Pascal's wager is not practical

[STT]

That is your answer to me pointing out that evil spirits are going to lie.

That has nothing to do what I think is correct. Moreover, are you saying that you tell the truth even if this costs losing lives?

It is inadequate for at least two reasons.

…

The fact that you missed such an obvious implication is evidence against your view - if you really were that good at Philosophy, wouldn’t you have noticed it?

I consider you advises under consideration. This however has nothing with the subject of our discussion.

This answer is inadequate, because your claim was not merely that no solution to “Problem of Evil” you have seen works, but that no solution is possible .

…

Either God is good, or Evil or He is neutral toward Good and Evil. There is no other option. These are all possible combinations which you can make with Good and Evil.

Likewise, your rejection of explanation of evil as privation of good would be worth much, if you were known to be good at Philosophy. But if not…

That is subject of another thread. You can open a new thread on this subject and I would be happy to join you there.

So, you were a materialist and an atheist, and then you started working with evil spirits… I’m afraid that is perhaps the only option that might be worse than atheism (in Pascal’s Wager)…

So, once again - get away from them! Find an exorcist!

You already know that at least some of the spirits lie to you. You probably suspect that they want to harm you. Why would you still want their “company”!?

If you don’t want to meet him so that he would help you, at least meet him as someone who has more experience with spirits.

Again - what do you have to lose?

I don’t need an exorcist. I can ask Evil spirits to live and they live. But please let put this subject aside.

 

[MPat]

I don’t need an exorcist. I can ask Evil spirits to live and they live. But please let put this subject aside.

Well, if you don’t want to, there doesn’t seem to be much one can do here at the moment…

Maybe you would still read something like a part of “Summa Contra Gentiles” (https://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles3b.htm#106)…

 

[STT]

Well, if you don’t want to, there doesn’t seem to be much one can do here at the moment…

Maybe you would still read something like a part of “Summa Contra Gentiles” (https://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles3b.htm#106)…

I will consider the link for my future reading. Unfortunately you didn’t offer any objection to my arguments so I don’t know whether to consider this as the end of our discussion or not.

 

[MPat]

I will consider the link for my future reading. Unfortunately you didn’t offer any objection to my arguments so I don’t know whether to consider this as the end of our discussion or not.

Oh, I did offer objections to your arguments.

I guess you didn’t notice them.

I do not see what further benefit anyone could get from this discussion right now.

I don’t think I am going to benefit. I don’t think you are going to benefit. I don’t think readers are going to benefit.

I’d say waiting for a while would be more beneficial right now. Maybe things will change.

 

[rossum]

And you still haven’t been able to demonstrate that this would actually make things worse

“You shall not have other gods before me.” An atheist does not place any god before the others; all are treated equally which does not break the rule. A Vaishnavite places Vishnu before YHWH and so falls foul of the rule.

 

[MPat]

“You shall not have other gods before me.” An atheist does not place any god before the others; all are treated equally which does not break the rule. A Vaishnavite places Vishnu before YHWH and so falls foul of the rule.

So, if you would establish some Christian denomination, there would be one denomination with such doctrine.

But, um, it doesn’t look like you are going to do so any time soon, thus, so far you have found zero (0) denominations or branches with such doctrine.

For example, if you want to find out what Catholic Church teaches, look at Catechism, which is meant to explain doctrine clearly and systematically, not Bible, which was written for many other reasons.

Even Protestants generally agree that Bible is not that easy to understand. Even they tend to think that one has to be filled with Holy Spirit to find out what some part of Bible really means.

By the way, I already pointed out Catholic interpretation. You did not respond to that.

And your approach here is very irresponsible. If your position is that, assuming Christianity is true, being an atheist is an improvement over being a Hinduist, it is not enough to show that being an atheist is better in some single way. You have to show that there are no ways which cancel out this advantage.

In other words, you have to check the whole Bible, to find out if there are no parts like “The fool said in his heart: There is no God.”. And it just so happens that there is such a verse (Psalm 53:1; Psalm 14:1 is similar).

As you might have noted from this discussion, there is one case that might be worse than atheism - outright dealing with evil spirits. But it is easy to rule out.

For that matter, it is not as if Hinduism is hard to rule out. For example, try listing some miracles of Catholicism and Hinduism, then compare those lists. Do you think it is going to be close?

A serious and honest investigation can easily show that distant “competitors” of Catholicism are hardly adequate.

 

[STT]

Oh, I did offer objections to your arguments.

Yes. But I answered them.

I guess you didn’t notice them.

I noticed them.

I do not see what further benefit anyone could get from this discussion right now.

I don’t think I am going to benefit. I don’t think you are going to benefit. I don’t think readers are going to benefit.

I’d say waiting for a while would be more beneficial right now. Maybe things will change.

As you wish. Thanks for your time anyway.

 

[rossum]

So, if you would establish some Christian denomination, there would be one denomination with such doctrine.

Christian? I quoted the Tanakh, and YHWH is the Jewish God, not the Christian one. There is a lot more smiting of unbelievers in the Tanakh then in the later Christian addition.

A serious and honest investigation can easily show that distant “competitors” of Catholicism are hardly adequate.

I will grant you that Catholicism has superior meditation techniques to most Protestant denominations, while the Eastern Orthodox have also retained some good techniques. Perhaps because both have retained, rather than rejected, monasticism.

Despite that, Buddhism has a far wider range of meditation techniques having borrowed from Hinduism – the Buddha trained in yoga before his enlightenment – and added its own Vipassana methods. Those techniques are superior to anything that Christianity has to offer, covering far more ground.

 

[Elf01]

I disagree. There are some gods who will punish you for worshipping other gods. If you pick the wrong god, and the right god is one of those who punishes unbelievers then there is a big negative for picking A.

You can rule out the gods who don’t punish you for worshipping other gods. I could be wrong but I think that rules out all religions bar Christianity, Judasim and Islam.

 

[rossum]

You can rule out the gods who don’t punish you for worshipping other gods. I could be wrong but I think that rules out all religions bar Christianity, Judasim and Islam.

As far as I am aware, the Abrahamic God is the only one who describes Himself as “jealous”. I suppose there could be other gods, but if so then I am not aware of them.

The Baha’i seem to have developed a non-jealous version of the Abrahamic God. I do not know enough to be sure about the Mormon version.

 

[MPat]

Christian? I quoted the Tanakh, and YHWH is the Jewish God, not the Christian one. There is a lot more smiting of unbelievers in the Tanakh then in the later Christian addition.

Are you serious or trolling?

Anyway, that still does not help you - the Psalms I quoted are obviously in Jewish Scripture too, and you still have to show at least some Rabbi who holds your interpretation.

I will grant you that Catholicism has superior meditation techniques to most Protestant denominations, while the Eastern Orthodox have also retained some good techniques. Perhaps because both have retained, rather than rejected, monasticism.

Despite that, Buddhism has a far wider range of meditation techniques having borrowed from Hinduism – the Buddha trained in yoga before his enlightenment – and added its own Vipassana methods. Those techniques are superior to anything that Christianity has to offer, covering far more ground.

So, first of all, thank you for the implicit admission that if we look at miracles, Catholicism wins against, let’s say, Hinduism - and overwhelmingly.

And now, concerning your comparison…

It is a bit like comparison by beauty of houses of prayer: comparing is hard, and showing that comparison is relevant is also hard…

But, of course, you can try to explain what criteria did you use for comparison, and why you expect such goodness of meditation techniques to correlate with truth, if that’s what you could think of.

As far as I am aware, the Abrahamic God is the only one who describes Himself as “jealous”. I suppose there could be other gods, but if so then I am not aware of them.

And, naturally, in such case expanded Pascal’s Wager recommends not choosing those other religions, unless one has a good reason to believe them to be true (and, as the first part indicates, that does not seem to be the case).

 

[rossum]

Are you serious or trolling?

Serious. Pascal’s Wager starts with no assumption about which religion is correct, so all religions and their gods should be treated equally when discussing the wager.

So, first of all, thank you for the implicit admission that if we look at miracles, Catholicism wins against, let’s say, Hinduism - and overwhelmingly.

Have you read through all of Hindu scriptures counting all the miracles?

The same for Buddhist scriptures. For example in the Vimalakirtinirdesa sutra, the Bodhisattva Vimalakirti feeds 80,000 people from a single bowl of rice.

Pascal’s Wager recommends not choosing those other religions, unless one has a good reason to believe them to be true

See Buddhists ‘really are happier’ if you want a reason.

Every religion can produce some reasons to follow it.

 

[MPat]

Have you read through all of Hindu scriptures counting all the miracles?

No. By the way, making the list does not mean that comparison has to happen by numbers alone.

For example, if you mention that one would look for miracles of Hinduism in “Hindu scriptures”, it leads to further questions. Presumably, those scriptures were written a long time ago. So, what happened afterwards, why is it harder to list miracles that would be more recent?

The same for Buddhist scriptures. For example in the Vimalakirtinirdesa sutra , the Bodhisattva Vimalakirti feeds 80,000 people from a single bowl of rice.

Is Vimalakirti Sutra - Wikipedia that same text? It looks like the text with translation is accessible in Bibliotheca Polyglotta, but there looking for “bowl” or “rice” doesn’t show much… Could you tell me more specifically, where to look for that account? Is it in chapter 9?

Anyway, it is a convenient miracle, because we can contrast it with miracles of Jesus like the one mentioned in Matthew 14:13-21.

The account of miracle of Jesus reads like an eyewitness account (or account of someone who has talked with an eyewitness). And Catholics take it to be an eyewitness account or something similar.

The account in Buddhist text does not look like an eyewitness account. Wikipedia’s article claims it was written at about year 100 - about 600 years after the events it is supposed to describe. Do Buddhists actually claim it to be an eyewitness account or something similar?

For now my guess is that this Buddhist text is a bit analogous to Dante’s “Divine Comedy”. Therefore, I do not expect descriptions of miracles in it to be serious claims that such miracles actually occurred.

Not to mention that assumption that Catholicism is true does fit the description in the Gospel, but it is not that obvious that assumption that Buddhism is true would fit the description in that Buddhist text. I get the impression that the “sage” there is showing off his abilities. But 1) why would he have those abilities and 2) why would he want to show off?

So, would that be evidence for Buddhism, or against Buddhism? I’d say that explanations like “Writer is making stuff up.” or “An evil spirit is creating illusions.” would fit the facts better than assumption that Buddhism is true…

And thus, for now, my point still stands.

Every religion can produce some reasons to follow it.

Naturally, for otherwise no one would follow that religion.

But some reasons are better than others.

 

[rossum]

Presumably, those scriptures were written a long time ago.

Bwahahaha! And the Bible wasn’t? If being written a long time ago invalidates scriptural miracles and the Bible was written a long time ago then… You need to think through your arguments more carefully I think.

Could you tell me more specifically, where to look for that account?

It is in chapter ten. You might also note that Indian scriptures are aware that stars are distant suns with their own sets of planets a very long way from earth. That is something the Bible does not recognise.

 

[MPat]

Bwahahaha! And the Bible wasn’t? If being written a long time ago invalidates scriptural miracles and the Bible was written a long time ago then…

But my argument is not that length of time invalidates miracles.

My argument is that if there were many and spectacular miracles long time ago, but there are no recent miracles, such a fact needs an explanation (and it has to fit the doctrine of religion).

Catholics can point to both old and recent miracles (for example, Miracle of the Sun in Fatima). Some Protestant group that has no recent miracles can try offering an explanation that miracles only happened until Church was properly established.

But do Hinduists have a plausible explanation? What event would be of sufficient importance for them?

You need to think through your arguments more carefully I think.

You need to read through my arguments more carefully I think.

It is in chapter ten.

I see. I guess numbering of chapters differs between those two versions, for it looks like what was chapter 9 in that version.

So, my points still stand.

First, I would like to know what Buddhist authorities think about this text. (Just as I think it is unwise for you to base your opinion on your interpretation of Catholic or Jewish text, when interpretation of Catholic or Jewish authorities is available, I would prefer not to have to base my opinion on my interpretation of Buddhist text when interpretation of Buddhist authorities should be available.) Do they claim it is an eyewitness report?

That is, is that description a miracle claim?

For now I have failed to get such an explanation. So, at most I can make a somewhat educated guess. The genre of the text seems to be closer to “Divine Comedy” than to Gospel accounts. At least some scholars think the text was written about 600 years after the events it is supposed to describe. Thus I guess it is not a miracle claim.

Also, as I noted, if the miracle claim is real, it does not look like Buddhist doctrine can easily deal with it, thus it is not much of evidence for it. More specifically, the sage seems to be showing off his abilities. Why is he showing off? Does he desire admiration? Aren’t Buddhist sages supposed to be unattached to things like that?

You might also note that Indian scriptures are aware that stars are distant suns with their own sets of planets a very long way from earth. That is something the Bible does not recognise.

Is that supposed to be the most impressive evidence you can find…?

 

[steve-b]

His suggestion is not practical since many religions exist. This is correct since there is more than one rational choice among existing religions. So one has to bet on options which are equally likely.

Not most likely as if all are OK or pretty much equal so just pick one…

Paschal. besides being a mathematician, & physicist, he was a Catholic Theologian. I happen to think he makes a very simple and effective argument. Kinda like Paul’s argument for believing in Jesus. It’s simple. 1 Corinthians 15:13-23

Jesus either did that or He didn’t. Kinda like Pascha;'s wager. There is a right and wrong answer, not a bunch of equal or close to equal answers just pick one.

 

[rossum]

First, I would like to know what Buddhist authorities think about this text.

There are probably more Buddhist denominations than there are Christian ones. Different groups have different approaches. The Theravada ignores Mahayana sutras, such as the Vimalakirti. Different Mahayana schools tend to concentrate on one or a few sutras, rather than on all of them. The Vimalakirti nirdesa has most importance in the Chan or Zen traditions.

In general Buddhists do not put a great store by miracles. Any sufficiently advanced yogi is capable of performing miracles; they are not exclusive to Buddhism.

Is that supposed to be the most impressive evidence you can find…?

Merely evidence, not “most impressive”. I picked it because it was part of the same episode. Christians sometimes try to read scientific advances into the Bible text; I was showing that the same is possible for other ancient texts.

 

[MPat]

There are probably more Buddhist denominations than there are Christian ones. Different groups have different approaches. The Theravada ignores Mahayana sutras, such as the Vimalakirti. Different Mahayana schools tend to concentrate on one or a few sutras, rather than on all of them. The Vimalakirti nirdesa has most importance in the Chan or Zen traditions.

That does not explain if any of them think that text was an eyewitness account or something similar…

In general Buddhists do not put a great store by miracles.

Perhaps.

But then, Pascal’s Wager as such is not primarily aimed at Buddhists.

Any sufficiently advanced yogi is capable of performing miracles; they are not exclusive to Buddhism.

So, any recent examples, any explanation why they are supposed to have such an ability, any explanation why they would choose to perform miracles?

 

[rossum]

So, any recent examples, any explanation why they are supposed to have such an ability, any explanation why they would choose to perform miracles?

One of the rules for Buddhist monks is to avoid performing miracles whenever possible. The great majority of advanced Buddhist practitioners are monks.

Wikipedia has a good summary of the Buddha’s Miracles. Section 6 on the Buddhist attitude to miracles is good.

 

[MPat]

One of the rules for Buddhist monks is to avoid performing miracles whenever possible. The great majority of advanced Buddhist practitioners are monks.

Wikipedia has a good summary of the Buddha’s Miracles . Section 6 on the Buddhist attitude to miracles is good.

Yes, that makes sense. To simplify - perhaps a bit too much - the fact that a Buddhist performs miracles is evidence (maybe not overwhelming) for him being unlikely to be sufficiently advanced to able to perform miracles.

Which, of course, means that we should expect that list of, let’s say, 20 recent Catholic miracles is going to be much easier to make than similar list of Buddhist miracles.

And if it was otherwise, it would be a bit harder to make the case for Catholicism, but Buddhism itself would be almost disproved by that fact.