Pascal's Wager

[shoe]

“The fool in his heart says there is no God” is not said in anger. It is said as a matter of fact that the atheist has deceived himself about God. That is what it means to be foolish … to be easily deceived about the truth.

I’ve also read that the word “fool” in this instance does not necessarily refer to the average atheist who does good works even though he or she does not believe in God; rather, it refers to those individuals who look down their noses at other people with ridicule, scorn, and contempt. In other words, the word “fool” basically refers to those individuals who not only deny the reality of God, but also have muddy thinking and wicked hearts to boot.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jocko

**I think it’s unwise to call people fools–the word “fool” is loaded with meaning, and when you use it, even when citing the Bible, you’re being antagonistic, even if unintentionally. Don’t you agree? **

Yes, but for the purpose of pointing to a truth, not for the purpose of expressing anger.

In modern parlance “fool” often is understood to refer to people with little intelligence. But even people with great intelligence can be fooled … and they can be fooled all the more easily if they persuade themselves that they have more intelligence than they really have. When they get to that point they are all the more likely to perceive any reference to their being fooled (deceived by others or by themselves) as antagonistic. Nobody likes to believe he has been deceived or has deceived himself.

The atheist no doubt thinks of the Christian as a fool (one who has been deceived or has deceived himself). St. Paul said we should not be antagonized, but rather embrace the label. We are fools for Christ.

All the Psalmist is saying is that the self-deceiver (one who fools himself) says in his heart there is no God. It is the truth. I stand by it … not in anger but in truth.

We don’t have to hide the truth because some people are offended by it.

Indeed, that is why Catholics go to confession … to remind themselves of how often they have let the devil fool them or they have fooled themselves. But we do not confess our sins in anger so much in the search for the sorry truth about ourselves.

 

[Jocko_VT]

jocko

We don’t have to hide the truth because some people are offended by it.

I don’t think you’re incorrect about the meaning. My point is that people aren’t so offended by the truth of it as they are by what it *seems *to be saying. When you or anyone else recites to a non-believer that verse, it has a somewhat different meaning to them than you’re saying the Bible has–i.e., they see you calling them a fool in the sense that would be most widely understood, which isn’t the sense the Bible has. If your goal is to get across to the non-believer the true meaning of that verse, then you’ll have to find another way to do it. The verse doesn’t have the same meaning to the non-believer that it does to you. Anyone who continues to use that verse when they realize that people don’t understand it and take it the wrong way is being intentionally antagonistic, I think.

 

[Kouyate42]

The major problem is that Pascal’s Wager assumes the existence of an afterlife of sorts, of the existence of Heaven and Hell (i.e. the seperation of good and bad people into two different places) and it also makes the assumption that God and the ideas of Heaven and Hell are inextricably linked to belief in God.

Indeed, there are belief systems without Heaven and Hell, such as the Jewish belief in Sheol which is neither Heaven nor Hell, and deists such as myself often posit the existence of a God without the existence of ANY sort of afterlife.

 

[Pieman333272]

Indeed, there are belief systems without Heaven and Hell, such as the Jewish belief in Sheol which is neither Heaven nor Hell, and deists such as myself often posit the existence of a God without the existence of ANY sort of afterlife.

Well, while I am not disputing it is possible to hold belief in a completely removed form of God, as some deists do, I think that is neither the target defense of the Wager (it is meant to defend theism, in the sense of a personal God, not deism), nor a very purposeful way of believing in God. If you’re a deist and genuinely see evidence for a creator, then that there is a great place to apply the wager.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jocko

**Anyone who continues to use that verse when they realize that people don’t understand it and take it the wrong way is being intentionally antagonistic, I think. **

You have a point there, but I suspect any atheist who takes this as antagonistic takes it so because he has to wonder all the time (in the absence of proof certain) if he has not intentionally deceived himself about the existence of God.

A lawyer who chooses to defend himself in court because he thinks he knows the law well enough is sometimes said to have a fool for a client. The remark about him by others is not made so much in anger as to point out his lack of wisdom. No doubt, however, if that same lawyer hears such a remark made about him he would take it as antagonistic … when he might also take it as food for thought.

 

[Jocko_VT]

jocko

**Anyone who continues to use that verse when they realize that people don’t understand it and take it the wrong way is being intentionally antagonistic, I think. **

You have a point there, but I suspect any atheist who takes this as antagonistic takes it so because he has to wonder all the time (in the absence of proof certain) if he has not intentionally deceived himself about the existence of God.

I don’t think you’ll find an atheist who thinks s/he is or may be *intentionally *deceiving him/herself, even amongst those who find that citation antagonistic. I’ll include myself in that group. Whenever people have said that to me, it’s been quite clear that they were attacking me. I don’t think that can be cited without coming off that way, regardless of intentions.

But even now, when I’m entertaining the possibility that there’s a god outside the bounds of my atheism, I don’t think for a moment that I’ve been deceiving myself all this time. On the contrary, I recognize the social system I’m embedded in–theological ignorance abounds (in the general population), and people invoke God for the most inane and also malicious purposes. It’s no wonder there are atheists!! We atheists may be deceived, but it’s not by ourselves, but, ironically, by the very people who call themselves Christians (think Rev. Phelps of the Westboro Baptists, or that guy in Florida who burned the Koran, or Ted Haggard, or any televangelist, or just your average lukewarm christian). Atheism makes a lot of sense, particularly in a context where most Christians do not offer an admirable example. To even begin to suggest that atheists are fools (intentionally or not) only reinforces the atheist’s atheism. I think anyone who wants to argue with atheists would do well to first condemn the behavior of a lot (perhaps most?) Christians–that way, the atheist will see that you have a certain amount of common ground.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The atheist no doubt thinks of the Christian as a fool (one who has been deceived or has deceived himself).

That’s a bit of an over-sweeping generalization. I’m not of any religion, but I don’t think my associates, friends, and family as being fooled for holding their religious beliefs. I also have a friend that I’ve known for almost a couple of decades that transition from being a polytheists to an atheists. He doesn’t believe in the existence of the gods of his family (though he still follows some of his family’s customs) and hasn’t ever hinted or suggested that he sees monotheists or polytheists as having been fooled. He just says it is not something he can believe himself.

People have a broad spectrum of views. You can find a mixture of people of many different religious beliefs that have many different opinions about people of other religious beliefs. I’d like to suggests asking one what he or she believes and understand that not every one that you put in the same religious classification will hold all of the same opinions.

 

[shoe]

On the contrary, I recognize the social system I’m embedded in–theological ignorance abounds (in the general population), and people invoke God for the most inane and also malicious purposes. It’s no wonder there are atheists!!

But it seems to me, though, that many atheists are constantly invoking the name of God with such words as “God #$%* it!” or “God #$%* you!” or words to that effect, as though these atheists had the omnipotence to make God condemn a thing or person to hell for all eternity. I’m almost beginning to believe that atheists actually talk a lot more about God than theists do.

 

[Jocko_VT]

But it seems to me, though, that many atheists are constantly invoking the name of God with such words as “God #$%* it!” or “God #$%* you!” or words to that effect, as though these atheists had the omnipotence to make God condemn a thing or person to hell for all eternity. I’m almost beginning to believe that atheists actually talk a lot more about God than theists do.

I hear that same language out of Christians all the time. *All *the time. But that’s not what I was talking about. I’m talking about the insincerity with which God and Jesus are invoked, as though they’re brand names of tennis shoes or a fast food restaurant. They happily pray to God for victory in a baseball or basketball game. Also, I’m talking about protesters with signs saying things like “God Hates Fags!” It’s a big turn off.

 

[PRmerger]

There is information that shows that parts of Christianity came from other religions and have been blended into Christianity. There is the Enuma Elish from an ancient Babylonian religion; a creation story found in stone documents whose origins predates the earliest known forms of Christianity. There is Gilgamesh, an ancient story that among other things includes a snake that robbed a man of everlasting life by preventing him from eating a fruit (as opposed to manipulating him into eating it) and a story of a man that saved life on earth from being destroyed by a flood that one of the gods had sent to destroy the world.[/qutoe]

In the above, TS, you place yourself in the same company as many Fundamentalists, who accuse Catholicism of being pagan.

That there are several references to Christian concepts in pagan myths is not an indictment of Christianity. It may simply be a foreshadowing of a truth, made manifest in Christianity.

Check out these 2 sites:

philvaz.com/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm

catholic.com/library/Is_Catholicism_Pagan.asp

 

[ThinkingSapien]

In the above, TS, you place yourself in the same company as many Fundamentalists, who accuse Catholicism of being pagan.

I can’t say I would have expectations for being welcomed as company in a religious context. Also note I have not singled out Catholicism (I don’t know enough about Catholicism beyond certain historical events to single it out from other Christian denominations).

Thanks for the links.

 

[Jocko_VT]

ThinkingSapien;8188279:

There is information that shows that parts of Christianity came from other religions and have been blended into Christianity. [/qutoe]

In the above, TS, you place yourself in the same company as many Fundamentalists, who accuse Catholicism of being pagan.

I’ve never heard any atheist say Catholicism was pagan, only that Christianity had co-opted pagan stories. I’m pretty sure my NASB Bible’s notes freely concede that the Flood myth and the Tower of Babel are borrowed from earlier stories. As such, they clearly aren’t proposing actual history, but myths that describe a particular understanding of God and man’s relationship with God that is at odds with those of the Babylonians and Sumerians, etc. I don’t see this as problematic for anyone other than those who believe those stories are actually supposed to be taken as literal historical fact.

 

[PRmerger]

I can’t say I would have expectations for being welcomed as company in a religious context.

TS, I wouldn’t read too much into my comment–you’re right, in that you probably wouldn’t be welcomed in Fundamentalist circles.

The point being made was that you, like the Fundamentalists, see a parallel between pagan myths and certain Catholic concepts.

Also note I have not singled out Catholicism (I don’t know enough about Catholicism beyond certain historical events to single it out from other Christian denominations).

Thanks for the links.

'Tis true that you did not single out Catholicism. However, that is irrelevant. The concepts you limned were, of course, Catholic concepts. To wit: the Creation story–very Catholic. The Great Flood–very Catholic, too.

(Note: does the pagan myth you referenced describe creatio ex nihilo? My understanding is that no one--not a single ancient culture–ever conceived of the idea of a god “creating out of nothing” until God revealed this to His Chosen ones.)

 

[Jocko_VT]

(Note: does the pagan myth you referenced describe creatio ex nihilo? My understanding is that no one--not a single ancient culture–ever conceived of the idea of a god “creating out of nothing” until God revealed this to His Chosen ones.)

Exactly. It’s the same myth, but with a particular flavor. Creation for the Hebrew God was not a struggle, etc. But it does show that these are all related myths.

 

[PRmerger]

Exactly. It’s the same myth, but with a particular flavor. Creation for the Hebrew God was not a struggle, etc. But it does show that these are all related myths.

Not sure what you’re saying, Jocko.

The concept of a god who creates the universe out of nothing is a concept never conceived of by ancient man, until God chose to reveal it.

Man could not “create” this concept out of his own finite imagination, but it became known to humanity only through revelation.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The point being made was that you, like the Fundamentalists, see a parallel between pagan myths and certain Catholic concepts.

The ability to identify a story or past experience given a description of another story that has similar elements isn’t something that is unique to a fundamentalist. It’s an ability that we find in humans (ex:recognition) and in present day can be found in computing machines. (I put my description of the flood story in the Bing search engine, selected the first result, and was presented with many flood stories and a chart showing where they were similar). But if I take the machines out of consideration I think that “like the Fundamentalists” in the above is overly specific and “like a human” would be more fitting.

Tis true that you did not single out Catholicism. However, that is irrelevant. The concepts you limned were, of course, Catholic concepts.

It’s of extreme relevance to something I want to emphasize. In the earlier response you had told me that I made accusations against Catholicism. These concepts both are part of Catholicism and denominations outside of Catholicism which includes my previous beliefs.

I am not trying to be offensive or attack any one’s beliefs. Please keep in mind that I posted this information in a response to a request. I had said that I couldn’t see my self returning to the belief in Yahweh given the information I encountered after loosing belief. Some one requested that I share the information. Here is the requests.

And what is that evidence, may I ask? I’m genuinely interested, so please do tell me.

This was about what information contributes to my inability to return to my previous beliefs. But these beliefs were not unique to me since I inherited them. They were Christian. With Catholicism being a Christian denomination and the various forms of Christianity having a common lineage some parts of a description of my past beliefs will have some overlap with descriptions of your current beliefs and the beliefs of Christians of other denominations.

Expressions and information on the discontinuation of my past beliefs is not in any way meant to be an assault on yours. If you can think of any way in which I can express what I do or don’t believe in a manner that you may find to be less offensive than I am open to hearing the suggestions for improvement that you have to offer.

(Note: does the pagan myth you referenced describe creatio ex nihilo? )

Nope, it’s a form of ex materia. The gods were budding off from each other until one of them (Tia-mat) got tired of all the noise and wanted to kill them. In a fight she got split in two with one part forming the heavens and the other part forming the earth, and so on.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Not sure what you’re saying, Jocko.

The concept of a god who creates the universe out of nothing is a concept never conceived of by ancient man, until God chose to reveal it.

Man could not “create” this concept out of his own finite imagination, but it became known to humanity only through revelation.

Several myths in the OT borrow from myths from previous cultures with the purpose of explaining the nature of god and distinguishing the Hebrew god from those of other nations. It’s not as if the creation myths (there are two, after all) in the OT are completely unique, even though they offer what is arguably a unique theology (i.e., out of nothing). What the OT does is put a spin on the Creation myth to make clear the presence of an all-powerful god who does not struggle to produce the heavens and the earth. Compare this with the Enuma Elish, and you see the difference. In the Enuma Elish, there’s a great battle between Marduk and Tiamat (Chaos, the sea over which the spirit of God hovers in the first verses of the OT) that finally leads to the heavens and earth and man. Also, it’s no accident that the OT God is the creator of the Sun and Moon. It’s as if to say “these are not gods! These–the sun and moon–are themselves created by the one true almighty God! Do not worship the sun and the moon…worship God who created the sun and the moon.” What sort of meaning this must have had to people who were worshiping the sun and moon. If you’re worshiping the sun, and here comes a god who created the sun, then there’s no question where your allegiance should be.

Comparing Gilgamesh to Noah and the Tower of Babel is more fascinating to me.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Darn, just noticed that I used the wrong quote IDs in the last quote in my previous message. That one was from PRMerger, not from Pieman.

 

[PRmerger]

The ability to identify a story or past experience given a description of another story that has similar elements isn’t something that is unique to a fundamentalist. It’s an ability that we find in humans (ex:recognition) and in present day can be found in computing machines. (I put my description of the flood story in the Bing search engine, selected the first result, and was presented with many flood stories and a chart showing where they were similar). But if I take the machines out of consideration I think that “like the Fundamentalists” in the above is overly specific and “like a human” would be more fitting.

Fair enough.

Now let’s take it one step further than Bing or a machine: are you saying this similarity between pagan myths and Christianity is an indictment of Christianity?

That is, if the Babylonian creation story is a myth, then the Christian creation story is also a myth?

Or are you merely being, like a search engine, a fact finder?

Expressions and information on the discontinuation of my past beliefs is not in any way meant to be an assault on yours. If you can think of any way in which I can express what I do or don’t believe in a manner that you may find to be less offensive than I am open to hearing the suggestions for improvement that you have to offer.

Well, I wasn’t offended.

I was merely pointing out that similarities in 2 stories–one a myth–do not necessarily conclude that* both* are myths (read “myths” here to mean: a fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.)

Nope, it’s a form of ex materia. The gods were budding off from each other until one of them (Tia-mat) got tired of all the noise and wanted to kill them. In a fight she got split in two with one part forming the heavens and the other part forming the earth, and so on.

Then there is at least one concept in the Christian creation story that’s unique, eh?