M
mellestad
Guest
Lol.“The heart has it’s reasons” - He’s talking about love. Not the heart “thinking”.
Do you have Asperger’s? I’m not trying to be insulting here.
- Status
J
jonfawkes
Guest
No I’m being serious, it’s not a dig. Betterave is obviously intelligent and analytical, but seems to lack understanding of emotional content. His dealings with other people on this site are also lacking tact.
If it is the case - talking about emotional content needs to take a different course. It’d be like describing “red” to someone blind from birth.
So, truly I’m not trying to insult him (or her) in anyway.
If it is the case - talking about emotional content needs to take a different course. It’d be like describing “red” to someone blind from birth.
So, truly I’m not trying to insult him (or her) in anyway.
S
Shredderbeam
Guest
It’s not so much a knee-jerk reaction, it’s more of “I can’t help believing what seems to be true”.
Yes, I do believe that my finger is touching the computer key.
V
valentino
Guest
charlemagne11: God wants what is good for man.God’s laws are not burdensome.God wants us to come to the fullness of life.There are definitive logical arguments for God’s’ existance.
B
Betterave
Guest
No he doesn’t.
When you disagreed with my disagreement with him, you implicitly agreed with him. This is a context thing, something you’re not very good at understanding.
If anyone is stupid, it is clearly you, jon, not Pascal. The reward in question is God, the God who is love. Seeking that reward is seeking God is seeking love. You may not understand this; Pascal surely did.No I can’t see that - It says to avoid a punishment that you don’t believe in and to receive a reward that you don’t believe in, practice these rituals you don’t believe in, It’s going through the motions.
Obviously it was in direct reponse - and it made no sense!
B
Betterave
Guest
Ya think? How do you know that, exactly?? (Let me guess: you’re actually a great Pascal scholar? -“The heart has it’s reasons” - He’s talking about love. Not the heart “thinking”.
)And what is love, smart guy? Love is possible without thought, ya think? What is thought?
I might.
What if I did? Oh yeah, I forgot: one of your favorite argument styles is the fallacious ad hominem. 
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
jonfawkes
Back again by popular demand!
*Pascal does prescribe self delusion, and that’s what I think is idiotic. *
I’m sorry, jon, this shows your lack of scholarship. You haven’t read Pascal, or you have only read pieces of him on atheist websites … which you really shouldn’t trust when it comes to reading Pascal or any other Catholic scholar. In the passage from* Pensees* # 233, Pascal states the wager. A few sentences later near the end of 233 (on the other side of the ellipsis indicated below) he draws the conclusion. Note that the initial uncertainty, which he overcomes by acting as if it is true, grows into certainty at some point in the journey toward God.
“If you gain, you gain all. If you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then, without hesitation, that He exists…. At each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk,** that you will at last recognize that you have wagered for something certain **and infinite, for which you have given nothing.”
From these bold remarks, it is clear that initial uncertainty ceases to exist, and that the possibility of self deception goes away.
Now why don’t you give Pascal the benefit of the doubt, and finally recognize that you are barking up the wrong tree when you argue that Pascal is all for permanent self deception as to the existence of God?
And I do wish you could overcome the ad hominem insults. Pascal was anything but idiotic.
Back again by popular demand!
*Pascal does prescribe self delusion, and that’s what I think is idiotic. *
I’m sorry, jon, this shows your lack of scholarship. You haven’t read Pascal, or you have only read pieces of him on atheist websites … which you really shouldn’t trust when it comes to reading Pascal or any other Catholic scholar. In the passage from* Pensees* # 233, Pascal states the wager. A few sentences later near the end of 233 (on the other side of the ellipsis indicated below) he draws the conclusion. Note that the initial uncertainty, which he overcomes by acting as if it is true, grows into certainty at some point in the journey toward God.
“If you gain, you gain all. If you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then, without hesitation, that He exists…. At each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk,** that you will at last recognize that you have wagered for something certain **and infinite, for which you have given nothing.”
From these bold remarks, it is clear that initial uncertainty ceases to exist, and that the possibility of self deception goes away.
Now why don’t you give Pascal the benefit of the doubt, and finally recognize that you are barking up the wrong tree when you argue that Pascal is all for permanent self deception as to the existence of God?
And I do wish you could overcome the ad hominem insults. Pascal was anything but idiotic.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
Because speaking of the heart is metaphorical language of speaking about love. Love is irrational and is very possible without thought.Ya think? How do you know that, exactly?? (Let me guess: you’re actually a great Pascal scholar? -
And what is love, smart guy? Love is possible without thought, ya think? What is thought?
I might.
Again, I wasn’t trying to be insulting. I didn’t know if I was trying to describe color to someone that was color blind. Love isn’t a rational emotion. It can’t be reasoned into.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
Yes, but the initial step is self deception, Pascal says it will lead to something greater (faith), maybe it will may be it won’t. I never said it was a permanent condition.jonfawkes
Back again by popular demand!
*Pascal does prescribe self delusion, and that’s what I think is idiotic. *
I’m sorry, jon, this shows your lack of scholarship. You haven’t read Pascal, or you have only read pieces of him on atheist websites … which you really shouldn’t trust when it comes to reading Pascal or any other Catholic scholar. In the passage from* Pensees* # 233, Pascal states the wager. A few sentences later near the end of 233 (on the other side of the ellipsis indicated below) he draws the conclusion. Note that the initial uncertainty, which he overcomes by acting as if it is true, grows into certainty at some point in the journey toward God.
“If you gain, you gain all. If you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then, without hesitation, that He exists…. At each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk,** that you will at last recognize that you have wagered for something certain **and infinite, for which you have given nothing.”
From these bold remarks, it is clear that initial uncertainty ceases to exist, and that the possibility of self deception goes away.
Now why don’t you give Pascal the benefit of the doubt, and finally recognize that you are barking up the wrong tree when you argue that Pascal is all for permanent self deception as to the existence of God?
And I do wish you could overcome the ad hominem insults. Pascal was anything but idiotic.
What Pascal argues and you are arguing on his behalf is, It requires FAITH that you will gain FAITH. That is why I think it is a stupid argument for faith. Not Pascal but his argument. There is a difference.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Pascal was a great mathematician and hoped a gambling argument would lead non-believers to God. His main point was that you have everything to gain and nothing to lose by behaving as if you have faith. He didn’t consider this to be insincere because he was convinced God exists. You are doing what you should do anyway! It is not hypocritical but beneficial to turn your attention away from worldly affairs.
For him going down on your knees and praying is an act of humility which will evoke a more receptive attitude and predispose you to accept the truths of religion. To do penance certainly makes us more detached from our desires. Pascal accepted the mechanistic view of his contemporary Descartes that animals are automata. Consequently he thought our physical movements have an effect on our mental state because our body interacts with our soul. The wisdom of the Catholic Church and other religions is evident in their use of earthly things to remind us of spiritual truths.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
I’m not denying anything you are saying. BUT… Pascal had faith, his proposition requires faith. At the minimum, you have to have faith in Pascal to take his advice.
It is like saying: broccoli is healthy, everyone should eat broccoli, if you don’t eat broccoli you won’t be healthy, I like broccoli, I think you will like broccoli, you need to try broccoli, if you don’t like it at first, keep eating it, you might get to like it. Even if you don’t like it, it will still benefit your health.
Some people just don’t like broccoli no matter how good it is for them or how much other people may like it.
I just don’t find it a compelling argument.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
jonfawkes
Yes, but the initial step is self deception, Pascal says it will lead to something greater (faith), maybe it will may be it won’t. I never said it was a permanent condition.
Why is the initial step self deception? Why not call it giving God the benefit of the doubt?
When you approach an animal on the road at night and cannot tell whether it is alive or dead, do you give it the benefit of the doubt that it is alive, or do you assume that you are deceiving yourself that it is alive? Later you discover that it moved. Your giving it the benefit of the doubt was the right move.
If the atheist goes down the same road, why is he deceiving himself when he doesn’t know for sure whether God is alive, or as Nietzsche insisted … dead?
Yes, but the initial step is self deception, Pascal says it will lead to something greater (faith), maybe it will may be it won’t. I never said it was a permanent condition.
Why is the initial step self deception? Why not call it giving God the benefit of the doubt?
When you approach an animal on the road at night and cannot tell whether it is alive or dead, do you give it the benefit of the doubt that it is alive, or do you assume that you are deceiving yourself that it is alive? Later you discover that it moved. Your giving it the benefit of the doubt was the right move.
If the atheist goes down the same road, why is he deceiving himself when he doesn’t know for sure whether God is alive, or as Nietzsche insisted … dead?
J
jonfawkes
Guest
The initial step is self deception because they don’t believe. There is no God to give the benefit of doubt to. You are asking them to take a leap of faith before they have faith. Look at it from the non believer side. You are asking them to delude themselves - believe what they don’t believe - for the sake of a possible greater good. Your assumprions are not theirs.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
jonfawkes
*
The initial step is self deception because they don’t believe. There is no God to give the benefit of doubt to. You are asking them to take a leap of faith before they have faith. Look at it from the non believer side. You are asking them to delude themselves - believe what they don’t believe - for the sake of a possible greater good. Your assumprions are not theirs. *
But how do you know what the atheist’s assumption really is? How do you know he is all that certain there is no God? What proof does he have? None. He has a desire not to believe based on so-called lack of evidence. Pascal says the evidence will come if you open your heart to it. Give it a try. Having given it a try, you might find that Pascal’s argument is really sound … that the proof of God is really in the heart, not in the head. And how can you give the heart a chance at God if your head has stubbornly said No!?
*
The initial step is self deception because they don’t believe. There is no God to give the benefit of doubt to. You are asking them to take a leap of faith before they have faith. Look at it from the non believer side. You are asking them to delude themselves - believe what they don’t believe - for the sake of a possible greater good. Your assumprions are not theirs. *
But how do you know what the atheist’s assumption really is? How do you know he is all that certain there is no God? What proof does he have? None. He has a desire not to believe based on so-called lack of evidence. Pascal says the evidence will come if you open your heart to it. Give it a try. Having given it a try, you might find that Pascal’s argument is really sound … that the proof of God is really in the heart, not in the head. And how can you give the heart a chance at God if your head has stubbornly said No!?
J
jonfawkes
Guest
I want you try honestly believe in the Brahman, and it’s trinity of manifestations Vishnu, Brahma and Kali. I will give you some rituals to practice to help you get in the mood. I know you don’t believe now but it’s the oldest practiced religion on earth. Once you get started they will help you.
Give it a few years, Tell me how you do.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
jonfawkes
*I want you try honestly believe in the Brahman, and it’s trinity of manifestations Vishnu, Brahma and Kali. I will give you some rituals to practice to help you get in the mood. I know you don’t believe now but it’s the oldest practiced religion on earth. Once you get started they will help you.
Give it a few years, Tell me how you do.*
Pascal anticipated that objection, and Denis Diderot made it centuries before you did!
The answer, when in doubt, is to do a comparative study of religions, which Pascal does throughout* Pensees*. Again, I suppose you haven’t read it since you do not seem to know that Pascal has already answered your objection. He’s also answered it with respect to Mahomet, in case you were getting to throw Islam into the argument.
Since one must choose, and one cannot spend one’s whole lifetime choosing all of them, the one most favorable to man’s destiny may reasonably be chosen.
In only one major religion did the God deign to enter the human race and save it from itself. That religion has existed since the time of Abraham, but its ancestral record of prophecy goes back to Adam and Eve. No other religion makes such a claim. No other religion even has such a claim of prophecies that have been fulfilled in the lifetime of their Messiah.
Likewise, no other religion claims the miracles of Moses and Jesus, and their own prophecies that have been fulfilled. No other religion requires the love of God and one another as its central tenet.
No other religion has taught consistently the same moral teachings for thousands of years.
I could go on, but literature is long and life is short.
It is for you to prove that all of the above are errors of Pascal. You can’t. You haven’t read Pascal and apparently don’t plan to.
As to the Indian deities you mention, I don’t know how many of them are worshiped in America. I know there are 24 million Christians in India, most of them Catholic. Apparently they are trying it out for a few years and liking it.
*I want you try honestly believe in the Brahman, and it’s trinity of manifestations Vishnu, Brahma and Kali. I will give you some rituals to practice to help you get in the mood. I know you don’t believe now but it’s the oldest practiced religion on earth. Once you get started they will help you.
Give it a few years, Tell me how you do.*
Pascal anticipated that objection, and Denis Diderot made it centuries before you did!
The answer, when in doubt, is to do a comparative study of religions, which Pascal does throughout* Pensees*. Again, I suppose you haven’t read it since you do not seem to know that Pascal has already answered your objection. He’s also answered it with respect to Mahomet, in case you were getting to throw Islam into the argument.
Since one must choose, and one cannot spend one’s whole lifetime choosing all of them, the one most favorable to man’s destiny may reasonably be chosen.
In only one major religion did the God deign to enter the human race and save it from itself. That religion has existed since the time of Abraham, but its ancestral record of prophecy goes back to Adam and Eve. No other religion makes such a claim. No other religion even has such a claim of prophecies that have been fulfilled in the lifetime of their Messiah.
Likewise, no other religion claims the miracles of Moses and Jesus, and their own prophecies that have been fulfilled. No other religion requires the love of God and one another as its central tenet.
No other religion has taught consistently the same moral teachings for thousands of years.
I could go on, but literature is long and life is short.
It is for you to prove that all of the above are errors of Pascal. You can’t. You haven’t read Pascal and apparently don’t plan to.
As to the Indian deities you mention, I don’t know how many of them are worshiped in America. I know there are 24 million Christians in India, most of them Catholic. Apparently they are trying it out for a few years and liking it.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
You are judging Christianity by Christianity’s standards. (Red cars are the best cars, my car is a red car therefore my car is the best.) Although Hinduism especially the worship of Krishna shares a lot with Christianity but that isn’t the point. If you are interested - religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr.htmjonfawkes
*I want you try honestly believe in the Brahman, and it’s trinity of manifestations Vishnu, Brahma and Kali. I will give you some rituals to practice to help you get in the mood. I know you don’t believe now but it’s the oldest practiced religion on earth. Once you get started they will help you.
Give it a few years, Tell me how you do.*
Pascal anticipated that objection, and Denis Diderot made it centuries before you did!
The answer, when in doubt, is to do a comparative study of religions, which Pascal does throughout* Pensees*. Again, I suppose you haven’t read it since you do not seem to know that Pascal has already answered your objection. He’s also answered it with respect to Mahomet, in case you were getting to throw Islam into the argument.
Since one must choose, and one cannot spend one’s whole lifetime choosing all of them, the one most favorable to man’s destiny may reasonably be chosen.
In only one major religion did the God deign to enter the human race and save it from itself. That religion has existed since the time of Abraham, but its ancestral record of prophecy goes back to Adam and Eve. No other religion makes such a claim. No other religion even has such a claim of prophecies that have been fulfilled in the lifetime of their Messiah.
Likewise, no other religion claims the miracles of Moses and Jesus, and their own prophecies that have been fulfilled. No other religion requires the love of God and one another as its central tenet.
No other religion has taught consistently the same moral teachings for thousands of years.
I could go on, but literature is long and life is short.
It is for you to prove that all of the above are errors of Pascal. You can’t. You haven’t read Pascal and apparently don’t plan to.
As to the Indian deities you mention, I don’t know how many of them are worshiped in America. I know there are 24 million Christians in India, most of them Catholic. Apparently they are trying it out for a few years and liking it.
Regardless - It doesn’t speak to having faith in something you don’t have faith in. You are trying to give intellectual reasons, when you judge Christianity by Christianities standards. You are trying to reason into faith. Even Pascal says you can’t.
You can’t force faith. Try, Try and have faith in Krishna. Or try and have faith in there is no God. The only way is to initially deceive yourself. Keep pretending until you believe it.
Islam is the fastest growing Religion in the world, what does that say? Who’s trying what? Non-religiousness is growing at an alarming rate in Europe, again who’s trying what?
B
Betterave
Guest
Don’t worry about insulting me (I hope we can all take it for granted that our purpose here is not to insult each other). Worry about making a stupid and obviously fallacious argument.
Love is not possible without thought and love is not irrational. Love must have an object, and this object must be grasped in thought, it must be understood. Love without an object (that is understood) is not love - it is nothing. This is a very basic concept in the Christian tradition and it should be perfectly obvious to anyone, I should think. Love is also not an emotion in the Christian tradition - again, this is basic stuff.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
jonfawkes
*Islam is the fastest growing Religion in the world, what does that say? Who’s trying what? Non-religiousness is growing at an alarming rate in Europe, again who’s trying what? *
So, speaking as a Catholic, what is your point? That reason cannot be used to find Christ because it has been used to find other gods?
You are trying to reason into faith. Even Pascal says you can’t.
This is just the opposite of what Pascal says, which shows again, as if it needed showing yet again, that you haven’t read Pensees. What is the wager argument itself but an attempt to help the atheist think his way out of the box he has put himself in?
And by the way, why do you keep insisting that Pascal wants the atheist to deceive himself into religion when all he is saying is give it the benefit of the doubt? When you decide there might be a God after all, pick the godliest of the Gods. The rest of* Pensees *is about which is the godliest of religions. In that respect, Pascal is asking you to think your way toward God.
But you haven’t a clue, have you? You really are cheering for the atheist to remain an atheist on the presumption that atheism is honest, but giving God the benefit of the doubt is dishonest.
Enough said.
*Islam is the fastest growing Religion in the world, what does that say? Who’s trying what? Non-religiousness is growing at an alarming rate in Europe, again who’s trying what? *
So, speaking as a Catholic, what is your point? That reason cannot be used to find Christ because it has been used to find other gods?
You are trying to reason into faith. Even Pascal says you can’t.
This is just the opposite of what Pascal says, which shows again, as if it needed showing yet again, that you haven’t read Pensees. What is the wager argument itself but an attempt to help the atheist think his way out of the box he has put himself in?
And by the way, why do you keep insisting that Pascal wants the atheist to deceive himself into religion when all he is saying is give it the benefit of the doubt? When you decide there might be a God after all, pick the godliest of the Gods. The rest of* Pensees *is about which is the godliest of religions. In that respect, Pascal is asking you to think your way toward God.
But you haven’t a clue, have you? You really are cheering for the atheist to remain an atheist on the presumption that atheism is honest, but giving God the benefit of the doubt is dishonest.
Enough said.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
You are missing my point - The atheist is being honest to himself. He has looked at the evidence and finds it lacking. It is not a matter of which God us best.jonfawkes
*Islam is the fastest growing Religion in the world, what does that say? Who’s trying what? Non-religiousness is growing at an alarming rate in Europe, again who’s trying what? *
So, speaking as a Catholic, what is your point? That reason cannot be used to find Christ because it has been used to find other gods?
You are trying to reason into faith. Even Pascal says you can’t.
This is just the opposite of what Pascal says, which shows again, as if it needed showing yet again, that you haven’t read Pensees. What is the wager argument itself but an attempt to help the atheist think his way out of the box he has put himself in?
And by the way, why do you keep insisting that Pascal wants the atheist to deceive
himself into religion when all he is saying is give it the benefit of the doubt? When you decide there might be a God after all, pick the godliest of the Gods. The rest of* Pensees *is about which is the godliest of religions. In that respect, Pascal is asking you to think your way toward God.
But you haven’t a clue, have you? You really are cheering for the atheist to remain an atheist on the presumption that atheism is honest, but giving God the benefit of the doubt is dishonest.
Enough said.
Just as you don’t find the evidence for Hinduism compelling. He has just a difficult time believing in the Christian God as you do believing in Krishna. He has to delude himself to believe. Just as you would have to delude yourself to believe in Krishna.
It has nothing to do with which God is the most Goddly. It is what you are willing to believe. Saying “give it the benefit of the doubt” is saying trust me rather than yourself.
- Status