P"r"aying the percentages

[Hee_Zen]

This is a different way of viewing Pascal’s wager. Consider the following prayer uttered by an atheist:

Dear God, I do not believe you exist, and as such I do not believe in the existence of heaven or hell. Just in case I am mistaken, please consider the following: I live my live according to the best principles as dictated by my conscience. I never committed an act contrary to those principles. If some of the acts I committed are against your principles, I apologize for them, but I committed them out of ignorance and not out of malice. Unfortunately you never communicated your criteria to me, so this is the best I can do. The same “disclaimer” applies to the future acts I will commit. Thank you for your consideration.

This prayer should let the atheist off the hook, provided that it is sincerely uttered. Any opinion?

 

[MPat]

This is a different way of viewing Pascal’s wager. Consider the following prayer uttered by an atheistear God, I do not believe you exist, and as such I do not believe in the existence of heaven or hell. Just in case I am mistaken, please consider the following: I live my live according to the best principles as dictated by my conscience. I never committed an act contrary to those principles. If some of the acts I committed are against your principles, I apologize for them, but I committed them out of ignorance and not out of malice. Unfortunately you never communicated your criteria to me, so this is the best I can do. The same “disclaimer” applies to the future acts I will commit. Thank you for your consideration. This prayer should let the atheist off the hook, provided that it is sincerely uttered. Any opinion?

Ah, but the problem is that it states things that are not true. For example:

I live my live according to the best principles as dictated by my conscience. I never committed an act contrary to those principles.

Really? Think about yourself. Have you never done anything contrary to your principles? Not even once? I find that pretty hard to believe…

And if the atheist in question did not really act with such complete perfection as he claims, everything falls apart.

And that is the point Catholics are making: everyone needs God’s mercy. Everyone.

Dear God, I do not believe you exist, and as such I do not believe in the existence of heaven or hell. Just in case I am mistaken,

So, does this atheist actually believe God does not exist? Or is that faith so weak that he has to take such precautions? If it is so weak, why doesn’t he try to investigate further to become more sure? That “prayer” does look like a way to avoid such duty. And that is not good.

 

[KidCatholic1]

This is a different way of viewing Pascal’s wager. Consider the following prayer uttered by an atheist:

Dear God, I do not believe you exist, and as such I do not believe in the existence of heaven or hell. Just in case I am mistaken, please consider the following: I live my live according to the best principles as dictated by my conscience. I never committed an act contrary to those principles. If some of the acts I committed are against your principles, I apologize for them, but I committed them out of ignorance and not out of malice. Unfortunately you never communicated your criteria to me, so this is the best I can do. The same “disclaimer” applies to the future acts I will commit. Thank you for your consideration.

This prayer should let the atheist off the hook, provided that it is sincerely uttered. Any opinion?

Just because you don’t believe in God or eternal life does NOT mean you are impervious to his law. If you know something is SINFUL, it is a sin if you do it regardless of whether you believe in Him or not. It is not simple ignorance if you know. Ignorance is the total absence of knowledge in something. None. Here’s a good link on invincible ignorance-
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1203
Also, perfect contrition is needed, according to the Catholic Church, for repentance without confession.
ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=370862

 

[seagal]

Unfortunately you never communicated your criteria to me, so this is the best I can do.

I would argue that God did communicate his criteria to everyone, but not everyone is willing to listen. The best the atheist can say is “I ignored the communication from you because I didn’t believe it actually came from you”.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Really? Think about yourself. Have you never done anything contrary to your principles? Not even once? I find that pretty hard to believe…

Why so? If I believe that something is “wrong”, I would be a total idiot to do it. Now I concede that certain things I do are incorrect in YOUR opinion, but that is not relevant. I live my life according MY principles.

Just because you don’t believe in God or eternal life does NOT mean you are impervious to his law. If you know something is SINFUL, it is a sin if you do it regardless of whether you believe in Him or not.

But I don’t accept the concept of “SIN”. There is no “sin” in my worldview. There are ethical (good) or unethical (bad) decisions. And if I consider a decision “bad”, I will not do it. So very simple. I don’t know what a “perfect contrition” might be. The prayer includes “please forgive me”.

I would argue that God did communicate his criteria to everyone, but not everyone is willing to listen. The best the atheist can say is “I ignored the communication from you because I didn’t believe it actually came from you”.

Since you have no evidence for your argument, it cannot be taken into consideration.

 

[MPat]

Why so? If I believe that something is “wrong”, I would be a total idiot to do it.

I will note that you do not actually say that, from your birth to the present, you have never violated the least of your principles…

Still, what are those principles? Do they, let’s say, include not being rude to anyone? Do they include telling the truth? Do they include finding out what that truth is?

Have you made a list? Or do you have a system that can logically lead to them?

Also, you have yet to demonstrate that “If I believe that something is “wrong”, I would be a total idiot to do it.”… Rationally showing why one should actually care about any principles is often a challenge to atheists… But that can wait - at the moment I would be more interested in finding out what those principles are…

Now I concede that certain things I do are incorrect in YOUR opinion, but that is not relevant. I live my life according MY principles.

Yes, I am pretty sure you violate your own principles. It is not hard to guess - everyone does that.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I would argue that God did communicate his criteria to everyone, but not everyone is willing to listen. The best the atheist can say is “I ignored the communication from you because I didn’t believe it actually came from you”.

That seems to be more of a problem of sender authentication than from an unwillingness to listen. There are many people that say things about God and these various messages are not compatible with each other. Resolving the authenticity of a communication is a problem that is addressed in different ways in different communities (financial, medical, b2b, so on).

If I am willing to take my Dr’s advice and I received several letters from people claiming to be my Dr assuming that one of them is really from my Dr the inability to identify the authentic one isn’t a form of unwillingness.

How would someone receiving a message that is said to be from God evaluate whether or not the message is really from God?

 

[seagal]

That seems to be more of a problem of sender authentication than from an unwillingness to listen. There are many people that say things about God and these various messages are not compatible with each other. Resolving the authenticity of a communication is a problem that is addressed in different ways in different communities (financial, medical, b2b, so on).

If I am willing to take my Dr’s advice and I received several letters from people claiming to be my Dr assuming that one of them is really from my Dr the inability to identify the authentic one isn’t a form of unwillingness.

How would someone receiving a message that is said to be from God evaluate whether or not the message is really from God?

In your prayer you said God never communicated with you. That’s a lot different from receiving a bunch of messages and not being sure which was the one you were waiting for. I bet if you were waiting for an important communication from your doctor and you got a bunch whose origins were uncertain, you would do your utmost to find out which one was the right one.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

In your prayer you said God never communicated with you.

Since “your” said “your” instead of “the” I just want to make sure that I am not confused for the author of message #1. Not that it matters much for our interaction.

That’s a lot different from receiving a bunch of messages and not being sure which was the one you were waiting for.

Right, it’s not a total lack of communication. It’s just not communicating through what might be considered a reliable channel. And this is a real world problem; phishing efforts rely on this method too. The above prayer might be amended to say “You didn’t communicate with me through any form that I could recognize as coming from you.” I’m making the assumption that God can establish a communication method that is reliable, secure, and recognizable. Otherwise the signal is getting lost in the noise.

I bet if you were waiting for an important communication from your doctor and you got a bunch whose origins were uncertain, you would do your utmost to find out which one was the right one.

In such a case I might not be able to determine the validity of any of the e-mails without the assistance of the Dr. Thankfully with my Dr. I have other communication channels that would be more difficult for some one to spoof, such as driving to his office and communicating with him face to face. It’s possible that none of the messages were from him. In the absence of other forms of communication the authentication of the message becomes difficult.

Just to keep things simple, assuming that I get a message through one person and that person makes the claim that this message was communicated to her by a being that I am unable sense. How do I test the truth value of her message? People approaching me with messages attributed to God isn’t unusual; they are usually knocking at the front door with these messages. One told me that God wants me to switch phone/cable providers. Another told me that Jesus is actually the archangel Michael in human form. Or another claim the I remember from my childhood while my family was in the front yard:

A neighbor came over and ran into our house and locked all the doors. Then she threaded back and forth on the upper level of the house speaking in tongues being completely unresponsive to knocks at the door and verbal request to let us back in. My father summoned her husband and a ladder and they got in through a second story window and removed her from the house. She said that there was a demon living in the house and that God had told her to drive it out.

How can I know whether or not there were really demons in the house and that God sent her to evict them. All of these people claimed to be speaking for God.

Is there some method of supernatural epistemology that can be used for validating the claims of others or even discovering some of these claims on my own?

 

[Hee_Zen]

I will note that you do not actually say that, from your birth to the present, you have never violated the least of your principles…

Well, I say it now. Once I was old enough to discern what is the correct behavior, I did not act against it - obviously.

Still, what are those principles? Do they, let’s say, include not being rude to anyone? Do they include telling the truth? Do they include finding out what that truth is?

Irrelevant in this discussion (it might be fine to explore in a different one). I simply assert that I live my life according to my principles, according to my conscience. If my principles are not in accordance with God’s requirements, then I ask for forgiveness, and point out that since God never revealed his requirements, I have to rely on my best guess. If my guess is incorrect, God is welcome to correct me. But as long as he does not, he tacitly accepts my line of action and thus I am sure that my actions are acceptable to him.

Yes, I am pretty sure you violate your own principles. It is not hard to guess - everyone does that.

That is your prerogative. I am not interested what you are sure about.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

This is a different way of viewing Pascal’s wager. Consider the following prayer uttered by an atheist:

Dear God, I do not believe you exist, and as such I do not believe in the existence of heaven or hell. Just in case I am mistaken, please consider the following: I live my live according to the best principles as dictated by my conscience. I never committed an act contrary to those principles. If some of the acts I committed are against your principles, I apologize for them, but I committed them out of ignorance and not out of malice. Unfortunately you never communicated your criteria to me, so this is the best I can do. The same “disclaimer” applies to the future acts I will commit. Thank you for your consideration.

This prayer should let the atheist off the hook, provided that it is sincerely uttered. Any opinion?

Why are you praying to a god you do not believe exists? This is lame from beginning to end. Take a stand man. Believe or don’t believe, but don’t go along waffling in the middle!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Why are you praying to a god you do not believe exists? This is lame from beginning to end. Take a stand man. Believe or don’t believe, but don’t go along waffling in the middle!

I have heard other Catholics here liken the exercise to calling out in a dark cave to see if any one is there. Before calling out a person may not be convinced any one is listening or not listening. After calling out the person may become convinced one way or another based on the response.

A person can choose to act as though convinced our not convinced. But arbitrarily choosing to be convinced is another matter (and one I find curiously fascinating).

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from a mobile device.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Why are you praying to a god you do not believe exists? This is lame from beginning to end. Take a stand man. Believe or don’t believe, but don’t go along waffling in the middle!

Because I am aware that I might be mistaken and I wish to hedge my bets. As I said, this is just a modified version of Pascal’s wager. Nothing wrong with that. And I am curious about your (in general) reaction to it. Why don’t you give an actual analysis?

 

[MPat]

Well, I say it now. Once I was old enough to discern what is the correct behavior, I did not act against it - obviously.

Unfortunately, the “prayer” you wrote does not say anything about being “old enough to discern what is the correct behavior”. It claims complete perfection.

Of course you can change it accordingly, if you wish.

Irrelevant in this discussion (it might be fine to explore in a different one). I simply assert that I live my life according to my principles, according to my conscience. If my principles are not in accordance with God’s requirements, then I ask for forgiveness, and point out that since God never revealed his requirements, I have to rely on my best guess. If my guess is incorrect, God is welcome to correct me. But as long as he does not, he tacitly accepts my line of action and thus I am sure that my actions are acceptable to him.

Ah, but it does matter if the assertion is actually true.

If it is wrong, then the wager works out pretty badly. If God exists, you end up lying to Him (and He will know that). And if He doesn’t exist, you “just” end up doing something stupid. It is no Pascal’s Wager - I can’t see any gain here…

Are you going to claim that the actual principles do not matter in finding out if assertion that you have perfectly followed them (and your conscience) is true?

 

[seagal]

Since “your” said “your” instead of “the” I just want to make sure that I am not confused for the author of message #1. Not that it matters much for our interaction.

I said “your” in sense that you posted it, for what it’s worth.

The above prayer might be amended to say “You didn’t communicate with me through any form that I could recognize as coming from you.” I’m making the assumption that God can establish a communication method that is reliable, secure, and recognizable. Otherwise the signal is getting lost in the noise.

He communicates to you in the same way he communicates to everyone. Some hear him, others don’t, but all get the same message.

People approaching me with messages attributed to God isn’t unusual; they are usually knocking at the front door with these messages. One told me that God wants me to switch phone/cable providers. Another told me that Jesus is actually the archangel Michael in human form. Or another claim the I remember from my childhood while my family was in the front yard:
How can I know whether or not there were really demons in the house and that God sent her to evict them. All of these people claimed to be speaking for God.

Is there some method of supernatural epistemology that can be used for validating the claims of others or even discovering some of these claims on my own?

Did these people seem at all credible to you? I have no way of knowing if they were actually messengers from God, but if you thought there might be a chance it was real you could have looked into it further. Sounds like you discounted them immediately on the basis of your preconceived belief that they could not possibly be true.

 

[inocente]

This is a different way of viewing Pascal’s wager. Consider the following prayer uttered by an atheist:

Dear God, I do not believe you exist, and as such I do not believe in the existence of heaven or hell. Just in case I am mistaken, please consider the following: I live my live according to the best principles as dictated by my conscience. I never committed an act contrary to those principles. If some of the acts I committed are against your principles, I apologize for them, but I committed them out of ignorance and not out of malice. Unfortunately you never communicated your criteria to me, so this is the best I can do. The same “disclaimer” applies to the future acts I will commit. Thank you for your consideration.

This prayer should let the atheist off the hook, provided that it is sincerely uttered. Any opinion?

The prayer is defective - it doesn’t say which god it is aimed at.

To correct this, the atheist should say the prayer to every deity and pantheon of deities which anyone ever imagined, including the spaghetti monster just to be sure.

Except this would backfire badly, as some deities apparently get upset even at the mention of another deity. The atheist should therefore rank all deities in order of potential punishment (there’s obviously no point praying to deities which only give bountiful rewards).

Then for each deity he doesn’t believe in, the atheist should weigh up whether praying will anger another deity he doesn’t believe in, and therefore whether praying will do more harm than good.

However, at this point the laws of physics all by themselves come to the rescue, and decide the atheist is such a looser that he is instantly turned into a pillar of salt.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Unfortunately, the “prayer” you wrote does not say anything about being “old enough to discern what is the correct behavior”. It claims complete perfection.

Why is that an issue? Young children, who do not know what is the “correct behavior” are a different case. It is called “invincible ignorance”.

If it is wrong, then the wager works out pretty badly. If God exists, you end up lying to Him (and He will know that). And if He doesn’t exist, you “just” end up doing something stupid. It is no Pascal’s Wager - I can’t see any gain here…

Would you point out where the lie is? Of course Pascal’s wager is nonsense, but many believers accept it. If God does not exist, then all your worshipping rituals are “stupid”, but that does not prevent you from performing them. A one minute useless prayer is not a big deal compared to a whole life wasted on meaningless rituals.

Are you going to claim that the actual principles do not matter in finding out if assertion that you have perfectly followed them (and your conscience) is true?

As long as they are honestly held beliefs, acting on them is not malicious. It may be seriously misguided, of course. But one of the “legs” for committing a “mortal sin” is to know that the act committed is “gravely wrong”. That is the reason that people with serious mental defects are treated differently, they are not punished by jail-time. So I still don’t know why do you insist on finding out what my principles are. As I said, they are not “secret”, they simply do not belong to this thread.

 

[Hee_Zen]

The prayer is defective - it doesn’t say which god it is aimed at.

It is generally accepted custom that capitalizing the word “god” refers to the God of Christianity - to differentiate it from the plethora of other “gods” invented by humans. So taking this into account do you still see a problem with it? (Of course I agree that Pascal’s wager is nonsense - but many people accept it as a valid argument. I directed this thread toward them)

 

[ThinkingSapien]

He communicates to you in the same way he communicates to everyone. Some hear him, others don’t, but all get the same message.

This may only be a semantic difference, but if I am communicating something verbally and the other person is not able to hear and understand message (which can happen because of other noise in the environment, the acoustics of the environment, the person being deaf, differences in language/dialect so on) then I wouldn’t say the person got the message. It would be a failed attempt at communication. Perhaps everyone was sent a message, but not every one received it.

Did these people seem at all credible to you?

Credible as in convincing to me? No, if they were then I would be saying I believed them instead of saying I can’t evaluate if what they said is true or false.
Credible as in capable of persuading people? Perhaps they are capable of persuading others.

I have no way of knowing if they were actually messengers from God

Nor do I. And that’s part of the problem that I mentioned of authenticating messages in the e-mail example. If I did know which if any were messengers from God then the problem of a reliable and trusted communications channel might be resolved.

but if you thought there might be a chance it was real you could have looked into it further.

I can collect information on what the person believes to be true, but for much of it I can’t evaluate whether or not it is true or false. How can I know whether or not there were demons in my home or know that there are demons in someone else’s home?

“Is there some method of supernatural epistemology that can be used for validating the claims of others or even discovering some of these claims on my own?”

Sounds like you discounted them immediately on the basis of your preconceived belief that they could not possibly be true.

What did I say that gave that impression? I don’t know that what they are saying can’t possibly be true.

By the request of one of the people allowed him to stop by my house once a week for about six months for further discussion. We stopped at six months because I switched jobs and no longer had availability. I learned a lot about his denomination in that time.

As for the lady that claims that she had evicted the demons that were living in our house, she lived next door to us for 20 years before she passed away. Her daughter went to school with me. There were many more interactions with her, I’ve only mentioned one.

I spoke with the sales person until it was time for me to go to class. By that time he had progressed to saying if I didn’t switch service providers then I hated Jesus and supported slavery.

These are not my only interactions like this. I’ve had others not all of which were coming from people promoting forms of Christianity (but I’ve chosen not to share the non-Christian ones here).

 

[Hee_Zen]

“Is there some method of supernatural epistemology that can be used for validating the claims of others or even discovering some of these claims on my own?”

You placed your finger on the crux of the problem. I kept asking this question for many years, without getting an answer. Though I am afraid it does not belong to this thread, so I will not comment on it any further.