Pascal's Wager: The End of Nihilism

[IWantGod]

So you are saying that it makes sense because life emerged from chemical reactions?

 

[PickyPicky]

No, that’s not what I am saying.

 

[IWantGod]

No, that’s not what I am saying.

One of the reasons i reject a clockwork materialist concept of the mind is because of Free-will

If everything is just material, then there is no reason why we should think that anything we say or do isn’t just the inevitable out-come of physical processes because what we think say and do is just a physical process. But if it is true that we don’t have freewill or freedom of thought, then its pretty amazing how everything we say and do and how we respond to one another is logically consistent and not chaotic, almost as if its been scripted.

For that reason alone i would say that on some level an absolute materialistic worldview is necessarily false because in principle it cannot be a reasonable explanation.for everything we experience. Neither determinism, randomness, or chance sufficiently explains the qualitative nature of the effect.

 

[IWantGod]

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.

So basically you have made it impossible for anyone to convince you because you will only accept a personal experience with God? Lol. I should be so lucky.

Be careful what you wish for it might actually happen.

 

[PickyPicky]

Not, I think, necessarily false or in principle impossible. I agree that the qualitative nature of our experience is persuasive of free will, but you will know that philosophers have been batting this about for centuries. I do not find it impossible to believe that the enormous complexity of our physical brains has given birth to consciousness.

 

[PickyPicky]

I’m content to believe that an all powerful God who, I am told, wants me to believe in him, will have the capacity to let me know he exists.

 

[PickyPicky]

And I must take a break.

 

[IWantGod]

But that’s is only assuming that complexity accounts for the possibility.

 

[IWantGod]

I’m content to believe that an all powerful God who, I am told, wants me to believe in him, will have the capacity to let me know he exists.

I think iit’s obvious that some kind of God exists. There are too many meaningful experiences. And i think its reasonably evident that there is a teleological quality in biological processes that can’t be ignored.

 

[IWantGod]

Not, I think, necessarily false or in principle impossible.

Well, if your response is the the inevitable outcome of physical processes, then that pretty much makes freewill impossible, because your response was a physical inevitability, rather than a free decision. The only way to overcome that problem is to reject the notion that your response is the inevitable outcome of physical processes. But if that’s the case, then you have to admit that the cause is not a physical process.

I don’t see how you can refute that.

 

[IWantGod]

Well, if your response is the the inevitable outcome of physical processes, then that pretty much makes freewill impossible, because your response was a physical inevitability, rather than a free decision. The only way to overcome that problem is to reject the notion that your response is the inevitable outcome of physical processes. But if that’s the case, then you have to admit that the cause is not a physical process.

I don’t see how you can refute that.

Or you can do what other atheists do when they don’t like conclusions that necessarily imply the existence of non-physical causes. You can just reject the existence of freewill. But then there is another problem. if it is true that we don’t have freewill or freedom of thought, then its pretty amazing how everything we say and do and how we respond to one another is logically consistent and not chaotic, almost as if its been scripted. Which doesn’t make sense as that would imply that something is scripting our conversations which is incredibly teleological to say the least…

A non-physical cause is the only reasonable response to the problem.

 

[gregoryphealy]

But if you mean an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God?

I think we have very little capacity to know God’s essence. That is to say, what He is; I think we can only truly know of his existence, or that He is. That being said, I think those attributes, or our shallow understanding thereof, would apply, yes.

Well, obviously, a world not utterly unlike the domain of such a God would be a good start.

Hmm, I’ve personally tried thinking of such a world. I don’t believe free will could coexist within it though. Freedom to choose means freedom to choose suboptimally or evilly. So I guess if you’d be okay without free will, such a world could exist, but what would be the point in creating such a world? We’d just reside in a corporeal body and die after having gone through some prescribed set of motions.

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.

Hmm, well He’d have to do this to everyone equally, or else He’d be playing favorites haha, but even so, who’s to say you don’t have some mental breakdown causing you to be delusional or some neurological disorder? What if it’s aliens or some eccentric billionaire who’s got a never-before-seen telepathic technology? I don’t think appealing to the senses would ever be sufficient, do you?

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”.

Hah, good point.

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!

As am I, but determinism would surely take the pizazz out of life, for me haha. From a determinist perspective, the subsequent position of every smallest particle in the universe is based on its previous position, and that all fits into some impossibly complex function. If that’s the case, there’s no free will. I can’t fathom why something immaterial like a consciousness would enter into existence to be a part of it, if all that exists is molecules bumping against one another in pitiless indifference. But, given that consciousness does exist, if the world is still deterministic, and the consciousness plays no role (as we’re just tiny particles moving around in accordance with the laws of physics, then organized into larger organisms), then I’d say the consciousness is a “passive observer”. It merely reacts (if you can call it that) to stimuli in the brain, and then acts accordingly. If free will exists, however, I would say the consciousness has value as it can act in tandem (however it might) with the corporeal body. Of course, this is my vast oversimplification.

 

[PickyPicky]

But if I believed it was simply the outcome of physical processes, why would I regard that as a problem that needed to be overcome?

 

[PickyPicky]

Pretty amazing, indeed. But then so much that exists is pretty amazing, isn’t it?

 

[PickyPicky]

So I guess if you’d be okay without free will, such a world could exist, but what would be the point in creating such a world?

You’re coming close to suggesting that the leopard, say, or the dormouse, say, is a waste of space.

Anyway, God could start by creating a world in which it was not necessary for much of the living population to exist by killing and eating much of the rest.

But even so, who’s to say you don’t have some mental breakdown causing you to be delusional or some neurological disorder? What if it’s aliens or some eccentric billionaire who’s got a never-before-seen telepathic technology? I don’t think appealing to the senses would ever be sufficient, do you?

No doubt some would think the delusion more likely than the actuality, perhaps with good reason. And I don’t rule out the possibility that some argument might convince. Haven’t seen it; don’t expect to see it. If it turns up, fine.

, and the consciousness plays no role (as we’re just tiny particles moving around in accordance with the laws of physics …

Why would that mean the consciousness played no rôle?

 

[Kei]

God does not merely “impose” good morals, He is Goodness itself.

 

[PickyPicky]

Thank you for your assertion.

 

[Kei]

That is the common Catholic understanding.

Pascal’s Wager was written for a particularly Catholic setting, so it’s kinda important.

 

[PickyPicky]

But the wager has been introduced in this thread, not to assess its significance within a Catholic community, but to suggest that non-believers are absurd. Different sort of argument.

 

[Kei]

It is still talking about the Wager with respect to nonbelievers, which the wager addressed.

The OP is a Catholic writing on a Catholic forum applying a Catholic argument for the practice of good virtue.

If you don’t know what you’re arguing against or for, it is a strawman.

Catholic teaching is that God is not merely the “highest being” but Being itself.