Pascal's Wager: The End of Nihilism

[abucs]

Indeed not.

Yes, perhaps I should expand. Earth is not seen as God’s attempt to mandate a loving world devoid of evil. His goodness makes a better world through His presence but His presence here is not absolute.

With each individual soul coming closer to God (whether they know it or not) the earth becomes more like Heaven where His presence (and goodness) rule absolutely and the beings there except this goodness because they have chosen to accept it for themselves.

(From a Christian perspective).

 

[AlNg]

If so, do you agree that absolute good and evil are two opposing poles of a moral spectrum?

Not sure because at one point in time capital punishment was thought to be good, but now it is thought to be evil. Similarly, with torture. At one point in time it was thought to be good to hold an Inquisition and stretch people on the rack, pulling their limbs. Now it is taught that is evil. Similarly with women. At one point in time it was taught that women should wear headcovering and be silent in church. Now it is taught that it is good for women to read the epistle at the altar without their heads being covered.
These things are relative to the time and the culture. What was evil in one culture and time, is good at another time and in another culture. For another example, take dressing modestly in Church especially for women. However, we see that in an African papal Mass, women readers at the Mass were semi-naked, which does not occur in Masses in Canada.

 

[AlNg]

quoted from @gregoryphealy
this line of thinking, to me, seems to suggest something morally wrong with hunting and killing other creatures. It feels a bit like an emotive argument that only holds up in the context of a culture far removed from having to directly obtain their own food. The wolf feels no remorse for killing the rabbit, and I don’t understand why we should either.

In some cultures, humans would hunt other human enemies and boil them for food. They did not feel remorse for that.

 

[IWantGod]

Not sure because at one point in time capital punishment was thought to be good, but now it is thought to be evil.

The qeustion of capital punisment is a point that people disagree on.

But mistaken or not, most human beings want true justice served, they do not want something that is essentially subjective. Human beings, in their imperfection, may very well mistake something for Good. But the very fact that we comprehend such matters at all stands in favor of the fact that we know that there is such a thing as justice even if we do not fully comprehend it. We know when something is not fair or not consistent with our dignity, and when we make mistakes we can come to understand why we were mistaken. Somethings are simple and clear while others are complex, and the more complex the more mistaken a thing can be…

 

[IWantGod]

In some cultures, humans would hunt other human enemies and boil them for food. They did not feel remorse for that.

But the fact that we can feel remorse and guilt is not something that favors a materialistic ontology, since these sensations and emotions are suggestive of something that is objectively and morally true about human behavior; most people don’t think they are being subjective. We only think we are wrong when we believe that we have truly done wrong. We do not feel guilty when we are aware that someones charge of immorality stems from something purely subjective. If someone said i am wrong for eating pickle sandwiches. i am not going to feel guilty just because he or she she supports the moral dignity of pickle sandwiches.

 

[AlNg]

The qeustion of capital punisment is a point that people disagree on.

But in the eye of God, is capital punishment good or evil? Or does the goodness or evil of capital punishment not depend on what God thinks is right, or does it depend on what this person or that person thinks is right?

 

[steve-b]

Pascals wager rewards the fear of hell. I think this is where it fails because we have no experience of heaven and hell.

But when dealing with the reality we know, I think, pascals wager makes sense when faced with the possibility of nihilism and if a rationally consistent sense of value and meaning is the only reward if we reject it, because we at least have a concept of what its like to have sense of worth and value and meaning in our lives…

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.

The problem is we need to have meaning, moral value, and purpose to be motivated and function in the world because we are emotional beings and we naturally desire such things. But, more importantly, we also desire them to be true. Most of us are not satisfied with a value that we know is not true.

Pascals wager is for those who do understand the reality of nihilism and the impossibility of living with it on a psychological level. Thus in that context it seems more reasonable to wager that there is a purpose, meaning, and moral value to their existence (and thus there is a God) rather than go through life assuming that their lives have no true meaning, purpose or moral value or that any value they have is subject to the egotistic fantasy going on in someone else’s head or is subject to societies opinions. In fact it seems absolutely absurd for somebody to wager nihilism over theism.

To place ones hope in Theism is a revolutionary act, existentially and psychologically speaking becuase it is freedom from absolute absurdity……

I personally used Paschal’s Wager on an old friend.

 

[PickyPicky]

Yes. Just for the record, what you quoted was from @gregoryphealy, not from me.

 

[PickyPicky]

OK, thanks, I accept that is a more sophisticated concept than the “All things bright and beautiful” form of Christianity in which I was raised. But it doesn’t really affect my point, which was that if there is indeed an all-loving all-powerful creator God, I would expect him to mandate something closer to “a loving world” than the one we see. The fact that, as you say, the world is not a loving one (whatever the theological reason for that may be) argues (for me) against God’s existence. Of course for many people it doesn’t argue that way, or for them there are counter-arguments which outweigh it; that I thoroughly accept.

 

[AlNg]

Yes. Just for the record, what you quoted was from @gregoryphealy, not from me.

Thank you. I tried to fix it above.

 

[IWantGod]

Yes there are counter arguments., but clearly you do not think them enough. I thought the problem of evil was a strong argument once. And it is the very best argument that atheists have ever offered in their defense. But i think the evidence for the existence of a good God is in our personal and emotional experiences with one another. I perceive real wrong doing when i read about people murdering each-other over area codes and gang affiliations.It’s not just what i would like not to be true, but rather i see evil for what it is. I see real selfishness; not just unequal measures. I see real indignity in the world, not just a lack of what i would prefer. And when i feel guilty i can see most of the time that it is about some behavior that is truly wrong, not just undesirable. And if goodness can truly describe our experience of objective human behavior beyond merely a preference for a particular type of human activity, then there must be an objective standard of good, and justice, and love. There has to be an act of reality that perfectly embodies these virtues.

But perhaps you don’t see evil and good in the world, perhaps you only see preference. Perhaps you cannot see people’s true moral value beyond your own preference. And no one, not even God, can fault you for that if it’s not of your own making.,

Catholic theology has a term for this; It’s called invincible-ignorance.

 

[abucs]

OK, thanks, I accept that is a more sophisticated concept than the “All things bright and beautiful” form of Christianity in which I was raised. But it doesn’t really affect my point, which was that if there is indeed an all-loving all-powerful creator God, I would expect him to mandate something closer to “a loving world” than the one we see. The fact that, as you say, the world is not a loving one (whatever the theological reason for that may be) argues (for me) against God’s existence. Of course for many people it doesn’t argue that way, or for them there are counter-arguments which outweigh it; that I thoroughly accept.

Fair enough, I would add that our world is not the only world and that it is largely the way it is through human will. (or lack of it). Any attempt to override human will could be seen as aggressively authoritarian and therefore not loving. A sort of catch 22 scenario which gets balanced out with the promise of Heaven, if one accepts that.

 

[gregoryphealy]

Not sure because at one point in time capital punishment was thought to be good, but now it is thought to be evil.

The temporal nature of subjective morals is irrelevant to the question I’m asking since it pertains to the theoretical definition of the concepts, not the practical application of the concepts. As an example, people had one said “Earth is flat = True”, now they say “Earth is flat = False”. The concepts of true and false were not in flux at any point in history. Our perception of what qualified as “True” and “False” changed.

 

[AlNg]

The temporal nature of subjective morals is irrelevant to the question I’m asking

No, because the issue at hand is whether or not good and evil are absolute or are they temporal and subjective in nature. At one time. capital punishment was good, at another time capital punishment is evil. which proves that in this particular case there is no absolute good or evil. Similarly with slavery and with torture. Torture is now taught to be evil, whereas, previously it was allowed by the inquisition.

people had one said “Earth is flat = True”, now they say “Earth is flat = False”.

True or false is not the same as good or evil. It is like comparing apples and oranges.