Pascal's Wager

[tonyrey]

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.

Those developments presuppose the existence of intelligence!

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.

Ditto!

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.

I believe the reverse is true. The improbability increases with each successive stage of development…

 

[PRmerger]

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

Because they died professing that Christ is Risen! Either they knew it was a lie and died tortured deaths without recanting. Unlikely. Illogical.

Or they were mistaken, badly mistaken. And what was the source of their mistaken notion? How did 12 men get it so wrong, and still have the same story? Did they hallucinate this image of the Risen Christ?

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.

Yes.

1. They didn’t believe it and were lying

And this is the one that causes the most incredulity. These guys endured tortured, horrific deaths for a lie. Makes no sense.

1. 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.

Who were the propellants of this myth? The Pagan or Jewish torturers?

This seems the most ludicrous position of all. Why would the torturers propel a myth that undermines their own structure?

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.

And as Christians believe the first is true, then what you really have to provide arguments for is position #3, which is the most absurd of the premises.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Because they died professing that Christ is Risen! Either they knew it was a lie and died tortured deaths without recanting. Unlikely. Illogical.

Or they were mistaken, badly mistaken.

Aside from the other possibility that most of what we think we know about them may be legends, it’s actually common in history for people of certain strong beliefs to lose a lot, even their lives, due to genuine false beliefs. Consider various cults. Consider Jonestown, the Solar Temple, Heaven’s Gate, just to name a few in recent history compared to the more supersticious Middle East 200 years ago. Also, consider the terrorists who committed murder/suicide on 911!

And what was the source of their mistaken notion? How did 12 men get it so wrong, and still have the same story?

I’m not sure how many people could be wrong on things such as Sathya Sai Baba, a contemporary figure who millions, including some alleged eye-witnesses, attribute resurrection from the dead as one of his miracles, could be wrong. However, I don’t believe they are right because I have a high standard of evidence for such extraordinary claims.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Aside from the other possibility that most of what we think we know about them may be legends, it’s actually common in history for people of certain strong beliefs to lose a lot, even their lives, due to genuine false beliefs. Consider various cults. Consider Jonestown, the Solar Temple, Heaven’s Gate, just to name a few in recent history compared to the more supersticious Middle East 2000 years ago. Also, consider the terrorists who committed murder/suicide on 911!

I’m not sure how many people could be wrong on things such as Sathya Sai Baba, a contemporary figure who millions, including some alleged eye-witnesses, attribute resurrection from the dead as one of his miracles, could be wrong. However, I don’t believe they are right because I have a high standard of evidence for such extraordinary claims.

 

[TheWatcher]

Because they died professing that Christ is Risen! Either they knew it was a lie and died tortured deaths without recanting. Unlikely. Illogical.

Or they were mistaken, badly mistaken. And what was the source of their mistaken notion? How did 12 men get it so wrong, and still have the same story? Did they hallucinate this image of the Risen Christ?

Yes.

And this is the one that causes the most incredulity. These guys endured tortured, horrific deaths for a lie. Makes no sense.

Who were the propellants of this myth? The Pagan or Jewish torturers?

This seems the most ludicrous position of all. Why would the torturers propel a myth that undermines their own structure?

And as Christians believe the first is true, then what you really have to provide arguments for is position #3, which is the most absurd of the premises.

I gave you three scenarios:

1. They believed it and died professing it.
   This does not mean that it did not happen. It also doesn’t mean that it did. This means that, regardless if it happened or not, they believed it happened.
2. They didn’t believe it and were lying.
   This does not mean that it did not happen. This does not mean it did. This means that, regardless if it happened or not, they did NOT believe it happened as they stated and were lying about the events as they partook in them.
3. They either believed or did not believe. They confessed making it up under torture but mythology remembers them dying while still professing their faith.
   I did not mention the torturers here. I think it would be more likely that the Apostles’ supporters would be the ones to create this myth. I don’t know the reasons why they would create such a myth. Some ideas that first come to mind are: seeking/providing comfort, seeking/providing strength to endure, mistaken belief that they wouldn’t have “broke.” I’ve seen this behavior, personally- at funerals and wakes, sometimes it is said that the person passed peacefully, without fear and without pain, when in actuality, the person was fearful and in pain.

I have stated that it seems more likely to me that either the first or the third is more likely than the second, only because I think dying for a known lie would be the most difficult of the choices.
I have NOT stated whether or not the events they believed in happened. I have NOT accused anyone of drinking the punch, suffering delusions, or torturers making up stories to somehow undermine themselves.
You asked me why they would die professing their faith. I saw three possible ways. I did not assert any of them were definitely true. I do not know this answer. I think, whatever the truth is, it likely falls on one of these three.

You have stated that you believe the first. I have stated that I do not know.

What, exactly, is it you think I’m trying to say about them?
What are you looking for in my response?

 

[Pieman333272]

I’m not sure how many people could be wrong on things such as Sathya Sai Baba, a contemporary figure who millions, including some alleged eye-witnesses, attribute resurrection from the dead as one of his miracles, could be wrong. However, I don’t believe they are right because I have a high standard of evidence for such extraordinary claims.

Funny you mention him, because new studies into his wealth and what he did suggest he was a con man. Also, I have NEVER heard the testimony that he rose from the dead, even from his most devoted followers. You have only cited the wiki in my presence so I’m going to ask for it more directly:

Give me a non-wiki source which demonstrates that if we believe Jesus, we should believe Sai Baba including:

1. Claims that he did his miracles (esp. rising from the dead)
2. Analysis of his miracles
3. Refutation of evidence to the contrary
4. Attestation by skeptics that at least one of these stories is supernatural.

If you can’t provide that, there is no parallel in evidence to Jesus.

Also, regarding that cartoon in your signature, Christians do not say they are oppressed on the grounds that there are more non-religious than them (which is not the case), but in the case that the non-religious groups are far more aggressive towards them than the other way around, liberalizing issues like Christmas and prayer and key doctrines in the Church.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Funny you mention [Sathya Sai Baba], because new studies into his wealth and what he did suggest he was a con man. Also, I have NEVER heard the testimony that he rose from the dead, even from his most devoted followers. You have only cited the wiki in my presence so I’m going to ask for it more directly:

Give me a non-wiki source which demonstrates that if we believe Jesus, we should believe Sai Baba including:

You’re loosing sight of the fact that my point was to rebut the claim that the non-believer has to demonstrate how people could be so genuinely wrong about something extraordinary, not Sathya so much about himself. Whether it be Sathya Sai Baba, cults such as Jonestown, the Solar Temple, Heaven’s Gate, $cientology and the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormonism), or the beliefs of multiple eyewitnesses of an alien abduction, one does not have to explain why those people may have genuinely been mistaken in order to not believe. If Sathya is a confirmed con man, you could just cross him off of a long list, but the point still stands.

This would be true even before/without studies that concluded that Sathya Sai Baba is a con man, which we can say he probably is since being a con man would be much more ordinary than being a genuine miracle worker.

[Christians] say they are oppressed on the grounds . . .] in the case that the non-religious groups are far more aggressive towards them than the other way around, liberalizing issues like Christmas and prayer and key doctrines in the Church.

I believe you are referring to the mandating of government to remain neutral with regards to religion, which benefits everyone, and is far from other groups being “far more aggressive towards them.” This is something that many Christians tend to realize when the tables are turned. I bet you would appreciate such government neutrality if you were in the Middle East, were religious nutcases want to impose their religion on everyone. I don’t intend to delve into this too much on this thread, because there have been a number of threads on this site related to this issue.

 

[PRmerger]

My favorite cartoon, of late:

 

[PRmerger]

Aside from the other possibility that most of what we think we know about them may be legends, it’s actually common in history for people of certain strong beliefs to lose a lot, even their lives, due to genuine false beliefs. Consider various cults. Consider Jonestown, the Solar Temple, Heaven’s Gate, just to name a few in recent history compared to the more supersticious Middle East 200 years ago. Also, consider the terrorists who committed murder/suicide on 911!

Fair enough.

So you are saying that the Apostles were earnest in their beliefs, truly believed that Christ had risen, but were following a Great Lie.

So then we ask: Who propelled this Great Lie and for what reason?

Was it Jesus? Was it the pagans? Was it the Jews?

WHO???

And what was it that these Apostles actually saw in the Upper Room?

And where is the corpse of this dead political leader who propagated the Great Lie?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

My favorite cartoon, of late:

Modernist/ Liberal Christians that I have met have been interesting to me. I am never quite sure what they believe. I get the feeling they are not sure what they believe either.

 

[PRmerger]

Modernist/ Liberal Christians that I have met have been interesting to me. I am never quite sure what they believe. I get the feeling they are not sure what they believe either.

Too true, too true. :sad_yes:

 

[PRmerger]

I gave you three scenarios:

1. They believed it and died professing it.
   This does not mean that it did not happen. It also doesn’t mean that it did. This means that, regardless if it happened or not, they believed it happened.

Okay. Yes.

1. They didn’t believe it and were lying.
   This does not mean that it did not happen. This does not mean it did. This means that, regardless if it happened or not, they did NOT believe it happened as they stated and were lying about the events as they partook in them.

Okay. They lied and they prospered with this lie by gaining lots of gold and jewels…oh, wait. That didn’t happen. Huh.

I’m just having fun with you now.

1. They either believed or did not believe. They confessed making it up under torture but mythology remembers them dying while still professing their faith.

And the Pagan torturers heard their retractions but decided to keep it a Great Big Secret. They wanted this myth of a Legendary Crucified Savior to prosper because…

um…

I can’t think of a reason.

 

[PRmerger]

II have stated that it seems more likely to me that either the first or the third is more likely than the second, only because I think dying for a known lie would be the most difficult of the choices.

YES! And it would have to have been a Great Conspiracy among ALL the early Christians: “Let’s say we saw Him! Even if we didn’t. But we won’t let the cat out of the bag–ever!”

Until some really smart modern people figured it out a couple thousand years later that they made the whole thing up.

I have NOT stated whether or not the events they believed in happened. I have NOT accused anyone of drinking the punch, suffering delusions, or torturers making up stories to somehow undermine themselves.

'Tis true this. But what other conclusions are there, if you say that the Apostles were decived? What did they see if not a hallucination?

There are 5 possible scenarios, as delineated by philospher Peter Kreeft:

• Jesus died; Jesus rose>>>>Christianity
• Jesus died; Jesus didn’t rise—apostles deceived>>>Hallucination
• Jesus died; Jesus didn’t rise—apostles myth-makers>>>Myth
• Jesus died; Jesus didn’t rise—apostles deceivers>>>Conspiracy
• Jesus didn’t die>>>Swoon

Which one do you think is the most reasonable?

 

[PRmerger]

What, exactly, is it you think I’m trying to say about them?
What are you looking for in my response?

I’m trying to point out to you the logical conclusion of your proposal that perhaps all of these Christian stories are myths, specifically the Resurrection of Christ.

If it didn’t happen, then who said it did? And why? And what did they gain?

“In conclusion, if the resurrection was a concocted, conspired lie, it violates all known historical and psychological laws of lying.** It is, then, as unscientific, as unrepeatable, unique and untestable as the resurrection itself.**” --Peter Kreeft.

 

[TheWatcher]

I’m trying to point out to you the logical conclusion of your proposal that perhaps all of these Christian stories are myths, specifically the Resurrection of Christ.

Please show me where I said all of these Christian stories are fabricated myths.
Please show me where I said all of the Apostles were deceived.

You wrote, “A second problem is that there was not enough time for myth to develop.”

I pointed out that this statement wasn’t necessarily true and gave counter examples. The rapid growth of a story is not proof of it’s truthfulness.

I did not bring up Jesus. I did not bring up the Apostles. I have not questioned your faith.

And the Pagan torturers heard their retractions but decided to keep it a Great Big Secret. They wanted this myth of a Legendary Crucified Savior to prosper because…

um…

I can’t think of a reason.

Didn’t we already cover this? IF the early Christians decided to lie about the Apostles for whatever reason, they would likely disregard whatever the torturers had to say. The torturers wouldn’t have had to stay quiet and keep everything a secret. It is easy to imagine some people going as far as to call the torturers liars for trying to ‘destroy’ the good reputation of these men.

A modern day example of this behavior: Some people believed President Obama is not a US citizen. He released his birth certificate. Some people (still) believe President Obama is not a US citizen.

'Tis true this. But what other conclusions are there, if you say that the Apostles were decived? What did they see if not a hallucination?

There are 5 possible scenarios, as delineated by philospher Peter Kreeft:
Jesus died; Jesus rose>>>>Christianity
Jesus died; Jesus didn’t rise—apostles deceived>>>Hallucination
Jesus died; Jesus didn’t rise—apostles myth-makers>>>Myth
Jesus died; Jesus didn’t rise—apostles deceivers>>>Conspiracy
Jesus didn’t die>>>Swoon

Which one do you think is the most reasonable?

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.
Please show me where I said all of the Apostles were deceived.

I like the 5 possible scenarios you posted about here though.
Again, my answer is I don’t know. I would need to study this issue more before I’m able to comment more on this. Same with my three points- I saw three possible scenarios. I don’t know which one is most likely.

I’d also like to point out that hallucinations are not the only way to deceive people.

 

[Pieman333272]

You’re loosing sight of the fact that my point was to rebut the claim that the non-believer has to demonstrate how people could be so genuinely wrong about something extraordinary, not Sathya so much about himself. Whether it be Sathya Sai Baba, cults such as Jonestown, the Solar Temple, Heaven’s Gate, $cientology and the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormonism), or the beliefs of multiple eyewitnesses of an alien abduction, one does not have to explain why those people may have genuinely been mistaken in order to not believe. If Sathya is a confirmed con man, you could just cross him off of a long list, but the point still stands.

That’s fine, but you still have to deal with the criterion I mentioned:

Give me a non-wiki source which demonstrates that if we believe Jesus, we should believe Sai Baba including:

1. Claims that he did his miracles (esp. rising from the dead)
2. Analysis of his miracles
3. Refutation of evidence to the contrary
4. Attestation by skeptics that at least one of these stories is supernatural.

If you can’t provide that, there is no parallel in evidence to Jesus.

For any attempted parallel to Jesus. Just replace “miracles” with “claims” as necessary and “Sai Baba” with any other “prophet” or eyewitness as necessary. JP Holding also lists 17 criterion for establishing a parallel, sincere or otherwise, between any alleged miracles or other claims and Jesus’ resurrection:
tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

I believe you are referring to the mandating of government to remain neutral with regards to religion, which benefits everyone, and is far from other groups being “far more aggressive towards them.” This is something that many Christians tend to realize when the tables are turned. I bet you would appreciate such government neutrality if you were in the Middle East, were religious nutcases want to impose their religion on everyone. I don’t intend to delve into this too much on this thread, because there have been a number of threads on this site related to this issue.

No, actually I was referring to the high amount of journalists reporting questionable pro-atheist “facts”, the tendency of some atheists to complain or attempt to refute the slightest “public expression” of religion, the degradation of “freedom of religion” to a basic enforcement to not talk about religion in “public”, the high amount of liberalism in both professional politics and amateur social commentary, and the high amount of popular pro-atheist books which contain absolutely no hard evidence or sound philosophical reasoning and contain a large amount of personal attacks (for no reason) but still manage to make the author some kind of celebrity and cause en masse loss of belief in God. That’s not counting, of course, forum trolls and liberalism in the classroom.

 

[PRmerger]

Please show me where I said all of these Christian stories are fabricated myths.
Please show me where I said all of the Apostles were deceived.

Watcher, I am simply pointing out, that the fact that you are considering the concept that the Gospels may be myths is unreasoned.

Well, actually, you ought to consider it, and then dismiss it, based on all the evidence I provided, ala Peter Kreeft.

You wrote, “A second problem is that there was not enough time for myth to develop.”

I pointed out that this statement wasn’t necessarily true and gave counter examples. The rapid growth of a story is not proof of it’s truthfulness.

'Tis true this. I suppose it is possible for a legend to develop within a generation of a historical figure’s demise.

I did not bring up Jesus. I did not bring up the Apostles. I have not questioned your faith

Ok. If you say so. You haven’t questioned whether the Resurrection occurred. You haven’t questioned whether God exists. You haven’t questioned the Divinity of Christ.

Again, if you say so. But that’s a very peculiar kind of atheist you are!

 

[PRmerger]

. Didn’t we already cover this?

:dts:

IF the early Christians decided to lie about the Apostles for whatever reason, they would likely disregard whatever the torturers had to say. The torturers wouldn’t have had to stay quiet and keep everything a secret. It is easy to imagine some people going as far as to call the torturers liars for trying to ‘destroy’ the good reputation of these men.

Evidence for this please.

Are you really saying that the Pagan torturers would have heard, say, St. Peter recant, and say, “I really made it all up! He didn’t rise from the dead!” and

[SIGN1]not a single proclamation/declaration/statement from these torturers made it to Nero’s ears, so he could announce, “It’s all a farce! The intent of our torture–to get these Christians to retract their statement–worked!”[/SIGN1]

This is just plain silly, Watcher.

A modern day example of this behavior: Some people believed President Obama is not a US citizen. He released his birth certificate. Some people (still) believe President Obama is not a US citizen.

I am an agnostic about whether he is a US citizen or not. It doesn’t really matter to me.

And the fact is, it’s entirely possible that he may not be. You don’t really know, do you?

In fact, I venture to say you accept that he is with more faith than any Christian accepts the Resurrection. Don’t you think?

I mean, really, did you see the birth certificate with your own eyes? Did you talk with the obstetrician? Have you spoken with any witnesses?

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.
Please show me where I said all of the Apostles were deceived.

Again, it’s only because you’re considering the fact that they may have been deceived that I am addressing your posts.

I like the 5 possible scenarios you posted about here though.
Again, my answer is I don’t know. I would need to study this issue more before I’m able to comment more on this. Same with my three points- I saw three possible scenarios. I don’t know which one is most likely.

I get that you don’t know. But at some point, after all the arguments have been offered that refutes this “the apostles were deceived or were deceivers” myth, and you still claim, “I don’t know”, then there is an obduracy or obtuseness being embraced.

I’d also like to point out that hallucinations are not the only way to deceive people.

Could you offer another explanation for how the Apostles would think that they saw the Risen Lord when they really didn’t?

:coffeeread:

 

[TheWatcher]

PRmerger,

I’ve been very careful not to state certain things.

I don’t know if there is enough evidence for a Historical Christ, much less his Apostles. This is a subject that I’m reading about. I have not yet formed an opinion on this.

I really hold even less of an opinion of the Apostles. I simply do not know enough. I can’t form one.

I’m really not trying to be dishonest with you or difficult.

You asked Jocko,

So here’s where I’m going to ask you to be honest: do you really read the Gospels, which include details of the above extra-ordinary phenomena, and feel you’re in the same genre as this type of story:

An odd, folkloric-sounding tale told about Apollonius involves the wedding of a former student of his, a young man called Menippus, who lived in Corinth. Menippus was about to marry a beautiful rich woman, whom he had first glimpsed in a vision. Apollonius was one of the guests at the feast and noticed that something about the bride was not right. After watching her carefully for a while he proclaimed that she was in fact a Lamia (a kind of vampire), and used his powers to make all the false luxuries of the banquet, including the guests disappear, thus showing them to be an hallucination constructed by the vampire-girl. After this act the disguise faded and the real Lamia was revealed. The Story of Apollonius of Tyana

I won’t judge you for your answer.

I simply am curious if you truly can look at a mythological vampire story and a Gospel narrative and not see the difference between the genres.

My answer is: Yes. Yes, this feels like the same genre to me. The language is obviously a little different. The speaker is different. It feels the same.

I am not Christian.

Please PM if you wish to talk about this further. (I don’t want to get in trouble with the atheism ban.)

 

[samiam1611]

Here is a good thread on the subject you all have been discussing the past few posts.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=486011
It is really good, worth reading from the beginning.