Pascal's Wager

[PRmerger]

I suspect you’re correct.

So, when you said that some level of doubt was acceptable, what did you mean? What is it that may be doubted (albeit to a much more limited extent than I’m doubting)?

I can’t give you specifics as to how much doubt is ok. And actually, doubt is probably not a good place to be as a Catholic–questioning and difficulties are, though. And, as a Catholic, one must give “religious assent” to ALL the teachings, otherwise, you have the 40,000 other Christian denominations to choose from. (But then what you’re doing is creating a god in your own image–one who meets your own personal criteria as to how god should be, rather than conforming your mind to the truth.)

As Cardinal John Henry Newman said, “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, for a man may be annoyed that he cannot work out a mathematical problem, without doubting that it admits an answer”.

I suspect this will become difficult after a while, though, won’t it?

I am 100% certain that if you seek, you will find, Jocko.

If you say a non-threatening and harmless prayer, “God, I am not certain that you exist, but if you are there, please show me the way.”

As I’ve said before, watch out though. Your world will be rocked!

But, the sacraments have efficacy. And, though them, other practices become more effective. Again, it’s kind of a catch-22. It may be that what I need to produce faith is the very thing I can not have until I have faith.

Yes, the universe will be changed forever at your Baptism–an indelible mark will be placed on your soul.

But repentance and a Profession of Faith are required for you to be baptized.

And when you make your Profession of Faith you cannot have a different idea in your mind than what is understood by the Church. (That is, you cannot say, as in wedding vows, “Well, when I said, ‘I will love you and honor you for all the days of my life’ what I meant by “love” was live in my own house and keep my own bank accounts and see you on every other Tuesday. That’s my definition of love!”)

 

[Jocko_VT]

I don’t understand. What other setting? Jews in first century Judea? Do you know that there is nothing more UNLIKELY for a Jew to believe than a folk story about a man becoming God?

Imagine this: the transcendent God who for millenia had strictly forbidden his chosen people to confuse him with a creature as the pagans did – this Creator-God became a creature, a man – a crucified criminal.** Hardly a myth that naturally arises in the Jewish mind**.–again, from my main man, Peter Kreeft.

If you took a harlequin romance novel, for example, and added a resurrection story in it, it would sound ridiculous. That’s what I mean by “other setting.” Vampires and werewolves are no longer accepted by most modern westerners as viable stories–though they used to be. Resurrection and demons also are no longer accepted, with the exception of the Bible. Our credulity reflects our culture.

Plenty of people argue that no one actually thought Jesus was literally God at the time–this includes the disciples! Maybe they did. Maybe they didn’t. Maybe they saw everything as myth, and understood the meaning of myth in a way we do not. I’m not at all convinced that the jesus-as-god-in-the-literal-sense myth arose out of a “jewish mind.”

 

[PRmerger]

This still assumes that it’s a lie to mythologize. In modern terms, of course, it is. I don’t think it was 2,000 years ago. I think people understood the meaning of myth. I concede I could be completely wrong on this point, though.

Again, I think you are demonstrating an insufficient understanding of Judaism.

Jews had spent millenia separating themselves from pagans. There isn’t a myth a Jew would be LESS LIKELY to be fooled by than that a man was god. Blasphemy!! in the Jewish mind!

Also, though I’m wanting to look into it, I’m not sure anyone was tortured and killed because of the myth aspect, in particular, as opposed to their refusal to deny the path they were on (i.e., for their refusal to adhere to the Law or for their denial of Roman gods).

Here’s just one example: our first martyr, St. Stephen, was stoned in the book of Acts (chapter 7) for claiming to the Jews that Jesus was resurrected: “Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

Their response? “But they cried out in a loud voice, covered their ears, and rushed upon him together. They threw him out of the city, and began to stone him.”

Also, weren’t the Christians, as a new and odd religious sect, often used as scapegoats just as Jews were used during the plagues later in Europe?

Yes. And why would they lose their lives for myth they were trying to deceive others with?

It simply makes no sense.

 

[PRmerger]

If you took a harlequin romance novel, for example, and added a resurrection story in it, it would sound ridiculous. That’s what I mean by “other setting.”

Okay.

Vampires and werewolves are no longer accepted by most modern westerners as viable stories–though they used to be. Resurrection and demons also are no longer accepted, with the exception of the Bible. Our credulity reflects our culture.

Okay.

But you do understand that NO JEW would fall for a story like the Incarnation. They might believe in werewolves, and in vampires, but NOT a myth about a man who was god. Nuh-uh. No way. Not a chance. Not unless it was, well, true.

Plenty of people argue that no one actually thought Jesus was literally God at the time–this includes the disciples! Maybe they did. Maybe they didn’t. Maybe they saw everything as myth, and understood the meaning of myth in a way we do not. I’m not at all convinced that the jesus-as-god-in-the-literal-sense myth arose out of a “jewish mind.”

Why, then, did the Jews try to stone Jesus? Do you think they stoned him because they thought he was a political upstart?

Or, rather, was it because he said, “Before Abraham was, I AM!” He spoke the Divine Name, a name so Holy that no Jew could speak and live.

 

[TheWatcher]

I think the best example you gave in the above would be Joseph Smith, for the others quite clearly do not meet the criteria. (They are either not legends, or obtain universal respect or did not “supplant the historical recollection of the true character”)

As per J. Smith: there were no witnesses (as there were in 1st century Judea) to counter that which he proclaimed–thus, it was possible for a myth to develop.

One still has to demonstrate how a legend could develop, while witnesses to the historical figure’s true character were still walking around to counter these lies.

And as for this alleged myth of Jesus, no one has ever answered: why? Why would his disciples lie about his Resurrection? What did it get them except torture and death? Don’t liars always have some selfish motive to incite their deception?

I simply am incredulous that modernists would fall for this ludicrous claim!

I think no matter what I wrote, you would reject it as “not meeting criteria.”

What about Muhammad, the prophet of Allah?

A legend develops quite easily, even when the object of it is still around. Washington cut down a cherry tree? Johnny Appleseed wandered the country in ripped rags and barefoot, planting apple seeds? Stand in front of the mirror long enough and say “Bloody Mary” and something will happen. Ever hear the rumor if a child eats poprocks and drinks pop, he will explode? Little Mikey from the commercials died that way! Even the Legend of Daniel Boone’s exploits took off despite his family.

A story is told, believed, and passed along. Thats how it spreads. Sometimes, despite denials, it is still believed.

I believe that is the point of the show “Mythbusters” - they test modern myths to see if they are true. If not, Myth-Busted.

You were asking for real people that were believed, specifically, to be supernatural. I gave you a list of people who were considered gods by their population. I’m not sure how that doesn’t meet your criteria.

As to your last question, how do you explain any other Martyr for non-Christian faiths?

There may be several reasons why they were willing to die rather than recant. They could have believed it or they could have felt it served a greater purpose. It is also possible that they did recant but the myth that they didn’t started and took over. An example of this - President Obama, despite releasing his birth certificate, still has to deal with claims that he isn’t a natural citizen.

Either way, I would be really interested in seeing a list of where and how they were executed and any details about their arrest/torture/sentencing. I’ve never seen such, despite often hearing the claim that they were.

 

[PRmerger]

If you say a non-threatening and harmless prayer, “God, I am not certain that you exist, but if you are there, please show me the way.”

As I’ve said before, watch out though. Your world will be rocked!

Heh. The thought just occurred to me that the above prayer is Pascal’s Wager-esque. It suggests: no loss in doing something that, if it’s not true harms no one, and if it is true, *watch out! *

 

[PRmerger]

I think no matter what I wrote, you would reject it as “not meeting criteria.”

Based on what do you say the above?

This is the type of accusation that seems to get atheists in a dither, yet it seems that it’s fair for you to offer here?

What about Muhammad, the prophet of Allah?

Again, you’ll have to provide examples of miracles attributed to him and the existence of witnesses who would have been able to counter these incredulous stories.

A legend develops quite easily, even when the object of it is still around. Washington cut down a cherry tree? Johnny Appleseed wandered the country in ripped rags and barefoot, planting apple seeds?

Please provide evidence that these legend developed within 30 years of these men’s existence, when witnesses were still around to counter the fact.

Even the Legend of Daniel Boone’s exploits took off despite his family.

Evidence for this, please.

A story is told, believed, and passed along. Thats how it spreads. Sometimes, despite denials, it is still believed.

Ok. But we’re talking about intentional deception by the Apostles. How was this accomplished, and why?

 

[PRmerger]

As to your last question, how do you explain any other Martyr for non-Christian faiths?

Are there martyrs for non-Christian faiths who know that what they’re dying for is a deception???

Evidence, please!!

 

[PRmerger]

There may be several reasons why they were willing to die rather than recant. They could have believed it

Exactly. So it wasn’t a deception. If they heard the story from The Original Liar, then what of The Original Liar? Where is he and why did the many witnesses not come forth and say, “Actually, I saw the corpse!” To what “greater purpose” could TOL have originated this incredulous story of a Messiah who is the Lamb of God?

It is also possible that they did recant but the myth that they didn’t started and took over.

Evidence for this, please.

An example of this - President Obama, despite releasing his birth certificate, still has to deal with claims that he isn’t a natural citizen.

Ok. And if a cult develops of folks who think Obama is supernatural, then we can chat.

Either way, I would be really interested in seeing a list of where and how they were executed and any details about their arrest/torture/sentencing. I’ve never seen such, despite often hearing the claim that they were.

Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths, Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.source

It was a horrible, difficult time for Christians (at least for the leaders). Many Christians fell away, and many others were tortured, thrown in a dungeon, or put to death.source

Chronology of the Persecutions of Christians

However, I suspect that "no matter what -]I wrote,/-] sources I provide you would reject it as “not meeting criteria.”

 

[Rock_Happy]

I’ve noticed that some militant atheists today brush off Pascal’s Wager as having been sufficiently contested numerous ways and thus is no longer compelling or even relevant. Despite the spiritual shallowness of the Wager, I think that it still holds water. No matter what one believes: it is definite that Hell is a possibility, and there are more compelling arguments for its existence as opposed to its contrary opinions. Furthermore, many arguments can be made for why believing in Jesus Christ as God is beneficial for the individual, beyond the safeness of taking the path that the Wager suggests (I don’t think there’s anything to lose in being a Christian - certainly nothing of inherent or incontestable value). The Wager may not be the best reason for one to become a Christian, but it is still a reason, and a logical one at that. What’s your view of it?

The weakness in Pascal’s wager, IMHO, is that there is no reason to choose any one religion, based on his logic. He does not show how the promise of salvation from one religion would have any more legitimacy than the promise of salvation from another religion. In that light, the best Pascal offers is paralysis, because there is no way to choose. As a mathematician he would have to agree that the odds of making the right choice is a fraction of a percentage, because there are thousands of religions and religious sects.

 

[tonyrey]

And we love one another, which means we do not live in a loveless universe.

We assume we love one another - and we do - but in a loveless universe love could well be an illusion.How could the capacity for love have originated from inanimate objects?

And we have one another, which means we needn’t live lives of despair, even if we despair sometimes.

In a loveless universe our lives would be nasty, brutish and short - to quote Thomas Hobbes. There would be nothing to look forward to after death and injustice would reign supreme (if injustice could exist in a loveless universe!)

That we are in the universe proves we do not live in an amoral universe, even if the laws of physics and chemistry do not necessarily result in a human morality. We are moral beings.

We assume we are moral beings but - like love - free will and responsibility would be far more likely to be illusions if there were no reason why we exist. Morality implies that we are autonomous agents rather than cogs in the universal machine.

 

[tonyrey]

The weakness in Pascal’s wager, IMHO, is that there is no reason to choose any one religion, based on his logic. He does not show how the promise of salvation from one religion would have any more legitimacy than the promise of salvation from another religion. In that light, the best Pascal offers is paralysis, because there is no way to choose. As a mathematician he would have to agree that the odds of making the right choice is a fraction of a percentage, because there are thousands of religions and religious sects.

Although there are thousands of religions and religious sects the vast majority concur that there is an afterlife in which we receive what we deserve…

 

[TheWatcher]

Based on what do you say the above?

This is the type of accusation that seems to get atheists in a dither, yet it seems that it’s fair for you to offer here?

Again, you’ll have to provide examples of miracles attributed to him and the existence of witnesses who would have been able to counter these incredulous stories.

Please provide evidence that these legend developed within 30 years of these men’s existence, when witnesses were still around to counter the fact.

Evidence for this, please.

Ok. But we’re talking about intentional deception by the Apostles. How was this accomplished, and why?

Here is an article about Prince Phillip:
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226182/Heir-tribe-South-Pacific-tribe-worship-Duke-Edinburgh-want-meet-Prince-William.html

Here is an article about the John Frum faith:
smithsonianmag.com/people-places/john.html

I first learned of Veleda while researching the Lady of Shalott. (They’re not the same- just some similarities) She was a priestess and and a prophet. (Lived in a tower by the river until the war and her capture) Could see the future and was regarded as a goddess:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veleda

[O]n 24 October Antinous drowned in the river, on the same day the locals were commemorating the death, by drowning in the Nile, of the Egyptian god Osiris.
Although Hadrian maintained Antinous’ death was an accident, malicious rumours soon spread. Some thought he had committed suicide or that he had been sacrificed. Others claimed Antinous sacrificed himself to prolong the life of the emperor. …]
Other Greek cities began to establish their own cults and festivals in honour of Antinous, led by local and senatorial leaders, who wished to express their loyalty to Rome and to Hadrian. The Antinous cult became popular among the common people, where it seems to have competed with Christianity.
britishmuseum.org/explore/themes/leaders_and_rulers/hadrian/life_and_legacy.aspx

Mason Locke Weems (October 11, 1759 – May 23, 1825), generally known as Parson Weems, was an American book agent and author. He is best known as the source of some of the apocryphal stories about George Washington. The famous tale of the cherry tree (“I cannot tell a lie, I did it with my little hatchet”) is included in The Life of Washington (1800), Weems’ most famous work.
George Washington died December 14, 1799.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parson_Weems

Chapman, affectionately nicknamed “Johnny Appleseed” by the frontiersmen who experienced his benevolence, continued planting spiritual seeds and apple seeds until his death on March 18 in 1845.
Chapman’s fame as a national icon began in 1871 with a richly descriptive, romantic account of his life by W. D. Haley in Harper’s New Monthly Magazine.
pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/bios/Chapman__John.html

You also ask about the intentional deception of the Apostles. How was this accomplished? Why?

I think the why question would be more interesting than the how question. The answer is that I don’t know. People tell lies for all sorts of reasons.

I’d like to point out that I did not conclude that the only possible scenario was them being intentionally deceptive. You were the first to suggest that they lied. I tend to think it more plausible that they believed it or, if they did lie, that they admitted to it under torture but the myth had already taken hold.

There are other examples of groups believing something that we’re skeptical of. This doesn’t mean these groups are being intentionally deceitful.

Harold Campings followers, for example, tell people the world will end in October. They honestly believe the world will end in October. They are not lying when they tell you they believe this. They believe they have proof of this, even.

People of the religion “Heaven’s Gate” committed suicide to join up with aliens. They didn’t believe they were dying for a lie. The group believed in the ancient aliens theory- aliens have been coming to earth and meddling in human affairs. They are recorded in history as Gods throughout time. For many who believe this theory, this includes Jesus. Please see the show, Ancient Aliens, on the History channel if you are interested in learning more about this theory. A link to youtube: youtu.be/6qtjI8eGtvM

My point here is not to argue that Jesus could not have existed, just that mythology CAN develop rapidly. I don’t believe the rate of speed a mythology spreads is any indication of its truthfulness.

Again, I’d like to repeat my request for a list of where and how the Apostles were executed and any details about their arrest/torture/sentencing. I would love to see it from a source you trust.

 

[TheWatcher]

Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths, Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.source

It was a horrible, difficult time for Christians (at least for the leaders). Many Christians fell away, and many others were tortured, thrown in a dungeon, or put to death.source

Chronology of the Persecutions of Christians

However, I suspect that "no matter what -]I wrote,/-] sources I provide you would reject it as “not meeting criteria.”

I accept that Christians faced terrible persecution and that there were many martyrs for the faith. I accept your sources for this.

I just don’t see the list of Apostles on any of them.

 

[PRmerger]

I just don’t see the list of Apostles on any of them.

Thread: “How did the Apostles die?”
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=454684

 

[PRmerger]

Chapman, affectionately nicknamed “Johnny Appleseed” by the frontiersmen who experienced his benevolence, continued planting spiritual seeds and apple seeds until his death on March 18 in 1845.
Chapman’s fame as a national icon began in 1871 with a richly descriptive, romantic account of his life by W. D. Haley in Harper’s New Monthly Magazine.
pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/bios/Chapman__John.html

Interesting.

I guess I stand corrected, and indeed a legend arose within the lifetime of a historical figure.

 

[PRmerger]

I’d like to point out that I did not conclude that the only possible scenario was them being intentionally deceptive. You were the first to suggest that they lied. I tend to think it more plausible that they believed it or, if they did lie, that they admitted to it under torture but the myth had already taken hold.

So the Apostles were hallucinating? They actually THOUGHT they saw the Risen Lord, but it was a communal hallucination? They weren’t being deceptive, just drinking some really weird punch?

 

[TheWatcher]

Thread: “How did the Apostles die?”
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=454684

Thanks!

 

[TheWatcher]

So the Apostles were hallucinating? They actually THOUGHT they saw the Risen Lord, but it was a communal hallucination? They weren’t being deceptive, just drinking some really weird punch?

I’m not sure why you seem so intent on the Apostles.

You asked why they would be professing their faith unto their deaths.

I’ve suggested three scenarios that came to mind.

1. They believed it and died professing it
2. They didn’t believe it and were lying
3. They either believed or didn’t. However, they confessed they made it up under torture, but a myth replaced fact and everyone believes they died professing their faith.

I have not stated that they drank the punch and were suffering mass hallucination. I was not trying to speculate on whether or not they were telling the truth. I didn’t bring them up, even. I commented that the first and third scenario seemed a little more plausible to me than the second when you pressed me about it.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

.How could the capacity for love have originated from inanimate objects?

I can’t help but feel the wording of the question might lead some one to overlook a possible series of developments that could lead to the end result. It’s like asking “how a flightless tetrapod be capable of traveling to the moon.” Worded that way it sounds like an impossibility. (Note: humans are tetrapods). A million mile journey begins with one step.

There was an accumulation of developments that lead to the capability including increased understand of celestial mechanics, discover of radio waves and electricity, acquired understanding of aerodynamics and astrodynamics, and so on. If I were to seriously explore the question you presented (“how could capacity for love have originated from inanimate objects?”) I would start by decomposing that question into several more questions (ex: “how could life originate?”, “how could cognition originate?”, “how could emotions originate?”). It can be decomposed to a tremendous number of questions but with the decomposition the original question becomes less insurmountable.