Pascal's Wager Redux

[Abba]

Yes, you are right. One does need extraordinary evidence. And if God has set the system up so that we can detect His handiwork, then He has done an abysmally bad job. I see no evidence whatsoever of a personal God. And any other type of God would be irrelevant.

But you met Sagan? Colour me jealous…

Thank you for putting up with my bad grammar and English (btw, you gave away your English accent). If I commit to editing, I would never post. But, I did not make my little point clear enough. I am not merely pointing out the need of sufficient evidence for extraordinary claims; but, that there are differences in claims. So, it is not the same to bunch the existence of God with the existence of Santa Claus. Normal people do not believe in Santa Claus (aside from children for a short time in their lives) but, millions believe in the existence of God, historically and across cultures and languages. So, the claim that God exists carries more weight, is more valuable and should accordingly be taken more seriously than the claim that one of the magical worlds from the imagination of the Grimm’s brothers truly exists.

Now, as far as the very claim of the existence of God being an extraordinary claim, it’s not that extraordinary when millions of people claim to know He exists.

As far as the system or process to come to know if a being who created the universe truly does exist; well, tonyrey wrote it in a couple of sentences. It would have probably taken me three long posts to say what he said in a couple of lines. As yourself and others here, he has a knack for expressing himself concisely. This brings to mind ancient Delphi, where it is said competitions were held to express the most wisdom with as few words as possible. The ability to do so was a sign of intelligence in itself. Know Thyself won such a competition and was inscribed in the temple. Or so the story goes.

What I think is clear, is that God does have His own system which is specific to coming to know Him. I think you will agree with me with that, however lightly if only to humour me, as the scientific ones have not worked out and if He really does exist there must be some other way of coming to ‘learn’ this.

The problem some people face is that believers are somewhat too comfortable with their vocabulary and just use it but the non-believers are in left field not knowing what is going on because they do not even grasp the rules of the game never mind some special jargon to explain it. Words become meaningless labels when you can’t grasp the principles and foundations of what is being expressed.

That is your task. Your fight and you must fight the good fight and win. Overcome the obstacles.

Yes, indeed, God has made up His own way for people to come to know Him. You are not seeking Him in accordance to that design - so you are outside trapped in a web. Your situation is such, that you are trying to get in thru a small door God designed one must get thru to come to know Him but you can’t because of the luggage you are carrying - you can’t fit thru the door. Get rid of the luggage so you can walk thru the door. He does not want people with a lot of luggage coming thru (e.g. pride etc…) - that’s the way He designed it. It serves as a trap and some are so overloaded they cannot even see the door - they are blinded. If you ever pass the door, don’t forget to take your sandals off - this way He will allow you to get closer. Try to put yourself aside a little - this helps too.

Psalm 8:2

Out of the mouth of babies and infants, you have established strength because of your foes, to still the enemy and the avenger.

Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus declared, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

Matthew 21:16
“Do you hear what these children are saying?” they asked. “Yes,” Jesus answered, “have you never read: ‘From the mouths of children and infants You have ordained praise’?”

1 Corinthians 1:27
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

“My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me–holy is his name. His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation. He has performed mighty deeds with his arm; he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty. He has helped his servant Israel, remembering to be merciful to Abraham and his descendants forever, even as he said to our fathers.” (Luke 1:46-55)

Keep in mind God is spirit and thru the spirit is a good way to try to find Him. Paul said that His existence is evident (not his exact words but I am too lazy right now and do not want to look it up) in the beauty and magnificence of the sky and nature; but, this is not so for many people for whatever reason (blindness due to sin - some may argue). Personally, between you and me and this light pole; I still don’t see how His existence should be evident in this way but knowing Him I can appreciate the beauty and see how they could be reflecting Him but this is to appreciate these things from the perspective of someone who already believes.

Any who, so, why must God, if He really does exists, be a personal God?

 

[STT]

What if someone is doing something you find to be wrong, but feels it is absolutely fine?

It is not my business.

Let’s say, he’s dragging his wife around by her hair because she burned his toast?

Why I should bother if she is happy? This is a mutual relationship. She of course could separate in a well balanced society, where women have the same right as men, where a woman can live separately and independently, etc. before he commits such a crime.

 

[PRmerger]

It is not my business.

Wow.

Why I should bother if she is happy*? This is a mutual relationship. She of course could separate in a well balanced society, where women have the same right as men, where a woman can live separately and independently, etc. before he commits such a crime.

Not really the point. It’s not the example I’m proposing, but the concept.

So if there’s some wrong in the world, your position is: why should I bother?

Is that a correct assessment of your position… as a “seeker of truth”?

Incidentally, what if she’s not happy?

 

[STT]

Wow.

Not really the point. It’s not the example I’m proposing, but the concept.

So if there’s some wrong in the world, your position is: why should I bother?

Is that a correct assessment of your position… as a “seeker of truth”?

Incidentally, what if she’s not happy?

We should bother in such a case if it really happen by chance. What we should do? Send the guy to psychiatric hospital.

 

[PRmerger]

We should bother in such a case if it really happen by chance.

Egg-zactly.

You would step in because you know that what this man is doing is…

objectively wrong.

Even if…

he thinks what he’s doing is perfectly fine.

As a “seeker of truth”, you would know that this man is wrong. Objectively so.

 

[STT]

Egg-zactly.

You would step in because you know that what this man is doing is…

objectively wrong.

It is objectively wrong if she is unhappy with the action.

Even if…

he thinks what he’s doing is perfectly fine.

As a “seeker of truth”, you would know that this man is wrong. Objectively so.

Of course things matter in a mutual relationship.

 

[PRmerger]

It is objectively wrong if she is unhappy with the action.

Well, then, you are not a moral relativist.

You believe in Objective Moral Truth.

Here’s another example of an Objective Moral Truth I believe in. Let’s see if you believe it, too:

It is wrong to torture babies for fun.

Yes?

Also:

It is wrong to kill your daughter because she was raped and now has no value because she is no longer a virgin.

Yes?

 

[STT]

Well, then, you are not a moral relativist.

You believe in Objective Moral Truth.

Here’s another example of an Objective Moral Truth I believe in. Let’s see if you believe it, too:

It is wrong to torture babies for fun.

Yes?

Yes, because babies cannot consent.

Also:

It is wrong to kill your daughter because she was raped and now has no value because she is no longer a virgin.

Yes?

Of course it is wrong if she is not happy with the term.

 

[Bradski]

Thank you for putting up with my bad grammar and English (btw, you gave away your English accent).

Any who, so, why must God, if He really does exists, be a personal God?

The accent would be Aussie with fair amount of Welsh. Think a mixture of Paul Hogan and Hugh Jackman with some Tom Jones and Anthony Hopkins thrown in.

And if God is not a personal God, that is if He has no interaction with us at all, then He might as well not exist.

 

[MPat]

But you’re not touching on the point I was making. If praying and attending a Christian (preferably Catholic) church is the right and rational thing to do, even as a “secondary goal”, then the fact that an omni-everything god takes this very same method that other religions (ones Christians say are false) uses to get them to pray to their god(s) and attend their services calls into question it’s likelyhood.

Training in a gun range helps both policemen and assassins. What does that call into question?

As I noted to Randy above when taking into account things like Pascal’s Wager credibility is a major factor. The Problem of Divine Hiddenness puts a serious damper on said credibility.

What “Divine Hiddenness”? It looks like there are more than 2 billions of Christians in the world. It doesn’t look like finding God is quite as hard as you claim…

I countered by saying there are some believers who are not charitable and there are some non-belivers who are charitable.

For this point you need to prove at least “On average, atheists are as charitable, as believers.”.

I disagree. Atheists tend to ask the hows and whys to understand and believers tend to say that one must first believe before any understanding. Believers that I’ve seen describe their faith often (though not always) couch it in terms of feeling.

So, in other words, you do agree - you are talking about feelings here.

As I described above there are certainly similarities between actions a person forces on his or her self and actions imposed by others. Compound that with the fact that the person in question has taken the time to assess the situation and found no reason behind performing such actions and the results in both cases will lean more towards resenting the actions than accepting them.

Of course there are similarities - precisely the ones that are irrelevant here.

I disagree if you’re saying Christianity has the strongest supporting evidence. Deism has far stronger evidence than Christianity in my opinion.

Then become a deist.

It has the added bonus of not sending me to Hell for lack of belief.

I’m afraid that this is not certain even for Deism…

But it is even more interesting that here we see that you are not exactly free from wishful thinking…

So again it’s about the threats more than the evidence. Let’s say that X is a deity who not only subjects me to Hell if I disbelieve but also my family, even if they believe in X. X has offered a stronger case to worship him than Yahweh. If such a religion existed it’s likely you wouldn’t follow it because you believe in Yahweh based on your reading of the evidence. Evidence is the key and not the threat.

Pascal’s Wager is meant for cases when evidence is inconclusive.

I strongly disagree with that. I’ve posted at length in other threads about those cases where a deity (according to a holy book) or a church has commanded people to do great evil, which puts believers in a unique bind that atheists simply don’t have.

I’m pretty sure that victims of Katyn would disagree with the claim that no atheist organisation has ever “commanded people to do great evil”.

And once again you need to compare averages. Outliers do not matter.

Finally, the point you were answering was that, from the point of view of just about any religion, just about any religion is preferable to atheism. Your answer has little to do with that point.

In the same way that I ignore 5 as being the answer to 2+2. This thread has provided similar answers.

Even in that case they have to be acknowledged. “I got bad answers.” is not the same as “I got no answers.”.

What do you mean by a sacraments “work”?

I’m not sure what you ask for, thus, at first, do you know what sacraments are?

How on earth are you equating my defense that there are (many) atheists who have honestly assessed the religion question openly and honestly with a philosophical question of going through the motions of Christianity for fear of Hell. “Arguing in the very fashion of Pascal’s Wager?” Those two things are not in the same ballpark. It’s not even the same sport.

So, I tell you that the form of both arguments is the same and you respond that the subject is different…

I’m saying that in both cases decision is based on something other than evidence, because it is assumed to be inconclusive or simply hasn’t been presented.

You’ve been on CAF for over 10 years, and you’re suggesting in all that time you’ve never met a single atheist here or in real life that – while you disagree with that person – has made an open and thorough assessment of the god question?

No, I was not saying that.

And no, “open and thorough assessment” is far too high bar for honesty.

And it is no wonder that no, I do not remember any atheist making anything close to “an open and thorough assessment of the god question” (the ones who became former atheists because of it do not count)…

But when a non-believer decides to consider the wager he or she is not just looking at Catholicism (as has been noted several times by multiple people here). If a person is considering whether the Christian god is to be believed a person should at least consider the exclusivist position.

You were asking what would happen to Zap if Catholicism is true. And even if you were asking anything else, that is not an excuse to tell falsehoods.

 

[Abba]

Actually, I think C and E are wrong.

If I believe in God and He does exists but, I abandon myself to sin - I will pay more dearly for those sins than someone who had been given fewer graces and less knowledge. According to some mystics, there are a lot of religious in the lowest part of purgatory exactly because they were given many graces and much more was expected of them.

Luke 12:48

But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

If I don’t believe in God and He does exist, He who knows me and loves me more than anyone ever will or could, will judge me with His wisdom, mercy, love and justice. He who knows my weaknesses, limitations, inner thoughts, who is all-knowing will be the judge not the faithful with their limited knowledge etc… not to mention it is an act forbidden by God Himself. By Him who tells us to get the beam out of our own eyes so we can see the speck in our brother’s eye.

Romans 2:14

…13For it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but it is the doers of the Law who will be declared righteous. 14Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the Law, do by nature what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the Law, 15since they show that the work of the Law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them.…

C and E could be true sometimes but not always.

 

[MPat]

Jesus isn’t making a threat. He is saying something which may be brand new to his audience. He first states what they all know, that murderers will be judged. But then He says not only deeds, but also murderous thoughts and angry words will be judged:

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell."

Jesus teaches against the blind duty ethics of the Pharisees (“You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.”)

That sure is a lot of sophistry.

But let’s go to the real question that you didn’t answer: are you going to claim that someone “who says, ‘You fool!’” is not “in danger of the fire of hell”?

The Wager comes from the same legalism as the Pharisees. The moral thing to do is profess belief, virtue doesn’t matter, Grace doesn’t matter.

Oh, but the actual decision supported by the Wager is not “profess belief”, it is “act as if you believed”. Which does mean trying to act virtuously.

That is the part that I don’t like it. The love should be unconditional if the existence has any value and meaning. That the way to become Godly.

Why should anyone care about what you like? Have you considered a possibility that you are simply wrong?

Theist or atheist, it is not good to align your life with your interest if life has any meaning otherwise I don’t understand what is the purpose of creation.

Yes, you do not understand what is the purpose of creation.

Seriously, why do you assume that you do understand it?

There’s no bet. I believe what I believe based on the evidence I’ve been given and that I’ve sought out. Christianity’s alleged deity (one of a great many alleged deities) treating me like a dog with extreme negative reinforcement and positive reinforcement won’t make me try to believe something I can’t. The only difference is a dog knows his master really exists.

I don’t think that pride counts as evidence… I also do not think pride counts as a good basis for honestly held beliefs.

For yes, if Christianity is true, the relationship between humans and God is somewhat similar to a relationship between humans and their pets (or, perhaps, humans and Teddy bears - after all, we do not create our pets). It is so even if you do not like it.

Hopefully, you merely misspoke here…

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

What “Divine Hiddenness”? It looks like there are more than 2 billions of Christians in the world. It doesn’t look like finding God is quite as hard as you claim…

And which one of them is “God”?

Oh, but the actual decision supported by the Wager is not “profess belief”, it is “act as if you believed”.

Translation: “be a hypocrite!”

 

[PRmerger]

Translation: “be a hypocrite!”

Nope.

That’s the mantra of love and commitment.

If you’re married, surely you understand that.

Sometimes you don’t feel the love, but you act as if you do…and then, sure enough, love comes.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Well, you are not really talking about spiritual growth. If you expect a spiritual growth as an outcome of a teaching then the growth should be mainly based on respect toward individuals and self-respect of individuals toward themselves. Carrot and stick has no place in such a teaching which I believe is true spiritual teaching.

As the saying goes, sometimes you have to hit the donkey over the head with a 2x4 just to get its attention.

Some adults (and a lot of childish brats) respond at first only to that kind of education.

And when they learn that you command respect, they begin also to learn self-respect too (because the two go hand in hand), rather than going down the easy, selfish and atheistic path of least resistance to their own perdition.

Having realized that the fate of the immortal soul hangs in the balance, the long adventure into true spirituality can begin.

 

[Abba]

It’s high time someone says it, it should be said and should have been said. I think you people are wonderful, Al Mortz, tonyrey, PRMerger, Charlamagne III et al. Your dedication in the struggle to help atheists find God is admirable - there is a lot of love there - a lot of love.

Charlamagne III thank you for the laughter with that - carrot and stick post and even your last post. I am certainly with my Catholic comrades with the objective to help atheists disentangle themselves from the web they are trapped in so they may be able to recognize the existence of God. 100%.

However, with this whole Pascal’s Wager argument, I am leaning with the atheists. It’s true that it may work for *some *- fear has been known to work to get people to do things. As a matter of fact, based on my experiences in the university communities in the 80s and early 90s; I would say that fear was active in making some people atheists. The science students best kept their mouth shut about any belief in a being that could not be confirmed under the microscope, otherwise, their scientific ability was questioned etc… This may sound wild, but, I lived it. There was serious pressure put on people. So, fear worked for some who decided to actually discard God, but others played reserved and maintained their faith. And, yes, there were plenty who did not care about the pressure and were opened about their faith and practiced it public. The believers survived just fine. I never heard of anyone not getting grants because their capacity was questioned due to their belief in God. If this happened, it was of course not public because of the laws forbidding this type of discrimination. Did it ever happen? I wouldn’t be surprised because internal politics has a way of getting things done without creating more problems. To say, fear may have played a role in bringing some people to atheism because the politics promoting it places some people in a difficult situation. In turn, people start by denying their belief, then actually live like as atheists and then end up believing that they truly are atheists.

Fear also brought Jews to the Catholic faith. Back in the 16th and 17th century in Spain, many Jews converted due to political pressure. Saint Theresa of Avila notes in one of her writings that not all the Jews who have converted were true converts. Some were pretending to avoid the political repercussions. But, I think that out of the ones that due to fear were just pretending, because they were pretending and as such living as Catholics even though in their heart of hearts they did not believe, they ended up being true believers. So, forced to pretend to be atheist brought some to atheism and forced to pretend to be Catholics brought some to Catholicism.

Fear is also the driving force for some Catholics. Less than for love of God but for the fear of the eternal fires of hell; some people abide by the commandments and the demands of the Church. Fear works, and it may bring a minuscule amount of atheism to pretend to accept the existence of God and in living in this form their eyes may open and they will recognize His existence.

Blackmail works much better because fear is used to force someone to do something. But, to expect out of fear a person to believe something, is very different than to expect them to take an action. Yes, we can see the fruits of people living a faithful life and actually come to know God really does. This also works for the faithful, who may not understand a teaching but, continue on faithfully and in time come to understand the teaching.

To pretend to believe in something one does not believe is a violation of the integrity of the person. I simplty would not uphold this Pascal’s Wager argument at all, if fear brings some to pretend God exists and thru this pretension they come to recognize He actually does exist - wonderful! But, to promote this - is no good. Many Catholics from South America have converted to Mormonism due to the deceptive conversion system used by the Mormons. One of the tactics, for instance, is to let the lapse Catholics (who have been somewhat abandoned by the Church for various reasons) think that when they use certain words the meanings meant is exactly the ones the listener hold. Like for the word “Jesus” and “Sacred Scripture”, many promises are made as well etc… and there is social support etc… So, they reel them in first and then when the person is baptized and has publically converted is taught more and more and then convert just shrugs off the differences at that point and remains. Something like that.

Well, I have always been against these conversion tactics and they actually get me angry. It hurts me deeply to see decendants of pious Catholic be manipulated into leaving the faith and as such being deprived of the Sacraments. This gets my blood boiling, due to the deception involved. Actually, those deceptions are so nasty now that I have typed this, it doesn’t even compare to asking atheists to pretend to believe out of fear, but, similiarity is to expect or request people put their ability to think for themselves aside and adopt something that in their own mind does not make sense. This is dangerous. This is a tactic used in sects and people lose enough respect for their thinking ability that they give it up and let others think and make decisions for them. Then the Guru decides one day they are all going to heaven and so lets all poison ourselves.

Noooooo. We need to respect the integrity of person, it is unethical to promote otherwise. God respects each and everyone of us and died for each and everyone of us. He did not make us robots, instead, He made us in His image - with the ability to think for ourselves. We need to help atheists get disentangled with respect of person.

 

[MPat]

And which one of them is “God”?

Maybe this your joke would more funny if it could be heard…

But seriously, if 2 billions - even more, if we’d add Muslims, Jews, maybe some others - managed to find God, is God really that hidden?

Translation: “be a hypocrite!”

You do not know what “a hypocrite” is supposed to be, do you?

Let’s look at the “Catholic encyclopedia” right here: catholic.com/encyclopedia/hypocrisy - “Hypocrisy (Gr. upo, under, and krinesthai, to contend—hence adequately “to answer” on the stage, “to play a part”, “to feign or pretend”) is the pretension to qualities which one does not possess, or, more cognately to the scope of this article, the putting forward of a false appearance of virtue or religion.”.

So, let’s say, someone who is not very smart but tries to understand an argument, studies - he is not a hypocrite, even if his success is rather limited while he says that it is good to be rational. However, someone who loudly claims to be rational and scolds everyone who disagrees with him for “not being rational”, while failing to follow a most simple of arguments because of lack of effort - he can far more rightly be called a hypocrite. In other words, it is hypocritical to claim to value rationality without actually valuing it, but it is not hypocritical to claim it to be to valuable while not being rational (although really thinking it to be valuable).

On the other hand, what you have called “hypocrisy” is properly called “trying not to be evil”.

So, are you going to sing further praises of that sort of atheist morality, where trying not to be evil is something to be avoided, or are you going to take your words back and try again? And no, doing the later would not be hypocritical - but doing the former might…

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe this your joke would more funny if it could be heard…

But seriously, if 2 billions - even more, if we’d add Muslims, Jews, maybe some others - managed to find God, is God really that hidden?

Egg-zactly

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It’s high time someone says it, it should be said and should have been said. I think you people are wonderful, Al Mortz, tonyrey, PRMerger, Charlamagne III et al. Your dedication in the struggle to help atheists find God is admirable - there is a lot of love there - a lot of love.

Charlamagne III thank you for the laughter with that - carrot and stick post and even your last post. I am certainly with my Catholic comrades with the objective to help atheists disentangle themselves from the web they are trapped in so they may be able to recognize the existence of God. 100%.

Not for laughter:

You seem to have completely forgotten Matthew 25, where the carrot and the stick abound. Christ does not ask us to pretend to be compassionate, but TO BE COMPASSIONATE. Pascal, using the carrot and the stick, does not ask us to pretend to believe, but TO BELIEVE.

And the bottom line is that many atheists, not to mention many Christians, at the hour of their death, use the carrot and the stick on themselves.

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16

“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John: 9

No joking matter.

 

[PRmerger]

And if God is not a personal God, that is if He has no interaction with us at all, then He might as well not exist.