to believe)
5 Besides gullibility, it won’t effect you in this world in any way that I know of.
6 None beyond that belief (that I’m a descendant of Heracles) and belief that necessarily follow from that (such as there was a Heracles).
7 In it you’ll be as happy as you can possibly be (thus, it’s superior to other afterlifes).
8 Heracles allowed each of his descendants to offer $1 Billion in gold to a person if he/she chooses to believe that I’m his descendant.

As far as I can tell, according to your criteria, you’d still believe that I’m a descendant of Heracles:

Pieman333272;7659276:

Well, if there is no evidence against the claim, and accepting the claim can’t harm you but can

offer infinite reward, I would accept the claim, and probably also look harder for evidence.

If you believe that I’m a descendant of Heracles, I’ll give you a billion dollars worth of gold in the afterlife. This belief has no negative effects that I know of (except for the one I mention below), it has a huge potential reward, and you can’t disprove it in any way that I know of, so according to you, you would accept that belief.

If you can disprove this, I could just make up another thing for the sake of argument (such as I am a god-made man).

I hope this doesn’t come off the wrong way, but I think that believing something because of Pascal’s Wager is to engage in arbitrary, wishful thinking. To a certain degree, I can understand why a person would do it from time to time, but ultimately, it’s a very bad habit to believe things without evidence.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

tonyrey;7659497:

. . .]

Tonyrey, since our discussion has been both long and going nowhere, I’ll try to shorten my replies to bring focus to this discussion and try not to use too much of my time on this. I’ll ask you a question that seems to me to be the center of our discussion:

If there is not sufficient evidence presented for a belief, should a person believe it or not?

Also, if ten people believe it and one person doesn’t, who has the burden of proof?

These questions should be pretty easy to answer, Tonyrey.

 

[Pieman333272]

1 Any one would work for this exercise. For now I’ll say the Greek demigod, but if that can be disproven, I’ll move onto something else.
2 Pascal’s Wager.
3 The counters would be the exact same as when a Christian uses Pascal’s Wager.
4 None (you just need to believe)
5 Besides gullibility, it won’t effect you in this world in any way that I know of.
6 None beyond that belief (that I’m a descendant of Heracles) and belief that necessarily follow from that (such as there was a Heracles).
7 In it you’ll be as happy as you can possibly be (thus, it’s superior to other afterlifes).
8 Heracles allowed each of his descendants to offer $1 Billion in gold to a person if he/she chooses to believe that I’m his descendant.

1. Pascal’s wager isn’t an argument or piece of evidence in favor of the position. It’s a reason for accepting the position when the evidence is balanced or in favor of it.
2. And genetic evidence, be it discovered later.
3. So there is no benefit in this life - contra Christianity, which has been shown to have psychological/neurological advantage through prayer, just for one example.
4. Except the Christian one, which is also the ultimate joy and fulfillment.
5. Which inspires the next question: Why would we need gold in your afterlife?

As far as I can tell, according to your criteria, you’d still believe that I’m a descendant of Heracles:

Unless I didn’t want to. Christianity seems much better than this.

I hope this doesn’t come off the wrong way, but I think that believing something because of Pascal’s Wager is to engage in arbitrary, wishful thinking. To a certain degree, I can understand why a person would do it from time to time, but ultimately, it’s a very bad habit to believe things without evidence.

It doesn’t come off the wrong way at all. But the gist of the argument is, why not believe something when it does you no harm in this world, if not helps you, and promises an infinite reward as well, plus evasion of an infinitely negative punishment, when the evidence is neutral or in favor of that position? It could be said to be wishful thinking but PW also has a strong psychological backing - that is, if you believe just to avoid hell or because you want God to exist, eventually you will come to believe fully and sincerely.

Also, let me be clear that I do not believe only because of PW. I just happen to see it as a logical reason for belief.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

it’s a very bad habit to believe things without evidence.

I agree. Fortunately for Christians, this is not the case. It is also a very bad habit to not believe things with substantial evidence.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I hope this doesn’t come off the wrong way, but I think that believing something because of Pascal’s Wager is to engage in arbitrary, wishful thinking.

And Christianity is FAR away from wishful thinking. Catholicism is the only true Christianity and in it, there is even a possibility that believers go to Hell. And in order to get to Heaven, most of us will go through Purgatory. We must also refrain from certain things that are pleasurable. (Intercourse, foods at certain times, etc…: No need to go through them all).

This is hardly wishful thinking.

 

[tonyrey]

Tonyrey, since our discussion has been both long and going nowhere, I’ll try to shorten my replies to bring focus to this discussion and try not to use too much of my time on this. I’ll ask you a question that seems to me to be the center of our discussion:

It’s certainly going nowhere because you have failed to respond to the points I have made!

If there is not sufficient evidence presented for a belief, should a person believe it or not?

A person should keep an open mind and not dismiss it out of hand.

Also, if ten people believe it and one person doesn’t, who has the burden of proof?

All of them! If you have no beliefs you have no basis on which to reject beliefs!

 

[TruthSeeker60]

It’s certainly going nowhere because you have failed to respond to the points I have made!

Actually, each time I’ve given responses that were too thorough. Just about every time, you came back with the same stuff.

TruthSeeker60;7665338:

If there is not

sufficient evidence presented for a belief, should a person believe it or not?

A person should keep an open mind and not dismiss it out of hand.

You evaded answering the question.

I didn’t ask whether or not a person should be open to revising his views, I asked whether or not he should accept the claim without sufficient evidence. This is very elementary, Tonyrey.

Since you evaded answering it, I’ll ask you again. If there is not sufficient evidence presented for a belief, should a person:
A believe it
or
B not believe it?

If you think there’s an option C, please explain why options A and B are bad answers.

TruthSeeker60;7665338:

Also, if ten people believe it and one person doesn’t, who has the burden of proof?

All of them! If you have no beliefs you have no basis on which to reject beliefs!

WOW! So you think that those who don’t believe the claim that I have an invisible, intangible unicorn in my house have the burden of proof just as much as I do when I make that claim!

 

[grannymh]

I’m open to the possibility of a “non-material” or “spiritual” reality if, and only if, it manifests in some detectable way in this reality. So I’d like to hear what this second method is.

That is quite a condition you have put on being open to the possibility of a non-material or spiritual reality. Really, a possibility is rather non-threatening.
Ever hear the old saying that in order to enjoy live theatre, there has to be a willing suspension of disbelief? How about a simple suspension of disbelief?

Blessings,
granny

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7665370:

I’m open to the possibility of a “non-material” or “spiritual” reality if, and only if, it manifests in some detectable way in this reality. So I’d like to hear what this second method is.

That is quite a condition you have put on being open to the possibility of a non-material or spiritual reality.

How would one know if there is a “non-material” or “spiritual” reality if it does not manifest in some detectable way in this reality?

 

[honestquestions]

It is also a very bad habit to not believe things with substantial evidence.

When is it ever rational to not believe in things that are supported by substantial evidence?

Truthseeker60 has been very rational in this forum, and I think and hope his points came across.

 

[grannymh]

How would one know if there is a “non-material” or “spiritual” reality if it does not manifest in some detectable way in this reality?

One could imagine that non-material or spiritual reality exists – with no strings attached. Didn’t someone famous say that one has to be like a little child in order to know important things?

Maybe there have been too many threads hung up on the questions of how knowledge comes about. My philosophy survey course went from Descartes as the father to Communism his offspring. My hunch is that was the dissertation of the professor. I memorized enough to pass the course. Thereafter, I immediately dismissed all the philosophers who not only had trouble knowing if they existed but they couldn’t figure out if they were known in someone else’s imagination. That is an exaggeration but it makes my point.

Children don’t often muse at great length about how they know something. Well maybe that has changed since those fancy game devices they hold in their hands.
As a child without television, I never was bored. Even now I can stand 15 minutes waiting for a bus without being bored. I must look very odd without some computer thing attached to my palm.

Point is that it is possible to “learn” about something, like the spiritual, without making a commitment to accept it. Imagination is not only for kids. A mind should be free of restrictions.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[Charlemagne_II]

TruthSeeker

How would one know if there is a “non-material” or “spiritual” reality if it does not manifest in some detectable way in this reality?

By both imagination and intuition. As Pascal observed, there are mathematical principles that we cannot prove. We can only detect them by intuition/imagination. The same avenue may be followed to God. But God is not known truly as a mere intellectual construct such as Descartes proposed. He is known more as the God of “love and consolation.” If we do not intuit or imagine God that way, we have not truly connected with God either in our minds or in our hearts. As Pascal says: whereas you have to know people in order to love them, you have to love God in order to know Him.

And by the way, isn’t it true also that the more you love people, the better you get to know them?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7670977:

How would one know if there is a “non-material” or “spiritual” reality if it does not manifest in some detectable way in this reality?

One could imagine that non-material or spiritual reality exists – with no strings attached.

I guess this is where I differ with you because I see this as a bad way to determine whether or not something actually exists. Anything that could be thought of could be considered to exist with this criteria.

This is ignoring, for the moment, that I don’t know what an immaterial or “spiritual” thing would be.