Pascal's Wager: The End of Nihilism

[PickyPicky]

Your argument either (a) presupposes a defined set of natural laws by which we can deduce (however imperfectly) or uncover some approximation of objective morality or (b) implies man-made subjective morality, which is absurd given that any two individuals could hold exactly opposing definitions for morality with both being equally valid (ie evil = good, which, again, invalidates the concepts and is absurd).

Do you know, I really wish people would stop saying things are absurd – especially when they are not. You are making plenty of assumptions there: why would two subjective moralities both have to be valid for anyone other than the holders of those moralities? (I am not saying I disagree with your assumptions, but simply dismissing something as absurd really requires some justification.)

If you’re going to argue evolution, that’s fine, but a God-given morality does not necessarily preclude evolutionary influences.

Indeed it does not. I agree.

I think you’re missing the point. If you left children alone, you’d have Lord of the Flies on your hands

You must know my children!

However, we are all socialized in a very similar quasi-secular culture predicated on Judeo-Christian values. So, yes, your moral values may not differ from the religious person’s, but not because they’re innate moral values inscribed into your mind from eons of evolution. Rather, they’re a product of a combination of, in my eyes, God-given, evolutionary, and legal mandates, the former two of which were initiated by God.

Or indeed they might be the product of the moral values of our culture, those values of our culture being inscribed from eons of evolution.

I think you’re missing the point.

I don’t think so. IWantGod’s point was that it is “absurd” for me as a non-believer to have moral values. I think he’s wrong about that, don’t you?

 

[Gertabelle]

Most atheists don’t honestly perceive themselves as living in a nihilistic reality and neither do they take its consequence seriously in their day to day lives, because they don’t realize the absurdity of concepts like meaning, moral value, and purpose in a strictly materialistic reality. This is what allows them to operate with some sense of dignity despite the fact that there is none if they are correct. Thus their lives can continue in the illusion that their thoughts, feelings, and behavior, are not absurd. But the reality is, if nihilism is true, then any sense of existential value that one applies to existing things beyond the concept of utility, be it moral value or some kind of meaning, becomes rationally absurd in so far as it is not consistent with objective reality.

Personally, I find your thoughts here rather arrogant. Well, anytime I see someone go on and on about how another group of people thinks and what they believe, etc., I think it’s arrogant. How could you or anyone possibly KNOW what motivates another human being?

I have many friends who consider themselves agnostic or atheist, and I love them with all my heart. They are loving, compassionate, and sometimes far more selfless than I am.

Do you really think that someone should become a believer because of Pascal’s Wager? That is a serious diminution of what we Catholics believe God is and what God is about.

My faith in God is a relationship, based on intellectual exploration and, for lack of a better phrase, intuitive experience. But at the end of the day, I’m not going to be able to scientifically or even philosophically defend my faith. I can tell you, however, my choice to believe (and yes, it is a choice) was not based on Pascal’s Wager!

And if my friends’ view of the world is nihilistic in your opinion, I can assure you they do not believe it to be so. They love their family and friends and would lay down their lives for them. And if you think for a moment that your judgments of them would move them the tiniest distance closer to God, you are sorely mistaken.

 

[Cyril]

Sure it does it’s called compassion and common good.

 

[IWantGod]

Personally, I find your thoughts here rather arrogant. Well, anytime I see someone go on and on about how another group of people thinks and what they believe, etc., I think it’s arrogant. How could you or anyone possibly KNOW what motivates another human being?

I can see why you would say that but its just a logical deduction based upon the human condition. Nobody truly walks around thinking that their lives have no true moral value, or meaning, or purpose. If they think those things don’t exist, then they make them up, because nobody can live without them and at the same time maintain a healthy mind.

Man cannot live by bread alone, so how could an atheist maintain his atheism in a world without God unless they felt they had found a reasonable substitute? I’m just the guy everybody hates on because i point the figure and say they have not found a reasonable substitute. What they have in fact done is reduced the personal experience to absurdity.

 

[gregoryphealy]

Do you know, I really wish people would stop saying things are absurd – especially when they are not. You are making plenty of assumptions there: why would two subjective moralities both have to be valid for anyone other than the holders of those moralities?

Is True = False an absurd statement? If so, do you agree that absolute good and evil are two opposing poles of a moral spectrum? If we can concur on those two premises, I don’t think it’s a reach to say that if good = evil you’ve made an absurd/illogical statement that invalidates both of the concepts on the grounds that you’re attempting to merge two mutually exclusive ideas.

Or indeed they might be the product of the moral values of our culture, those values of our culture being inscribed from eons of evolution.

Right, and it could be that without God’s intervention we could have developed a set of morals very similar to those we have now, I’m not sure, myself. But given the bedrock of our society appears to be derived from Judeo-Christian systems of thought, I cannot rule out God.

I don’t think so. IWantGod’s point was that it is “absurd” for me as a non-believer to have moral values. I think he’s wrong about that, don’t you?

Eh, yea. I think maybe the more appropriate way to phrase it would’ve been something like “objective moral values”. I had moral values as an atheist. But they weren’t tethered to anything concrete.

 

[IWantGod]

And if my friends’ view of the world is nihilistic in your opinion, I can assure you they do not believe it to be so.

Of course they don’t, they’re personal beings created by God. Nobody in their right mind could embrace nihilism, which was my point in the first post. But then they cannot rationally maintain materialistic atheism either if they really care about themselves and other people and at the same time wish to remain rationally consistent with objective reality. But they don’t realize the absurdity of their situation do they. Which has been made clear in this thread by other posters.

 

[gregoryphealy]

Sure it does it’s called compassion and common good.

Are those not the philosophies that predicate communist societies?

 

[IWantGod]

My faith in God is a relationship, based on intellectual exploration and, for lack of a better phrase, intuitive experience. But at the end of the day, I’m not going to be able to scientifically or even philosophically defend my faith. I can tell you, however, my choice to believe (and yes, it is a choice) was not based on Pascal’s Wager!

You chose to believe in something you had no certainty about. You weighed the odds of something being true or not true. I refuse to believe you had no emotional gain in that choice. You are not a calculator, you are a person. And while you may have not believed on the basis of someone threatening you with eternal hell, i think you would rather believe in God than be left with nihilism. Lets be honest.

 

[Cyril]

Huh? I guess but the same could be applied anywhere.

 

[PickyPicky]

Is True = False an absurd statement? If so, do you agree that absolute good and evil are two opposing poles of a moral spectrum? If we can concur on those two premises, I don’t think it’s a reach to say that if good = evil you’ve made an absurd/illogical statement that invalidates both of the concepts on the grounds that you’re attempting to merge two mutually exclusive ideas.

Sure, if we were dealing with objective moralities. We were dealing with putative subjective moralities.

Right, and it could be that without God’s intervention we could have developed a set of morals very similar to those we have now, I’m not sure, myself. But given the bedrock of our society appears to be derived from Judeo-Christian systems of thought, I cannot rule out God.

Indeed. No reason why you should. I only rule him out myself as a matter of practicality. I see no sign of him, so I see no reason to believe in him.

Eh, yea. I think maybe the more appropriate way to phrase it would’ve been something like “objective moral values”. I had moral values as an atheist. But they weren’t tethered to anything concrete.

Well, if they were tethered as you suggest to evolution and Judeo-Christian culture, all permeated as you believe by the purpose of God, then they were tethered pretty comprehensively, I’d say. For myself, I regard evolution and the culture it has produced, based on our astonishing acquisition of consciousness and empathy, as pretty good tethers.

 

[Gertabelle]

Gertabelle:

My faith in God is a relationship, based on intellectual exploration and, for lack of a better phrase, intuitive experience. But at the end of the day, I’m not going to be able to scientifically or even philosophically defend my faith. I can tell you, however, my choice to believe (and yes, it is a choice) was not based on Pascal’s Wager!

You chose to believe in something you had no certainty about. You weighed the odds of something being true or not true. I refuse to believe you had no emotional gain in that choice. You are not a calculator, you are a person. And while you may have not believed on the basis of someone threatening you with eternal hell, i think you would rather believe in God than be left with nihilism. Lets be honest.

Look, if it helps you sleep at night to make my words support your theory, go for it. I know who I am and what I believe, and the path I took to get here. You’re incorrect here, just saying.

But seriously it’s just not worth my time to defend my own beliefs.

And that’s why your argument doesn’t work – because you refuse to hear what people are actually saying, and instead twist everything around in your own mind to fit the system you have created.

Have a blessed Palm Sunday and Holy Week.

 

[IWantGod]

Look, if it helps you sleep at night to make my words support your theory, go for it. I know who I am and what I believe, and the path I took to get here. You’re incorrect here, just saying.

But seriously it’s just not worth my time to defend my own beliefs.

And that’s why your argument doesn’t work – because you refuse to hear what people are actually saying, and instead twist everything around in your own mind to fit the system you have created.

Have a blessed Palm Sunday and Holy Week.

You refuse to correct my error? And then accuse me of twisting things? God bless you.

 

[gregoryphealy]

Sure, if we were dealing with objective moralities. We were dealing with putative subjective moralities.

I was applying my argument to the totality of subjective moralities to imply that the inherent incongruence makes the concepts of good and evil meaningless outside of the context of a single moral framework.

I see no sign of him, so I see no reason to believe in him.

I’m certainly not going to convince you to believe, but may I ask, what would convince you of God? Not even the Catholic God, but the nominal concept of “God”.

For myself, I regard evolution and the culture it has produced, based on our astonishing acquisition of consciousness and empathy, as pretty good tethers.

Hmm, acquisition of consciousness is an interesting way to put it. How does the immaterial consciousness come into existence in your view? Does it have any value (ie through free will) or does our consciousness passively observe?

 

[IWantGod]

Do you really think that someone should become a believer because of Pascal’s Wager? That is a serious diminution of what we Catholics believe God is and what God is about.

If you read my first post, i am not exactly arguing the original version of pascal’s wager. And yes, if you value the idea that your existence has true moral value, meaning, and purpose, then you should reject nihilism, especially if you value the existence of other people. Why would you doom yourself and other people you care about to nihilism? Why would you bring other people into the world if you really thought that was true?

It’s absurd behavior.

 

[PickyPicky]

I was applying my argument to the totality of subjective moralities to imply that the inherent incongruence makes the concepts of good and evil meaningless outside of the context of a single moral framework.

Well, OK. I’m not going to argue.

I’m certainly not going to convince you to believe, but may I ask, what would convince you of God? Not even the Catholic God, but the nominal concept of “God”.

Excellent question. It would be relatively easy, I guess, to believe in some of the simpler supernatural entities: the Fates, say, or the Little People — easy to find things to attribute to their single-minded natures. But if you mean an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God? Well, obviously, a world not utterly unlike the domain of such a God would be a good start. Then if he actually turned up, preferably here in England where I could see and hear him and have a productive conversation with him, so that I could be convinced by his demeanour — that sort of thing, I suppose. I gather he used to provide that sort of face to face evidence to the Jews, according to Scripture, but I suppose he’s given up that sort of thing.

 

[PickyPicky]

Hmm, acquisition of consciousness is an interesting way to put it. How does the immaterial consciousness come into existence in your view? Does it have any value (ie through free will) or does our consciousness passively observe?

If I could explain the development of consciousness I’d be booking my flight to Norway for the Nobel prize: the answer to your question is, I think, “We don’t know”.

Free will, equally, is a much disputed concept which I feel completely ill-equipped to resolve. I’m not sure what you mean by opposing “has value” and “passively observes”. Definitions, please!

 

[IWantGod]

If I could explain the development of consciousness I’d be booking my flight to Norway for the Nobel prize: the answer to your question is, I think, “We don’t know”.

Free will, equally, is a much disputed concept which I feel completely ill-equipped to resolve. I’m not sure what you mean by opposing “has value” and “passively observes”. Definitions, please!

I think the qeustion of how it’s possible is only one side of the coin. The real qeustion is, does it make sense for blind physical processes to become aware of itself and think rationally and make free decisions, without adding something to that process? Thoughts are teleological. Why would they exist in a purely materialistic reality?

 

[PickyPicky]

I see no reason why that shouldn’t make sense.

 

[IWantGod]

I see no reason why that shouldn’t make sense.

Blind physical processes , becoming self-aware without adding something to that process, makes sense to you?

 

[PickyPicky]

Look, I’m prepared to believe in the emergence of life itself from inanimate chemicals, if that can be proven. Then I believe in the emergence of intellect. I have no problem with the idea that we may be able to discover the emergence of consciousness.