The Fear of Hell

[Charlemagne_III]

Correct, and many atheist are agnostic atheist.

If you hard press someone you can invoke a lot of opposing remarks. Try conversing and listening with the person instead so that you can get uninhibited honest expressions instead of statements of opposition.

And that’s a two-way street!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

And that’s a two-way street!

Quite right, it is. And if you ever feel that your position is being misunderstood I’d encourage expressing it.

You’l find there’s a number of positions that someone can take on. The dichotomy of Christian/Atheist that Pascal’s wager seems to be applied to overlooks a lot of other positions that one might have. Nontheistic, Pantheistic, Panentheistic, Apatheistic, Transtheistic, Ignostic, and Deistic are some of the other categories into which one might be placed which fall outside of the the major monotheisms. Some of the people within these categories may have something that they refer to as “God” but you’ll find that it doesn’t match your concept of God (ex: using God as a synonym for the Universe).

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m think Pascal did not overlook all those other isms. He was too smart to do that.

What he did do was to address the question of whether, if you are going to believe in God at all, it makes more sense to believe in the Christian God than any other. That deduction pervades the entire *Pensees, *, though to hear some people talk the only thing worth addressing in Pensees is the Wager as if it existed in isolation from all the other arguments Pascal offers for Christianity.

Pascal did not believe the existence of God could be conclusively proved to the atheist, but also he rightly argued that the atheist could not conclusively prove there is no God. So Pascal’s argument is really about whether it is more in our interest to believe than not to believe. Since we have everything to gain by believing and nothing to lose, whereas by not believing we have nothing to gain and everything to lose, the scales are heavily tipped in favor of belief.

You know what Christ offers if we believe and act accordingly.

Can you think of something that the atheist or anyone else loses by believing in Christ?

The atheist cannot say he loses his integrity or his honesty, since he cannot honestly be certain that God does not exist. If he cannot honestly be certain of that, neither can he be honestly certain that Christ did not preach the best of all religions. And if Christ did preach the best of all possible religions, there is a great deal to lose by rejecting Christ.

 

[rstrats]

Charlemagne III,
re: " Pascal’s argument is really about whether it is more in our interest to believe than not to believe. Since we have everything to gain by believing and nothing to lose, whereas by not believing we have nothing to gain and everything to lose, the scales are heavily tipped in favor of belief."

But as I wrote earlier, the argument is moot because a person can’t consciously choose to believe things.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

But as I wrote earlier, the argument is moot because a person can’t consciously choose to believe things.

I totally agree with you, but for the sake of completeness here’s Pascal’s response to that.

Pascal:

You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. …
But to show you that this leads you there, it is this which will lessen the passions, which are your stumbling-blocks.

Though something about the above seems to be talking about wanting to be convinced of something irrespective of whether or not it is actual.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Charlemagne III,
re: " Pascal’s argument is really about whether it is more in our interest to believe than not to believe. Since we have everything to gain by believing and nothing to lose, whereas by not believing we have nothing to gain and everything to lose, the scales are heavily tipped in favor of belief."

But as I wrote earlier, the argument is moot because a person can’t consciously choose to believe things.

And as I wrote earlier, we can’t help but consciously choose to believe things.

Are you saying we unconsciously choose to believe things?

But how would you know that if it is an unconscious choice?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Though something about the above seems to be talking about wanting to be convinced of something irrespective of whether or not it is actual.

No doubt we do want to be convinced that we are not mere creatures in the mud.

Wanting to be convinced of that does not make the belief false.

God would plant that want in our hearts.

If we deny the want, we have to ask why we have the want in the first place.

And then we have to ask why we would deny it.

 

[tonyrey]

Charlemagne III,
re: " Pascal’s argument is really about whether it is more in our interest to believe than not to believe. Since we have everything to gain by believing and nothing to lose, whereas by not believing we have nothing to gain and everything to lose, the scales are heavily tipped in favor of belief."

But as I wrote earlier, the argument is moot because a person can’t consciously choose to believe things.

If we couldn’t consciously choose to believe things it would be impossible to be reasonable because all our beliefs would be caused by events beyond our control. Therefore your belief that a person can’t consciously choose to believe things would be unreasonable!

 

[Boswell]

Our LORD never said that Hell was created for human life, but rather, “the devil and his angels.”

Human beings just end up following them there.

ICXC NIKA

Perfect answer!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

And as I wrote earlier, we can’t help but consciously choose to believe things.

Are you saying we unconsciously choose to believe things?

But how would you know that if it is an unconscious choice?

I don’t think that conviction is volitional. Some one can by volition try to act as though s/he believes something is true, but that’s not quite the same as having conviction (though it seems to be a course of action that Pascal prescribes).

Wanting to be convinced of that does not make the belief false.

Correct. For the questions at hand the truth value of the propositions is independent of what one wants or doesn’t want. But it seems to be something that Pascal brings into the matter.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t think that conviction is volitional.

In what sense to you mean “conviction”?

Do you mean convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt?

There are lots of things we believe in without conviction beyond the shadow of a doubt.

You will find, for example, plenty of astronomers who believe in a multiverse without any substantial evidence that a multiverse exists. Wouldn’t that be a volitional conviction because you would have to will it rather than understand it?

 

[rstrats]

Charlemagne III,
re: “Are you saying we unconsciously choose to believe things?”

I think that is very likely the case.

re: “But how would you know that if it is an unconscious choice?”

I of course don’t know that, but since I have a goodly number of beliefs and since I haven’t consciously chosen any of those beliefs, nor has anyone that I have asked to demonstrate an ability to consciously choose to believe things ever complied with my request, I have to guess that beliefs come about by some process occurring in the subconscious due to an exposure to outside stimuli, such as literature, lectures, media, conversation, experience, etc. And of course there may be some beliefs that might be placed in one’s mind by a higher power.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

In what sense to you mean “conviction”?

Do you mean convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt?

No.

A confidence level a bit higher than “most likely true.”

There are lots of things we believe in without conviction beyond the shadow of a doubt.

That’s fine, it’s not the level of confidence that I have in mind. We make many decisions in life with less than absolute certainty. Though the amount of certainty required for an idea will vary depending on risks, rewards, and other factors.

You will find, for example, plenty of astronomers who believe in a multiverse without any substantial evidence that a multiverse exists. Wouldn’t that be a volitional conviction because you would have to will it rather than understand it?

I can’t say that the person is willing it based on what you’ve said so far. It might be worth asking the person why s/he thinks that one of the multiverse hypothesis is correct to see what information and experiences contributed to the person being convinced. But first it may worth asking the person whether he believes it exists or is just speaking about a hypothesis. Also note the word “multiverse” can refer to many unrelated hypothesis.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Charlemagne III,
re: “Are you saying we unconsciously choose to believe things?”

I think that is very likely the case.

re: “But how would you know that if it is an unconscious choice?”

I of course don’t know that, but since I have a goodly number of beliefs and since I haven’t consciously chosen any of those beliefs, nor has anyone that I have asked to demonstrate an ability to consciously choose to believe things ever complied with my request, I have to guess that beliefs come about by some process occurring in the subconscious due to an exposure to outside stimuli, such as literature, lectures, media, conversation, experience, etc. And of course there may be some beliefs that might be placed in one’s mind by a higher power.

This is a type of psychological determinism advocated by behaviorists like B.F. Skinner.

Are you a behaviorist?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That’s fine, it’s not the level of confidence that I have in mind. We make many decisions in life with less than absolute certainty. Though the amount of certainty required for an idea will vary depending on risks, rewards, and other factors. **
I can’t say that the person is willing it based on what you’ve said so far. It might be worth asking the person why s/he thinks that one of the multiverse hypothesis is correct to see what information and experiences contributed to the person being convinced**. But first it may worth asking the person whether he believes it exists or is just speaking about a hypothesis. Also note the word “multiverse” can refer to many unrelated hypothesis.

I agree with both sentences bolded.

In the first case there is a tremendous reason, as Pascal points out, to consider risk/rewards of rejecting or accepting a relationship with God.

In the second case, if I asked the person what reason he has for accepting the multiverse hypothesis (since it is not even a theory) my guess would be to avoid the God hypothesis; though he might not admit that since a multiverse is purely a hypothesis and therefore no more acceptable (theoretically) than a God hypothesis…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

In the first case there is a tremendous reason, as Pascal points out, to consider risk/rewards of rejecting or accepting a relationship with God.

If the goal is to only get someone to *consider * the existence of a God are you aware that many non-religious people have religious backgrounds. In the USA this can often take the form of many non-Christians having been Christians at some point in their life.

In the second case, if I asked the person what reason he has for accepting the multiverse hypothesis (since it is not even a theory) my guess would be to avoid the God hypothesis…].

You might want to find out which muti-verse hypothesis that the person is referring to before making a guess; you might find some of them to be reasonable hypothesis, such as the one that there may be parts of the universe that are so far away from others that they will never be able to interact with each other (something that is more a consequence of the expansion of the universe).

Why do you think that a multiverse hypothesis would argue against the existence of a God?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If the goal is to only get someone to *consider * the existence of a God are you aware that many non-religious people have religious backgrounds. In the USA this can often take the form of many non-Christians having been Christians at some point in their life.

Why do you think that a multiverse hypothesis would argue against the existence of a God?

I understand your first point very well since I am one of those people who left the Church. I am also one of those who returned. Both action were my conscious choice, not my subconscious choice. Yes, activity does go on at the subconscious level, but that is not to say that the conscious mind has no part in the activity or that it is dominated by the activity.

As for the question about multiverse, you might want to ask Stephen Hawking, whose pet theory that is, and who recently declared himself to be an atheist.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I understand your first point very well since I am one of those people who left the Church. I am also one of those who returned. Both action were my conscious choice, not my subconscious choice.

Coming and going are volitional. No argument there. The loss and acquisition of a conviction though seem more like a realization than a decision.

As for the question about multiverse, you might want to ask Stephen Hawking, whose pet theory that is, and who recently declared himself to be an atheist.

A local TV station (part of PBS I think) did a broadcast based on things he said some years ago. While it was made clear that he didn’t think there were any Gods and that he thought that the need for one in the initiation of the universe wasn’t necessary I don’t think he ever said anything that actually argued against the existence of a God.

 

[GaryTaylor]

While it was made clear that he didn’t think there were any Gods and that he thought that the need for one in the initiation of the universe wasn’t necessary I don’t think he ever said anything that actually argued against the existence of a God.

Did he have any ideas on what was necessary? We been drawing a blank on the point thus, mystery, God etc. I think we all need to concede we are interconnected in consciousness, necessarily. It would make the whole theory issue less problematic.

 

[Tom_Baum]

But here’s the rub. You can’t be honest and admit that you believe God does not exist. What evidence would warrant that belief? There is none. The decision not to believe in God is not based on evidence, but rather on arrogant and willful desire to deny God. So there is no honesty there. Stop calling it honesty when it is really acting like a fool. The atheist is fooling himself, so please stop calling that an honest act.

The fool in his heart says there is no God." Psalms 14:1

I believed in God with NO evidence, where would you place me?

Would you say that I was arrogant and had a willful desire to believe in God since I had no evidence that God Is.

Personally, looking back on things, I would say that God gave me a gift of faith, just as it is written, “that no man should boast”.

You wrote, “The decision not to believe in God is not based on evidence, but rather on arrogant and willful desire to deny God.”, do you “know” this to be the case of absolutely everyone that ever was, is or will be a non-believer in God?

What about those that believe in “God, god or gods” that are different from the One that you believe in, are they also “arrogant”, a “fool” and have a “willful desire to deny God”?

I still say that anyone who doesn’t believe in God is being “honest” when they say that they don’t believe in God and I would say that they would be dishonest if they kowtowed to you or anyone else and said that they believed in God if in fact they did not.

You can say that they are a fool, according to the bible, you can say that they are “arrogant” and have a “willful desire to deny God”, according to your opinion, but I can not see how you can call them a liar.