Pascal's Wager Argument

[Mystic_Banana]

No, and we’re better off just looking at some content on this – an apologetic, my crtique, your critique of my critique, etc., rather than getting bogged down in all the expectations. We haven’t interacted much previously, and I don’t expect you to have any particular way to know or gauge that, and on my end, I’m just saying this is not a matter of not being familiar with the apology. The merit of that will be best determined by looking at an example, rather than us getting wrapped around the axle of who-expected-what or whose-more-clairvoyant.

So, I’ll work up a starter thread post, and you can proceed from there.

-TS

Just to get this clear, in case this thread now grounds to a halt - you haven’t got an effective alternative to theistically justified purpose, but you are are going for atheism on the basis that you purport to have sufficient reason to believe that the basis of theism is definitely invalid? I guess I’ll try and follow your proceeding thread…

 

[Touchstone]

Just to get this clear, in case this thread now grounds to a halt - you haven’t got an effective alternative to theistically justified purpose, but you are are going for atheism on the basis that you purport to have sufficient reason to believe that the basis of theism is definitely invalid? I guess I’ll try and follow your proceeding thread…

Not trying to do anything to halt this thread – we’re just clearly way off topic at this point, and need to split it out if the thread is going to continue in even roughly the same vein as it was in.

I don’t know what you mean by “definitely invalid”. Christianity is problematic in my view on many key points because it doesn’t even provide the basis for being tested and found “invalid”. It doesn’t stick its neck out far enough intellectually to be classified as invalid.

As best I can tell, one can’t get to theism to reasoning itself. PR Merger calls the other part “supra-rational”, and I’m not picky about what it’s called, the “non-reasoning” part, but the only way theism gets arrived at is through an infusion of a lot that “other stuff”, above and beyond what superstitions are minimally necessary to engage in investigation in the first place (reality is real, for example).

In reading what you wrote, I doesn’t seem that the post I am just beginning for the new thread is going to address your objections, because it’s focused elsewhere, but by all means, weigh in as you think appropriate.

-TS

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Not trying to do anything to halt this thread – we’re just clearly way off topic at this point, and need to split it out if the thread is going to continue in even roughly the same vein as it was in.

OK…

I don’t know what you mean by “definitely invalid”. Christianity is problematic in my view on many key points because it doesn’t even provide the basis for being tested and found “invalid”. It doesn’t stick its neck out far enough intellectually to be classified as invalid.

As best I can tell, one can’t get to theism to reasoning itself. PR Merger calls the other part “supra-rational”, and I’m not picky about what it’s called, the “non-reasoning” part, but the only way theism gets arrived at is through an infusion of a lot that “other stuff”, above and beyond what superstitions are minimally necessary to engage in investigation in the first place (reality is real, for example).

In reading what you wrote, I doesn’t seem that the post I am just beginning for the new thread is going to address your objections, because it’s focused elsewhere, but by all means, weigh in as you think appropriate.

-TS

Christianity appears to be examinable by logic. Whether we have the logical capacity to contemplate all the issues to the fullest extent is a more reasonable issue as far as I’m concerned.

Are you referring to testing on a scientific level? If you are, then I think that, to be blunt, you’re not sticking your neck out far enough intellectually. The scientific method is barely sufficient for examining the physical world, or at least our ability to apply it is. If God, angels, heaven etc. are anything like they are percieved to be, then the scientific would be an entirely innappropriate method, or at very least entirely beyond our current ability to apply effectively, in examining them.

I’d say

 

[PRmerger]

The scientific method is barely sufficient for examining the physical world, or at least our ability to apply it is. If God, angels, heaven etc. are anything like they are percieved to be, then the scientific would be an entirely innappropriate method, or at very least entirely beyond our current ability to apply effectively, in examining them.

I’d say

'zactly.

It’s like saying, “You must use the Pythagorean theorem in evaluating Shakespeare’s ideological transitions as it pertains to a Whig-Marxist interpolation of the demise of capitalism.”

Who says we have to use math in defining Shakespeare’s ideological transitions?

 

[hecd2]

I think the terms “belief” and “knowledge” are mutually exclusive. In other words, you can’t believe in something you know, and vice versa. Where the ancients thought various things about stars, they had both. They knew such and such about them, because they could see them and track their movement. They believed other things, however, concerning mythology, prophecy, etc.

I can see why you say this but I was using “belief” as shorthand for acceptance of a proposition whether based on evidence or faith. I know that’s a bit sloppy, but think you might have been doing the same when you wrote ‘“Complete ignorance” may as well equate to “unbelief,” don’t you think?’ But in any case, I think my point stands, and is illustrated and shored up by what you say below: Pascal’s wager entails a much more specified proposition than merely “God exists”. For its terms to be intelligible the proposition has to be “the Christian God exists and will treat belief and unbelief in these particular ways”. But then there are a multiplicity of other particular propositions and no reason to choose one over the other within the terms of the wager. The only way you can make that choice is to bring in considerations external to the wager - in other words to come to it with some preconceived notion of what sort of God you are willing to accept, on grounds that are not accessible to the true agnostic.

I personally see no reason to bet in a God that is a cosmic sadist. Do you? From the practical side of it, if God is evil, and he wants you to believe in him, he may go back on his word and punish you anyway.

I didn’t propose a God who is evil, but one who treats belief and unbelief in a different way from the assumption that you are making. A God who punishes belief on faith and rewards those who insist on a firmer foundation for acceptance is not inconceivable and can be said to be acting on a principle. He might not be the God you choose to wager on, but as an agnostic I don’t see what reasonable basis I have to choose unless I think one possibility more probable than the other.

I fully understand and respect your reason for believing. But my point is that you come to the wager predisposed to believe - you are not in fact wagering at all because you already believe without any influence from PW. For someone who genuinely does not see any epistemic foundation in the form of compelling evidence or logical argument for the existence of a God, never mind for the specific God you have in mind, the PW is useless because it cannot supply the very image which compels you. So it might be efficacious for a believer, but it bears no properties of right discernment for someone who is agnostic about (any) God’s existence.

I can see why it is fruitful for you, and I wonder whether you can see why it is unfruitful for me.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Are you referring to testing on a scientific level? If you are, then I think that, to be blunt, you’re not sticking your neck out far enough intellectually. The scientific method is barely sufficient for examining the physical world, or at least our ability to apply it is. If God, angels, heaven etc. are anything like they are percieved to be, then the scientific would be an entirely innappropriate method, or at very least entirely beyond our current ability to apply effectively, in examining them.

I’d say that if God, angels, heaven etc are as some people imagine them to be then you are quite right in that the scientific method is not appropriate to test the propositions. So I am interested to know whether you think that any method is appropriate to test the propositions, and if so what is the method(s) and how do we use it to test the truth of the propositions and to distinguish between true propositions (ie those that correspond to external reality) and illusion? I’m not being tricksy - I’m genuinely interested to know whether there is an appropriate test method, or whether these propositions are inherently untestable.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[PRmerger]

I’d say that if God, angels, heaven etc are as some people imagine them to be then you are quite right in that the scientific method is not appropriate to test the propositions. So I am interested to know whether you think that any method is appropriate to test the propositions, and if so what is the method(s) and how do we use it to test the truth of the propositions and to distinguish between true propositions (ie those that correspond to external reality) and illusion? I’m not being tricksy - I’m genuinely interested to know whether there is an appropriate test method, or whether these propositions are inherently untestable.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I would refer you to the 20 arguments for God’s existence.

And to Anselm, Aquinas, Augustine, Teresa of Avila, Karol Wojtyla , Joseph Ratzinger, Edith Stein.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
I’d say that if God, angels, heaven etc are as some people imagine them to be then you are quite right in that the scientific method is not appropriate to test the propositions. So I am interested to know whether you think that any method is appropriate to test the propositions, and if so what is the method(s) and how do we use it to test the truth of the propositions and to distinguish between true propositions (ie those that correspond to external reality) and illusion? I’m not being tricksy - I’m genuinely interested to know whether there is an appropriate test method, or whether these propositions are inherently untestable.

Alec

Alec, though some arguments might vaguely be persuasion for belief, there is no useful argument for the existence of God as “proof.” The reason for that is that rational methods apply only to the world of appearance, or manifestation, that is to say exteriors while God is the Source of Being/Meaning and therefor is a matter of interior actuality, not of logic or measurement. So no amount of reasonable protestations will ever serve as “proof,” else we would have not only no atheists or agnostics, but also we would not have more than one religion.

Having said that, and noting that God therefore is a matter of internal experience and therefore, as are all internal things, a matter of interpretation, the single applicable method that brings repeatable results and has done so from the beginning of humanity is the method of self inquiry. It has not only yielded remarkably similar results regarding Deity from those who have deliberately used it, but also is in similar agreement with those who have had spontaneous awakenings, or what many of those on here would call “beatific visions.” despite their likely doubt that any non-Catholic could have such a thing.

So while it is not American in that such a process does not yield instant gratification and requires actual work, it does garner useful and palpable results. So while science as we use it technologically is "wide,’ the method of inquiry is scientifically “deep.”

A current exposition of that whole idea is available here as a short lecture:

youtube.com/watch?v=9wX_W1BB_0M&feature=player_embedded

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I’d say that if God, angels, heaven etc are as some people imagine them to be then you are quite right in that the scientific method is not appropriate to test the propositions. So I am interested to know whether you think that any method is appropriate to test the propositions, and if so what is the method(s) and how do we use it to test the truth of the propositions and to distinguish between true propositions (ie those that correspond to external reality) and illusion? I’m not being tricksy - I’m genuinely interested to know whether there is an appropriate test method, or whether these propositions are inherently untestable.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Aha - you’ve found an issue! And one that’s entirely ubiquitous.

True propositions - ones that correspond to external reality - is quite an assumptive term. I’d recommend supportable propositions.

Illusion - again, refers to actual falsity - is another overly assumptive term. You’re talking extremes of absolute verity and absolute falsity. I don’t think these are entirely possible concepts, or are entirely viable on even a general basis.

There is little that any of us can point at as being an absolutely true proposition, and that can be written on a postage stamp.

I think the scientific method does essentially hold true in some respects regarding God etc., but the lack of definition / apparent likelihood of God, angels etc. having something regarding a formalistic nature of the kind we could effectively study makes it questionable as to whether they can be tested in the same way as even a *being * that apparently is. Our inability to record (inevitably physical) evidence of potentially nonphysical (extraphysical? Supernatural? Etc.) God, angels, ghosts etc. shouldn’t then be assumed to indicate their non-existence. To do so would be like assuming a bird is an illusion if it is reported many times, but it never seen to land, and put in a cage

(to carry the metaphor to greater reality, we’d also not have bows or arrows, cameras etc., I suppose)

…is an opening basic explanation, in a round about way - probably too roundabout!

And regarding illusions, as far as I know, anything but a very conservative understanding of the issue would indicate that we don’t actually have an entirely effective way of determining whether someone is genuinely hallucinating or not!

Not sure if I’ve actually answered your question or not…

 

[BenRosa]

Greetings:

I haven’t read every single post here…so I’m not sure if this point has been made. That one believes God exists is one thing, and living a life worthy of Heaven is entirely another. Many evil people believe God exists…but ignore Him anyway.

Belief in God alone is no ticket to Heaven.

God’s peace…
Ed in Tampa

 

[PRmerger]

Greetings:

I haven’t read every single post here…so I’m not sure if this point has been made. That one believes God exists is one thing, and living a life worthy of Heaven is entirely another. Many evil people believe God exists…but ignore Him anyway.

Belief in God alone is no ticket to Heaven.

God’s peace…
Ed in Tampa

Too true. What’s the ticket to Heaven is saying Yes! to the Divine Marriage Proposal.

 

[grannymh]

Alec, though some arguments might vaguely be persuasion for belief, there is no useful argument for the existence of God as “proof.” The reason for that is that rational methods apply only to the world of appearance, or manifestation, that is to say exteriors while God is the Source of Being/Meaning and therefor is a matter of interior actuality, not of logic or measurement. So no amount of reasonable protestations will ever serve as “proof,” else we would have not only no atheists or agnostics, but also we would not have more than one religion.

Having said that, and noting that God therefore is a matter of internal experience and therefore, as are all internal things, a matter of interpretation, the single applicable method that brings repeatable results and has done so from the beginning of humanity is the method of self inquiry. It has not only yielded remarkably similar results regarding Deity from those who have deliberately used it, but also is in similar agreement with those who have had spontaneous awakenings, or what many of those on here would call “beatific visions.” despite their likely doubt that any non-Catholic could have such a thing.

So while it is not American in that such a process does not yield instant gratification and requires actual work, it does garner useful and palpable results. So while science as we use it technologically is "wide,’ the method of inquiry is scientifically “deep.”

A current exposition of that whole idea is available here as a short lecture:

youtube.com/watch?v=9wX_W1BB_0M&feature=player_embedded

Rational methods, which are the tools of reason self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought can be used for the external spiritual realm.

 

[grannymh]

Aha - you’ve found an issue! And one that’s entirely ubiquitous.

True propositions - ones that correspond to external reality - is quite an assumptive term. I’d recommend supportable propositions.

Illusion - again, refers to actual falsity - is another overly assumptive term. You’re talking extremes of absolute verity and absolute falsity. I don’t think these are entirely possible concepts, or are entirely viable on even a general basis.

There is little that any of us can point at as being an absolutely true proposition, and that can be written on a postage stamp.

I think the scientific method does essentially hold true in some respects regarding God etc., but the lack of definition / apparent likelihood of God, angels etc. having something regarding a formalistic nature of the kind we could effectively study makes it questionable as to whether they can be tested in the same way as even a *being *that apparently is. Our inability to record (inevitably physical) evidence of potentially nonphysical (extraphysical? Supernatural? Etc.) God, angels, ghosts etc. shouldn’t then be assumed to indicate their non-existence. To do so would be like assuming a bird is an illusion if it is reported many times, but it never seen to land, and put in a cage

(to carry the metaphor to greater reality, we’d also not have bows or arrows, cameras etc., I suppose)

…is an opening basic explanation, in a round about way - probably too roundabout!

And regarding illusions, as far as I know, anything but a very conservative understanding of the issue would indicate that we don’t actually have an entirely effective way of determining whether someone is genuinely hallucinating or not!

Not sure if I’ve actually answered your question or not…

There are at least two absolutely true propositions. 1. A transcendent pure spirit exists. 2. The human person is worthy of profound respect.
.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Rational methods, which are the tools of reason self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought can be used for the external spiritual realm.

Of course “…logical evaluation, and analytical thought can be used for the external spiritual realm” as far as surfaces and form. But self reflection, the most underused and under valued of human abilities, has to do with Meaning and is interpretive as distinct from those applied to the quantifiable manifest. Self reflection requires penetration. It’s logic and reason become affective once the threshold of the subject/object mode of awareness is passed. That experience can yet be evaluated as the integration of the internal and external begin to be seen, understood, and experienced as One. But that state is exceptionally rare.

A very useful and scholarly exposition of these ideas can be had from Franklin Merrell-Wolff, a fascinating man who was an electrical engineer and gold miner. His work on this is titled The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an object

 

[grannymh]

Of course “…logical evaluation, and analytical thought can be used for the external spiritual realm” as far as surfaces and form. But self reflection, the most underused and under valued of human abilities, has to do with Meaning and is interpretive as distinct from those applied to the quantifiable manifest. Self reflection requires penetration. It’s logic and reason become affective once the threshold of the subject/object mode of awareness is passed. That experience can yet be evaluated as the integration of the internal and external begin to be seen, understood, and experienced as One. But that state is exceptionally rare.

A very useful and scholarly exposition of these ideas can be had from Franklin Merrell-Wolff, a fascinating man who was an electrical engineer and gold miner. His work on this is titled The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an object

Does this mean that God is an objective reality in that He is a transcendent Pure Spirit without restrictions and that His existence is not dependent on human knowledge?

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Does this mean that God is an objective reality in that He is a transcendent Pure Spirit without restrictions and that His existence is not dependent on human knowledge?

It means that any subject/object knowledge of God as an object has a thought symbol as an object, not God as Such. God cannot be objectively known as an object of intellect or sense because that implies the lesser containing the greater. I don’t like to use the word “God” in this type of analysis because there is so much baggage attached to that word that clarity becomes nearly impossible. That’s why many use one of the synonyms of God in these cases. But THAT which you call God in the s/o state is independent of human knowledge, while without THAT there is no human or any knowledge.

 

[grannymh]

It means that any subject/object knowledge of God as an object has a thought symbol as an object, not God as Such. God cannot be objectively known as an object of intellect or sense because that implies the lesser containing the greater. I don’t like to use the word “God” in this type of analysis because there is so much baggage attached to that word that clarity becomes nearly impossible. That’s why many use one of the synonyms of God in these cases. But THAT which you call God in the s/o state is independent of human knowledge, while without THAT there is no human or any knowledge.

The process of knowledge is useful. However, it totally frustrates me when objective reasoning is not understood as being applicable to objective reality of existence. Nonetheless, thank you for your explanation regarding subject/object knowledge of God. By the way, I don’t ever call God a THAT.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55: 6-9

 

[Mystic_Banana]

There are at least two absolutely true propositions. 1. A transcendent pure spirit exists. 2. The human person is worthy of profound respect.
.

Oh. Well, I absolutely agree, but I meant propositions you can have absolute knowledge of truth about to the point of absolute absence of the reasonable possibility of falsification or doubt. I think that was in the spirit of the original question…

 

[Mystic_Banana]

It means that any subject/object knowledge of God as an object has a thought symbol as an object, not God as Such. God cannot be objectively known as an object of intellect or sense because that implies the lesser containing the greater. I don’t like to use the word “God” in this type of analysis because there is so much baggage attached to that word that clarity becomes nearly impossible. That’s why many use one of the synonyms of God in these cases. But THAT which you call God in the s/o state is independent of human knowledge, while without THAT there is no human or any knowledge.

Just curious, but which would be your favourite synonym, or that most closely resembling your understanding?

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Christianity is problematic in my view on many key points because it doesn’t even provide the basis for being tested and found “invalid”. It doesn’t stick its neck out far enough intellectually to be classified as invalid.

Biased remark as far as I am concerned dear Touchstone. You may like to read from the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Study Guide wherein it states on page 7,“The religious context in which Darwin was working and the ways in which Christians sought knowledge. Science was commonly used as a way to try to understand God. Some Christians believed that seeking scientific knowledge was a means of giving praise to God.”
aaas.org/spp/dser/images_Doser/Publications/evol_dialogue_study_guide.pdf

I don’t think that statement by the AAAS is invalid though it appears to me to invalidate your statement.