Pascal's Wager Redux

[Mike_from_NJ]

So, you agree that it can lead one to some faith?

As I noted to Peter before, the odds of it being successful are slim but there could be a few who when immersed in a particular culture take it up. But again, that’s more the exception than the rule.

As I also noted this methodology could (in exceptional cases) lead one to a faith that both the Christian and atheist would both say are not true. This shows that the methodology doesn’t necessarily lead one to truth. It’s flawed. To put it another way a good methodology would not only be successful but not lead one to contradictory results. For example, I might occasionally get an accurate reading from a phrenologist, but the fact that more times than not I won’t, and among those times I might get opposite readings. These are all multiple strikes against that methodology. If I’m lost and decide to follow a car that I think might be going at or near my intended destination it might work once a while, a few times I might get close, and a lot of times I’ll just end up even farther from where I want to be. It’s not a good methodology.

So, if Sungenis is not persuaded by evidence for theory of relativity, would you say there is a problem with theory of relativity, or a problem with Sungenis?

Robert Sungenis? Clearly in that case it would be Mr. Sungenis’s problem.

Let’s turn it around. He proposes geocentricism. I’m assuming you’re not a geocentrist. His argument for geocentricism doesn’t convince you. Is there a problem with geocentricism or with you? The answer is easy. Geocentricism is at fault. Unlike the theory of relativity we can show the faults in geocentricism.

Now let’s add another step. Instead of proposing something that can be shown true, let’s say it’s something that is niether falsifiable nor provable. My unfalsifiable/unprovable theory is not on the same level as relativity or even geocentricism. It’s a mush of proposals that has no facts to verify or deny. There is no evidence, just an intense assertion possibly with threats and promises attached. It could conoceivable be true, but it’s not something where an atheist should go through the motions of belief based on that evidence-free possibility.

The said approach works quite well, assuming that it’s a test (for example, of humility) for humans.

A test of what exactly? The willingness to take something on faith? We know that this can lead to people choosing the so-called “wrong” faiths. It would be like if I sent out a memo to a small fraction of the people in my department containing important and immediate information for their jobs. I have to hope the few I told pass it along to the others, that they do it quickly, that they pass it along verbatim, and that the people this is being passed onto believe it came from me and someone isn’t just make up something and claiming it’s from me.

The way religion has to be created in one spot then spread (similar to how other religions we both think aren’t true have done) is a knock against its possible truth not a case for it.

And there is nothing wrong with rejection of donations. Especially if the donation might have been offered as trolling (see shadowtolight.wordpress.com/category/muskogee-atheist-community/ for further explanation).

That’s quite an echo chamber you linked to. My first link explains that the charity declined the initial $100 donation because it had the word atheist associated with it. Eventually they rejected $25,000 for the same reason. If saying a donation came from an atheist is “trolling” then there is an issue with oversensitivity. Some people are desperate to keep up the narrative that atheists can’t help their fellow man or be charitable.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Maybe you should say that to Randy and not to me?

Anyway, existence of many charitable atheists doesn’t prove what you want. You need data that compares conversion rates.

It’s interesting that you talk about conversion rates with regards to charity, because it seems at least a portion of charity by Christian organizations is for the ulterior purpose of converting those receiving the charity. For example. there are some soup kitchens where the hungry aren’t fed until they’ve been fully preached to. So far I haven’t heard of any atheist organization which has offered help but then tried to get the recipients to give up their respective faiths.

It means that you do not understand what you say. You do not talk about faith of atheists, but about faith of believers. You think they associate faith with feelings. Therefore, you associate faith with feelings. That’s what I said.

I’m not saying atheists don’t have or don’t consider their feelings, but I am saying (and have repeatedly said) that believers are far more likely to justify their position on the existence of their god based on feeling than a non-believer. There is no Road to Demascus moment for atheists. Believers will sometimes say they can sense one or more persons of the Godhead or hear God pushing them in one direction or using what they believe is divine intervention in a dream to take a certain action.

So, you think that “going into detail” while ignoring that difference should be considered to be good enough?

What are the differences between going through the motions because one wants to or because a loved one is asking you to? I present to you a parallel to Pascal’s Wager. Let’s call it the Disapproving Dad Wager. Dad’s adult daughter announces she is going to marry some fellow. Dad does not like this fellow. There are different possible people who might want to convince the dad to accept his future son-in-law. The dad himself may want to or is wife may want him to. One is internal influence and one is external. If the dad finds he can’t overlook the deficiencies of the daughter’s fiance it’s because of assessing the pros and cons of having her follow through with the marriage. Whether the earlier desire to keep silent was something he wanted to do or his wife wanted to do makes little difference in the face of not seeing evidence that the suitor will be good for his daughter.

So, no actual argument?

My argument was brief, but it was certainly there. So it’s best to go trace back this section of our discussion:

[Deism]
has the added bonus of not sending me to Hell for lack of belief.

MPat:

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…

]
It’s not a matter of wishful thinking to say that if the god(s) of Deism is correct, meaning he/she/they doesn’ interact with his/her/their creation, then it’s unlikely that if there is an afterlife the judgement is based on belief in him/her/them. It naturally follows from the makeup of Deism.

The last two sentences of that last quote was my argument. Think about it. Of the various religions which threaten of a poor afterlife how many don’t state that belief in that religion’s deity is a key component in avoiding that poor afterlife? Wishful thinking is thinking that doesn’t follow from what we know of a situation. My two sentences were not wishful thinking. Because of A, B is not likely. That doesn’t rule out B if A is correct, but it’s based on what is known not what is wanted.

Because evidence is obviously not non-existent. Those atheists evade the Wager at the price of having to proclaim obvious falsehood.

Saying something is obvious doesn’t make it obvious. Obvious things can be shown and proven. The god of Christianity can not.

You implicitly assert the hidden premises of your arguments.

After you claimed I made a statement as to atheists never calling for great evil (something that I absolutely did not write) I wanted to know why you claimed I made such a statement. You responded that I implied such a statement (which as before I did not). I’ll put it out there again: There are good and bad atheists, Rastafarians, Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, etc. The one moral issue unique to believers is that if a deity (via a written text) or a religious organization says to do something morally questionable/wrong the believer has to overcome years of training telling him that deity or organization is the font of morality.

Suddenly, that doesn’t sound that impressive.

Impressive wouldn’t be the word I would use. Legitimate seems to fit what I described better, as in it is a legitimate concern when discussing what influences outside forces have on a person’s morality. Believers will be more than happy to tell non-believers of all stripes the positive influences that God and church have had on their morality, so it would stand to reason that negative influences can’t be swept under the rug when it becomes inconvenient to consider.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

There’s a difference between “You didn’t answer.” and “I don’t like your answer.”. But it looks like you do not value precision that much…

It’s not “I don’t like your answer” and instead it’s “Your answer is amiss, awry, bad, erroneous …” If your argument is I didn’t taken into account bad answers, then yes when I said there were no answers I implied there were no good answers. Why would anyone want to hang their hat on the idea that bad answers were brushed aside (as they should be)?

Your question is still ambiguous. So, let’s take confession: do you know what it is for?

I’m not sure what’s ambiguous about asking you to define terminology that you used. You said sacrifices “work”. In dealing with this kind of thing before I know that sometimes different believers have different meanings and implications when using certain terms. I want to be crystal clear as to how you are using the word “work” in relation to the sacraments before I commented further.

I’ll quote the cathecism regarding penance:
1422 “Those who approach the sacrament of Penance obtain pardon from God’s mercy for the offense committed against him, and are, at the same time, reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by their sins and which by charity, by example, and by prayer labors for their conversion.”

If by work you mean gaining mercy from God for offenses commited against him, then how do we demonstrate that it works?

Looks like you have presented no actual evidence supporting existence of honest atheists. Yet I’d still say that overall evidence is inconclusive. One can have evidence that is both one-sided and inconclusive.

I am reminded of a similar earlier thread I was part of. The question was whether atheists would hold to their lack of faith during a life threatening situation. This person I and others were conversing with took the position that to a man atheists in such crises would turn to God. I presented this person with a link to the Atheists in Foxholes group of military combatants in wars and other life-threatening situations would do just as I suggested. It included testimonies from these people. This person was presented with all the evidence of atheists who were sincere in their positions on religion even when facing death, but still the person simply would not accept it. What I’m saying is your disbelief that there are honest atheists doesn’t change the fact that they exist.

And that is irrelevant. You made a claim about Bible. Prove it, reformulate it or take it back.

The claim I made about the Bible is that some Christians have interpreted it with an exclsuivist reading and other Christians have not. I certainly have not stated I was in favor or against exclusivism and if you are stating that I have then a quote would be necessary. Remember this is all about if a non-believer submits to the wager then which beliefs should he or she consider. You are telling everyone that a person should not consider those flavors of Christianity which embrace exclusivism, and I’m saying that a wager taker should consider all faiths and all subsets of those faiths

 

[PRmerger]

So, if Sungenis is not persuaded by evidence for theory of relativity, would you say there is a problem with theory of relativity, or a problem with Sungenis?

This is an excellent question.

And I add: if Jenny McCarthy is not persuaded by evidence for the benefit of immunizations, would you say there is a problem with the science of immunology, or a problem with McCarthy?

 

[inocente]

If one objects to the principle of choosing the lesser evil it can replaced by the principle of the double effect (which amounts to the same as choosing the lesser evil). Killing is evil but it is justified in self-defence and defence of one’s family

The article I linked repudiates the doctrine of lesser evil, saying “Catholics may not choose any evil. None — period”, so your view that it amounts to the same as the principle of double effect isn’t shared by the author, Brother André Marie.

He then says that the principle of double effect has four criteria, all four of which must be met. I think you can’t show you meet all four when you threaten someone “If you don’t believe in God, and you are wrong, you will suffer eternal damnation”.

And anyway, where does Pascal say anything like that? If you look at my post #305, Pascal argues against that line from the OP, just as I’ve done.

Similarly the outcome of appealing to self-interest (which is far less serious than killing) has the effect of persuading atheists to become less dogmatic and consider the reasons for becoming a Christian. It is certainly a better policy than writing them off as hopeless cases. Jesus Himself appealed to self-interest - as opposed to selfishness - in the Sermon on the Mount:

I’ve never before heard any Christian claim that Jesus appealed to self-interest. Here are the first three definitions found by google:

“self-interest - one’s personal interest or advantage, especially when pursued without regard for others.”
“self-interest - a concern for one’s own advantage and well-being <acted out of self–interest and fear>”
“Self-interest generally refers to a focus on the needs or desires (interests) of the self.”

My post #306 quotes Pope Francis on two different occasions arguing against self-interest.

Jesus argues against it “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15). Paul argues explicitly against it “Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.” - Phil 2

BTW The problems of abuse and baiting would not arise if one refrained from making personal comments. One should confine oneself to objective statements however dull it may appear…

I look forward to your new resolution.

 

[inocente]

This proves my point!

Not sure what your point was then. My version of Pensees is as post #305, please comment.

 

[inocente]

First, no, your morality is not the same thing as Christian morality. You still haven’t established that.

Second, no, “sophistry” was not used to describe your morality, your position - it was used to describe your way of arguing for it.

Third, no, “sophistry” is not a “foolish” way to argue. It is a name used for arguments that are tortuous and fallacious.

And in this case you only had to say if you think that someone “who says, ‘You fool!’” is “in danger of the fire of hell”.

If you do, then Jesus was warning us of a real danger - and in that case, why shouldn’t we warn others of a real danger?

If you do not, we are going to have an interesting discussion about your related views.

Yet you refuse to answer, or, to be more exact, try to evade the need to answer…

And now you say I’m evasive. But I’ll not be bullied into agreeing that the words “you fool!” are some kind of magic spell which conjures up God’s wrath.

Here is Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary saying the same as me only in more words.

“5:21-26 The Jewish teachers had taught, that nothing except actual murder was forbidden by the sixth commandment. Thus they explained away its spiritual meaning. Christ showed the full meaning of this commandment; according to which we must be judged hereafter, and therefore ought to be ruled now. All rash anger is heart murder. By our brother, here, we are to understand any person, though ever so much below us, for we are all made of one blood. Raca, is a scornful word, and comes from pride: Thou fool, is a spiteful word, and comes from hatred. Malicious slanders and censures are poison that kills secretly and slowly. Christ told them that how light soever they made of these sins, they would certainly be called into judgment for them. We ought carefully to preserve Christian love and peace with all our brethren; and if at any time there is a quarrel, we should confess our fault, humble ourselves to our brother, making or offering satisfaction for wrong done in word or deed: and we should do this quickly; because, till this is done, we are unfit for communion with God in holy ordinances. And when we are preparing for any religious exercises, it is good for us to make that an occasion of serious reflection and self-examination. What is here said is very applicable to our being reconciled to God through Christ. While we are alive, we are in the way to his judgement-seat; after death, it will be too late. When we consider the importance of the case, and the uncertainty of life, how needful it is to seek peace with God, without delay!”

 

[MPat]

The metaphor: “I am game” means that I am ready and willing to listen to your arguments. It has nothing to do with a “game”. Just like when Amelia Earhart was called a “game old woman”, that expression had nothing to do with any “game”.

Yes, I know the expression “I’m game.” is supposed to indicate openness to a challenge. Yet in this case it is easy to see that that’s but an invitation to a “game” of “You all, try to persuade me and watch me to refuse to be persuaded.”. And I’m saying that I don’t find it fun and that it would be more interesting if you would be interested in learning something instead - even if that “something” is merely “what silly things will my opponents show themselves to believe next?”.

Please, there is no such group as “non-atheist”. Not all the believers believe in the same god. Since all of them reject the arguments for the existence of a god different from their own, I have no idea what you hope to “prove” here.

If there is a set of atheists and a universal set of all humans (or, let’s say, adults), there is obviously also a set of non-atheists which is a complement of the set of atheists. And it is non-empty, since the set of atheists is not equal with the universal set. Or, to word it in a more simple way, not everyone is an atheist.

Any other tries?

Also, no, only in atheist mythology believers “reject the arguments for the existence of a god different from their own”. For example, we know that “Allah” is just a different name for the same God. That was also the case for polytheists: for example, Romans openly acknowledged that their “Jupiter” was also Greek “Zeus”. As for our relationship with polytheist gods, it is not that we believe they do not exist, it is that we do not care. As far as we’re concerned, they can be demons, historical leaders, fictional characters - it makes little difference to us.

A test of what exactly? The willingness to take something on faith?

No, a test of humility.

If you do not understand why acceptance of belief could be a test of humility, have a look. It looks like in this thread the atheists are advancing such argument:

1. Atheists are smart, knowledgeable and honest. (premise)
2. If people who are smart, knowledgeable and honest are offered a rational argument, they will accept it. (premise)
3. Atheists reject arguments for God’s existence. (premise)
4. If arguments for God’s existence were rational, atheists would accept them. (from 1, 2)
5. Arguments for God’s existence are not rational. (from 2, 3)

And isn’t it interesting that atheists react with equivalents of “How dare you!” to mere suggestions that the premise 1 has to be supported by an argument?

Although, perhaps atheists just think that we must have a good opinion of all people?

Robert Sungenis? Clearly in that case it would be Mr. Sungenis’s problem.

Nope… It looks like we’re supposed to hold only atheists in high regard…

It’s not “I don’t like your answer” and instead it’s “Your answer is amiss, awry, bad, erroneous …” If your argument is I didn’t taken into account bad answers, then yes when I said there were no answers I implied there were no good answers. Why would anyone want to hang their hat on the idea that bad answers were brushed aside (as they should be)?

Because saying “I was given no answers.” when you know you were given some is imprecise, disrespectful and dishonest.

I’m not sure what’s ambiguous about asking you to define terminology that you used. You said sacrifices “work”. In dealing with this kind of thing before I know that sometimes different believers have different meanings and implications when using certain terms. I want to be crystal clear as to how you are using the word “work” in relation to the sacraments before I commented further.

I’ll quote the cathecism regarding penance:
1422 “Those who approach the sacrament of Penance obtain pardon from God’s mercy for the offense committed against him, and are, at the same time, reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by their sins and which by charity, by example, and by prayer labors for their conversion.”

If by work you mean gaining mercy from God for offenses commited against him, then how do we demonstrate that it works?

So, you’re fully aware what “work” meant. There still was a small possibility that you wanted to find out what specific sacraments are supposed to do.

As for how we demonstrate that sacraments do work: in the given scenario it was assumed that Catholicism is true (or are you going to claim that God was judging Zap while atheism was true?). That’s all we need. Unfortunately, it looks like many atheists sometimes seem to be strangely uncomfortable with such assumption even when it is supposed to be a temporary assumption of a reductio ad absurdum argument…

If you forgot:

It’s a vital question. Let’s say Zap Rowsdower is convinced by your argument on going through the motions of Christianity. He attends Catholic Church every week. He prays daily. He watches videos from Fulton J. Sheen at every opportunity. On his deathbed it didn’t help. It just didn’t add up. No amount of wanting it to be true led him to believe it true. So now have two scenarios:

Scenario 1) Zap dies and God judges him. He finds that even though he doesn’t believe Jesus was his lord and savior (something the Bible is says is necessary to avoid Hell) that he appreciates the effort and sends him to Purgatory and eventually Heaven. In this scenario we now know that belief in Jesus isn’t necessary, just performing the rituals is enough.

I am not going to respond to the rest of your 3 posts - it was hard enough to stay within the character limit now.

 

[MPat]

And now you say I’m evasive. But I’ll not be bullied into agreeing that the words “you fool!” are some kind of magic spell which conjures up God’s wrath.

How did you manage to get that?

No, obviously, it is not about specific words. But still, at the very least it looks like Jesus warns that someone who insults others is in danger of going to hell. Do you agree that it is so or not?

Here is Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary saying the same as me only in more words.

“5:21-26 The Jewish teachers had taught, that nothing except actual murder was forbidden by the sixth commandment. Thus they explained away its spiritual meaning. Christ showed the full meaning of this commandment; according to which we must be judged hereafter, and therefore ought to be ruled now. All rash anger is heart murder. By our brother, here, we are to understand any person, though ever so much below us, for we are all made of one blood. Raca, is a scornful word, and comes from pride: Thou fool, is a spiteful word, and comes from hatred. Malicious slanders and censures are poison that kills secretly and slowly. Christ told them that how light soever they made of these sins, they would certainly be called into judgment for them. We ought carefully to preserve Christian love and peace with all our brethren; and if at any time there is a quarrel, we should confess our fault, humble ourselves to our brother, making or offering satisfaction for wrong done in word or deed: and we should do this quickly; because, till this is done, we are unfit for communion with God in holy ordinances. And when we are preparing for any religious exercises, it is good for us to make that an occasion of serious reflection and self-examination. What is here said is very applicable to our being reconciled to God through Christ. While we are alive, we are in the way to his judgement-seat; after death, it will be too late. When we consider the importance of the case, and the uncertainty of life, how needful it is to seek peace with God, without delay!”

This commentary also points out the danger: “Christ told them that how light soever they made of these sins, they would certainly be called into judgment for them.”, “While we are alive, we are in the way to his judgement-seat; after death, it will be too late.”.

So, it would appear that there is nothing wrong with warning others about the danger in order to motivate them to avoid what is wrong and dangerous. Do you disagree?

If you agree, then what is so different about Pascal’s Wager?

And if you disagree, do you have any reasons other than feelings?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Yet in this case it is easy to see that that’s but an invitation to a “game” of “You all, try to persuade me and watch me to refuse to be persuaded.”.

I don’t think that your are qualified to read my mind.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Also, no, only in atheist mythology believers “reject the arguments for the existence of a god different from their own”. For example, we know that “Allah” is just a different name for the same God. That was also the case for polytheists: for example, Romans openly acknowledged that their “Jupiter” was also Greek “Zeus”. As for our relationship with polytheist gods, it is not that we believe they do not exist, it is that we do not care. As far as we’re concerned, they can be demons, historical leaders, fictional characters - it makes little difference to us.

The reason there is an acknowledgement of how ancient Roman gods were the same as the ancient Greek gods is because the Romans imported the mythology wholesale. It’s the same stories, the same relationships between the gods, the same everything apart from the names. Yahweh and Allah are certainly not the same in that way. They not only act differently but more importantly they allegedly teach very different things. There are some similarities but the differences mean that we can’t compare those two deites like we would say Neptune and Poseidon.

No, a test of humility.

It doesn’t follow that the reason why your God doesn’t present himself to people would test a person’s humility. All it does is test a person’s willingness to act outside of evidence, and in the case of Pascal’s Wager the ability to be influenced by threats which are outside of evidence. Humility is not a factor either way.

If you do not understand why acceptance of belief could be a test of humility, have a look. It looks like in this thread the atheists are advancing such argument:

1. Atheists are smart, knowledgeable and honest. (premise)

The premise that has been presented by some here is “1. There are atheists who are knowledgeable and honest.” Do you see the difference? You and others have pushed forth the idea that no atheists are knowledgeable and honest – as in 0%. Your listed premise here is claiming (incorrectly) that we’re saying 100% of atheists are knowledgeable and honest. What we’re actually saying is that at least some atheists are knowledgeable and honest. (We’ll leave smart out because that can be a bit of a loaded word, and being smart doesn’t necesarily lead one to or from a faith.)

1. If people who are smart, knowledgeable and honest are offered a rational argument, they will accept it. (premise)

I would say that people are more likely to accept an argument the more rational it is. We also know that there are other factors besides the rationality of an argument that determines whether one believes in it or not. We take into account probability that it’s premises are true, and whether the question can be disected and analyzed. It’s that last part which I’ve said several times now (i.e. god(s) are neither provable nor falsifiable) which explains why there are rational people who are believers and rational people who are non-believers. It’s pretty simple.

1. Atheists reject arguments for God’s existence. (premise)

Beyond just a premise I’d consider that a definition for being an atheist.

1. If arguments for God’s existence were rational, atheists would accept them. (from 1, 2)

Again, the question of god is such a quagmire of vaguness and unverifiable claims that there’s far more to it than to what degree it is or isn’t rational.

1. Arguments for God’s existence are not rational. (from 2, 3)

I will say that any complete assuredness of believers based on the arguments for God’s existence doesn’t seem rational. The fact that a believer believes isn’t irrational, but to think the arguments for God’s existence is proved and evident to all then that’s irrational.

And isn’t it interesting that atheists react with equivalents of “How dare you!” to mere suggestions that the premise 1 has to be supported by an argument?

But we’re not pushing what you claim is premise 1. We’re fighting back when people here have claimed that all atheists are dishonest, stupid, or both. It’s just a fact that many atheists have taken the time and effort to study the matter and concluded that the evidence for any god (including yours) just isn’t convincing.

Although, perhaps atheists just think that we must have a good opinion of all people?

I wouldn’t say “must”, but I think if we all can not jump to the conclusion that if someone disagrees with us that the person is an idiot or self-deluded is a pretty good starting point to positive dialog.

Nope… It looks like we’re supposed to hold only atheists in high regard…

I’d be happy if people didn’t make absolutely false blanket statements against atheists. We can work on regard after that

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Because saying “I was given no answers.” when you know you were given some is imprecise, disrespectful and dishonest.

I already said that when I was given no answers I was given no good answers. I think at this point let’s focus on providing good answers (of which there have been none).

So, you’re fully aware what “work” meant. There still was a small possibility that you wanted to find out what specific sacraments are supposed to do.

I asked what work meant in that context, because apologetics is a minefield where word meanings are often sacrificed to the altar of reaching a desired conclusion.

As for how we demonstrate that sacraments do work: in the given scenario it was assumed that Catholicism is true (or are you going to claim that God was judging Zap while atheism was true?). That’s all we need. Unfortunately, it looks like many atheists sometimes seem to be strangely uncomfortable with such assumption even when it is supposed to be a temporary assumption of a reductio ad absurdum argument…

You haven’t answered the question. How do we show that the sacraments work. You said:

And here we have something that hasn’t been specified in your description. Yet it looks like Zap has rational faith but not emotional faith. Protestants and atheists might think that counts for nothing, but Catholic Church holds reason in much higher regard than feelings. Thus yes, sacraments work even if feelings are not present.

You said if Zap were to go through the motions that the sacraments would work. Please back up that statement.

I am not going to respond to the rest of your 3 posts - it was hard enough to stay within the character limit now.

If and when you feel up to it please respond. I’m interested to read what you write regarding those points in my posts.

 

[tonyrey]

If one objects to the principle of choosing the lesser evil it can replaced by the principle of the double effect (which amounts to the same as choosing the lesser evil). Killing is evil but it is justified in self-defence and defence of one’s family

It remains true that killing is an evil act but it is justified in self-defence and defence of one’s family.

Similarly the outcome of appealing to self-interest (which is far less serious than killing) has the effect of persuading atheists to become less dogmatic and consider the reasons for becoming a Christian. It is certainly a better policy than writing them off as hopeless cases. Jesus Himself appealed to self-interest - as opposed to selfishness - in the Sermon on the Mount:

I’ve never before heard any Christian claim that Jesus appealed to self-interest. Here are the first three definitions found by google:

“self-interest - one’s personal interest or advantage, especially when pursued without regard for others.”
“self-interest - a concern for one’s own advantage and well-being <acted out of self–interest and fear>”
“Self-interest generally refers to a focus on the needs or desires (interests) of the self.”

My post #306 quotes Pope Francis on two different occasions arguing against self-interest.

Jesus argues against it “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15). Paul argues explicitly against it “Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.” - Phil 2

Jesus clearly stated that we should love ourselves:
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’

 

[MPat]

I don’t think that your are qualified to read my mind.

There is no need to read your mind. You wrote all that yourself. This is the part “You all, try to persuade me”:

However, I am game (as always). Let me have the method which will allow me to “find God” and let’s see if it works.

And this is the part “watch me to refuse to be persuaded”:

However, I am afraid that all I will receive is the same cop-out, that the charlatans of the paranormal say every time: “You have to believe, because if you don’t believe, the paranormal effects will not happen”. They never happen when professional magicians are in crowd. You (in general) say the same: “if you ask for some miracle and your purpose is to test God, it will never happen”. To be very blunt: you portray God as a cosmic cheater, who will always “thwart” your attempts to “unmask” him. The so-called “divine hiddenness” is one of the insurmountable impediments to take the God-hypothesis seriously. The other one is, of course, the “problem of evil”.

Easy, isn’t it?

The reason there is an acknowledgement of how ancient Roman gods were the same as the ancient Greek gods is because the Romans imported the mythology wholesale.

You write as if that did not confirm my point.

It doesn’t follow that the reason why your God doesn’t present himself to people would test a person’s humility. All it does is test a person’s willingness to act outside of evidence, and in the case of Pascal’s Wager the ability to be influenced by threats which are outside of evidence. Humility is not a factor either way.

Yes, different arguments would test different abilities. But in each case you’d have to ask yourself if you really are just as smart, knowledgeable, honest and important, as you thought. And that would demonstrate your humility. In that case asking for evidence that would let you to save face while converting misses the point.

The premise that has been presented by some here is “1. There are atheists who are knowledgeable and honest.” Do you see the difference?

It is not clear what qualifier is to be used here. I get an impression that sometimes the premise is about the specific atheist making the argument…

You and others have pushed forth the idea that no atheists are knowledgeable and honest – as in 0%.

Can you actually cite someone saying so?

I would say that people are more likely to accept an argument the more rational it is. We also know that there are other factors besides the rationality of an argument that determines whether one believes in it or not.

Yes, that is one of the reasons why that argument fails.

But we’re not pushing what you claim is premise 1. We’re fighting back when people here have claimed that all atheists are dishonest, stupid, or both. It’s just a fact that many atheists have taken the time and effort to study the matter and concluded that the evidence for any god (including yours) just isn’t convincing.

In that case, support that claim by evidence.

I already said that when I was given no answers I was given no good answers. I think at this point let’s focus on providing good answers (of which there have been none).

In fact, all answers were good. If they would have been bad, you would have pointed out their flaws instead of acting as if they were not given.

But isn’t it interesting how much effort you gave into defending that action…? And if you are not a reliable judge of this simple question, why should we expect you to be more reliable with more complex questions?

You haven’t answered the question. How do we show that the sacraments work. You said:

You said if Zap were to go through the motions that the sacraments would work. Please back up that statement.

I have given an answer (that it is given in the scenario). If you can see something wrong with it, say so.

If and when you feel up to it please respond. I’m interested to read what you write regarding those points in my posts.

See forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1924764&postcount=1 - we are asked to write shortly. 3 posts are far too much.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

You write as if that did not confirm my point.

You left it out when quoting me, but I showed how invoking the similarities between the Greek and Roman gods can’t be used to solve The Problem of Divine Hiddenness. I explained that you can’t compare Greek/Roman gods with the god of Christianity and the god of Islam. As I mentioned in a post before then, one part of the problem with religion is that it starts in one location then has to spread via word of mouth to everywhere else. Your example of Roman and Greek gods typifies that. It’s not as though the Romans encountered the gods of their pantheon independent of Greece. Instead it was imported via word of mouth from the Greeks. Sometimes when things are true they are discovered by multiple independent of each other. One of the more famous examples is Newton and Leibniz each formulating Calculus on their own. Here is a list of many similar discoveries. Religion doesn’t have that. Sure many include one or more beings of great power, but that’s natural when trying to explain how things work prior to the ability or knowledge to analyze things scientifically. These various deities all conflict in their makeup and teaching (e.g. Allah vs. Yahweh among many others), which not only makes it impossible to suggest they reveal some universal truths but also means that many more choices for those partaking in Pascal’s Wager.

Yes, different arguments would test different abilities. But in each case you’d have to ask yourself if you really are just as smart, knowledgeable, honest and important, as you thought. And that would demonstrate your humility. In that case asking for evidence that would let you to save face while converting misses the point.

It seems it’s only humility when submitting the Christian god and no other. It seems it’s only hubris when questioning the Christian god and no other. As has been shown repeatedly in this thread, Pascal’s Wager is all about the threats and promises and not about reasoning the truth. When people here rightly point out that other religions also have these types of threats and promises they are told to brush them aside – to not concern themselves with humility to these other faiths.

It’s clear the alleged leading factor in determining whether one achieves salvation, and certainly the factor which most other factors derive, is believing in the detiy in question. With that being the most important factor, and with God supposedly wanting all to achieve salvation, then God should not hide himself but give everyone a fighting chance to believe in his existence. Humility is a cobbled together excuse after the fact to try and explain away an absent God, and it’s certainly not a convincing excuse,

It is not clear what qualifier is to be used here. I get an impression that sometimes the premise is about the specific atheist making the argument…

It’s the difference between all, some, and none. I can’t break it down any simpler.
It’s been claimed by more than one person that no atheists are honest and knowledgeable when questioning the existence of a god.
Athiests have responded that some atheists are honest and knowledgeable when questioning the existence of god.
You stated incorrectly that atheists claim that all atheists are honest and knowledgeable when questioning the existence of god.

Can you actually cite someone saying so?

"It might be reasonable for an ignorant person to be an atheist for a finite period of time, but an honest person who is willing to seek God sincerely should move beyond this stage relatively quickly. "

“And FWIW, in my experience talking with atheists on their forums, many (and I mean a high percentage) WANT to be ignorant of basic facts about God, the Bible, Christianity and Jesus, etc. Why? Because many of them do not want to change their lifestyles or to acknowledge that they are sinners in need of a savior. They do not WANT to obey God. So, they ignore material that refutes their positions and continue to read books and articles written by people who are “preaching” what they want to hear. This is “studied ignorance”, and I find it to be the most common attitude of atheists online.”

"Also because atheists refuse to confront their own deaths and what could come afterwards. Everyone wonders what will happen after death, but atheists are like ostriches with their heads in the sand. They refuse to acknowledge the possibility of an afterlife. Sorry, atheists: get your heads out of the sand - the question is not going to disappear just because you have your eyes closed!! "

“There certainly is nothing 100% honest about believing in atheism, since there is no rational basis for atheism and the atheist is supposed to be most of all a rationalist.”

“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)…”

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

In that case, support that claim by evidence.

A smiley face is not a substitution for points of discussion. I’ve stated it before and I’ll state it again, even if someone comes up with a different conclusion than me when presented with the same evidence I would not assume that the other person didn’t honestly consider his or her position. It’s only reasonable that believers would offer the same courtesy to non-believers in allowing that I too came to my position honestly and thoroughly even if the believers disagree with me. I don’t know what evidence you’re looking for to show me or any other non-Christian has made an honest and thorough assessment of Christianity other than:

1. Non-Christians have shown flaws in the arguments for Christianity.
2. Christianity, like all religions, is unprovable and unfalsifiable.
3. Many Christians themselves say that it can’t be proven, but instead it must be taken on faith.

In fact, all answers were good. If they would have been bad, you would have pointed out their flaws instead of acting as if they were not given.

In post 157 I most certainly pointed out flaws on the three specific answers you listed. You may not have liked what I pointed out, but don’t suggest that I simply brushed it aside.

But isn’t it interesting how much effort you gave into defending that action…? And if you are not a reliable judge of this simple question, why should we expect you to be more reliable with more complex questions?

So you’ve never been in a situation where all options are terrible and you’ve said, “There’s nothing I can do.”? You’ve never needed help and all the advice you get is awful and thought “I have no solutions.”? It’s common usage. As I said technicially 5 is an answer to the question 2+2, but we’re looking for actual answers. Not ones that wither under the very mildest of scrutiny. If the response to why Pascal’s Wager shouldn’t consider other faiths is essentially saying those faiths don’t count, then it’s not only not a correct answer it’s not even a semi-serious one.

As far as why I am a reliable judge, I’ve been forthright this whole time. I’ve broken down the arguments thoroughly and honestly (something a few here have claimed is something atheists can’t do). But even if you don’t find me a good judge then take my arguments on their merits. Counter them and don’t just push them aside because it runs counter to your desired conclusion.

I have given an answer (that it is given in the scenario). If you can see something wrong with it, say so.

I asked a very specific question, how do we show that the sacraments work. If a person who was neutral on the subject of religion were to investigate whether the sacraments worked what evidence would you provide that didn’t rely on first believing the sacraments work?

See forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1924764&postcount=1 - we are asked to write shortly. 3 posts are far too much.

I definitely am not as succinct as I would like to be. I’m also a very pedestrian writer, so I find to make sure that my message is abundantly clear I make up for it in thoroughness. One factor I consider is what the expected questions and responses to what I say will be.

Here’s one way a conversation regarding a particular point could go:

Me: I think X.
Responder: What do you mean by X?
Me: Here’s an explanation of X.
Responder: I need more detail on your explanation.
Me: Here’s an analogy for X.
Responder: That analogy doesn’t work considering Y.
Me: Here’s how my analogy for X considers Y.
Responder: What about counter-argument Z?
Me: Here’s why Z doesn’t counter X
And so on.

I don’t post very frequently so I’m far more likely to use a lot of words, but in the long run saves on posts:

Me: I think X. Here’s what I mean by X. Here is an analogy for X. Here’s what happens when we turn X on its head in the context of Y. You might be thinking Z is response, but here’s why that doesn’t work.

Again, I’d like to be more succinct while keeping that same level of thoroughness, but that’s not how I personally can best get my point across.

To be fair I’ve had more than a few times in the past where a post in reply to mine used very few characters because they boiled down to one sentence variations of “Nuh-uh!” followed by a smiley.

 

[inocente]

How did you manage to get that?

No, obviously, it is not about specific words. But still, at the very least it looks like Jesus warns that someone who insults others is in danger of going to hell. Do you agree that it is so or not?

:ehh:

No, it’s nothing to do with that. As the commentary says “The Jewish teachers had taught, that nothing except actual murder was forbidden by the sixth commandment. Thus they explained away its spiritual meaning”. But Jesus says wishing harm will also 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.”

*So, it would appear that there is nothing wrong with warning others about the danger in order to motivate them to avoid what is wrong and dangerous. Do you disagree?

If you agree, then what is so different about Pascal’s Wager?*

No, coercion isn’t justified. the ends don’t justify the means, and Pascal himself wrote “The conduct of God, who disposes all things kindly, is to put religion into the mind by reason, and into the heart by grace. But to will to put it into the mind and heart by force and threats is not to put religion there, but terror.”

And as I posted some days ago, I think Pascal never says anything like the OP’s “If you don’t believe in God, and you are wrong, you will suffer eternal damnation” anyway. In the version I have, Pascal says if you don’t believe, you lose nothing. No hell, you lose nothing. Just gain a reward if you believe and happen to be right.

Can you cite where he says different? I’ve asked Charles, Tony and Christine, and they’ve not answered yet.

 

[goout]

I have problem with E. How could you justify that?

(e) is not something to be justified, or proved to be true.

This whole thought experiment is about one thing:
The inestimable value of The Good in comparison to which everything else is null and void.

You can debate whether proposition (e) is really proved to consequent damnation.
The response of the Christian is there is no debate to be had, because the inestimable good desires us and we desire it (God), and there is nothing else worth pursuing.

 

[MPat]

It’s not as though the Romans encountered the gods of their pantheon independent of Greece. Instead it was imported via word of mouth from the Greeks.

Yet Greeks equally easily found their own gods in Egypt and elsewhere. For example, from artic.edu/~llivin/research/greeks_egyptian_gods/ - “The literary evidence clearly reveals that the Greeks identified their gods and goddesses with those of other cultures. While the names, appearance, and cultic practices may be dramatically different, similarities within their myths and spheres of divine patronage, whether profound or miniscule, proved sufficient to justify not a mere parallel, but an actual sameness in the deities’ beings.”.

These various deities all conflict in their makeup and teaching (e.g. Allah vs. Yahweh among many others),

Muslims say they worship the same God who sent Bible to Christians. Catholic Church does not disagree. Who exactly are you to tell us what we believe?

With that being the most important factor, and with God supposedly wanting all to achieve salvation, then God should not hide himself but give everyone a fighting chance to believe in his existence.

Why?

By analogy, professors also want all students to pass and the students would pass if they gave correct answers, thus why doesn’t the professor just give them the answers or something?

You stated incorrectly that atheists claim that all atheists are honest and knowledgeable when questioning the existence of god.

I left out a qualifier saying just “atheists” because I wanted to keep both option “all atheists” and option “some atheists” (and some others). The argument works equally well (that is, equally badly) with both of them.

If you can think of a better way to keep that ambiguity, I’d be happy to use it (of course, assuming I won’t forget or something).

"It might be reasonable for an ignorant person to be an atheist for a finite period of time, but an honest person who is willing to seek God sincerely should move beyond this stage relatively quickly. "

So, what is wrong with that claim?

I’ve stated it before and I’ll state it again, even if someone comes up with a different conclusion than me when presented with the same evidence I would not assume that the other person didn’t honestly consider his or her position.

Evidence of that should be easy to provide, right?

I don’t know what evidence you’re looking for to show me or any other non-Christian has made an honest and thorough assessment of Christianity other than:

1. Non-Christians have shown flaws in the arguments for Christianity.
2. Christianity, like all religions, is unprovable and unfalsifiable.
3. Many Christians themselves say that it can’t be proven, but instead it must be taken on faith.

Well, when we want to demonstrate that apostles were not liars, we point to their martyrdom…

And when we want to demonstrate that they would have known something, we point out that they were eyewitnesses of that “something”.

And something tells me you are going to find all that insufficient. OK, then offer evidence for honesty (and the like) of atheists (some, all, you specifically) that you would accept for apostles.

Or just accept that you can’t base an argument on that. After all, we also do not make arguments like “Gospel writers say that Jesus rose from the dead. They were 100% honest and 100% knowledgeable, because how dare you say otherwise!!! Therefore, Jesus rose from the dead.”.

In post 157 I most certainly pointed out flaws on the three specific answers you listed. You may not have liked what I pointed out, but don’t suggest that I simply brushed it aside.

You mean, before writing “that the question of which god or gods is brushed aside by those who would use it to push a very specific god”…?

I asked a very specific question, how do we show that the sacraments work. If a person who was neutral on the subject of religion were to investigate whether the sacraments worked what evidence would you provide that didn’t rely on first believing the sacraments work?

And I gave a specific answer: it is given in the scenario.

And no, I do not intend to let you to ignore the very scenario you gave.

:ehh:

No, it’s nothing to do with that.

So, do you believe that “judgement” can end with someone going to Hell? Do you believe Hell exists?

No, coercion isn’t justified. the ends don’t justify the means, and Pascal himself wrote “The conduct of God, who disposes all things kindly, is to put religion into the mind by reason, and into the heart by grace. But to will to put it into the mind and heart by force and threats is not to put religion there, but terror.”

But a warning is not the same thing as coercion or a threat.

And as I posted some days ago, I think Pascal never says anything like the OP’s “If you don’t believe in God, and you are wrong, you will suffer eternal damnation” anyway. In the version I have, Pascal says if you don’t believe, you lose nothing. No hell, you lose nothing. Just gain a reward if you believe and happen to be right.

Can you cite where he says different? I’ve asked Charles, Tony and Christine, and they’ve not answered yet.

How about 236 (gutenberg.org/files/18269/18269-h/18269-h.htm#SECTION_III): “According to the doctrine of chance, you ought to put yourself to the trouble of searching for the truth; for if you die without worshipping the True Cause, you are lost.”?

 

[inocente]

Yet Greeks equally easily found their own gods in Egypt and elsewhere. For example, from artic.edu/~llivin/research/greeks_egyptian_gods/ - “The literary evidence clearly reveals that the Greeks identified their gods and goddesses with those of other cultures. While the names, appearance, and cultic practices may be dramatically different, similarities within their myths and spheres of divine patronage, whether profound or miniscule, proved sufficient to justify not a mere parallel, but an actual sameness in the deities’ beings.”.

(An example in the bible is Genesis 1 borrows from Mesopotamian myth.)

So, do you believe that “judgement” can end with someone going to Hell? Do you believe Hell exists?

Of course. Why the air-quotes around judgment?

But a warning is not the same thing as coercion or a threat.

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;”

Telling someone that if he exercises that right and doesn’t come to your conclusion, he’ll suffer eternal damnation, is coercion, exactly as if God is saying “I will make him an offer he can’t refuse.”

How about 236 (gutenberg.org/files/18269/18269-h/18269-h.htm#SECTION_III): “According to the doctrine of chance, you ought to put yourself to the trouble of searching for the truth; for if you die without worshipping the True Cause, you are lost.”?

Nice try but “lost” is a long way from “will suffer eternal damnation”. And just four fragments earlier, Pascal says “Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.”

I maintain he argues that disbelief merely equals no eternal reward, while belief equals reward. Which is the reverse of what many posters claimed he said (they have all gone very quiet, for unknown reasons).

And the “eternal damnation” threat isn’t consonant with his “The conduct of God, who disposes all things kindly, is to put religion into the mind by reason, and into the heart by grace. But to will to put it into the mind and heart by force and threats is not to put religion there, but terror.”