Pascal's Wager Argument

[Ranklyfrank]

Yes, as above, I run into this type of unbeliever all the time. It’s just as bogus from them, it signals the same kind of head-in-the-sand approach to thinking about Big Questions. If I gave the impression that wasn’t a problem in the atheist camp, too, I hope that’s set straight. It’s bogus wherever it occurs. You either are willing to take a sober, clear-eyed look at the world around you, and deal with the consequences as they proceed from that, or you are not.

And often, it’s quite easy to see when this is what’s happening.

-TS

This is a statement of mature sanity and shows why I think that many atheists of Touchstone’s variety are advanced beyond most religionists. In some cases I would say that atheism is a step before spirituality. Touchstone, you may not agree with me, my ideas, though properly theistic, sometimes are labeled atheistic, Go figure. But there are alternatives to the Judeao-Christian ideas about God and what that word might actually refer to.

 

[PRmerger]

But there are alternatives to the Judeao-Christian ideas about God and what that word might actually refer to.

Where does one get these ideas? Are they part of God’s revelation to us?

 

[PRmerger]

Agreed.

Then it was simply a straw man you’ve created.

My observation was pointed at Mystic Banana’s signalling of the “appeal to consequences” error, but here is a good example of the same kind of disregard for the truth as we understand it in a straightforward, effective way

I don’t see how there is any “disregard for the truth” here

Now, even that has to be co-opted as part of the overarching apologetics, “truth as a person”.

Of course it’s the overarching apologetic. It’s a *Catholic *forum. What other kind of apologetic did you expect to get from a Catholic?

If someone said that about Vishnu or Stalin, it would be immediately apparent what kind of a conceit that is.

And what kind of conceit would that be?

Yes indeed. Happens all the time, I run into atheists who hate God in such a way they just decide he can’t exist.

Then we are agreed.

Theists do not have a monopoly on that, by any means, and it’s just as unreasonable coming from an atheist as a theist.

Actually, it’s more egregious and unreasonable coming from an atheist.

Yes, as above, I run into this type of unbeliever all the time. It’s just as bogus from them, it signals the same kind of head-in-the-sand approach to thinking about Big Questions. If I gave the impression that wasn’t a problem in the atheist camp, too, I hope that’s set straight. It’s bogus wherever it occurs. You either are willing to take a sober, clear-eyed look at the world around you, and deal with the consequences as they proceed from that, or you are not.

 

[atheistgirl]

:Atheists have an interest in avoiding the truth. Atheism caters to that interest, nurtures it, apologetically in just the same way as we see from , the conceit that says, "Life with God is full of rules that I don’t want to follow. So I’d rather ignore these truths in order to do what I like."

I really dont think that’s true. All the atheists I know have been asking questions all their lives. I constantly ask questions, of others and myself. I have never said, nor will I ever say, there is no God. What I do say is for me, there is not enough evidence to suggest there is. If I were to be presented with or discover myself, irrefutible evidence for the existence of God, I would convert in a heartbeat - I could do nothing else!
As for the ‘‘do what I like’’ part - nothing be further from the truth. Atheists, well the people I know, most certainly do not do what they like. Far from it. They live very good moral lives. Granted, they dont go to church and things like that, but come on, if there was sufficient proof for an atheist to believe, do you really think going to church, praying, and so on would be a hardship???
No, it’s most certainly not the case that atheists do not believe because it’s inconvenient, or hard work, or the rules might stop them doing what they want. But it is a very commonly held view.

Sarah x

 

[Touchstone]

Then it was simply a straw man you’ve created.

No. Like Mystic Banana’s signals, many Catholics do exhibit the “terror of consequences” as a way of setting priority on what they desire over what a dispassionate analysis indicates. That doesn’t mean that atheists don’t commit the same error. But that is an error in evidence here.

I don’t see how there is any “disregard for the truth” here

Well, when God is either too terrible to admit he exists, or life is just too meaningless without a deity sacrificing itself for you, then there’s really no point in proceeding with the question. You’re compromised by your revulsions.

Of course it’s the overarching apologetic. It’s a *Catholic *forum. What other kind of apologetic did you expect to get from a Catholic?

None. And I don’t begrudge its expression *qua *expression. But by the same token, offering it on a Catholic forum doesn’t make it any more reasonable on the merits. What I expect doesn’t matter.

And what kind of conceit would that be?

That the universe simply must have some cosmic rationale that knows you, cares about you, and has an eternal place for you, personalized (in Catholicism, anyway) as “God”. It just won’t do without that – reality owes us that, doesn’t it? Otherwise, well, life is, at best… “a shallow might as well”!

That’s the kind of conceit it is.

Then we are agreed.

thumbs up

Actually, it’s more egregious and unreasonable coming from an atheist.

How so? It may be, but I can’t think of why it would be at the moment.

-TS

 

[PRmerger]

I really dont think that’s true. All the atheists I know have been asking questions all their lives. I constantly ask questions, of others and myself. I have never said, nor will I ever say, there is no God. What I do say is for me, there is not enough evidence to suggest there is.

Fair enough.

Some atheists, however, fit the pattern I described. Just as some theists fit the pattern TS described.

If I were to be presented with or discover myself, irrefutible evidence for the existence of God, I would convert in a heartbeat - I could do nothing else!

Then you would convert not out of love, but out of force. And, sadly, God will *never *provide you with this kind of conversion experience.

 

[PRmerger]

As for the ‘‘do what I like’’ part - nothing be further from the truth. Atheists, well the people I know, most certainly do not do what they like. Far from it. They live very good moral lives.

Again, fair enough.

However, some atheists do fit the pattern described. Some don’t.

Granted, they dont go to church and things like that, but come on, if there was sufficient proof for an atheist to believe, do you really think going to church, praying, and so on would be a hardship???

Well, just like any relationship, hardship is required. The “going to church, praying and so on” part would not be hard of course, just as in the process of courtship with your beloved dating and talking on the phone are not hard.

However, the commitment and sacrifice involved in a relationship are what’s hard, yes?

No, it’s most certainly not the case that atheists do not believe because it’s inconvenient, or hard work, or the rules might stop them doing what they want. But it is a very commonly held view.

Sarah x

Again, some do. Some don’t. Maybe the above isn’t true for you. Good! You’re one step ahead of the other type.

 

[Touchstone]

I really dont think that’s true. All the atheists I know have been asking questions all their lives. I constantly ask questions, of others and myself. I have never said, nor will I ever say, there is no God. What I do say is for me, there is not enough evidence to suggest there is. If I were to be presented with or discover myself, irrefutible evidence for the existence of God, I would convert in a heartbeat - I could do nothing else!
As for the ‘‘do what I like’’ part - nothing be further from the truth. Atheists, well the people I know, most certainly do not do what they like. Far from it. They live very good moral lives. Granted, they dont go to church and things like that, but come on, if there was sufficient proof for an atheist to believe, do you really think going to church, praying, and so on would be a hardship???
No, it’s most certainly not the case that atheists do not believe because it’s inconvenient, or hard work, or the rules might stop them doing what they want. But it is a very commonly held view.

Sarah x

Atheists, like Christians, come in lots of different shapes and sizes. I know many (self-proclaimed) atheists who suppose that God is just to despicable to exist. The thought of the reality of God is just to repulsive to embrace.

That happens, and it’s bogus. No different than Mystic Banana’s “futility dance” upthread.

Incidentally, my experience is that that this kind of atheist – the kind that always just believed in God, but wanted to rebel, to flip God the finger – is predictably the kind of atheist that atheist-become-Christians point back to: “oh, yeah, I was an atheist…”

A good hint that this is the case is signals like this – oh, I was smokin’ and drinkin’ and fornicatin’, etc… debauchery and self-indulgence and rebellion against an implicitly affirmed God getting confused with atheism. If you go press these former atheists how they arrived at their atheism, it’s not hard to see why Christianity won them over – it was a “god believing atheism” all along. And that is often part of the testimony, too (“I knew deep down”…)

No sense trying to defend wrong headed atheists. Wrong-headed is wrong-headed, doesn’t matter what color jersey you are wearing. Some Christians like to smugly suggest that atheists need to – how’s that go? – “sit on God’s lap to slap him in the face”, and unfortunately, that’s a cogent criticism of many who claim the label “atheist”.

-TS

 

[PRmerger]

That the universe simply must have some cosmic rationale that knows you, cares about you, and has an eternal place for you, personalized (in Catholicism, anyway) as “God”. It just won’t do without that – reality owes us that, doesn’t it? Otherwise, well, life is, at best… “a shallow might as well”!

Believing in Stalin and Vishnu promotes this conceit? Stalin? Really, TS?

 

[atheistgirl]

Fair enough.

Some atheists, however, fit the pattern I described. Just as some theists fit the pattern TS described.

But in fairness, the same is true of people of faith who simply go through the motions. in comparison, I think atheists are more honest here.

Then you would convert not out of love, but out of force. And, sadly, God will *never *provide you with this kind of conversion experience.

Sadly, it’s impossible to love someone you dont know is there. But Im dont think I agree with the ‘‘by force’’ description - people would still have free will and be free to reject this certain knowledge I would presume. Speaking personally, I simply couldnt reject God if I knew He existed. But it would be equally true than some would regardless.

Sarah x

 

[PRmerger]

No. Like Mystic Banana’s signals, many Catholics do exhibit the “terror of consequences” as a way of setting priority on what they desire over what a dispassionate analysis indicates. That doesn’t mean that atheists don’t commit the same error. But that is an error in evidence here.

Firstly, I am confused as to why a dispassionate analysis is indicated here. Just curious.

Well, when God is either too terrible to admit he exists, or life is just too meaningless without a deity sacrificing itself for you, then there’s really no point in proceeding with the question. You’re compromised by your revulsions.

Huh? Revulsions? Not quite.

None. And I don’t begrudge its expression *qua *expression. But by the same token, offering it on a Catholic forum doesn’t make it any more reasonable on the merits. What I expect doesn’t matter.

Ok.

 

[PRmerger]

How so? It may be, but I can’t think of why it would be at the moment.

-TS

Because the atheist prides himself on being the anti-fundamentalist. Yet, curiously, his position “just signals a kind of fundamentalist mindset where the complexities and nuances of an alternative are too terrifying or nauseating to bear.”

 

[PRmerger]

Sadly, it’s impossible to love someone you dont know is there.

This is true.

But this is a different argument than what you originally proposed. You want irrefutable evidence.

But Im dont think I agree with the ‘‘by force’’ description - people would still have free will and be free to reject this certain knowledge I would presume. Speaking personally, I simply couldnt reject God if I knew He existed.

Exactly. You couldn’t. God doesn’t want that. He wants you to say, “I choose” not “I couldn’t”.

 

[Touchstone]

Believing in Stalin and Vishnu promotes this conceit? Stalin? Really, TS?

It’s an (hopefully) absurd example that demonstrates the problem by its absurdity. When you “personify truth”, you are debasing the language, and your mind. Think about it even for someone more noble: Ghandi is the Truth. It isn’t any more reasonable in that case, and while a Christian may be too personally invested in the apologetic – enamored of “I am the Way, the Truth, the Life…”, etc. – to see it clearly in her own beliefs, it’s not hard to see when the same principle is applied elsewhere.

But my guy really is the truth, you say? Well, that’s the problem. Look at the ramifications of that when you apply that elsewhere, or consider others applying it elsewhere. That should be a mirror onto your own use of that.

To do such is to abandon any external basis for judgement. It is utter resignation, the forfeit of further analysis, epistemic closure. As soon as the Truth is a person, it becomes unassailable, because it’s not a principle anymore, but a person. If Jesus is the Truth, then by definition, anything he does/says is “true”. But that’s just as true if we apply that to Josef Stalin. If he is the Truth, then by definition, anything he does/says is true. Voluntarism!

It’s a conceit because it abandons accountability and corrigibility in favor of the indefeasible dogma: *my guy is the Truth. *One has “found it”, and has reached the ultimate, in taking on such a stance. One has embraced a way to idolize his own ideas, to place them beyond touch of other ideas and evidence.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

Because the atheist prides himself on being the anti-fundamentalist. Yet, curiously, his position “just signals a kind of fundamentalist mindset where the complexities and nuances of an alternative are too terrifying or nauseating to bear.”

Ok, that’s a pretty good reason! I don’t think being a Christian entails being a fundamentalist, although I guess one must be at some level to be a Christian at all, even if one doesn’t go all “young earth creationist” and such.

But you are right, that error offends the basic reasoning principles atheists typically point to – the ones who aren’t “sitting on God’s lap so as to slap his face”, anyway – in a way that theists don’t get all hung up about.

-TS

 

[PRmerger]

It’s an (hopefully) absurd example that demonstrates the problem by its absurdity. When you “personify truth”, you are debasing the language, and your mind. Think about it even for someone more noble: Ghandi is the Truth. It isn’t any more reasonable in that case, and while a Christian may be too personally invested in the apologetic – enamored of “I am the Way, the Truth, the Life…”, etc. – to see it clearly in her own beliefs, it’s not hard to see when the same principle is applied elsewhere.

Ok. So someone proposes “Ghandi is the Truth”. This is not a debasing of the language. Not at all. I’d be willing to hear his arguments as to why he believes such a thing.

But my guy really is the truth, you say? Well, that’s the problem. Look at the ramifications of that when you apply that elsewhere, or consider others applying it elsewhere. That should be a mirror onto your own use of that.

As I said, I would be willing to consider it. What arguments does someone have for saying that, say, “Stalin is the truth”?

To do such is to abandon any external basis for judgement.

It would be if one starts with the premise that Jesus is the Truth, as if it stands alone.

There is another poster here who insists that PW must stand alone as an argument for theists. Why? What outside criterion demands this?

Similarly, why must “Jesus is the Truth” stand alone as an argument for theists?

As soon as the Truth is a person, it becomes unassailable, because it’s not a principle anymore, but a person.

This is categorically not true. Truth is a principle, yet its fulfillment is a Person. They are not mutually exclusive.

One has embraced a way to idolize his own ideas, to place them beyond touch of other ideas and evidence.

-TS

Nooooo. Clearly our “own ideas” as humans conflict with Jesus’ “own ideas”.

To wit: I would much prefer that my own ideas of divorce and re-marriage were the truth. It would make it so much easier! I could embrace each family member and friend with their new spouse and say, “Welcome! That vow you made before God and us is all for naught. You made a new vow now.”

Again,* atheism* seems to embody the conceit you describe above. My experience with atheists is that they have embraced “a way to idolize their own ideas, to place them beyond the touch of other ideas and evidence.”

 

[Betterave]

I was not thinking of insults.

Okay, so did you forget the point of the ‘rubber’ bit? The point is that you’re flinging something bad that you don’t want to stick to yourself. Do you understand that? It is precisely NOT just an assumption of symmetry as a polemic device: symmetry would be “you are glue and I am glue, whatever you say applies to me applies also to you.” Do you understand that that is very different?

Rather, just the kind of reflex that assumes symmetry as a polemic device. Being “not-religious” is really just a form of religion, saying there’s “no meaning there” is really a way of putting meaning there, because, well, it seems to have some polemic value. In any case, it’s not a matter of insults, just projection, that your critics are bound to be committed to the same modes you are (hence the rubber-glue symmetry).

So hopefully you understand now that the symmetry you refer to here is simply nonsense. You completely ignored the nature of the metaphor and are just reflexively dismissing criticisms of your viewpoint without really trying to understand them. Did you notice that? That’s not rational. Your reflex is to just assume that there is no symmetry between your position and that of views you disagree with. But you offer no argument: it remains perfectly clear that your assertion of meaninglessness at the cosmic scale is a positive interpretation of meaning at the cosmic scale. You can dismiss this all you want. It’s nonetheless obviously true.

No god in the universe removes the cosmic scope for meaning. There is no cosmic designer, no cosmic personality to ground meaning in. I realize that doesn’t play nice with the “oh, the irony” reflex, but you can’t hang a coat on a hook that ain’t there.

I realize that actually grasping the point of your interlocutor doesn’t play nice with your reflex to dismiss what hadn’t occurred to you before, but you have to fight that reflex if you want to be rational (and maybe you don’t, so there’s not much more to say about it). “No god in the universe” certainly does not remove the cosmic scope for meaning. “No universe” does.

I have no idea what you mean by “perfectly absolute”. That term isn’t mine, and is one that signals all sorts of reasoning alarms off. I think you are project your own absolutes where none obtain.

But this kind of reaction from you is obviously just a result of your irrational reflex to be closed-minded! You have no grounds for your assertion here: but these alarms just reflexively go off when you get close to questions you are afraid to ask, so instead of asking the questions you become stupidly belligerent and dismissive.

In my view, the meanings in life are not perfect, absolute, or perfectly absolute, not hardly. They are personal, social, limited, fleeting, non-absolute, and as fallible and subjective and personal as any person is. There’s no divinization to be had, that’s a bogus concept to begin with, and describes a theistic grounds for cosmic meaning, but doesn’t even come into play in an atheistic model.

They are personal, social, limited, etc; yes. But they are also absolute. These things are elevated to the level of absolutes. That is the consequence of your view, even if you refuse to face that and grasp it conceptually.

Maybe take a look at what a godless universe really looks like, in a serious way, eh? Humans are great in that they don’t have to assent to a belief or adopt to consider it proviisionally, to entertain it hypothetically. Your vision of a godless world reflects your inability to think outside the modes of your credulity.

What does that even mean? Here’s something to think about: what if your ridiculously crude rhetorical dismissal of what I have said “reflects *your *inability to think outside the modes of your credulity”? Did that ever occur to you? (*Will *it ever occur to you??)

Just start by asking what person has cosmic or eternal scope to even support the semantics of meaning in a godless world where humans die and that is the final end of them as pesons, as any kind of conscious being. You don’t have to believe that is the case to understand the ramifications of that regarding “cosmic meaning”.

This is complete nonsense, TS. Meaning is not some kind of physical quality of an individual person that dies when that person dies. Meaning is nothing like that at all. Meaning is a conceptual construct. If we can construct a God-filled universe that has cosmic meaning, we can certainly construct a Godless universe that has a cosmic meaning. You must be much less educated than you pretend to be if you are really unaware of this possibility. I’m sure you’re not unaware; it’s just that you’re constantly fighting your reflex to misunderstand and dismiss.

 

[Betterave]

With the last sentence, you’re kind of emotively reaching for a God anyway! But it sounds like the idealogical pantheism I’ve just been criticising…

Kind of? At best. I certainly don’t think that’s clear. I think it’s more like emotively reaching for meaning.

You can embrace a raging fire, but it’ll burn you.

Such is life.

If you want to be unreasonable, up to you, but expect weeping and grinding of teeth!

Expect it in any case. But embrace it. (That is the meaning of the Nietzschean eternal return.)

You can decide that anything, including yourself, is God, but why would embracing (worshipping?) yourself, or any of these other things make any difference in the long run? Whether you want them to or not?

It’s not about making a difference in the long run. It’s about amor fati. That’s what the honest atheist is left with. The “long run” is a mirage for the atheist. The short run is all there is, so one has no choice but to make do with that. Whether that’s lying on a beach with a nice cool drink in hand, or incinerating Jewish corpses in Treblinka. Gotta make do. Deal with it. The dice will fall where they fall. There’s no magic here. That’s what real grown-ups all believe.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Touchstone~

For some – not all – but many here, for example, the apologetic tells us much more about the apologist than it says anything about God, reality or the listener. It just signals a kind of fundamentalist mindset where the complexities and nuances of an alternative are too terrifying or nauseating to bear. If it’s true, and it’s hard, there’s an interest in avoiding the truth, for anyone. Fideistic religion caters to that interest, and nurtures it, apologetically in just the same way as we see from Mystic Banana, the conceit that says: life without God is meaningless, futile, defeated.

There is SO much in these few pages of post that contain gold. And they are left mostly unplucked, I guess due to the momentum of the argument and the fact that we’re not all on my back patio knocking back some killer sarsaparilla.

The above is a key statement that touches on many dynamics that are of crucial importance no matter what your mental assessment vis a vie Diety might be. First it implies, as is known, that religious matters, as are all matters, a dynamic of inner experience and interpretation whatever the alleged external world might be, even despite the commonality of an agreement such as “that is a tree.”

Second, that in religious mindsets, though it exists somewhat differently in other paradigms, there is a pathological sanction of consequence that disables the ability to self-observe, that quality being what makes us uniquely human. The implications of that one fact are astounding in their depth, scope, and results.

And third, the bit about Mystic Banana’s conceit is accurately assessed as being part of the, at least Cathonlic, paradigm and is known to be false.

As a sidebar to that last one, I had an extensive conversation with an atheist yesterday that was moving and compelling. And surprisingly, or not, his atheism in its methods of analysis and many conclusions about human nature were concurrent with my, and as far as I can tell at this point, Touchstone’s. most interesting to me was his description of how he was able to carefully and painfully disassemble the dogmatic box of his birth religion (Christian) and free himself from it. Whether or not I agreed with his ultimate conclusion about Deity, which is agnostic, I was deeply impressed with the degree and kinds of self awareness and principled honesty he utilized in his reflections.

Chief amongst these was his adamant insistence on the necessity of morality based on the idea of mutuality and reciprocity. We might express that idea as The Great Commandment or as the different forms of the Golden Rule. I have worked in the remodeling business with this man for years, and if anything has impressed me about his dealings is his open honesty with his clients and his neutrality in presenting options to the homeowner. That is always done as if it was his own house and he was thinking out loud about all of his options, advantageous to his personal business or not, and regardless of how much money is on the table.

I was also moved by his assessment of the probability in his eyes of never seeing again (in an alleged afterlife) the people he loved and cared for or whom he appreciated to various degrees and wasn’t in contact with as much as he would like. For him it made each moment with friends, family, and strangers all that much more precious. He is therefor completely present with who is with him at any time. That is very unlike some folks I have met who have an agenda of whatever ilk when you are within three feet of them.

So all in all I treasure this man as a true friend, and one who has taught me much about clarity, honesty, and other virtues well beyond the ability of my dogma spouting “friends.” In fact, I’d rather have a good tete-a-tete with him than listen to a sermon or go to confession. I learn more, it is all applicable to virtue and growth, and it is great fun. And he is not the only atheist/agnostic I know who has these values and makes formal religionists look like pale shadows in comparison.

So I’m fed up with the false piety that many on here have that knocks the possibility of someone outside their faith having worth or value in matters of virtue and humanity. And as I’ve said before, imo this sort of “atheism” is superior by far to the adamantine entrenchment of faithers hiding behind dogmatized and formulaic mental strictures. some of you make these people out to be idiots and morons. I submit that the dynamic described above, that statements often tell more about the speaker than their topic might very well apply to some of you. And that picture reflects as well on your Church. Think deeply therefore before you mouth teachings that you have not come to or found agreement with because of you own profound inner life.

Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” And the little children are the innocents who are simple and honest in their lives untainted by the intellectualisms of the myriad religions bandied about as if they were living Truth. Is it any wonder that without consultation so many invariable come up with remarkably similar understandings of the higher dynamics of virtue? Ya gotta wonder.

 

[Betterave]

Birds of a rhetorical-feather flock together, don’t they say?