Pascal's Wager Redux

[STT]

An evil God is not possible. You can Google this for yourself.

Yes, if evil is lack of good but I don’t agree with that. Evil to me is just opposite of good.

 

[Bradski]

The bottom line is that atheists cannot claim that by acting upon the possibility of God’s existence, they will somehow live a boring, meaningless life. In fact, the opposite is true.

We already spoke of these things earlier in the thread. There are many ways in which theists are constrained from certain behaviors that non-believers are not. I used sexual immorality as one such example.

Who said that life would be boring and meaningless if one believes in God? And a belief in God would not constrain my behaviour at all. I already try to do what’s right.

To use an example, I think adultery is wrong, so I wouldn’t do whether I believed in God or not. And if I wasn’t married to my wife, a belief in God would not prevent me from sleeping with her.

Again, you seem to be confusing a belief in God with being a member of a religious organisation which claims to have an inside line on what God wants. In fact, you prove this by saying:

However, in general, God has established His Church with genuine authority to teach certain things infallibly…

It all goes back to whether you believe in an Objective Wrong.

You must have miss the post where I said it doesn’t matter in the slightest if there is an Objective Good or not when it comes to agreeing (or disagreeing) about what is good and what is evil.

You are yet again stating, in no uncertain terms, that if you are a believer, then you know what it is whereas the unbeliever does not. You have access to information about morality that I don’t have.

If you’re a believer, you accept this, and when there’s a disagreement, we can lead the wrong person towards the Objective.

So if I disagree with you on any matter, you can lead me towards the truth. You know what it is, because you believe. And I don’t.

Likewise, goout says we wouldn’t agree and he thinks he has the right answers and I don’t. Again, whether an objective truth exists or not, you are both saying that you have access to it.

Plainly absurd.

We are nowhere near in agreement.
The only thing we probably agree on is some desired outcomes (That’s a good thing as far as it goes.) Desired outcomes without foundations are quicksand.

So we’d agree on outcomes. I’m glad you conceded that because to argue against it would be nonsensical.

Yes, we would be in lock step for the vast majority of questions regarding morality. And yes, desired outcomes without foundations are useless. They simply become preferences. One needs a solid foundation to make moral dcisions.

That would include as many facts as we can obtain, as much information as to possible outcomes, (name removed by moderator)ut from people likely to be affected, reasonable arguments etc etc.

If one of the blocks in your foundation is God’s will, then I will have no problem with that. You might have thought I would reject any divine requirement out of hand. But no. But then, there would be a reason why God would will it. And irrespective of the fact that I don’t believe He exists and irrespective of the fact that if He did I wouldn’t be sure that you knew exactly what He wanted, it would be incumbent upon you to explain those reasons.

If there was a reasonable explanation I would probably accept it. If your answer was: ‘coz God sez so’, then I would reject it.

Otherwise, we’d be on the same page for almost everything.

 

[MPat]

Reasonable points. But…you are not now talking about believing in God but about joining a religion. Two entirely different things.

If they are so different, why do they correlate so strongly?

After all, “mere theism”, while possible, doesn’t see to be very common.

I was walking back from the beach an hour ago and a couple of dozen Hare Krishnas were out and about, singing, greeting everyone, chanting. They all looked exceedingly happy. Pascal wants me to believe in God. You want me to join the Krishnas.

I’m pretty sure they also believe in God.

And there is a subtext to the points you are making: being a Christian makes you a better person. Living as God would want us to live! Well, if someone I knew suddenly became a better father, was more attentive to his wife’s needs, started helping little old ladies across the street and taking in stray cats because he had started to believe in God, then I would seriously want to know why he couldn’t have done all those things before.

Because he had worse incentives, worse motivation, less understanding, less God’s grace…?

Now, of course, you do not believe in God’s grace, but you still should believe in incentives.

And “I’ll go to hell if I do this.”, “Doing this will insult God, who is so good.”, even “I don’t want to have to report that during my next confession.” motivate much better than explanations atheists come up with.

Actually, we do. Any two sane people could easily agree. Whether one demands that he has an objective reference point is utterly beside the point. All we need to do is agree on what constitutes good and what doesn’t. And in that regard, we are in almost total agreement.

Well, Americans have “agreed” that slavery is evil after a war… Does that still count as “easily”?

Or how exactly do you expect that agreement to be reached?

And if it is so easy to reach that agreement, why hasn’t it been reached yet?

A few of those are a little weird. If I don’t believe in God, I should because He’ll be dissapointed?

First of all, it is not “If I don’t believe in God”, but “If I am not sure if God exists”.

And even if it was “If I don’t believe in God”, how do you get from that to “God doesn’t exist”, which is necessary for “weirdness” here?

So when I have two people who believe in God (and please remember that that is what this thread is about - not religion) and they have opposing views on a question of morality, which one has it right?

That seems to contradict your points here:

Actually, we do. Any two sane people could easily agree. Whether one demands that he has an objective reference point is utterly beside the point. All we need to do is agree on what constitutes good and what doesn’t. And in that regard, we are in almost total agreement.

So, do people agree about morality or do not agree? And if they do not, is it easy or hard to reach agreement?

And a belief in God would not constrain my behaviour at all. I already try to do what’s right.

It should be not merely “I already try to do what’s right.”, but “I already do my best to do what’s right.”. Well, do you?

And if you are going to say that you do, how do you know that? After all, you have to rule out confirmation bias, self-serving bias and the like…

Yes, if evil is lack of good but I don’t agree with that. Evil to me is just opposite of good.

Then you are wrong. Anything else?

 

[Bradski]

So, do people agree about morality or do not agree?

You are avoiding the question.

If two people who believe in God disagree, then how do we know who has access to the truth. Everyone keeps saying that belief gives you access, so how can we tell.

And yet again, we are simply talking about a belief in God. What any given religion teachs is not relevant.

 

[STT]

Then you are wrong. Anything else?

Can you prove that evil is lack of good?

 

[MPat]

You are avoiding the question.

If two people who believe in God disagree, then how do we know who has access to the truth. Everyone keeps saying that belief gives you access, so how can we tell.

And yet again, we are simply talking about a belief in God. What any given religion teachs is not relevant.

That only matters if any of those disagreements actually exist and agreement cannot be reached easily.

And in this thread you claim that yes, those disagreements are extremely rare and agreement can be reached easily.

If you keep making claims that contradict each other whenever you like them, we can use those your claims against you whenever we like.

If you do not like that, commit to a position that is not so obviously self-contradicting, and then we can talk. Or at least get (and express) some interest in finding such position, and then we’ll help you find it.

Can you prove that evil is lack of good?

That looks like pointless work at the moment. Look at what you wrote:

Yes, if evil is lack of good but I don’t agree with that. Evil to me is just opposite of good.

You are not even claiming that evil is not lack of good, you only make claims about what you believe. You also do not express any interest in finding out if you are right.

So, why should I even try to present a proof, especially in the thread where the topic is different?

 

[STT]

That looks like pointless work at the moment. Look at what you wrote:

It is not pointless.

You are not even claiming that evil is not lack of good, you only make claims about what you believe. You also do not express any interest in finding out if you are right.

In the world, only Catholic believe that evil is lack of good.

So, why should I even try to present a proof, especially in the thread where the topic is different?

It is very related to this thread. People who believe in good God will have problem if God is evil.

 

[Bradski]

That only matters if any of those disagreements actually exist and agreement cannot be reached easily.

And in this thread you claim that yes, those disagreements are extremely rare and agreement can be reached easily.

If you keep making claims that contradict each other whenever you like them, we can use those your claims against you whenever we like.

If you do not like that, commit to a position that is not so obviously self-contradicting, and then we can talk. Or at least get (and express) some interest in finding such position, and then we’ll help you find it.

That looks like pointless work at the moment. Look at what you wrote:

You are not even claiming that evil is not lack of good, you only make claims about what you believe. You also do not express any interest in finding out if you are right.

So, why should I even try to present a proof, especially in the thread where the topic is different?

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[PRmerger]

You must have miss the post where I said it doesn’t matter in the slightest if there is an Objective Good or not when it comes to agreeing (or disagreeing) about what is good and what is evil.

Sure. If you and your opponent are of the same mind on a particular moral issue.

But where it matters ARCHLY, Bradski, is where there is disagreement.

If you are trying to tell someone that he ought not be raping his daughter, then you simply must be an advocate of objective morality.

For the astute opponent of your view will simply say, “Oh, really? You think I shouldn’t be raping my daughter? Aren’t you someone who doesn’t believe in objective right and wrong? Yep. I saw you on CAFS. You used to say things like that (in your earlier days…in your later days, admittedly not so much, although you never actually could bring yourself to say that you’re a believer in objective right and wrong)…so if you don’t believe in objective right and wrong, how can you tell me that what I’ve decided is just and right is immoral. Either it’s immoral or it’s moral to rape my daughter. Which is it, Bradski?”

And you will have to choose a paradigm:

-either be consistent and say, “Yes. I really can’t say that your decision to rape your daughter is wrong. If that’s what you feel she needs, then it’s the moral choice for you.”

Or

-tell him the obvious thing: “Hell, no, you can’t rape your daughter. For whatever reason.”

 

[PRmerger]

So if I disagree with you on any matter, you can lead me towards the truth. You know what it is, because you believe. And I don’t.

Likewise, goout says we wouldn’t agree and he thinks he has the right answers and I don’t. Again, whether an objective truth exists or not, you are both saying that you have access to it.

Plainly absurd.

Not sure what your objection is?

You’re saying that we can’t lead you towards truth because there is no such “goalpost” that exists?

 

[MPat]

It is not pointless.

That doesn’t look very persuasive…

In the world, only Catholic believe that evil is lack of good.

A short look at Wikipedia’s article - en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Absence_of_good&oldid=731690809 - can confirm that this your claim is false. It says that Bahai believe the same. So do the Eastern Orthodox (sourozh.org/orthodox-faith-texts/the-origin-of-evil.html).

Did you actually do any research before making this bold but false claim?

It is very related to this thread. People who believe in good God will have problem if God is evil.

You already created a thread about that - forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1038971.

 

[tonyrey]

As Mike says, you don’t have a choice whether to believe or not.

If I give you some evidence about anything - the existence of aliens, unicorns, gods…whatever, you will either consider the evidence to be reasonable or not. So you will either accept it or reject it to a certain extent. That then defines your belief about the matter.

It is impossible to believe something if you have rejected evidence about it and equally impossible to disbelieve something if you accept the evidence.

Randy believes in God because he accepts a certain amount of evidence for His existence. Mike doesn’t believe in God because he doesn’t find the evidence compelling. Neither of them have a choice in the matter whatsoever.

Do we ever have a choice when making our decisions about how to behave? If so how do we decide whether they are reasonable?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Who said that life would be boring and meaningless if one believes in God? And a belief in God would not constrain my behaviour at all. I already try to do what’s right.

Good for you. We could ask “What is good behavior, how do you know, and why are you compelled to do it”, but let’s not open too many lines of discussion at present.

To use an example, I think adultery is wrong, so I wouldn’t do whether I believed in God or not. And if I wasn’t married to my wife, a belief in God would not prevent me from sleeping with her.

If you were not married (and neither was the woman you choose to bed), then you say that you could sleep with her if you want to. But the moral teaching of many (though not all) religions tells you that you should not sleep with a woman you are not married to. However, YOU, a non-believer, have no reason to refrain from sex with whomever you desire, do you?

Then you go on to say, “a belief in God would not prevent me from sleeping with her.” Was this a mis-statement? Because I cannot help but think that if you did believe in God, and you were earnestly seeking to live according to those beliefs about Him and His prescriptions for us, you would NOT sleep with a woman before marriage because this is offensive to God.

Do you disagree?

 

[Randy_Carson]

You are avoiding the question.

If two people who believe in God disagree, then how do we know who has access to the truth. Everyone keeps saying that belief gives you access, so how can we tell.

And yet again, we are simply talking about a belief in God. What any given religion teachs is not relevant.

This is flatly wrong.

If two people believe in God but disagree about a moral teaching, then they will naturally seek to learn what God’s view of that moral issue is. In fact, they have an obligation to do so.

And how will they do that, Bradski? Well, you seem to think that believers are like you…independent thinkers who try to sort everything out for themselves. But that’s not how believers really behave. In fact, most people who believe in God are members of a faith tradition with sacred writings and commentary and leaders of the group.

Consequently, they will begin, probably, by studying what their particular religion has to say about the matter, but they may also be interested to see what other opinions on the matter are. It is entirely possible that one of the people might even switch religions based upon the arguments of the other side.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Can you prove that evil is lack of good?

What if the opposition of good is not evil but indifference?

 

[goout]

So if I disagree with you on any matter, you can lead me towards the truth. You know what it is, because you believe. And I don’t.

Likewise, goout says we wouldn’t agree and he thinks he has the right answers and I don’t. Again, whether an objective truth exists or not, you are both saying that you have access to it.

You are appealing to an objective truth outside yourself. And we do not agree on it. We agree on outcomes, which is again a good thing. But the source of our truth is not the same.
But if we are to be honest, you are appealing to some truth outside yourself. That appeal to objective truth is not some ignorant anachronism peculiar to religious folk, or you would be putting yourself in that category, and I am not hearing that from you.

Evidence? Here you are debating with Catholics about the nature of things and appealing to some standard of truth which you hold and we do not. You do not want to call it God, but you have no less appeal to objective truth than anyone else, and yours does not agree with mine (ours).

Unless…you are appealing to yourself as the Truth? In which case truth is subjective…
Your position is simply contradictory. (don’t despair…remember, contradiction can be worked with…)

So we’d agree on outcomes. I’m glad you conceded that because to argue against it would be nonsensical.

Yes, we would be in lock step for the vast majority of questions regarding morality. And yes, desired outcomes without foundations are useless. They simply become preferences. One needs a solid foundation to make moral decisions.

Welcome to the Church!

That would include as many facts as we can obtain, as much information as to possible outcomes, (name removed by moderator)ut from people likely to be affected, reasonable arguments etc etc.

If one of the blocks in your foundation is God’s will, then I will have no problem with that. You might have thought I would reject any divine requirement out of hand. But no. But then, there would be a reason why God would will it. And irrespective of the fact that I don’t believe He exists and irrespective of the fact that if He did I wouldn’t be sure that you knew exactly what He wanted, it would be incumbent upon you to explain those reasons.

Yes, it is good to give a reason for the faith we hold. Reason is informed by facts and outcomes, but is not limited to them.
For starters, it is reasonable for a person to go forward in faith in things seen and unseen, as you yourself do, as you appeal to a standard of truth outside yourself.

If there was a reasonable explanation I would probably accept it. If your answer was: ‘coz God sez so’, then I would reject it.

I personally do not use the bald appeal to authority. Even though it has a profound truth to it, it is unconvincing to a non believer. So it is not practical to use.

Otherwise, we’d be on the same page for almost everything.

As one. That would be good.

 

[Bradski]

If you were not married (and neither was the woman you choose to bed), then you say that you could sleep with her if you want to. But the moral teaching of many (though not all) religions tells you that you should not sleep with a woman you are not married to. However, YOU, a non-believer, have no reason to refrain from sex with whomever you desire, do you?

What on earth do you meant that I have no reason? This is akin to Dostoyevsky’s comment that anything is permitted. Abject nonsense. Of course I have reasons why I might not sleep with someone. She may be my friends wife. She may be too drunk to make a considered decision. She may be a drug addled nymphomaniac. You need to make rational decisions about these sort of things and there will be reasons for and against.

Then you go on to say, “a belief in God would not prevent me from sleeping with her.” Was this a mis-statement? Because I cannot help but think that if you did believe in God, and you were earnestly seeking to live according to those beliefs about Him and His prescriptions for us, you would NOT sleep with a woman before marriage because this is offensive to God.

Do you disagree?

Damn right I disagree. You are back to discussing religion instead of God and it seems that you cannot separate the two. And further to that, you are telling me that as far as you are concerned, God wouldn’t want me sleeping with someone unless I had made a lifetime commitment to her. Or rather, you are telling me that your specific denomination of your particular religion holds that to be true.

We are back to ‘God says so’ and I will ignore any such rejoiners.

This is flatly wrong.

If two people believe in God but disagree about a moral teaching, then they will naturally seek to learn what God’s view of that moral issue is. In fact, they have an obligation to do so.

And how will they do that, Bradski? Well, you seem to think that believers are like you…independent thinkers who try to sort everything out for themselves. But that’s not how believers really behave.

Yeah, believers aren’t independent thinkers. God forbid that they try to sort anything out themselves.

Consequently, they will begin, probably, by studying what their particular religion has to say about the matter, but they may also be interested to see what other opinions on the matter are. It is entirely possible that one of the people might even switch religions based upon the arguments of the other side.

Let me clear something up here. I am not some pimply faced adolescent sitting in his bedroom surrounded by Beyonce posters. I have mileage on the clock. I have been around the block a few times. I have, for a great number of years, probably since the birth of my kids, spent not an inconsiderable amount of time thinking about what all this means. My bookshelves are groaning with tiles from Dawkins to Cicero and Harris to Hume. Since Kindle and Amazon, I have been buying books quicker than I can read them.

And it’s not like I now have a disparate collection of contrary thoughts that I am trying to tie together. It’s like a jigsaw puzzle. When you get closer to finishing it, it’s easier to find where the remaining pieces go. You can stand back and see the whole thing. The number of times I read something where I get a ‘yes!’ moment and I need to get up and pace the room realising that another piece has just slotted into place – well, those times are becoming more frequent.

Now I include in my jigsaw all that I learnt when I was younger – when I was brought up as a Christian. I haven’t rejected all that I was told. But I don’t limit myself to it. There is so, so much more available to those who spend the time looking.

But what are you telling me? No need to do all that work? No need to read all those books? I can reject all the science I have learned? I can reject the sociology, psychology, evolutionary bilogy, philosophy? I don’t need any of it? Because a lot of what it tells me is in direct contrast to what you would have me believe.

Let me ask you how you came to your particular position. Born into religion? Into Catholicism? Like the vast majority of believers? Do you follow the religion of your parents and your peers? In which case, in my not so humble opinion, you have accepted what to believe and you have no choice in the matter. There is no way that you are going to cherry pick the facets of Catholic teaching you like and reject the rest. It’s all or nothing. Which I object to in the strongest possible terms.

Or…like some on this forum, you decided that the particular religion you were brought up in wasn’t right. There must be a better one. So you have personally decided that the Catholic faith is for you. What they believe matches your own personal interpretation of how we should live our lives. In which case, you had already, in some way, decided what was right and what was wrong, just as I have.

That is, you would have gone through the same process as I did to reach my position. Except that yours matches what the Catholic church teaches. Mine doesn’t.

So I have already decided whether it is right or not to sleep with an unmarried woman. I have already decided that a lot of what Catholicism specifically and religion in general teaches is not right.

If I wake up tomorrow and I find I believe in God, then that won’t change. As someone said:

A person must follow his conscience.

Not a religion.

 

[STT]

What if the opposition of good is not evil but indifference?

Is rapping indifferent?

 

[tonyrey]

What on earth do you meant that I have no reason? This is akin to Dostoyevsky’s comment that anything is permitted. Abject nonsense. Of course I have reasons why I might not sleep with someone. She may be my friends wife. She may be too drunk to make a considered decision. She may be a drug addled nymphomaniac. You need to make rational decisions about these sort of things and there will be reasons for and against.

Unfortunately you have never explained on what principles your reasons are based. If you cannot do that you must be a law unto yourself - in which case you alone decide what is right or wrong. It is true our ultimate authority is our conscience but it has to be an informed conscience not simply a matter of private opinion. Otherwise a criminal’s views are just as good as anyone else’s. DIY doesn’t work when it comes to making decisions which affect other people’s lives - and that is where the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity come into the picture.

It is also why Dostoyevsky’s comment that anything is permitted in a Godless universe is far from being abject nonsense. If there’s no reason why we exist there’s no reason for anything else. Camus and Sartre were right: atheism implies that everything is absurd but they resorted to humanism which is an equally inadequate ideology. Why should our species be more valuable and significant than any other if we all exist by chance? There is no reason whatsoever, just favouritism to suit ourselves - and to hell with the rest. In such a world morality is invented and in reality it’s just expediency to make life more secure and comfortable for oneself and one’s community regardless of everyone else. Charity not only begins at home, it stays at home until death finally destroys everything as if no one had ever existed. Vanity of vanities…

 

[PRmerger]

Is rapping indifferent?

What?

Rapping?



I know English is not your first language, (and it’s certainly much better than my 2nd language), but what did you mean here?

Raping?

Wrapping?