Pascal's Wager Redux

[Randy_Carson]

As I’ve noted in the past this method of getting a person to believe in his existence can charitably called circuitous. If the purpose of one going through the motions is to lead one to believe in him, there are far easier ways and far more effective ways.

Yes, it IS circuitous. Better to go straight to believing. But if that is not possible, then Pascal’s point is that if you find yourself on the fence, go ahead and bet on God’s existence. It is the only safe wager.

I think for a vast majority of people who have gone through the motions that would be the case. If you check some of CAF’s threads in places like the evangelization sub-forum as well as other places online you’ll see some variant of the question “My high schooler/collegiate child says he/she is an atheist! What do I do?” While some will call for pushing the child to maintain attending church and church programs, more say that forcing them will make them resent the faith. In general, people don’t like doing things because they feel they have to especially if they see minimal worth in it (if any).

I have taken that position with my own college-aged kids (though none has embraced atheism).

What you said was “Such behavior will not fail to have an effect upon the will and emotions which would lead one to a true faith position.” The key word there is true. As I showed attending service and following the practices of a non-Christian is just as likely to lead one to a faith position that you would not consider true (although as I noted in my earlier post that I don’t think such shifts from going through the motions to full-on belief happen in a majority of cases). And as I mentioned I know a great many people (myself included) who do good for the less fortunate to do good. In some cases they don’t belong to a faith. In some cases they hold to a faith but would be just as giving if they didn’t because that’s the type of people they are. Surely there are some whose charity and faithfulness are tightly bound, but you can’t ignore those people who are charitable and not faithful or vice versa to try and fit it into an argument.

I didn’t say that such actions would lead one to the true faith; I said that such actions could lead one to true (read genuine) faith.

Determining which religion is true requires that one first believes that any of them could be.

As I noted above I disagree with that notion. Calls not to force young adults into faith attendance and practices for fear of pushing them out of that faith seem to back me up.

But Pascal is not speaking of the person who is being forced against his will. He is addressing the person who is free to make up his or her own mind.

The wager fails on so many levels, not the least of which that the question of which god or gods is brushed aside by those who would use it to push a very specific god.

This is just a dodge. The Wager does NOT “fail on so many levels”, and I find it interesting that atheists try to dismiss it by making this common assertion. As for the question regarding WHICH god to choose, well, that’s a far cry from asserting that there is NO god at all, isn’t it? Frankly, that’s an admission that the non-theist has been checkmated.

When I go to a restaurant, I may be overwhelmed by all the choices on the menu, but that doesn’t mean that there is no food in the kitchen.

When Edison sought to invent the lightbulb, he failed to find the proper material needed for the element hundreds of times. But he only needed one correct material in order to succeed.

You may feel it necessary to examine hundreds of “gods”, but you only need to find one that is real. And unlike Edison, you have the advantage in that God is actively assisting you in your search!

Jeremiah 29:13
“You will seek me and find me with all your heart, says the Lord. I will be found by you.”

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

This argument fails because the man has chosen to follow the Catholic approach to salvation FOR A REASON. Let me explain: if you told me that I can get to heaven by eating a Marshmallow cupcake every day for the rest of my life, I could certainly follow those instructions, but I would first want to know the basis or authority for that claim. If I accepted your reasons, then I would carry out the program. Yum! But I would not do so if I didn’t believe that your claims had any substance.

If Zap chooses to follow Catholicism, it’s because he thinks there is something to it. He may not believe everything with certainty - he may not even be sure he believes in God - but he wants to believe (and go to heaven) and he does believe that there is some plausibility to the claims of the Catholic Church. So, he chooses to act on what he believes is plausibly true. He is not acting on something he is knows to be false.

Scenario 2) Zap dies and God judges him. He knows that Zap is not invincibly ignorant since he spent a great deal of time trying to make sense of Christianity. Since he didn’t believe he is sent to Hell. In this scenario we have what I termed earlier The Problem of Punishment For Reasonable Disbelief. God is said to create man to be rational, but then punishes him for being rational.

I don’t think that is the definition of invincible ignorance. Jimmy Akin says the following here:

If some, but insufficient, diligence was shown toward finding the answer, the ignorance is termed merely vincible. If little or no diligence was shown, the ignorance is termed crass or supine. If one deliberately fostered the ignorance then it is termed affected or studied.

If vincible ignorance is merely vincible, crass, or supine, it diminishes culpability for the sinful act relative to the degree of diligence that was shown. If a vincibly ignorant person showed almost reasonable diligence, most of his imputability for the sin could be removed. If he was crassly ignorant, having shown little or no diligence compared to what was reasonable, little or none of his imputability would be removed.

Thus, if Zap actually put in the time that you say he does, then he has been diligent and this reduces his culpability for being ignorant.

I’ve been on more than a few of those threads

Perhaps you should be more diligent about studying invincible ignorance!

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.

Anyone who has not adopted this affected stance is more likely to be a soft agnostic rather than a true atheist.

But that’s just it. The whole point of the wager is to take the existence of your god from a neutral position when the person making the wager doesn’t see the evidence for him, yet you’re expecting people to accept wholesale that he’s there. If they don’t you’re saying they’re dishonest, ignorant, or both.

Nope. The whole point of the wager is NOT to recommend a wager when the bettor sees NO evidence but when there are compelling arguments on both sides and the outcome of the affair still hangs in the balance.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Just as my climate change version of Pascal’s wager doesn’t seem to work for climate change deniers, I don’t think Pascal’s wager works very well for atheists & agnostics.

What I think of whenever I have any doubts is the Apostles. They knew Jesus & saw miracles that astounded them, esp the resurrection & the predictions of Jesus coming true – so they truly believed what Jesus taught re God & heaven.

The important point about the Apostles is that they were not elites, but peasants. I love the part in Last Temptation of Christ (the movie - I can’t remember the novel) when Judas, confounded & disgusted by the lowliness of the Apostles, asks Jesus, “Where did you get these men?!”

Now the Apostles didn’t have anything to gain by lying; they even had doubts & misunderstandings about Jesus until the resurrection & thereafter. In fact they were scared to death at first to tell what they knew about Jesus, until the Spirit gave the courage. And they suffered at various times, esp in their deaths, for their witness.

So we either believe them or we do not.

“Faith comes through hearing (the Gospels, the words of the Apostles).”

And sometimes God gives special “insights” to some people.

FWIW, if I thought that climate change might be affected by my choices, then I might buy a smaller car, etc.

I don’t, so I make no changes. But I would if I thought there was any reason to do so.

 

[lynnvinc]

FWIW, if I thought that climate change might be affected by my choices, then I might buy a smaller car, etc.

I don’t, so I make no changes. But I would if I thought there was any reason to do so.

That’s what atheists dislike about religious folks – the way the deny science & things like CC & evolution. If only they knew that all our last 3 popes accept both wholeheartedly, with JPII even saying “Truth (God) cannot deny truth (re evolution)”

 

[Randy_Carson]

This argument fails because the man has chosen to follow the Catholic approach to salvation FOR A REASON. Let me explain: if you told me that I can get to heaven by eating a Marshmallow cupcake every day for the rest of my life, I could certainly follow those instructions, but I would first want to know the basis or authority for that claim. If I accepted your reasons, then I would carry out the program. Yum! But I would not do so if I didn’t believe that your claims had any substance.

If Zap chooses to follow Catholicism, it’s because he thinks there is something to it. He may not believe everything with certainty - he may not even be sure he believes in God - but he wants to believe (and go to heaven) and he does believe that there is some plausibility to the claims of the Catholic Church. So, he chooses to act on what he believes is plausibly true. He is not acting on something he is knows to be false.

I don’t think that is the definition of invincible ignorance. Jimmy Akin says the following here:

If some, but insufficient, diligence was shown toward finding the answer, the ignorance is termed merely vincible. If little or no diligence was shown, the ignorance is termed crass or supine. If one deliberately fostered the ignorance then it is termed affected or studied.

If vincible ignorance is merely vincible, crass, or supine, it diminishes culpability for the sinful act relative to the degree of diligence that was shown. If a vincibly ignorant person showed almost reasonable diligence, most of his imputability for the sin could be removed. If he was crassly ignorant, having shown little or no diligence compared to what was reasonable, little or none of his imputability would be removed.

Thus, if Zap actually put in the time that you say he does, then he has been diligent and this reduces his culpability for being ignorant.

Affected or studied ignorance can increase culpability for a sin, especially if it displays hardness of heart, whereby one would commit the sin irrespective of any law that might exist concerning it. Such an attitude shows contempt for moral law and so increases culpability (cf. CCC 1859).

Perhaps you should be more diligent about studying invincible ignorance!

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.

Anyone who has not adopted this affected stance is more likely to be a soft agnostic rather than a true atheist.

Nope. The whole point of the wager is NOT to recommend a wager when the bettor sees NO evidence but when there are compelling arguments on both sides and the outcome of the affair still hangs in the balance.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That’s what atheists dislike about religious folks – the way the deny science & things like CC & evolution. If only they knew that all our last 3 popes accept both wholeheartedly, with JPII even saying “Truth (God) cannot deny truth (re evolution)”

Some “religious folks” deny evolution, but as you point out, this is not a Catholic position.

As for climate change, I’m unconvinced by the evidence.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Just as my climate change version of Pascal’s wager doesn’t seem to work for climate change deniers, I don’t think Pascal’s wager works very well for atheists & agnostics.

If it doesn’t work very well that’s just because the argument is not intended to prove the existence of God, but rather to prove to the atheist that he is taking an enormous risk for the sake of his immortal soul if he is wrong.

And if that doesn’t sink in, it’s not because Pascal failed, but because the atheist is willing to trade the fate of his immortal soul for a deliberately misguided sense of intellectual honesty.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

If it doesn’t work very well that’s just because the argument is not intended to prove the existence of God, but rather to prove to the atheist that he is taking an enormous risk for the sake of his immortal soul if he is wrong.

And if that doesn’t sink in, it’s not because Pascal failed, but because the atheist is willing to trade the fate of his immortal soul for a deliberately misguided sense of intellectual honesty.

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!!

 

[MPat]

As I’ve noted in the past this method of getting a person to believe in his existence can charitably called circuitous. If the purpose of one going through the motions is to lead one to believe in him, there are far easier ways and far more effective ways.

It is not the purpose of such actions, although it is one of the effects and might well be one of secondary goals. The purpose is simply to do what is right and rational.

It works similarly with charity: the purpose of helping the neighbour is to, um, help the neighbour. Such actions also help one to get feelings associated with charity, but that is not the main purpose.

For let’s face it: when you (and other atheists) talk about faith and beliefs, you often have feelings in mind, not something rational.

As I noted above I disagree with that notion. Calls not to force young adults into faith attendance and practices for fear of pushing them out of that faith seem to back me up.

Actions that one is forced to perform have effects that are very different from effects of actions one has freely chosen to perform (even if that has been done unenthusiastically).

The wager fails on so many levels, not the least of which that the question of which god or gods is brushed aside by those who would use it to push a very specific god.

Really? Somehow I get a different impression… There have been many answers given in this very thread:

1. 
   *]Evidence for different religions is not equally strong: you can choose the one with strongest supporting evidence.
   *]Consequences of being wrong about different religions are different (for example, if you are wrong about Hinduism, you can try again later): you can choose the one with best “benefits”.
   *]Just about any religion holds doctrines that say that just about any another religion is a much better choice than atheism: you can simply choose any of them.
   
   And yet, the atheists seem to ignore those answers…
   

   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:

   Not a very precise description, but let’s see.
   

   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.

   Where exactly does Bible say that in order to avoid Hell it is “necessary” to “believe Jesus was his lord and savior”? Chapter and verse, please. It is the way in which some Protestants formulate their doctrines, but, in fact, it is not how Catholic Church does that.
   
   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.
   

   Scenario 2) Zap dies and God judges him. He knows that Zap is not invincibly ignorant since he spent a great deal of time trying to make sense of Christianity. Since he didn’t believe he is sent to Hell. In this scenario we have what I termed earlier The Problem of Punishment For Reasonable Disbelief. God is said to create man to be rational, but then punishes him for being rational.

   Once again we have the same problem that rational faith is not distinguished from related emotions. Anyway, Pascal’s Wager is rational. One is not rational when one goes where his feelings lead while ignoring rational arguments.
   

   But that’s just it. The whole point of the wager is to take the existence of your god from a neutral position when the person making the wager doesn’t see the evidence for him, yet you’re expecting people to accept wholesale that he’s there. If they don’t you’re saying they’re dishonest, ignorant, or both.

   Do you have any evidence to the contrary? It looks like here you are (implicitly) arguing in the very fashion of Pascal’s Wager: we are supposed to accept that atheists are honest, intelligent and knowledgeable not because of some evidence, but because otherwise they will be upset. Sure, this argument is much weaker than the original, but the similarities are present.

 

[lynnvinc]

…As for climate change, I’m unconvinced by the evidence.

but the working climate scientists are convinced, as have been our last 3 popes, so that’s more then enough for me, esp realizing how conservative & reticent scientists are, requiring 95% confidence before making claims.

Pertinent to the OP, & stat research methods based on Pascal’s works, we have the 4 options:

1. true positive – CC is happening, God exists, etc, and people accept these
2. false positive (alpha error) – CC is not happening, God does not exist, but people mistakenly accept these
3. true negative – CC is not happening, God does not exist, and people concur
4. false negative (beta error) – CC is happening, God does exist, but people reject these

In the false positive re CC, even if it is not happening but people mitigate it anyway, they will be astonished by the money they save (as we have been), & will be mitigating other env problems to boot.

In the false negative (& people fail to mitigate), not only will they fail to gain those savings & mitigate other env problems that harm & kill, but the death and destruction from CC over the decades, centuries, & millennia (from GHG emissions to date & over our profligate lifetimes) will be tremendous – getting worse as time goes by.

I’ve also developed what I call the scientific model, the legal model, & the medical model to help explain these differences.

The scientific model is focused on avoiding the false positive – scientists cannot risk their reputations by making false claims, like the boy who called wolf (the true moral to that story is the villagers got eaten up by the wolf bec they weren’t patient enough with the boy, giving him more chaces ).

The legal model is also focused on avoiding the false positive of a person being innocent, but being found guilty & convicted or executed anyway, or a civil case being unjustly decided. They require “a preponderance of evidence” (more that 50% confidence) before deciding in favor of the plaintiff, or “beyond a reasonable doubt” for criminal cases.

The medical model is focused on avoiding the false negative, of failing to detect a serious illness, when indeed the patient has that disease. A doctor will not tell a patient that there is only 93% certainty he has a life-threatening cancer, so come back in a few years to see if it can get up to 95% certainty so it can be treated. The doctor will likely treat it if there is only 60% certainty. This is also called prudence and the precautionary principle.

Likewise, we should be out in front of the scientists on CC, mitigating it even with less that 95% certainty (which was reached in 1995), and not lagging behind them, insisting that there be 99% certainty, or 101% certainty before mitigating. That’s why in 1990 JPII told us to mitigate it, and in 2002 the US bishops called for prudence – to mitigate CC even if we were not sure of the science.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

We are tiny specks in the universe, and non-believers are not alone in questioning our place within it. The fact that we ask these questions is in no way a tick in favor of theism – as evidenced by doubting theists struggling to also find their place. It’s human nature.

So what do you think happens after death Mike? Nothing? Or are you still unsure on this question?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So what do you think happens after death Mike? Nothing? Or are you still unsure on this question?

Atheism is both homicidal and suicidal.

It seeks to kill off God and establish the finality of death.

 

[Bradski]

Yes, it IS circuitous. Better to go straight to believing. But if that is not possible, then Pascal’s point is that if you find yourself on the fence, go ahead and bet on God’s existence. It is the only safe wager.

It seems that the suggestion is: you’d better believe or…you’re going to be in trouble.

Really?

I have to say that if I’d woken up this morning and found that I did actually believe that God existed, then it wouldn’t change the way I live my life in the slightest. I do my best to be a good person in any case. I’m not always succesful, but belief in God is not going to up my strike rate in any way.

Would any Christian admit that they would become an immoral person if they lost their faith? That their belief is the only thing preventing them from doing wrong? That they are good because they are Christian?

Similarly, would anyone suggest that a sudden realisation that God existed would make them a better person? Why wouldn’t they do what they thought was right whether they believed or not?

Bradski the Christian and Bradski the atheist are EXACTLY the same person.

So what’s the requirement for belief? Well, apart from the fatuous declaration that ‘you should believe because it’s true’, what are the benefits? Is God going to send me to hell because I have used the intellectual reasoning that He gave me and reached the honestly held position that He doesn’t exist?

Are you serious?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Would any Christian admit that they would become an immoral person if they lost their faith? That their belief is the only thing preventing them from doing wrong? That they are good because they are Christian?

Not just “would” but many did. I have seen many posts on these boards where the poster actively affirmed that if they would not believe in God, they would kill, torture and rape. They were especially longing to lead a sexually immoral life. I was very much surprised at this, but they were not “forced” to come clean in any way. True, that percentage-wise they were a miniscule minority, but their number was still astonishing.

 

[Bradski]

Not just “would” but many did. I have seen many posts on these boards where the poster actively affirmed that if they would not believe in God, they would kill, torture and rape. They were especially longing to lead a sexually immoral life. I was very much surprised at this, but they were not “forced” to come clean in any way. True, that percentage-wise they were a miniscule minority, but their number was still astonishing.

I’m not sure they are being entirely honest. At least, I hope they aren’t.

I think it’s the nonsensical belief that without God anything is allowed taken to a bizarrely illogical conclusion: ‘I’d even be a murdering rapist myself!’.

 

[MPat]

It seems that the suggestion is: you’d better believe or…you’re going to be in trouble.

Really?

Really.

I have to say that if I’d woken up this morning and found that I did actually believe that God existed, then it wouldn’t change the way I live my life in the slightest. I do my best to be a good person in any case. I’m not always succesful, but belief in God is not going to up my strike rate in any way.

You do understand you just said that if you would believe in God, you would still come here to argue for atheism? And that you would never pray, even if you would believe in God?

Something tells me you haven’t thought it through…

Anyway, that’s only the beginning of problems with this claim. Let’s look at claims that are similar:

• “I have to say that if I’d woken up this morning and found that I did learn the whole Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings by heart, then it wouldn’t change the way I play chess in the slightest. I do my best to be a good chess player in any case. I’m not always succesful, but knowing how to play the opening is not going to up my strike rate in any way.”
• “I have to say that if I’d woken up this morning and found that I thought of a good way to train my endurance, then it wouldn’t change the way I run marathon in the slightest. I do my best to be a good runner in any case. I’m not always succesful, but knowing how to train is not going to up my strike rate in any way.”

Sounds silly, doesn’t it…?

In those examples, it is easy to notice that holding correct beliefs does help one to succeed in related tasks.

And likewise, of course, knowing what is moral and knowing techniques that help to act morally are going to help you to act in a more moral way. And if God exists, correctly believing that He does exist can obviously lead to such knowledge.

So what’s the requirement for belief? Well, apart from the fatuous declaration that ‘you should believe because it’s true’, what are the benefits? Is God going to send me to hell because I have used the intellectual reasoning that He gave me and reached the honestly held position that He doesn’t exist?

Do you have any actual evidence that your position is held honestly and supported by reasoning? After all, someone who is deceiving himself is a bit unlikely to admit that.

Or do we have something analogous to a Pascal’s Wager in action again - we are supposed to believe that you hold your beliefs honestly not because of any evidence, but because you are going to be upset otherwise? Although that does not get anywhere close to explaining why you should be so sure of your honesty yourself - wrongly believing you hold your beliefs honestly sure can backfire…

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Not just “would” but many did. I have seen many posts on these boards where the poster actively affirmed that if they would not believe in God, they would kill, torture and rape. They were especially longing to lead a sexually immoral life. I was very much surprised at this, but they were not “forced” to come clean in any way. True, that percentage-wise they were a miniscule minority, but their number was still astonishing.

This may be astonishing but it has nothing to do with the topic. Please stay on topic.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I’m not sure they are being entirely honest. At least, I hope they aren’t.

I think it’s the nonsensical belief that without God anything is allowed taken to a bizarrely illogical conclusion: ‘I’d even be a murdering rapist myself!’.

Again this has nothing to do with the topic. So Bradski, what do you think happens after you die? Just nothing? I mean besides your material body rotting.

 

[Bradski]

Really.

You do understand you just said that if you would believe in God, you would still come here to argue for atheism? And that you would never pray, even if you would believe in God?

Something tells me you haven’t thought it through…

Anyway, that’s only the beginning of problems with this claim. Let’s look at claims that are similar:

• “I have to say that if I’d woken up this morning and found that I did learn the whole Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings by heart, then it wouldn’t change the way I play chess in the slightest. I do my best to be a good chess player in any case. I’m not always succesful, but knowing how to play the opening is not going to up my strike rate in any way.”
• “I have to say that if I’d woken up this morning and found that I thought of a good way to train my endurance, then it wouldn’t change the way I run marathon in the slightest. I do my best to be a good runner in any case. I’m not always succesful, but knowing how to train is not going to up my strike rate in any way.”

Sounds silly, doesn’t it…?

In those examples, it is easy to notice that holding correct beliefs does help one to succeed in related tasks.

And likewise, of course, knowing what is moral and knowing techniques that help to act morally are going to help you to act in a more moral way. And if God exists, correctly believing that He does exist can obviously lead to such knowledge.

Do you have any actual evidence that your position is held honestly and supported by reasoning? After all, someone who is deceiving himself is a bit unlikely to admit that.

Or do we have something analogous to a Pascal’s Wager in action again - we are supposed to believe that you hold your beliefs honestly not because of any evidence, but because you are going to be upset otherwise? Although that does not get anywhere close to explaining why you should be so sure of your honesty yourself - wrongly believing you hold your beliefs honestly sure can backfire…

Well, gee. You are so right. If I believed in God then…I wouldn’t be an atheist. Silly me.

And what’s with the business of knowing how to become a better chess player or triathlete? You are missing the point by such a margin that I find it hard to credit.

If I find a better way to do anything then it would be idiotic not to utilise it to improve myself. So please read this bit carefully: A belief in God would not make me a better person.

And how do you know that my beliefs are honestly held? Well, I just told you, buddy. I’d appreciate it greatly if you did not question my integrity.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Well, gee. You are so right. If I believed in God then…I wouldn’t be an atheist. Silly me.

And what’s with the business of knowing how to become a better chess player or triathlete? You are missing the point by such a margin that I find it hard to credit.

If I find a better way to do anything then it would be idiotic not to utilise it to improve myself. So please read this bit carefully: A belief in God would not make me a better person.

And how do you know that my beliefs are honestly held? Well, I just told you, buddy. I’d appreciate it greatly if you did not question my integrity.

Yes but the Pascal’s wager is that when we die and IF WE CAN go to an everlasting life in a beautiful place near our Creator, OR Nothing at all, just a rotting corpse and the end? Wouldn’t it be better to bet on the first scenario? Or do you like the idea of worms eating your body and your life being just a 60 or 70 year jaunt of meaninglessness?