Pascal's Wager Redux

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bradski said:
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.
Click to expand...
Except that head knowledge can only take you so far, and knowing about God is not the same as knowing Him.

An old, illiterate peasant woman faithfully mumbling her prayers in the corner of a forgotten church somewhere may understand far more about God than you with all your (unread) books.

Just sayin’. 👍
 
Randy_Carson said:
You’re here.
Click to expand...
…trying to find a commonality with the Catholics, knowing that one’s self is not sufficient, that something objectively and radically “other” exists, that transcends contradictions.

It’s a glorious thing.
 
Bradski said:
You should consider all those who have gone before you. And I mean all.
Click to expand...
Okay. Who do you recommend, Bradski?

You have said that you know more about Christianity than most Christians, and this might include me, so based upon what you know of Christianity and other world religions, which religious tradition(s) do you think is(are) MOST compelling and most worthy of my time and energy?

And remember, I’m mortal with limited time remaining, so please limit your recommendations to those religions for which the evidence and arguments suggest that the probability of them being true is at least 50/50, and let me know why you think they are MORE plausible than the faith I already have.

For example, I think we can rule out Haile Selassie and Baha’u’llah, can’t we? 🤷

Thanks.
 
tonyrey said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know regret the exact phrasing of the OP for those reasons.

I have followed up with a variation of the Wager in subsequent posts, and I think it is more defensible while remaining true to the original.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Okay. Who do you recommend, Bradski?
Click to expand...
Start with Cicero, Seneca, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates and Aurelius. Then try Burke, Thomas Paine, Ingersoll, William James and John Stuart Mill. Then you could move on to Jonathan Haight, Paul Bloom, Dawkins and Dan Dennet, Leda Cosmides, Robert Wright, Victor Frankl, Fesser, Grayling, Orwell, Dworkin, Trent Horn, Thomas Nagel and anything by Dave Barry for some light relief.

Come back in a couple of months and I’ll give you some more.
 
Bradski said:
Start with Cicero, Seneca, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates and Aurelius. Then try Burke, Thomas Paine, Ingersoll, William James and John Stuart Mill. Then you could move on to Jonathan Haight, Paul Bloom, Dawkins and Dan Dennet, Leda Cosmides, Robert Wright, Victor Frankl, Fesser, Grayling, Orwell, Dworkin, Trent Horn, Thomas Nagel and anything by Dave Barry for some light relief.

Come back in a couple of months and I’ll give you some more.
Click to expand...
Wow. Just one woman.

What’s up with that?

And everyone’s pretty much…white.

What the heck.

White males dominate. Who’d have thought?
 
Bradski said:
Start with Cicero, Seneca, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates and Aurelius. Then try Burke, Thomas Paine, Ingersoll, William James and John Stuart Mill. Then you could move on to Jonathan Haight, Paul Bloom, Dawkins and Dan Dennet, Leda Cosmides, Robert Wright, Victor Frankl, Fesser, Grayling, Orwell, Dworkin, Trent Horn, Thomas Nagel and anything by Dave Barry for some light relief.

Come back in a couple of months and I’ll give you some more.
Click to expand...
Oh. I must have misunderstood what you meant when you suggested that I study “all who have gone before.” By this, I thought you meant Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, etc.

IOW, I thought you were advocating a careful study of the world’s great religions and their founders. That’s why I asked which of them has the kind of evidential arguments that Christianity has to show for itself.

If the goal is to read the works of great minds, I have a hard time putting Dawkins and Dennett in the same paragraph with Aristotle and Socrates. 😉
 
Bradski said:
You won’t learn much about evolution by reading Aristotle.
Click to expand...
True. But since evolution doesn’t really impact my understanding of God, why would that be important?

Catholics are not required to be young-earth evolutionists.
 
Randy_Carson said:
True. But since evolution doesn’t really impact my understanding of God, why would that be important?
Click to expand...
If you read about evolution (and there aren’t many better at explaining it than Dawkins, whatever you may think about his views on religion) and then move on to someone like Cosmides who is the go-to gal regarding evolutionary psychology, you get a very good idea of why we do the things we do.

Those two people have had more influence on how I view the world than anyone else.

And in any case, if you think that religion tells you why we are here, wouldn’t you want to know the how as well?
 
Randy_Carson said:
Oh. I must have misunderstood what you meant when you suggested that I study “all who have gone before.” By this, I thought you meant Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, etc.

IOW, I thought you were advocating a careful study of the world’s great religions and their founders. That’s why I asked which of them has the kind of evidential arguments that Christianity has to show for itself.

If the goal is to read the works of great minds, I have a hard time putting Dawkins and Dennett in the same paragraph with Aristotle and Socrates. 😉
Click to expand...
Alas, the former tell us nothing about the most important things in life such as personal fulfilment, goodness, freedom, justice and love…
 
tonyrey said:
Alas, the former tell us nothing about the most important things in life such as personal fulfilment, goodness, freedom, justice and love…
Click to expand...
Which is why you should study all who have gone before. You won’t learn everything by limiting your choices.
 
tonyrey said:
Alas, the former tell us nothing about the most important things in life such as personal fulfilment, goodness, freedom, justice and love…
Click to expand...
And those are the things that usually distinguish philosophy from science.

Science concerns knowledge.

Philosophy concerns wisdom.

The twain rarely meet, especially with respect to the building of nuclear arsenals. 🤷
 
Charlemagne_III said:
And those are the things that usually distinguish philosophy from science.

Science concerns knowledge.

Philosophy concerns wisdom.

The twain rarely meet, especially with respect to the building of nuclear arsenals. 🤷
Click to expand...
Nietzsche would disagree. 😉
 
tonyrey said:
Perhaps I should explain that he believed in the Will to Power as our main driving force in life.
Click to expand...
Those who believe in the Will to Power as the main driving force in life often end up being driven to madness, as Nietzsche and Hitler both proved.

It has been a staple of modern thinking ever since Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein that science unchecked by good philosophy (also called love of wisdom) is bad and destructive science.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Those who believe in the Will to Power as the main driving force in life often end up being driven to madness, as Nietzsche and Hitler both proved.

It has been a staple of modern thinking ever since Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein that science unchecked by good philosophy (also called love of wisdom) is bad and destructive science.
Click to expand...
I’m glad you stipulate “good” philosophy because both Nietzsche and Hitler advocated evil philosophy. People often think St Paul derided philosophy but he was referring to philosophy of this world. The teaching of Jesus is based on the concept of not only one God, i.e. monotheism, but of a heavenly Father who loves all His creatures - which is unique in being the only rational basis of the principles of liberty, equality and, above all, fraternity. Otherwise we are all related solely by an accident of birth which implies that we have no obligations to one another. Chance is hardly an adequate foundation for moral values and principles - nor are human conventions! It is the fact that underlies Pascal’s wager because we are all faced with a choice between All and Nothing. There are no half-measures (like pantheism) where reality is concerned…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top