Pascal's Wager Redux

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Read what I wrote again carefully:

Originally Posted by Randy Carson View Post
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?

And sure, you can throw in some exceptions after the fact…she’s drunk, she’s drug-addled, she’s a nympho, etc… Fine. You might refrain in these cases.

But that’s not really what we’re talking about, is it? :nope:

If the woman next door is in her right mind and unmarried, the non-believer has NO reason not to have sex with her if the opportunity presents itself.

The Christian, however, would (or should) know that this is a sin and would (or should) refrain from having sex with her simply because of his belief that God views this as a “sin”.

Believers and non-believers behave differently based in part upon what they believe or don’t believe is acceptable moral behavior.

And this answers (with finality, I might add) your question as to how a believer might begin to act differently if shown that God does not exist. There are a host of things prohibited by the Christian understanding of God’s will that would suddenly be acceptable in the absence of God.

You suggested earlier, incorrectly, that this is not the case.

 

[STT]

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?

Yes, I meant raping. Thanks for the correction.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, I meant raping. Thanks for the correction.

Ok, so, no. Raping is not indifferent.

Raping is gravely evil.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Yep. Pretty much.

But tell me, have you looked up the definition of “religion” recently? I’ll wait…

:compcoff:

Okay, so you see then that a “religion” is a particular set of beliefs about God. Well, duh. If you believe that God exists and you are actively seeking a relationship with Him, then it stands to reason that you will be interested in what others who sought a relationship with God had to say on the subject. At that point, you will be reading books, etc.

But let’s assume for the moment that you are an island of belief all by yourself. You believe in God, but you make no effort to learn from others who have made the journey before you. Okay. That’s possible, I suppose.

However, you omit one significant truth: You are only one half of the relationship; God Himself is the other, and He will not leave you ignorant of Himself or His truths. If it is offensive to God that His plan for man and woman (marriage) is violated by uncommitted sexual liaisons, then you will not remain ignorant of this for long.

Heck, I just told you, so now you know that it is at least possible!

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Right.

And I think you actually know that this is how it is supposed to be.

You really don’t believe that sex can be for pleasure only.

For if you did, you wouldn’t mind one whit if your wife had sex with your pool boy, as long as it was for pleasure only.

But you would mind.

That means, you believe that sex can never really be just for pleasure alone. There’s something wayyyyy deeper and sublime going on in this act.

However, it’s true that you really wouldn’t care if your wife played tennis with your pool boy. Because you do know that this is, indeed, something that can be for pleasure only.

Tennis for pleasure alone? Absolutely!
Sex is possible for pleasure alone? Not so much.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

Actually, the theology of the Catholic Church represents the very best efforts of man to sort stuff out for 2,000 years.

But if you’re suggesting that each individual should try to reinvent the wheel for themselves with regard to God, let me ask you: would you recommend the same for anyone taking up the study of science? Or is it only scientists who are able to study what others have done before them and build upon it? Surely you aren’t saying that they aren’t thinking independently, are you?

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, the theology of the Catholic Church represents the very best efforts of man to sort stuff out for 2,000 years.

But if you’re suggesting that each individual should try to reinvent the wheel for themselves with regard to God, let me ask you: would you recommend the same for anyone taking up the study of science? Or is it only scientists who are able to study what others have done before them and build upon it? Surely you aren’t saying that they aren’t thinking independently, are you?

Yep.

And let’s see if Bradski would fly in an airplane piloted by someone who hadn’t conformed his education to the science of aviation, but rather was an “independent thinker”.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

I did not think that you are a kid. However, you reveal a real hunger that has not been satisfied by what you have read thus far. Given the authors you listed, this is not a surprise.

You’re hungry for God, Bradski. Why else would you spend so much of your free time talking to believers. You want what we have, but you can’t bring yourself to actually committing to God.

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.

It would not be wise for any of us to limit ourselves to what we were told when we were children. What I’m wondering is how open you really are to hearing a more mature version of what you may have heard back then.

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.

Since there is only one author of Truth, I do not think that theology and science will ever contradict one another when they are fully understood.

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.

I’m a convert to the Catholic faith. I joined the Church when I was a student at Georgia Tech. Therefore, while I was raised in a Protestant Christian home, I do not follow the faith of my parents in the same way that they do. And no, I do not pick and choose like a cafeteria Catholic, because I believe that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church established by God upon Peter, the rock. It teaches infallibly with divine authority, and I accept all of it. ALL. OF. IT.

However, you err in one respect: I didn’t choose the Catholic Church after a careful examination of options. God reached out to me when I was NOT looking for Him and drew me to Himself and His Church.

Now, you can object to this if you like, but you would have to do more than that to prove that my view is incorrect. And this you cannot do because the Catholic Church has never formally taught false doctrine in the course of its entire history. But that’s the stuff of other threads.

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.

I cannot say whether we have gone through the same process since I do not know what you went through. However, I can say with confidence that what I believe matches what the Catholic Church teaches because I have chosen to accept and obey what the Catholic Church teaches after having been convinced of the Church’s divine origin and authority. IOW, I didn’t first decide what I believed about God and then go shopping for a Church to match my own ideas. No, I went looking for historical authenticity first, and having discovered it, THEN I set about learning what I needed to know of the particulars of Catholic theology.

But I’m guessing that your position doesn’t really satisfy you, does it? You buy books faster than you can read them. You spend hours online talking to people who think very differently than you about God. And why is that?

St. Augustine, one of the great doctors of the Church who resisted the call of God for many years because of his own addiction to sexual pleasure knew the restlessness of the heart. He wrote, “Thou hast made us for thyself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it finds its rest in thee.”

Maybe you’re restless because you do not rest in God, Bradski.

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.

And are you infallible in this regard?

 

[Bradski]

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.

Yet again, one more time…it doesn’t matter if there is an Objective Truth or not. You say that you have access to it and I don’t. As a believer, you maintain that you have access to the right answers. Would this be just yourself or can we include anyone with a belief in God? Perhaps a 14 year old girl who is a believer can lead someone with a lifetime of experience and knowledge of the world towards the truth. You think?

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).

The standards of truth that I hold to are not pulled out a hat at a whim. Neither, I’m sure, are yours. But you base yours on a limited set of beliefs whereas I can, and do, use all available sources. And again, it will be that we generally agree on many matters. But for you to make a decision that the church has it right, you go through EXACTLY the same process as I do when I determine if something is right.

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.

Complete nonsense. There are only facts and outcomes. IF A then B. IF not X then Y. What else can you possibly use to make a determination?

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.

Ah yes. ‘We all rely on faith’. When what you actually mean is that we all have reasonable expectations that the world will unfold as it should. That the bridge will remain standing and the plane will keep on flying and the brakes still work. But if you want to believe that a religious faith will give you the right information without any facts and without considering any outcomes, then it is blind faith.

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.

You may well be reluctant to use it in an argument because it will get shot full of holes before it leaves the ground. But if you actually accept the dictates of authority, do you do so blindly or do you have an internal debate to see if what you are being told can actually be considered to be valid?

Accepting it unthinkingly can lead to the sorts of scenarios that we see all too frequently these days. If you actually have that internal debate, then you are doing no more and no less than I do. Except, as I say, I’m not limited by whose opinions I am willing to entertain.

 

[Bradski]

I did not think that you are a kid. However, you reveal a real hunger that has not been satisfied by what you have read thus far. Given the authors you listed, this is not a surprise.

It’s a hunger for knowledge.

You’re hungry for God, Bradski. Why else would you spend so much of your free time talking to believers. You want what we have, but you can’t bring yourself to actually committing to God.

I’m not looking for God. I’m looking for me. I’ve always had a view as to how the world worked. It’s just that sometimes it was no more than a gut feeling. Putting my views in the form of an argument helps me understand what I really believe and why I believe it. It’s no good me discussing matters with like-minded people. I need to test what I think I know with people who will disagree with me.

It would not be wise for any of us to limit ourselves to what we were told when we were children. What I’m wondering is how open you really are to hearing a more mature version of what you may have heard back then.

Do you think I haven’t spent quite some time on the matter? I would say that I am more knowledgeable about Christianity than the majority of Christians.

Since there is only one author of Truth, I do not think that theology and science will ever contradict one another when they are fully understood.

See Gould and NOMA.

However, you err in one respect: I didn’t choose the Catholic Church after a careful examination of options. God reached out to me when I was NOT looking for Him and drew me to Himself and His Church.

Now, you can object to this if you like, but you would have to do more than that to prove that my view is incorrect. And this you cannot do because the Catholic Church has never formally taught false doctrine in the course of its entire history. But that’s the stuff of other threads.

I’m not objecting to it. I just think it’s a limited way to determine your way in life: ‘These guys are right, everyone else must be wrong’.

 

[Bradski]

But if you’re suggesting that each individual should try to reinvent the wheel for themselves with regard to God, let me ask you: would you recommend the same for anyone taking up the study of science? Or is it only scientists who are able to study what others have done before them and build upon it? Surely you aren’t saying that they aren’t thinking independently, are you?

You should consider all those who have gone before you. And I mean all.

 

[goout]

If you actually have that internal debate, then you are doing no more and no less than I do. Except, as I say, I’m not limited by whose opinions I am willing to entertain.

That’s exactly my point in a nutshell (which you do not realize)
You believe you are above moral evaluation in reference to objective good (because it feels good to imagine yourself above the fray?),while at the same time you admit we both evaluate in reference to something objective.

Contradiction. Which is the real Brad?

 

[tonyrey]

The standards of truth that I hold to are not pulled out a hat at a whim. Neither, I’m sure, are yours. But you base yours on a limited set of beliefs whereas I can, and do, use all available sources. And again, it will be that we generally agree on many matters. But for you to make a decision that the church has it right, you go through EXACTLY the same process as I do when I determine if something is right.

What are the sources you use, Brad? And how do you decide which are superior to others?

 

[tonyrey]

Pascal argued:
…E. If you don’t believe in God, and you are wrong, you will suffer eternal damnation.

Pascal did **not **mention eternal damnation in his wager. That mistake has led others to believe he was motivated by fear of his own annihilation and his wager appeals to the coward who feigns belief in a desperate attempt to fool God - which is sheer nonsense. He was simply pointing out that we have everything to lose and nothing to gain by rejecting the possibility that God exists.

 

[MPat]

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.

You know, it is interesting that the very first two items of your list of “science” (Sociology and Psychology) are hardly sciences - they are protosciences at best. After all, less than half of research in Psychology has been found to be reproducible (Open Science Collaboration, “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science”, “Science”, 28 Aug 2015: Vol. 349, Issue 6251, DOI: 10.1126/science.aac4716 - science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716)…

Thus I’m afraid that if your views match the findings of sociologists and psychologists too well, it might be a sign of falsehood more than of truth…

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.

Perhaps a 14 year old girl who is a believer can lead someone with a lifetime of experience and knowledge of the world towards the truth. You think?

Yes, some 14 year old girls are wiser than some 50, 60 or 70 year olds. It is not like the SI unit of wisdom is a candle on the birthday cake.

To take a very simple example, it is very easy to find a pair of an old man who keeps drinking himself to death and a 14 year old girl who has enough wisdom not to do so.

Not to mention that maybe you should leave praising your own wisdom to someone else… Don’t you have any other arguments left (hopefully the ones that are closer to the subject of the thread)?

The standards of truth that I hold to are not pulled out a hat at a whim. Neither, I’m sure, are yours. But you base yours on a limited set of beliefs whereas I can, and do, use all available sources.

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

I’m afraid we have a contradiction here… Maybe you should reword something…

 

[Bradski]

What are the sources you use, Brad? And how do you decide which are superior to others?

The sources aren’t limited in any way. And how do I decide? Well, I make that call myself. I’ve heard some people talk of it as ‘being responsible for one’s decisions’.

Yeah, I know. Kinda wierd.

 

[Bradski]

That’s exactly my point in a nutshell (which you do not realize)
You believe you are above moral evaluation in reference to objective good (because it feels good to imagine yourself above the fray?),while at the same time you admit we both evaluate in reference to something objective.

Contradiction. Which is the real Brad?

We don’t both evalutate in reference to ‘the objective good’.

As I have been told more times than I could count, being a believer gives you access to this so-called objective good. So if we are both evaluating a moral problem and all the evidence and facts and arguments and outcomes point to a particular course of action and that action contradicts what you understand to be the ‘objective good’, then despite you agreeing with the evidence and the facts etc, you will reject that course of action.

You are starting with an answer, before the question has been asked, before you even begin to evaluate the problem. How can that make any sense whatsoever?

B: I have something here that appears to contradict what the church teaches.
G: It’s wrong.
B: Uh? I haven’t even told you what it is yet.
G: It doesn’t matter, it’s wrong.

Now that is an accurate scenario OR you are willing to evaluate all moral problems on the evidence, the particular facts of the matter, the possible outcomes and are willing to genuinely listen to arguments for both sides. That is, to personally evaluate the problem on its merits wherever the answer may lay.

Which is it?

 

[tonyrey]

The sources aren’t limited in any way. And how do I decide? Well, I make that call myself. I’ve heard some people talk of it as ‘being responsible for one’s decisions’.

Yeah, I know. Kinda wierd.

So you base your decisions on intuition rather than the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity?

 

[Bradski]

So you base your decisions on intuition rather than the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity?of the French revolution.

Read what I write, Tony. I said there are no limits as to the sources of information. So that would inlcude, but not be limited to, the UDHR and the battle cry of the French Revolution.

And in passing, a happy Australia Day to all. And my condolences to everyone who drew the short straw in life and has to live somewhere other than Downunder, where women glow and men thunder (with apologies to Men at Work).

 

[tonyrey]

Read what I write, Tony. I said there are no limits as to the sources of information. So that would inlcude, but not be limited to, the UDHR and the battle cry of the French Revolution.

Does the UDHR have any rational foundation? Or is it based solely on the opinion of the majority? Why are animals excluded?