Pascal's Wager

[PRmerger]

Another point regarding the Gospels as myth:

A little detail, seldom noticed, is significant in distinguishing the
Gospels from myth: the first witnesses of the resurrection were women. In
first-century Judaism, women had low social status and no legal right to serve
as witnesses.** If the empty tomb were an invented legend, its inventors surely
would not have had it discovered by women, whose testimony was considered
worthless**. If, on the other hand, the writers were simply reporting what they
saw, they would have to tell the truth, however socially and legally
inconvenient.–ibid

 

[PRmerger]

Why couldn’t the disciples have made up the whole story? [about the Resurrection]

(1) Blaise Pascal gives a simple, psychologically sound proof for why this is unthinkable:

The apostles were either deceived or deceivers. Either supposition is difficult, for it is not possible to imagine that a man has risen from the dead. While Jesus was with them, he could sustain them; but afterwards, if he did not appear to them, who did make them act? The hypothesis that the Apostles were knaves is quite absurd. Follow it out to the end, and imagine these twelve men meeting after Jesus’ death and conspiring to say that he has risen from the dead. This means attacking all the powers that be. The human heart is singularly susceptible to fickleness, to change, to promises, to bribery. **One of them had only to deny his story under these inducements, or still more because of possible imprisonment, tortures and death, and they would all have been lost. Follow that out. ** (Pascal, Pensees 322, 310)

The “cruncher” in this argument is the historical fact that** no one, weak or strong, saint or sinner, Christian or heretic, ever confessed, freely or under pressure, bribe or even torture, that the whole story of the resurrection was a fake a lie, a deliberate deception. **Even when people broke under torture, denied Christ and worshiped Caesar, they never let that cat out of the bag, never revealed that the resurrection was their conspiracy. For that cat was never in that bag. No Christians believed the resurrection was a conspiracy; if they had, they wouldn’t have become Christians. –Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think it requires rationalization. One can deny miracles simply because they never see miracles happen and miracles contradict everything they’ve learned about the world. They are, by definition, miraculous!

Friend, if this is one rationale for your rejecting Christianity, then I submit to you that you are indeed begging the question.

To say: “I don’t believe in the Resurrection because Scriptures contain myths.” And “the Scriptures are myths because they contain stories like the Resurrection” is circular.

 

[PRmerger]

Like I said, there’s a difference isn’t there? I’ve been over seas and I’ve been around the US. I know cities. Furthermore, I’ve seen Manila on television, and actually know people who have been there. The existence of Manila doesn’t require me to suspend my understanding of the world.

Fair enough. Whether Manila is the capital or not requires nothing from you.

But would you not say that you are using at least a qualitative degree of *faith when you put your life into the hands of a complete stranger flying you thousands of miles above land? Does this not raise the stakes a bit?

So my question remains: why do you demand a greater degree of “proof” for religion than you do in other areas of your life, some which are quite perilous indeed if it were indeed proven that your pilot actually faked his degree?

*Note: I have a certain degree of ignorance regarding aeronautics, and I am pretty sure that it’s not “thousands of miles” that we fly above the earth, but I don’t care to google how far above we actually travel…so it is what it is. I’m dumb that way.

 

[Jocko_VT]

The 4 Gospels–as well as *other *ancient, non-Scriptural texts–attest to the historical reality of the Resurrection.

This is the story of Apollonius of Tyana, written about A.D.
250 by Flavius Philostratus…s a
real example of what some have thought the Gospels to be: a fictionalized account of
the life of a real sage and teacher, introducing miraculous elements There is a rather nice
little vampire story, which inspired a minor poem by Keats entitled Lamia. There
are animal stories about, for instance, snakes in India big enough to drag off and eat an elephant. The sage wanders from country to country and wherever he
goes he is likely to be entertained by the king or emperor, who holds long
conversations with him and sends him on his way with camels and precious stones…

And Jesus cures the sick, gives the blind sight, and raises the dead, and casts out demons, and walks on water, etc. Just because we, today, have generally set aside “nice little vampire stories” but still entertain demons doesn’t make the story in the gospels any less fantastic.
PRmerger;8215425:

But the Gospels are set firmly in the real
Palestine of the first century, and the little details are not picturesque
inventions but the real details that only an eyewitness or a skilled realistic
novelist can give

. (Thinking About Religion, p. 75-76)

Then we should give Joseph Smith and the Mormons the same consideration?

(2) A second problem is that there was not enough time for myth to develop.

I don’t agree. Given the scandal of a crucified savior, there was a need for an explanation. And, since there were ready-made myths to layer on top of the story–see my references somewhere above to Joseph Campbell and Lord Raglan–it was easy. Furthermore, was it not common to tell true stories interlaced with mythological feats? I think I’ve said before, even if the fantastic and miraculous in the Gospels is set aside as myth, Christianity is still a path of righteousness. The Sermon on the Mount does not depend on the miracles! It stands on its own.

Here’s a bit on Raglan’s work.
department.monm.edu/classics/courses/clas230/mythdocuments/heropattern/default.htm

This uses Raglan’s work to look at Jesus:

religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa4.htm

Eyewitnesses would be around before that to discredit the new, mythic versions.

How would you discredit the resurrection? Just because you didn’t see him doesn’t mean others did not. And, I could always claim that I saw him, and that 500 other people saw him! And, it’s too late to see him now, because he ascended into heaven.

Itinerant healers were not unusual at the time, is my understanding. What’s to discredit?

All this, of course, assumes that the people hearing the story would have a problem with the mythical aspects of it. But why would they? They’d heard myth before. It was integral to their lives.

We know of othercases where myths and legends of miracles developed around a religious founder—for example, Buddha, Lao-tzu and Muhammad. In each case, many generations passed before the myth surfaced.

I don’t know that this is accurate that many generation had passed. I don’t think it makes the case either way, though. Also, again, there’s Joseph Smith.

Gospel History Examined and Confuted [London, 1844], p. 26)
[SIGN1]Muller challenged his nineteenth-century contemporaries to produce a single
example anywhere in history of a great myth or legend arising around a
historical figure and being generally believed within thirty years after that
figure’s death.

This assumes it was believed in the literal historical sense from day one and not in the spiritual sense of the truths is provided.

I don’t think it was truly “generally” believed within 30 years was it? How large was christianity at that time within the immediate area? When the story is removed in space by those who traveled around preaching it, it has the same effect as moving it through time. In that era, to the average person, 1,000 miles away may as well have been 1,000 years ago.

No one has ever answered him.[/SIGN1]

Beyond what I’ve already said, I can’t answer him either. Oh, but there’s Joseph Smith again.

(3) The myth theory has two layers. The first layer is the historical Jesus, who was not divine, did not claim divinity, performed no miracles, and did not rise from the dead. The second, later, mythologized layer is the Gospels as we have
them, with a Jesus who claimed to be divine, performed miracles and rose from
the dead. The problem with this theory is simply that there is not the slightest
bit of any real evidence whatever for the existence of any such first layer.

Why would there be? Why would there be evidence of a particular carpenter who was not divine, did not claim to be divine, did not perform miracles, did not rise from the dead? Why would such evidence appear on its own?

Let me say again: Perhaps the miracles are true. I don’t know. I think it’s reasonable to be skeptical. Also, whether they are true or not does not interfere with the truth of the message.

 

[PRmerger]

I also don’t doubt the spiritual truths promoted by the Catholic Church. I do doubt the miracles, though–and it’s reasonable to do so.

Yes. And I’m kind of hoping emotion and desire are enough.

Dear friend, I fear that you are looking for a religion of mere “sharing and caring”, and not a religare (Latin from which the term “religion” comes, meaning a “binding relationship”).

A religion without miracles is a fabrication of the modernists–a way to create an ethos, without duty, without something which elevates you and engages you in the Transcendent and obligates you to change your life.

You are embracing the love ethic without the miracles…and this is NOT Christianity.

If Christ is not risen then our faith is in vain, as the good St. Paul proclaims.

Is there a way to get to the head through the heart? I know there is to some extent. I believe in the efficacy of prayer and the sacraments. But to what extent? Again, just how much doubt is too much? I like your marriage analogy from the other thread (or was it this thread?).

Thank you! It’s not mine, but I take pleasure in your acknowledgement.

What will get to your heart is exposure to sanctity.

And you must take a certain leap of faith, to be sure. But it is a leap in the Light, certainly not a leap in the dark!

The core of faith is the will, not the intellect. Though informed by the intellect, it is the will that essentially chooses to believe or not.

My head, through a roundabout way–reading lots of social theory and moral philosophy over the past few years, reading some other relevant works over the last year, reading the catechism and some of the encyclicals over the past month–has brought me a certain distance (to a place that 6 months ago I’d never have thought I’d find myself).

Have you read Fides et Ratio and Veritatis Splendour? Magnificent!

 

[PRmerger]

If we’re talking about a recurring theme, it does warrant it, I think.

Interesting. My conclusion is exactly the opposite of yours. You propose that if it’s a recurring theme that warrants greater skepticism.

My conclusion is that if it’s a recurring theme in myths, then there’s something in the human heart that speaks that this may be an essential truth, no?

Is the Doula a recurring theme in mythology?

I dunno.

Will your daughter never have first-hand experience with doula? Are doula unlikely in anyway? Would you disbelieve the myth you read simply because of the doula?

Ah, so here’s the essence of your objection, then! It is NOT that has been referenced in pre-Christian mythology, but that <Christian miracle du jour> is, well, miraculous.

It is the fact that you have seen an apple–not that it is present in myths–and have not seen that gives you pause.

So, then let’s change the argument from: well, there’s a recurring theme in pre-Christian societies, to: I don’t believe in miracles.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Concerning women, I’ll agree that the prominence of Mary and Mary in the Gospels is fascinating. Having said that, they are prominent in the gospels, and it isn’t problematic that they’d be tied to being first witness to the resurrection. However, by the same logic, couldn’t it be argued that the gospel writers did doubt the believability of the women’s stories, and consequently made up a lot of stuff after that where men witnessed it?

Why couldn’t the disciples have made up the whole story? [about the Resurrection]

(1) Blaise Pascal gives a simple, psychologically sound proof for why this is unthinkable:

The “cruncher” in this argument is the historical fact that** no one, weak or strong, saint or sinner, Christian or heretic, ever confessed, freely or under pressure, bribe or even torture, that the whole story of the resurrection was a fake a lie, a deliberate deception. **Even when people broke under torture, denied Christ and worshiped Caesar, they never let that cat out of the bag, never revealed that the resurrection was their conspiracy. For that cat was never in that bag. No Christians believed the resurrection was a conspiracy; if they had, they wouldn’t have become Christians. –Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ

Did anyone try to get Christians to say that the mythical aspects were a lie? Pascal’s a modern. He’s already lost the sense of mystery. He’s already living in a world and he’s a person that disenchants life. He *must *find a rational explanation. But is it necessary?

Again, the assumption in Pascal’s argument is that myth is a lie. That myth is a bad thing, to be embarrassed about. I don’t think that’s the way first-century people thought. To mythologize is neither to deceive nor to be deceived, but to tell a truth that can be told in no other way.

 

[PRmerger]

They each contain miracles. The Qur’an itself is a miracle–revealed by god to Muhammad. If the Qur’an wasn’t really revealed by god, then quite a miracle it is that there are 1.5-plus billion muslims in the world today (according to Aquinas’ logic).

I think you misunderstand Aquinas here. It isn’t the miracle of the Koran that evangelized billions of Muslims (although, to be sure, they must all believe that God instructed Muhammed to pen their sacred text). What converted billions is the doctrines as they apply to Allah.

OTOH: what converted millions to Christianity is, in the end, their belief in a Miraculous Event.

I don’t think miracles are probably as relevant to Buddhism and Hinduism–but they exist in abundance. For example, the god Vishnu has multiple avatars (I think some Hindus believe Jesus is an avatar of Vishnu!!).

Yes. And if the miracles of Buddhism or Hinduism could be proven false, B and H would still exist, for miracles are not essential to their “doctrines.”

However, if the bones of the Risen Christ could ever be found in an archeological dig, Christianity could exist no more.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Interesting. My conclusion is exactly the opposite of yours. You propose that if it’s a recurring theme that warrants greater skepticism.

My conclusion is that if it’s a recurring theme in myths, then there’s something in the human heart that speaks that this may be an essential truth, no?

YES! Absolutely. An essential truth. It is a way to get at something about the human experience that can not be gotten at otherwise. But, that’s separate from a question of historically literal truth.

II dunno./QUOTE]

I doubt it is a recurring theme.
PRmerger;8215603:

So, then let’s change the argument from: well, there’s a recurring theme in pre-Christian societies, to: I don’t believe in miracles.

Because it’s complex, isn’t it. There isn’t just one source to most individuals’ reasoning on certain things. I’m thoughtful and considerate. It’s not *just *that I don’t believe in miracles. It’s not *just *that it’s a recurring theme. It’s both things. All this began with a discussion of the recurring theme, though.

 

[Jocko_VT]

I think you misunderstand Aquinas here. It isn’t the miracle of the Koran that evangelized billions of Muslims (although, to be sure, they must all believe that God instructed Muhammed to pen their sacred text). What converted billions is the doctrines as they apply to Allah.

OTOH: what converted millions to Christianity is, in the end, their belief in a Miraculous Event.

Yes. And if the miracles of Buddhism or Hinduism could be proven false, B and H would still exist, for miracles are not essential to their “doctrines.”

However, if the bones of the Risen Christ could ever be found in an archeological dig, Christianity could exist no more.

I think you’re absolutely right about Buddhism and Hinduism. I’m not sure about Islam. If the Qur’an is not the word of god delivered directly to Muhammed in the 7th century, does not Islam cease to exist (at least as it currently exists)?

I think if Jesus’ bones were discovered, Christianity would thrive, perhaps not as well, but as well as any other path.

 

[PRmerger]

. It’s not *just *that it’s a recurring theme.

Well, friend, I think you can remove the "recurring theme’ as an objection because we’ve already seen that you don’t’ discount apples simply because they appear in a multitude of mythological stories. You don’t discount them because you have “ample proof of apples” (heh–say that 3 times!)

 

[PRmerger]

I think if Jesus’ bones were discovered, Christianity would thrive, perhaps not as well, but as well as any other path.

Well, that’s what I’m saying, Jocko–you propose the above because you have the mistaken notion that Christianity is about ethics–equitable distribution of wealth (we do proclaim that), just war theory, turning the other cheek, do unto others, etc etc.

It is not about ethics.

It is about miracles, and the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world.

Every morally sane person already knew, prior to Jesus’ preaching, to do unto others…

In fact, as many atheists like to rightly argue: do unto others is a tenet of all religions and is not specific to Christianity.

Christians ought to respond, “So what? That doesn’t discount Christianity, because Christianity isn’t about the teachings of Christ, no matter how good and true they were. It’s about Jesus, as the Incarnate Word.”

 

[PRmerger]

Then we should give Joseph Smith and the Mormons the same consideration?

I don’t know too much about the LDS, but I’ve been on a few threads here discussing it…and from what I’ve read, isn’t Joseph Smith the only witness to his alleged miraculous findings?

How does this compare to the thousands of witnesses to the Resurrection, the multitude of historical texts detailing this, and the martyrs who went to their bloody deaths refusing to deny this miracle?

Off to Mass now!

 

[Jocko_VT]

Dear friend, I fear that you are looking for a religion of mere “sharing and caring”,

Not quite. Prayer and meditation don’t count as “sharing and caring” in this example, do they? Walking a very narrow path, imitating Christ for the sake of being righteous, etc.? Following the church’s teachings?

and not a religare (Latin from which the term “religion” comes, meaning a “binding relationship”).
PRmerger;8215583:

A religion without miracles is a fabrication of the modernists–a way to create an ethos, without duty, without something which elevates you and engages you in the Transcendent and obligates you to change your life.

See, I think a religion where miracles have to stand the test of investigation like that from Pascal is a fabrication of the modernists. It’s a way to rationalize what should not be rationalized for the sake of reconciling a modernist mindset with the needs of the soul, and the consequence has been bad for religion.

But, what I’m describing is duty and transcendence and obligation to change my life. While I’m happy with the spiritual truth of the miracles, but skeptical of their literal historical truth, I’m willing to submit and set aside the doubt. But, as we’ve already covered, how much doubt can linger, albeit set aside, before I’m simply not worthy of Baptism?

You are embracing the love ethic without the miracles…and this is NOT Christianity.

I embrace the ethic and the miracles. I just take the miracles for their spiritual truth. Whether or not that’s christianity is the question, I guess, for me.

PRmerger;8215583:

If Christ is not risen then our faith is in vain, as the good St. Paul proclaims.

Indeed. But I would have trouble agreeing that it would be in vain at all, given that the path is still a righteous one. Is it necessary that a person focus primarily in going to heaven after death more than focusing on doing on earth as it is in heaven?

What will get to your heart is exposure to sanctity.

I believe this. Hence my attendance at mass, and my still painfully awkward attempts at prayer, and the inquiry classes I’ll probably attend starting next month. The question for me remains how to know if I’m worthy of Baptism. The sacraments sanctify life, do they not? And exposure to them–experiencing them–will help “get to my heart,” yes? And will that whole experience not help me experience the liturgical seasons more fully? I’m in this position where I recognize that I’m feeling lured in a certain direction, but where I feel like I may need to be more orthodox in my beliefs to take certain steps which would themselves help me become more orthodox in my beliefs. Kind of a catch-22.

And you must take a certain leap of faith, to be sure. But it is a leap in the Light, certainly not a leap in the dark!

I can submit. I can set aside my doubt. I can not simply, wholeheartedly, at least as yet, suddenly convince myself that, “Yes, it’s all literally true.”

Have you read Fides et Ratio

and Veritatis Splendour? Magnificent!

I’ll take a look.

 

[TheWatcher]

There’s a lot of Christians who have some very erroneous concepts. There are Christians who believe that baptism is an ordinance. There are Christians who believe that the Eucharist is an abomination. There are Christians who believe that abortion is moral.

That they believe in error is sad, but irrelevant to our discussion here.

This is one reason why many people doubt religion.

(2) A second problem is that there was not enough time for myth to develop. The
original demythologizers pinned their case onto a late second-century date for
the writing of the Gospels; **several generations have to pass before the added
mythological elements can be mistakenly believed to be facts. **Eyewitnesses would
be around before that to discredit the new, mythic versions. We know of other
cases where myths and legends of miracles developed around a religious
founder—for example, Buddha, Lao-tzu and Muhammad. In each case, many
generations passed before the myth surfaced.

I realize you were quoting here but thought to point out a few more examples.
Jocko has mentioned the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) and Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith would “read” from the stones, by the power of the Holy Spirit, and his friend recorded it down on paper. This is how the Book of Mormon came about.

Then there is Scientology. That developed very quickly.

You might be also interested in reading about John Frumm and the Cargo Cults as well. These faiths popped up quickly.

 

[PRmerger]

Concerning women, I’ll agree that the prominence of Mary and Mary in the Gospels is fascinating. Having said that, they are prominent in the gospels,

This is arguable, and it’s actually NOT true that women are given any prominent position as evangelizers.

and it isn’t problematic that they’d be tied to being first witness to the resurrection.

I don’t think you’re being realistic here. Certainly you know that ancient middle eastern cultures did not value the words of women. If this was a myth, having women be the primary witnesses would serve a contrary purpose: disproving the reliability of a story they wanted to proclaim.

 

[tonyrey]

Atheists don’t live in a loveless universe, though. Most atheists do not live lives of despair.

That’s because they don’t take their disbelief to its logical conclusion…

 

[Jocko_VT]

That’s because they don’t take their disbelief to its logical conclusion…

I could not disagree more with your argument here.

 

[tonyrey]

I could not disagree more with your argument here.

In an amoral universe morality is a human invention. Bertrand Russell - who was no mean logician - wrote:

“We are ourselves the ultimate and irrefutable arbiters of value in the world… Nature is blind and sense has no values, it is we who create value, and our desires, which confer value. In this realm we are kings…”