P"r"aying the percentages

[inocente]

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)

The atheist prayer is redundant with the Christian God. As the Pope says, the atheist is redeemed by actions not words, so the prayer is pointless. If the atheist disagrees with the Pope on the basis that eternal life is only available to those who first accept Christ, then the prayer is again pointless as he hasn’t. Either way it definitely cuts no ice with the Christian God.

Anyway, why is the atheist praying to the Christian God in particular? Is he less certain of his disbelief in God than his disbelief in Thor due to peer pressure or something?

(And yes, this all ridicules Pascal’s wager nicely ).

 

[CHRISTINE77]

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?

I’m sorry, but you don’t seem sincere in that prayer. For one thing, to really understand God’s mercy you have to be truly remorseful for acts you have committed that you now realize were wrong. Also, you need to have that invisible component called faith.

It seems almost impossible to explain this to a skeptic and materialist such as yourself. In some ways I think you will need to take a great fall and then realize how much you are alone and in need of God before you can possibly understand it.

 

[MPat]

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”.

Sure. But: 1) that applies without a “prayer” anyway, and 2) it is not what the “prayer” said.

Let’s look again:

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

“Never”. No qualification! You do not say that you have never committed a “mortal sin according to Hee_Zen” - there is no mention of “grave matter”, “full knowledge” or “full consent”. No, you end up claiming that, during all your life, you have never done anything that is against your principles. No moments of weakness, no badly thought out decisions, no absent-mindedness.

By the way, look at the “The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector” (Luke 18:9-14). You might note that claiming such complete righteousness is not a guaranteed way to achieve God’s favour…

Now, since you indicate that you do not really want to claim that, I think you should reword the “prayer” to make it say what you intend and not something else.

Would you point out where the lie is?

The claim that I have cited a couple of paragraphs above.

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.

I don’t think you understand. Of course, Pascal’s Wager is not nonsense (note the lack of argument to the contrary). It indicates that one strategy can achieve great gain given the right conditions. Your wager gives certain loss under all conditions. Yes, the loss is not great if God does not exist. But it is still a loss.

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.

Because I wonder if those principles are not violated for the reason of being extremely limited.

 

[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?

Attempting to “bargain” with God is never a good idea. However, I’ve heard that Satan is very amenable to it.

 

[KidCatholic1]

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 will give you an analogy: you do not believe in China. Therefore China can never have an effect on your life. Just because you do not accept it does not mean it isn’t there, or you are impervious to it. Perfect contrition is where one, usually Christian, but need not be, out of genuine love and sorrow for/to God, repents. They do not seek repentance to save themselves from Hell, or to make a good impression on others. That is imperfect contrition. Perfect contrition is not a really good term IMO since imperfect contrition can still exist (to a small extent) in perfect contrition. It is a matter of intent, really.

 

[Hee_Zen]

I’m sorry, but you don’t seem sincere in that prayer. For one thing, to really understand God’s mercy you have to be truly remorseful for acts you have committed that you now realize were wrong.

First, I do not appeal to mercy, I appeal to justice. Second, I do not realize that I did anything wrong - according to my conscious, which is the only guideline I have.

Also, you need to have that invisible component called faith.

So one without “faith” is doomed automatically? Is this the “new” line the church is teaching these days?

It seems almost impossible to explain this to a skeptic and materialist such as yourself. In some ways I think you will need to take a great fall and then realize how much you are alone and in need of God before you can possibly understand it.

I recall the sign on my cube wall (I placed it there) which said: “The beatings will continue until the morale improves”. Do you see why your saying reminded me of it?

 

[Hee_Zen]

“Never”. No qualification! You do not say that you have never committed a “mortal sin according to Hee_Zen” - there is no mention of “grave matter”, “full knowledge” or “full consent”. No, you end up claiming that, during all your life, you have never done anything that is against your principles. No moments of weakness, no badly thought out decisions, no absent-mindedness.

Now you will probably say that I changed the “prayer”, when I insert the words “knowingly and deliberately”. But these are included by default. If one makes an error out of ignorance or by making a mistake, these do not count as “knowingly and deliberately”.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

First, I do not appeal to mercy, I appeal to justice. Second, I do not realize that I did anything wrong - according to my conscious, which is the only guideline I have.

So one without “faith” is doomed automatically? Is this the “new” line the church is teaching these days?

I recall the sign on my cube wall (I placed it there) which said: “The beatings will continue until the morale improves”. Do you see why your saying reminded me of it?

no

 

[Gorgias]

This is a different way of viewing Pascal’s wager.

It’s still an erroneous understanding of what Pascal’s wager is all about. It’s not just about “playing the odds”, it’s about truly wanting faith, and turning toward it, in the hopes of becoming a believer.

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

Your ‘prayer’ was interesting up until this point, but here, it goes south. You’ve gone from ‘prayer’ to ‘truth claim’. “You never communicated your criteria to me” is a claim that’s either true or false. (Your notion about not having recognized it as such is a different claim, with different implications.) So, if your claim is false, then the ‘prayer’ falls apart in terms of what it accomplishes.

The same “disclaimer” applies to the future acts I will commit.

Again, this is an unwarranted assertion; it presumes both that God will have not communicated to you in the future and that you will have not recognized such communication. Can’t be asserted, as such.

This prayer should let the atheist off the hook

That’s not the point of Pascal’s wager.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Pascal’s wager wasn’t really about getting in to heaven or hell. It was really about the importance of being near to God.

"We only have two things to stake, our “reason” and our “happiness”.

Pascal considered that if there is “equal risk of loss and gain” (i.e. a coin toss), then human reason is powerless to address the question of whether God exists. That being the case, then human reason can only decide the question according to possible resulting happiness of the decision, weighing the gain and loss in believing that God exists and likewise in believing that God does not exist.

If you want to live your life without the possibility of a loving God, that is your prerogative. If your materialist arguments that God does not exist satisfy your “reason” for life, so be it. I am sorry for you.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavour then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness.

—Blaise Pascal, Pensées Section III note 233, Translation by W. F. Trotter

 

[Hee_Zen]

It’s still an erroneous understanding of what Pascal’s wager is all about. It’s not just about “playing the odds”, it’s about truly wanting faith, and turning toward it, in the hopes of becoming a believer.

You mean something like a self-hypnosis?

Your ‘prayer’ was interesting up until this point, but here, it goes south. You’ve gone from ‘prayer’ to ‘truth claim’. “You never communicated your criteria to me” is a claim that’s either true or false. (Your notion about not having recognized it as such is a different claim, with different implications.) So, if your claim is false, then the ‘prayer’ falls apart in terms of what it accomplishes.

Again, I did not include the obvious words: “You never communicated your criteria to me in any way or fashion that I could recognize as communication coming from you”. But any communication which cannot be recognized as such is actually “no communication”. I recall a sign in a bookstore: “Those who do not read are not better off than those who cannot read”. I hope you see the point; “a communication which is not recognized as such **by the recipient **of that communication is not better than no communication”.

 

[KidCatholic1]

You mean something like a self-hypnosis?

Again, I did not include the obvious words: “You never communicated your criteria to me in any way or fashion that I could recognize as communication coming from you”. But any communication which cannot be recognized as such is actually “no communication”. I recall a sign in a bookstore: “Those who do not read are not better off than those who cannot read”. I hope you see the point; “a communication which is not recognized as such **by the recipient **of that communication is not better than no communication”.

Blurred communication to the recipient is still communication in a sense. Sometimes, it may SEEM blurry to you. That doesn’t mean it is.

 

[MPat]

Now you will probably say that I changed the “prayer”, when I insert the words “knowingly and deliberately”.

Sure. But that change is a good thing (actually, it would be even better if you would write down the new version). After all, I did ask you to do so.

By the way, is the lack of anything in your new formulation that corresponds to “grave matter” deliberate?

But these are included by default.

And how are we supposed to know that you intended to have them included?

Please, try to write precisely. It’s OK to fail the first, second, third time. Just try to rewrite the same thing more and more precisely.

If one makes an error out of ignorance or by making a mistake, these do not count as “knowingly and deliberately”.

Yes, that is better. Now the claim is less obviously wrong.

Anyway, if you do not want to discuss your (or “your”, if we talk about some imaginary atheist) principles as such in here, can you at least demonstrate that such “prayer” is not, in fact, incompatible with them?

If you do not find that plausible, consider this. As you probably know, some atheists try to object to Pascal’s Wager by claiming that it would be immoral to act as if one believed without the actual belief. Now it is irrelevant if that is truly moral or not, but “their principles” might include something that is incompatible with such actions. So, can you demonstrate that it is not the case here?

For otherwise this contradiction would obviously make the claim in the “prayer” a lie. And everything else would follow.

 

[Gorgias]

You mean something like a self-hypnosis?

No. Self-hypnosis smacks of deception. This is more like ‘practice’ or ‘training’ – Pascal advises the non-believer who wishes to believe to ‘do’ the things that believers ‘do’, and thereby, come to a belief.

Again, I did not include the obvious words: “You never communicated your criteria to me in any way or fashion that I could recognize as communication coming from you”.

Immaterial, I would assert. A person’s failure to recognize God’s attempt at communication – whether due to obstinacy or some other reason – does not demonstrate that God didn’t (and doesn’t continue to) attempt communication. Nor does it absolve a person from attempting (or continuing to attempt) to recognize God’s attempts to reach him.

But any communication which cannot be recognized as such is actually “no communication”.

No – it’s “failed communication.” Your characterization of the situation is interesting, as it seems geared to attenuate the guilt of the non-believer.

I recall a sign in a bookstore: “Those who do not read are not better off than those who cannot read”.

Baloney. Those who can read, but do not, are still capable of picking up a book and learning; those who can not read, on the other hand, are only capable of picking up a book and using it as kindling. In this context, we are all capable of reading God’s communication to us; those who claim illiteracy are making a false claim about God.

I hope you see the point; “a communication which is not recognized as such **by the recipient **of that communication is not better than no communication”.

I see the point you’re trying to make; it’s invalid, however. It might make you feel better, if you haven’t recognized God’s attempts at communication; but, in the end, it’s still just an exercise in self-deception.

 

[inocente]

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)

The atheist prayer is redundant with the Christian God. As the Pope says, the atheist is redeemed by actions not words, so the prayer is pointless. If the atheist disagrees with the Pope on the basis that eternal life is only available to those who first accept Christ, then the prayer is again pointless as he hasn’t. Either way it definitely cuts no ice with the Christian God.

Anyway, why is the atheist praying to the Christian God in particular? Is he less certain of his disbelief in God than his disbelief in Thor due to peer pressure or something?

 

[Bob_Crowley]

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?

There was a rich young man who made a similar point, and Christ told him to give up all he had, and follow Him.

He wasn’t prepared to do it, and as he walked away downcast, Christ commented, “… it is harder for a rich man to get into heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle…”

So I think Christ’s reponse to the atheist would be “Then give up your atheism and follow Me”.

If the atheist wasn’t prepared to do so, and walked away, I suspect Christ’s response would be “… it is harder for an atheist to get into heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle…”

We can’t justify ourselves before God. He won’t tolerate us putting ourselves in the position of Judge.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Blurred communication to the recipient is still communication in a sense. Sometimes, it may SEEM blurry to you. That doesn’t mean it is.

Yes it does. If the recipient cannot figure out the “message”, then it was the error of the sender, who made it incomprehensible. In every case of communication there are three factors: the sender, the receiver and the message. First, the receiver needs to recognize that a message was sent - that the message is different from the background noise. Second, the receiver needs to be able to comprehend the message. If either one is missing, then there is no “message” to speak of. And it is always the responsibility of the sender to communicate on the level the receiver understands.

And how are we supposed to know that you intended to have them included?

Elementary, my dear Watson. If you try to play God’s part in this conversation, you should be “smart” enough to read deeper. If one commits an act out of ignorance or misunderstanding it is not “reprehensible”. You keep overlooking the word I included: “honestly”. Now you can either accept that my words are honest, or you can call me a deliberate liar. Your choice.

As you probably know, some atheists try to object to Pascal’s Wager by claiming that it would be immoral to act as if one believed without the actual belief.

I am not “some” atheist. The wager is not immoral, it is incorrect. And I did not assert that the prayer is an exact equivalent of the “wager”, I said it is somewhat similar. Both attempt to “hedge the bets”.

Immaterial, I would assert. A person’s failure to recognize God’s attempt at communication – whether due to obstinacy or some other reason – does not demonstrate that God didn’t (and doesn’t continue to) attempt communication. Nor does it absolve a person from attempting (or continuing to attempt) to recognize God’s attempts to reach him.

I answered this above in my reply to Kidcatholic1 - printed in red. Please read it there.

No – it’s “failed communication.” Your characterization of the situation is interesting, as it seems geared to attenuate the guilt of the non-believer.

As long as it is honest, there is no guilt involved. Your only excuse is to declare me (or the one who utters that prayer) dishonest and a liar.

Baloney. Those who can read, but do not, are still capable of picking up a book and learning; those who can not read, on the other hand, are only capable of picking up a book and using it as kindling.

Or learn to read. The point is that the information contained in the book does not get through to either one of them. So they are in the same position. Just like with “no communication” or “garbled, incomprehensible communication”. I am constantly amazed to see these half-baked “responses” just to reject something obvious. Sure looks like that whatever an atheist says must be unacceptable.

In this context, we are all capable of reading God’s communication to us; those who claim illiteracy are making a false claim about God.

What a bold claim! Show me that “communication”. Where are the “words” of God, which even an atheist can recognize as such?

I see the point you’re trying to make; it’s invalid, however. It might make you feel better, if you haven’t recognized God’s attempts at communication; but, in the end, it’s still just an exercise in self-deception.

Yes, the usual attempt to blame the atheist for the lack of communication from God. When an atheist complains that he prayed for something and nothing happened, the usual set of replies are: “You did not wait long enough”, or the answer is “sometimes” a “no”, and finally: “who are you, you despicable piece of dirt to demand that God should jump when you ask it”? “How dare the pot blame the potter?” It is always our fault - according to you and your brethren. And then you are surprised that you are not taken seriously.

As the Pope says, the atheist is redeemed by actions not words, so the prayer is pointless.

Now, that is new to me. I was told innumerable times that one cannot be “saved” by deeds alone. No matter how “correctly” the atheist behaves, without “faith” it amounts to nothing. If the pope spoke ex-cathedra, then it would mean a huge difference. Did he? But anyhow, this pope is a decent fellow, worthy of respect.

Either way it definitely cuts no ice with the Christian God.

Do you really speak for God?

Anyway, why is the atheist praying to the Christian God in particular? Is he less certain of his disbelief in God than his disbelief in Thor due to peer pressure or something?

Because none of the other “gods” offer eternal happiness for “toeing the line” and threaten with eternal damnation for dissent. And because this is a catholic board.

So I think Christ’s reponse to the atheist would be “Then give up your atheism and follow Me”.

Let’s wait until God starts to communicate with me in a clear and unambiguous manner, and then we shall see what my answer will be.

We can’t justify ourselves before God. He won’t tolerate us putting ourselves in the position of Judge.

Another one who claims to speak for God! Amazing how many claim to have a direct knowledge of what God would and would not do! What makes it a tad suspicious is that God always “agrees” with views of the claimant. How interesting.

 

[Bahman]

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”.

How you could be sure when there exist Satan.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes it does. If the recipient cannot figure out the “message”, then it was the error of the sender, who made it incomprehensible. In every case of communication there are three factors: the sender, the receiver and the message. First, the receiver needs to recognize that a message was sent - that the message is different from the background noise. Second, the receiver needs to be able to comprehend the message. If either one is missing, then there is no “message” to speak of. And it is always the responsibility of the sender to communicate on the level the receiver understands.

Your response here is interesting. First, you place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the sender. How can you arbitrarily make that claim? If the receiver fails to distinguish the message from background noise – perhaps through a mistaken notion of the threshold at which ‘noise’ ends and ‘message’ begins – how can you blame the sender? If the sender fails to comprehend the message (which implicitly affirms that he’s received a message that he distinguished from background noise, by the way!), but others who received the same message comprehended it – how can you blame the sender? If the sender attempts to communicate on a level the receiver understands, but the receiver does not grok the message – how can you (unilaterally) blame the sender?

In addition, we’re both pointing at the same thing, and calling it by different names. I think your assertion is the weaker: a message that is not received, or not understood, is not a “non-message”; it is a message, but one in which the communication has failed.

As long as it is honest, there is no guilt involved. Your only excuse is to declare me (or the one who utters that prayer) dishonest and a liar.

Huh? Where’d that come from? You seem awful eager to depict believers as characterizing non-believers as ‘dishonest liars’. That’s quite the chip you’ve got on your shoulder…

Or learn to read. The point is that the information contained in the book does not get through to either one of them. So they are in the same position. Just like with “no communication” or “garbled, incomprehensible communication”. I am constantly amazed to see these half-baked “responses” just to reject something obvious. Sure looks like that whatever an atheist says must be unacceptable.

Nah; you’ve said some interesting things around here. This isn’t one of them, though.

The unwilling reader and the illiterate are not “in the same position.” I’ll grant you that they both failed to soak in today’s headlines; but, tomorrow, when the newspaper arrives, the unwilling reader has the opportunity to read and understand; the illiterate does not. They are not in the same position, although they are both lacking in possession of the same knowledge that passed them both by.

I am constantly amazed to see half-baked responses that reject something obvious: an empty glass is not the same as a non-glass. The glass retains its potential to receive – a potential that a ‘non-glass’ does not. You cannot make the claim of being a non-glass, since you exist and have the capacity to receive…

What a bold claim! Show me that “communication”. Where are the “words” of God, which even an atheist can recognize as such?

Oh, they’re there… you just choose not to accept them, to consider them ‘background noise’: the obvious example, of course, is Scripture. Notice how you frame up your question, though: your measure is the ‘recognition’ on the part of the receiver. You seem to wish to place the blame for lack of communication on the sender, but you concede that the success or failure of the communication hinges on the willingness of the receiver to ‘recognize’ the message…

Yes, the usual attempt to blame the atheist for the lack of communication from God.

LOL! Given what you wrote, above, I could equally say the same about you, couldn’t I? “Yes, the usual attempt to blame God for the lack of communication with the atheist”…!

When an atheist complains that he prayed for something and nothing happened, the usual set of replies are: “You did not wait long enough”, or the answer is “sometimes” a “no”, and finally: “who are you, you despicable piece of dirt to demand that God should jump when you ask it”? “How dare the pot blame the potter?” It is always our fault - according to you and your brethren. And then you are surprised that you are not taken seriously.

Have I said any such thing? Have I called you a despicable piece of dirt? It is not that it is “always your fault” (although I note with interest that your claims assert that it is never your fault, but “always the sender’s fault”). Do you always make sweeping generalizations and prejudge members of particular groups? (And then you are surprised that you are not taken seriously… )