Pascal's Wager Argument

[Touchstone]

Yes. It certainly was a peculiarly irrelevant comment. One has to wonder what your point was. I can’t help but think it was contrived to provide some sort of image of you you’d like us to consider?

Well, focusing on Feser just as Feser was distracting, but for all 6 or 7 pages of the thread you pointed me to, Feser’s commentary was about the only contribution that even tried to square things up with respect to Euthyphro’s dilemma. As I said, this Feser guy keeps coming up, which tends to be an eye-roller for other reasons, but aside from the Feser link, the thread, which was basically Rocinante working through hectoring from Betterave in all sorts of ways but this point, It was a head scratcher: this was a thread where you thought that was dealt with rather well???

My first reaction on reading what you linked was that you’d mistakenly provided the wrong link. Feser’s article was on point, though, and my objections to his notwithstanding, was at least relevant to the point you raised, which is more than can be said for the rest of that thread. So if you really want to drill on that, the Feser comment was just a product of trying to find something in there to support your reference to dealing with Euthyphro “rather well”. I don’t find Rocinante pushing that angle – the conversation went away from that as the posts went on to “health”, science. As I said, as a Euthyphro discussion, it looks like you linked the wrong thread.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

Ok. But let’s say you do propose “Gravity is a person. It’s Michael Moore.”

Now, I would certainly consider your proposal. I’d want to hear your arguments as to why Gravity is Michael Moore.

OK, but I would note here that your analogy strikes me as apt, similarly awkward, if not as politically dangerous in trying to personify something impersonal.

Similarly, when we propose “Truth is a person. It’s Jesus Christ”, you ought to consider the arguments as to why this has been proposed.

I think you’ve not given me near enough credit in considering that. I’ve believed that for decades on end, in my life. Read a hundred books that rely on and support that view, across the spectrum of Christian thought – EOC to RCC to Protestant, liberal, conservative, emergent. Been to the “Bible Study weekends”, debated and argued this with Baptists and Catholics and Mormons on line and off, over years.

I think saying ‘you haven’t heard the arguments’ is too easy of a response to take on your part, and claim that’s not the case. But if you have an argument you think I’ve not heard, I’d like to hear what that is.

You claim you reject them, but I’d like to hear what arguments you reject first. It sounds like you’ve rejected the Arminian Protestant Evangelical argument, and I agree that there is much to reject in that paradigm.

Well, I think the Catholic claim is MORE problematic, as it turns out, and that was one realization that really triggered a serious faith crisis for me. The naïve and more credulous evangelical view I ended up rejecting, too, but the Catholic version (as I understand it, and we can tease that out here, or in another thread) I found to be not just unworthy, but disingenuous and self-flattering to boot. At least the evangelical view is honest and earnest, if simple. The Catholic version, even in little bits shown here, ends up having to draw on sophistical acrobatics and language debasing in a more severe way than the evangelical’s (admittedly simplistic) view.

But that is a large, complicated topic to stick into a tangent here. That would have to be another thread if you want to go there. The bottom line is that this is a question I considered important, and had reason to believe that Catholicism had more depth and reason on this to offer than the Evangelical view, but the more I pressed on it, the more it looked less credible, and in an obnoxious way than what I was already rejecting.

However, it sounds as if you’ve not really been exposed to Catholic arguments as to why Jesus is Truth?

In addition to reading Veritatis Splendour, I suggest you also read the magnificent Fides et Ratio.

That one I have read, and been over in discussions, both as a (pre-Catholic anticipating RCIA) believer and as a struggling agnostic, and as an atheist. I’d say that was one of the elements that triggered the breakdown, the panic of realizing there wasn’t anything better in Rome for me if I was going to think through all this, and that in some ways, my hopes for something better, more intellectually and morally and practically satisfying were misgiven.

-TS

 

[PRmerger]

OK, but I would note here that your analogy strikes me as apt, similarly awkward, if not as politically dangerous in trying to personify something impersonal.

Well, again, TS, this is begging the question. You are assuming that a principle cannot be personified.

First you must prove that the above is not possible. Especially if an omnipotent deity exists. By virtue of its omnipotence we would assume that the above would be possible, no?

 

[The_Exodus]

Can we believe in something that we are ignorant about? I think so - the ancients accepted the existence of the planets and stars in spite of being ignorant of what they are, how they behave and how they influence us (or not).

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.
hec:

I don’t understand that and I must be missing something, because as I see it, the same PW logic applies to this different (and contrary with respect to the convention) concept of God, and the two concepts cannot be distinguished within the wager - we don’t know which way to bet if the wager logic is all we have.

Well, one must necessarily consult one’s own idea of “good God,” otherwise, where will one get that from? I see the wager as a baseline practicality - the kind we use all day long every day. We use such a “type of logic” all the time on already existing ideas. Indeed, practicality never “creates” the ideas, but only votes for or against them mentally.
hec:

The concept of God that you adhere to comports with your preferences and with the rest of your world view and in that case you arrive at the wager already persuaded - you are guilty of insider dealing .

Only in the sense that anyone who makes any bet – and I would most certainly call agnosticism a bet – on any idea at all. It seems you’re taken aback by the fact that the God I am betting on rests on an image in my mind. But I don’t see how this is detrimental in the least, since all practical matters always rest on mental images.
hec:

But look at the true agnostic - not only does he lack evidence and arguments for the existence of God but he also really has no way of telling how God, should He exist, will treat belief or unbelief - in this case, should he accept the PW, he really is gambling because not only has he no way of telling whether God exists, but he also bets on his existence not knowing what odds he is being given or whether a particular outcome will result in a win or a loss.

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.
hec:

I agree that it’s a personal decision, of course, but what do you mean here by “worth betting on”? Isn’t this begging the question for the agnostic?

What I mean is this.

In my mind the only God worth betting on is one which is good. What I mean by good is, obviously, an idea in my head, and so in one sense I’m forced to follow my own intutive notions about that idea. In my reading and living, the God who has most aligned with my own sense of good is the Christian God. I’m prepared to defend why I think such a God would be good if he existed, but I could never prove his existence.
hec:

Fair enough, but that sort of God is just what I can’t believe does exist.

Maybe you can’t, and, if that’s true, I certainly don’t think you should bet on him. But I’m wondering why you “can’t” believe he exists in the first place? Do you find the idea impossible or “wholly lacking evidence” or what?
hec:

At least we can agree, I think, that PW per se doesn’t help us to discern between different God concepts.

Well, in a way it does and in a way it doesn’t. I do think one must consult one’s own idea of “logically possible and good God” and go from there.

 

[Betterave]

…the thread, which was basically Rocinante working through hectoring from Betterave in all sorts of ways…

LOL! That was a good thread. I was hardly hectoring Rocinante, though. To a squishy intellectual coward who refuses to engage in an honest fight, who refuses to use and respond to actual arguments, maybe intellectual rigor looks like ‘hectoring.’ What a joke!

 

[PRmerger]

As I said, as a Euthyphro discussion, it looks like you linked the wrong thread.

-TS

I am sorry that you feel that way. Would you like to start another thread on this? If so, let me know and I will join you there.

It might be beneficial, however, to check out these other threads on Euthyphro, before engaging in dialogue on this topic.

 

[Betterave]

OK, but I would note here that your analogy strikes me as apt, similarly awkward, if not as politically dangerous in trying to personify something impersonal.

Translation: “I consider listening to the views of others with an open mind to be awkward, if not politically dangerous.”

Imagine posting this on an agnostic website:

"Well, I think the agnostic claim is MORE problematic, as it turns out, and that was one realization that really triggered a serious (un)faith crisis for me. The naïve and more credulous atheistic view I ended up rejecting, too, but the agnostic version (as I understand it, and we can tease that out here, or in another thread) I found to be not just unworthy, but disingenuous and self-flattering to boot. At least the atheist view is honest and earnest, if simple. The agnostic version, even in little bits shown here, ends up having to draw on sophistical acrobatics and language debasing in a more severe way than the atheist’s (admittedly simplistic) view.

But that is a large, complicated topic to stick into a tangent here. That would have to be another thread if you want to go there. The bottom line is that this is a question I considered important, and had reason to believe that agnosticism had more depth and reason on this to offer than the atheistic view, but the more I pressed on it, the more it looked less credible, and in an obnoxious way than what I was already rejecting."

"That one I have read, and been over in discussions, both as a (pre-agnostic anticipating full agnosis) unbeliever and as a struggling Catholic, and as an Evangelical. I’d say that was one of the elements that triggered the breakdown, the panic of realizing there wasn’t anything better in agnosis for me if I was going to think through all this, and that in some ways, my hopes for something better, more intellectually and morally and practically satisfying were misgiven.

I wonder: What would the agnostics say?

 

[PRmerger]

I think you’ve not given me near enough credit in considering that.

Oh, but I think I have.

I just don’t know what the arguments are that you’ve heard and reject. In fact, I believe I’ve asked to hear what these arguments are that you reject.

Oh, and I asked you again here, to provide an example of an argument which you reject.

But if you have an argument you think I’ve not heard, I’d like to hear what that is.

Again, I have no idea what arguments you’ve heard and rejected. Could you please present at least one, including the rationale for why Christians support it and why you reject it, and we can then discuss? (Better yet, start a thread and I will join you there).

Indeed, this post of yours presents a very fundamentalist understanding of Christianity, which, of course, Catholicism rejects.

Thus I don’t believe that I am without reason in proferring that what you are rejecting (Catholicism) you have not considered. This statement of yours, “Well, per Christianity, all one needs is credulous, subjective faith!” is the fundamentalist’s mantra, not the Catholic’s.

As the late, great Bishop Fulton Sheen said (paraphrasing): there are millions of folks who reject what they think is Catholicism, but not a handful who reject what is actually Catholicism.

 

[Touchstone]

I am sorry that you feel that way. Would you like to start another thread on this? If so, let me know and I will join you there.

Yeah. It feels a lot like ‘busywork’, which is something I contend regularly with in these dicussion – please tell me your whole ideological history on [insert broad major philosophical topic here], please, and I’ll look through that and get back to. That doesn’t fly with me. But I see where you’re going, and it’s a fair question, just too big to take on right here. I’ll spin up a thread with a couple posts/paragraphs from above as a starting point, we’ll see where it goes from there. I have no problem going into details, but I don’t do dart throwing exercises, and will want to make sure it’s more focused than “tell me everything you’ve read or thought about this”.

It might be beneficial, however, to check out these other threads on Euthyphro, before engaging in dialogue on this topic.

OK, noted.

-TS

 

[PRmerger]

Yeah. It feels a lot like ‘busywork’, which is something I contend regularly with in these dicussion – please tell me your whole ideological history on [insert broad major philosophical topic here], please, and I’ll look through that and get back to. That doesn’t fly with me.

This is odd. Why come to a forum, whose nature is to engage in dialogue which, by necessity, must include ideological history, if not to discuss?

Do you prefer soundbytes? Judging by your verbose posts, it seems not. I am not being critical here, only curious.

 

[Touchstone]

This is odd. Why come to a forum, whose nature is to engage in dialogue which, by necessity, must include ideological history, if not to discuss?

Do you prefer soundbytes? Judging by your verbose posts, it seems not. I am not being critical here, only curious.

No, just a matter of focus. Going deep is fine. That’s a two way street. It’s a waste of my time to post pages and pages in hopes that you’ll find something of interest to take up. It’s good to find something, but I’m not supplied with enough time to support that kind of window shopping. If you have focused questions, that provides a basis for some good return on my investment of time/energy.

Even that, you’ve engaged enough along the way that I think this is not such a problem. But I regularly encounter the “dance, boy” approach to apologetics, and am not chump enough to just dance like that on command.

Your request was just too wide. I think expansion is in order, but narrow it down a bit for me please, beyond “tell me everything, first”.

-TS

 

[PRmerger]

Your request was just too wide. I think expansion is in order, but narrow it down a bit for me please, beyond “tell me everything, first”.

-TS

I apologize for being obtuse. What request are you referring to? The request to start a thread on Euthyphro’s dilemma that has not been addressed by other threads?

 

[Touchstone]

I apologize for being obtuse. What request are you referring to? The request to start a thread on Euthyphro’s dilemma that has not been addressed by other threads?

No, just the “what are all the arguments you’ve encountered regarding ‘Jesus is the Truth’” thing. I reclined back in my chair, and considered that a moment, and I’m recalling a discussion from, I would guess 2004-2005 where JPII spoke on this (or directly on John 14:6 anyway)… “Who is the Truth?” being the right question over “What is the Truth?” Given in Europe (France/Switzerland) and catalyzed a good discussion on a Catholic email loop I’ve been on for a long time on just this subject.

That’s just the one thing that springs to mind. Do you want a 6000 char post on just that, just the first thing that pops to mind, out of hundreds of times this subject has been a subject of interest?

Happy to summarize, but that will require some drill down on your part. Preemptive discovery on everything I can throw out there isn’t gonna work, is all I’m saying.

But it’s not about Euthyphro, but rather Christology as it pertains to John 14:6 and related.

-TS

 

[PRmerger]

No, just the “what are all the arguments you’ve encountered regarding ‘Jesus is the Truth’” thing

Really, TS. I don’t believe I’ve asked for “all the arguments”. In fact, I specifically asked for one.

Could you please present at least one, including the rationale for why Christians support it and why you reject it, and we can then discuss? (Better yet, start a thread and I will join you there).

 

[PRmerger]

Your request was just too wide. I think expansion is in order, but narrow it down a bit for me please, beyond “tell me everything, first”.

-TS

Heh. Now that I know what “request” you were referring to I have to ask: do you think asking for “at least one” is too wide?

 

[Touchstone]

Oh, but I think I have.

I just don’t know what the arguments are that you’ve heard and reject. In fact, I believe I’ve asked to hear what these arguments are that you reject.

Oh, and I asked you again here, to provide an example of an argument which you reject.

Again, I have no idea what arguments you’ve heard and rejected. Could you please present at least one, including the rationale for why Christians support it and why you reject it, and we can then discuss? (Better yet, start a thread and I will join you there).

Indeed, this post of yours presents a very fundamentalist understanding of Christianity, which, of course, Catholicism rejects.

I’ll go start with an example of a Catholic argument I reject, per your request above, which is perfectly reasonable and practical, and spin a new thread up with that.

But I don’t accept that Catholicism rejects a fundamentalist understanding of Christianity, but rather proclaims one, albeit a different fundamentalist understanding. It’s just as fundamentalist, I’ve come to understand, and in some ways more, that the streams of Protestantism I’ve swam in and near for a long time.

Thus I don’t believe that I am without reason in proferring that what you are rejecting (Catholicism) you have not considered. This statement of yours, “Well, per Christianity, all one needs is credulous, subjective faith!” is the fundamentalist’s mantra, not the Catholic’s.

A credulous faith is sufficient. That doesn’t mean you can’t reason on top of some fideistic foundation (and here it’s good to point out that the Church itself at key points declares particular canon “de fide”, “unquestionaby true”, “infallible”, etc.), but as I said, such an edifice on a credulous foundation doesn’t make the foundation any less credulous.

As the late, great Bishop Fulton Sheen said (paraphrasing): there are millions of folks who reject what they think is Catholicism, but not a handful who reject what is actually Catholicism.

Yes, I’ve been offered that before. That’s a trope, a kind of meta-apologetic that atheists often invoke (“no one who really reasons it out and understands things critically fails to come to strong agnostic/atheist conclusions”), and my Mormon friends, debate partners 10 years running now, are still convinced that in all that time, there are the “truest shades” of Mormon henotheism and spiritual fecundity that I fail to grasp, and thus have only managed to reject a persistently “false Mormonism”.

Could be. But that actually tends to turn the tables: OK, you tell me what you consider the definitive understanding of Jesus as Truth. That way I don’t have to play darts – “do I have it now/?” “No, TS, unfortunately not, try again”. “Now, how about this throw of the dart?” “Closer, but try again, you still don’t have it”, “How about now”, 'Warmer keep trying, hey, you keep at it, I’ll be back in a few days to see how you’re doing…".

The “you didn’t reject the real thing” rings hollow if it doesn’t come with the “real thing” made explicit to take on offered in the other hand.

-TS

 

[PRmerger]

But I don’t accept that Catholicism rejects a fundamentalist understanding of Christianity, but rather proclaims one, albeit a different fundamentalist understanding.

Perhaps. But then one would have to also acknowledge that your atheism is also a brand of fundamentalism, no?

A credulous faith is sufficient.

Absolutely not. Catholicism rejects this.

For do not even the demons believe?

That doesn’t mean you can’t reason on top of some fideistic foundation (and here it’s good to point out that the Church itself at key points declares particular canon “de fide”, “unquestionaby true”, “infallible”, etc.),

Again, this shows an impoverished understanding of Catholicism. Could you please cite any Magisterial document which proclaims that a teaching must not be questioned?

but as I said, such an edifice on a credulous foundation doesn’t make the foundation any less credulous.

This is begging again. You must prove that it’s not credulous before proclaiming it here.

Yes, I’ve been offered that before. That’s a trope, a kind of meta-apologetic that atheists often invoke (“no one who really reasons it out and understands things critically fails to come to strong agnostic/atheist conclusions”),

That atheists use this metaphor is irrelevant.

 

[PRmerger]

Could be. But that actually tends to turn the tables: OK, you tell me what you consider the definitive understanding of Jesus as Truth. That way I don’t have to play darts – “do I have it now/?” “No, TS, unfortunately not, try again”. “Now, how about this throw of the dart?” “Closer, but try again, you still don’t have it”, “How about now”, 'Warmer keep trying, hey, you keep at it, I’ll be back in a few days to see how you’re doing…".

The “you didn’t reject the real thing” rings hollow if it doesn’t come with the “real thing” made explicit to take on offered in the other hand.

-TS

This is fair.

Can you think of any* other* way for me to know that your rejection of Catholicism is valid? So far, from the posts you’ve made it does seem that you have not been immersed in Catholic theology enough to reject it.

But, of course, I really wouldn’t know unless you present the arguments and your refutation.

 

[PRmerger]

I’ll go start with an example of a Catholic argument I reject, per your request above, which is perfectly reasonable and practical, and spin a new thread up with that.

It would be helpful if you provided the Catholic apologia, as you understand it, and then your rebuttal.

It need not be limited to “Jesus is the Truth” but any number of Catholic teachings.

 

[Touchstone]

This is fair.

Can you think of any* other* way for me to know that your rejection of Catholicism is valid? So far, from the posts you’ve made it does seem that you have not been immersed in Catholic theology enough to reject it.

But, of course, I really wouldn’t know unless you present the arguments and your refutation.

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