What Do You Think Of Emmanuel's Wager©?

[Oreoracle]

Not to mention that Christianity has an answer to the Problem of Evil. And it offers justice regarding the evil that occurs to us.

I don’t find Christianity’s answer to the Problem of Evil satisfactory. Then again, I disagree with the Christian conception of evil, so that’s probably not surprising.

Now, please don’t mistake this post as saying, “Because Christianity offers an answer to the Problem of Evil it’s therefore true.”

I am simply proposing that Christianity is better than atheism because, at the very least, we have a better answer to the woman whose husband is slain by a terrorist.

Frankly I’m baffled. You admit that this doesn’t provide evidence for Christianity, yet you think it makes Christianity better than worldviews that don’t offer palatable answers.

If you think the measure of a worldview should account for the comfort it provides, I can’t fault religion on that basis. Religion’s ability to provide comfort is unmatched.

The atheist can only say, “I’m so very sorry. There is nothing more that I can offer. He is gone and the people who did this may get away with it. There may be no justice for you. Ever.”

This answer has the striking advantage of being an honest reflection of our current understanding of the universe. I prefer honesty to comfort.

So what is it about the 5 ways that you find untenable?

For starters, they merely demonstrate the existence of a necessary or first entity even if you agree with their premises. The claim that there is a necessary entity is even weaker than the deist claim that there is a creator god. They do nothing to demonstrate a personal god, or a god that cares about what we do in the bedroom, or indeed even cares about us at all. The necessary entity needn’t have a will to obey. To call it a “being” at all is granting too much, because “being” suggests sentience and awareness, which aren’t demonstrated by the Five Ways.

As an analogy, imagine that the necessary entity/Prime Mover were something akin to a piece of radioactive material. It sits around most of the time, completely inert, but every once in a while a few particles are randomly ejected. Then it goes back to just sitting there. The Prime Mover needn’t be anything more than a sort of eternal generator of particles such as this. (Again, this is just an analogy. The point is that sentience, intelligence, creativity, etc., needn’t come into play at all.)

My point is that if you have never heard of an atheist being converted to Catholicism through reasoned arguments then your search has been quite insular.

I’ve heard of some, but I’ve never met one. I’m assuming you aren’t just talking about people who’ve never given religion much thought before. If you are, then sure, I know some people who got bored with their lives and decided they’d pick a religion. It wasn’t that any religion/denomination convinced them, they literally just went around asking people what church they should join, as if they were joining a book club.

What trend is that? And can you cite some statistics?

That would be unnecessary, as you’ve already agreed to the trend; namely, that the best predictor of one’s religion (and indeed religiosity) is the religion of one’s parents.

And what do you think this means insofar as the truth of Christianity?

As I said, most people aren’t very aware of the tenets of their religion. They just see it as a vague source of comfort or an excuse to join a social club. It’s especially easy to grow comfortable being part of a group when one has been told since they were a toddler that they are in the “correct” group. Humans love the clique mentality, and what we’re taught by our parents at a young age resonates with us, sometimes unreasonably so.

What does this mean for the truth of Christianity? It doesn’t imply anything about its truth, but it does offer insight into most people’s motivations for being religious; namely, that truth isn’t the primary concern for most of them.

It is perhaps the most common criticism of Pascal’s wager by those who have never taken the time to read it!!! Pascal was no dummy, do you really think he did not consider this very point and you (and so many other critics) are just that much smarter than he.

You’re right that Pascal was brilliant. He was quite the mathematician. However, I do have more common sense than he. I don’t wear a spiked belt and shove it against my side everytime I have an impure thought as Pascal did.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t find Christianity’s answer to the Problem of Evil satisfactory.

Again, based purely on offering an answer to the POE, Christianity’s answer way surpasses atheism’s.

However, perhaps I am misunderstanding how atheism answers the POE.

Is it correct to say that atheism’s answer to: why is there evil in the world? Why do people do bad things? Why is the world not as it could be?

is this: because people do bad things. There is no explanation for why someone is selfish when it would obviously be beneficial to him and to society to be selfless.

Is that a correct articulation of your answer to the POE?

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve heard of some, but I’ve never met one.

LOL! You’ve never met one.

Well, I guess I have no response to that except…okey dokey.

What does this mean for the truth of Christianity? It doesn’t imply anything about its truth,

Egg-zactly.

Thus, an inutile point to present.

but it does offer insight into most people’s motivations for being religious; namely, that truth isn’t the primary concern for most of them.

I wasn’t aware that we were talking about most people’s motivations for being religious.

My interest in this discussion was how someone could consider the arguments for God’s existence, include PW, and yet be unconvinced.

Those who have no interest in the pursuit of truth are not of intrigue to me in this thread.

 

[PRmerger]

For starters, they merely demonstrate the existence of a necessary or first entity even if you agree with their premises. The claim that there is a necessary entity is even weaker than the deist claim that there is a creator god. They do nothing to demonstrate a personal god, or a god that cares about what we do in the bedroom, or indeed even cares about us at all. The necessary entity needn’t have a will to obey. To call it a “being” at all is granting too much, because “being” suggests sentience and awareness, which aren’t demonstrated by the Five Ways.

But you haven’t provided a reason why the 5 ways are untenable, insofar as the existence of a Creator.

That they “do nothing to demonstrate a person god, or a god that cares about what we do in the bedroom, or even cares about us at all” is a red herring. They are not intended to offer proof of the Catholic God. Only that God exists, and that we can know this through reason alone.

So what exactly about the 5 Ways is untenable?

As an analogy, imagine that the necessary entity/Prime Mover were something akin to a piece of radioactive material. It sits around most of the time, completely inert, but every once in a while a few particles are randomly ejected. Then it goes back to just sitting there. The Prime Mover needn’t be anything more than a sort of eternal generator of particles such as this. (Again, this is just an analogy. The point is that sentience, intelligence, creativity, etc., needn’t come into play at all.)

Fair enough.

So we are agreed, then, that a Prime Mover is a logical conclusion to the arguments presented by Aquinas?

 

[PRmerger]

That would be unnecessary, as you’ve already agreed to the trend; namely, that the best predictor of one’s religion (and indeed religiosity) is the religion of one’s parents.

I agreed to a trend?

I don’t think I did. I was simply agreeing that a large portion of Catholics don’t know their faith.

What you have presented is a fact, not a trend.

If you were going to offer a trend, you would have to state, “More people are remaining in the religion of their birth” or “More people are leaving the religion of their birth.”

Or, “More people are uninformed about their religion than they were 25 years ago”.
Or, “More people are learning about their faith than they were 50 years ago.”

Which “trend” you are suggesting?

And what statistics are you using to get this “trend”?

 

[PRmerger]

Frankly I’m baffled. You admit that this doesn’t provide evidence for Christianity, yet you think it makes Christianity better than worldviews that don’t offer palatable answers.

If you think the measure of a worldview should account for the comfort it provides, I can’t fault religion on that basis. Religion’s ability to provide comfort is unmatched.

True, dat.

One could also look at atheism as comforting in that it allows an individual to seek succor in his own ideations. “I believe that cheating on my wife is fine, as long as she never finds out, therefore, I am quite moral when I cheat on my wife.” And “I believe that no one is harmed when I steal from the gov’t, so I am quite comfortable with cheating on my taxes.”

That kind of thing.

This answer has the striking advantage of being an honest reflection of our current understanding of the universe. I prefer honesty to comfort.

On this, we are agreed.

Truth trumps everything, no?

 

[Oreoracle]

Again, based purely on offering an answer to the POE, Christianity’s answer way surpasses atheism’s.

Again, if you’re in the “any answer is better than no answer” camp, then I have nothing to say to you. In fact, I think you rebut that attitude quite nicely yourself:
"PRmerger:

Those who have no interest in the pursuit of truth are not of intrigue to me in this thread.

Is it correct to say that atheism’s answer to: why is there evil in the world? Why do people do bad things? Why is the world not as it could be?

is this: because people do bad things. There is no explanation for why someone is selfish when it would obviously be beneficial to him and to society to be selfless.

Is that a correct articulation of your answer to the POE?

I think most of what we call evil in the world arises from the clash between a universal desire for resources and the unfortunate fact that those resources are finite. This explains angst due to wars, job availability, dating, theft, etc. Conflicts of a different nature arise between friends, family, and anyone you’re familiar with because those relationships are very passionate ones. That’s why you’re more likely to be murdered or raped by someone you know than by a stranger.

I’m not going to write a treatise explaining every variety of evil, but hopefully this convinces you that “the atheist answer” is more than just shrugging your shoulders and saying that bad stuff happens. (Unless you want to explain illness or natural disasters or something. Then yeah, the answer is that bad things sometimes happen without a deeper reason.) The difference between “the atheist answer” and the Christian one is that ours isn’t very comforting. But since you’ve said that your interest in this thread is truth and not comfort, then this should have no bearing on our considerations.

I wasn’t aware that we were talking about most people’s motivations for being religious.

You asked which arguments I found most compelling. I replied that the only aspects of religion that I find compelling are its more aesthetic qualities, such as comfort and group cohesion. That’s how this began. If you wish to stick to the strictly logical aspects, then my answer is a very boring one: I don’t find religion to be logically compelling in the slightest. I’m not sure that any of the “arguments” for it even register enough for me to distinguish between them in terms of effectiveness.

But you haven’t provided a reason why the 5 ways are untenable, insofar as the existence of a Creator.

The conclusions do not necessitate a creator god. 4 of the 5 arguments conclude that there is a first or necessary entity, and the other concludes that there must be something with which we can make comparisons when gradations arise, e.g., we need a conception of goodness in mind before we can argue that some things are better than others.

That they “do nothing to demonstrate a person god, or a god that cares about what we do in the bedroom, or even cares about us at all” is a red herring. They are not intended to offer proof of the Catholic God. Only that God exists, and that we can know this through reason alone.

They do not demonstrate a god. Gods will things. They create things. They judge mankind. Every form of theism conceives of gods in this way, and the Five Ways do not conclude that there is a god in this sense. They conclude that there is a sort of necessary building block. That is it. The block may not have a will, it must create, but perhaps only haphazardly, and it needn’t be sentient or aware, let alone judge mankind.

No theist thinks of a god as a building block, hence my saying that the Five Ways do not demonstrate a god. If you want to bend over backwards and re-define “god” to make it seem like the arguments covered more ground than they did, then that’s pretty desperate.

So we are agreed, then, that a Prime Mover is a logical conclusion to the arguments presented by Aquinas?

If one accepts his premises, certainly.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

ISo…then…there would be no reason for them to go to hell for not believing, right?

I wouldn’t bet on it.

Atheism is not a free pass into heaven. Surely you know that is not the teaching of the Church. The Church teaches that atheism is a mortal sin. When you die with a mortal sin on your soul, especially that one, you don’t want to bet on heaven. What you have told God is that you don’t want anything to do with him. So be careful what you don’t want, as well as what you want.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Most people who attack the Wager Argument have not read the whole of Pascal’s Pensees. When you do read the whole of it, you get quite a different impression of the wager argument than when you read the wager by itself. What Pascal offered was the opening challenge to gamble on God rather than on our own proud self and the belief that we can get along just fine without God. There is a deep spirituality in Pascal, much deeper than appears just by reading the Wager by itself.

 

[Oreoracle]

True, dat.

One could also look at atheism as comforting in that it allows an individual to seek succor in his own ideations.

Maybe for some people it is comforting. This is irrelevant to me, as I am not defending atheism on the basis of emotional comfort. It is you who seems to think that merely having answers to things, particularly comforting ones, is somehow relevant.

I agreed to a trend?

I don’t think I did. I was simply agreeing that a large portion of Catholics don’t know their faith.

On post #20 you replied to my assertion about one’s parents’ religion being a strong predictor of their own with “No doubt”. Either that was an extremely unlikely typo, or you conceded the point.

If you don’t want to call it a trend, then that’s fine. So long as you recognize that it’s true.

 

[PRmerger]

If you don’t want to call it a trend, then that’s fine. So long as you recognize that it’s true.

Well, I don’t want to “call it a trend” only for one reason: you didn’t identify an actual trend.

What you posited is a statement.

If you are insisting that you actually cited a trend, could you please re-assert what this trend is? And identify if it rising or falling (for that is what trends do).

Thanks.

And also, of course, cite your source.

 

[PRmerger]

I think most of what we call evil in the world arises from the clash between a universal desire for resources and the unfortunate fact that those resources are finite. This explains angst due to wars, job availability, dating, theft, etc. Conflicts of a different nature arise between friends, family, and anyone you’re familiar with because those relationships are very passionate ones. That’s why you’re more likely to be murdered or raped by someone you know than by a stranger.

This does nothing to explain why.

Why does someone choose to stay in bed rather than get up and help his friend move, as he had promised?

I’m not going to write a treatise explaining every variety of evil, but hopefully this convinces you that “the atheist answer” is more than just shrugging your shoulders and saying that bad stuff happens.

Actually, what you posited above sounds exactly like a shrugging of your shoulders–i.e. “We’re passionate people, we humans! 'Nuff said!”

(Unless you want to explain illness or natural disasters or something. Then yeah, the answer is that bad things sometimes happen without a deeper reason.)

Well, that’s another inutile response.

Christianity has an answer. A very good one. It’s found in the Book of Genesis.

The difference between “the atheist answer” and the Christian one is that ours isn’t very comforting

Yes. That is one difference.

It’s also rather useless and very unsatisfying.

I should think this ought to be in the back of your mind if you ever get into a discussion with a Believer and the POE is brought up. There should be a little voice in the back of your head that is whispering, “But I don’t have an adequate answer myself regarding the POE.”

 

[Cone]

There’s what’s called ‘The Pascal’s Wager’ and
there’s another – mine actually – called
‘Emmanuel’s Wager’.

Um, I do not know if you’ve read that of Pascal’s,
but it’s basically a PRAGMATIC, apologetic
approach in betting on Theism or Atheism.

Having developed a penchant for philosophy of
religion over the years, I figured out that, ultimately,
“atheism” is a poor bettor than “theism”. And as
this logic being a wager, the stakes are, for a wise
bettor, to choose the side/outcome that is most
favourable.

Okay, this is briefly the syllogism of Emmanuel’s
Wager©:

1. For the atheist who disbelieves in God but
   ‘believes’ in Evolution:

A. If his worldview is true about evolution, then
when he dies, he wouldn’t even be able to find out
for himself if his worldview was right all along. He
simply vanishes into oblivion according the tenets
of evolution. And with no an I-told-you-so
response to the theist.
B. If his worldview is false and that God exists,
then when he dies, he goes to hell according to the
tenets of Christianity (well, you’re free to raise your
many-gods objection here). And there will be an I-
told-you-so response, this time, from the theist to
him.

1. For the theist who believes in God and rejects
   evolution as the origin of life:

A. If his worldview is true, then when he dies, he
goes to heaven according to the tenets of
Christianity. And there’ll definitely be an I-told-
you-so response to the atheist.
B. If his worldview is false and that evolution is
true, he simply vanishes. He doesn’t need to
confirm anything for himself because evolution was
never his worldview. And no I-told-you-so from
anybody.

So, you see, atheism nurtures TERRIBLE BETTORS
who lose in all two of their (only) outcomes (1a &
b), while theism nurtures WISER BETTORS who win
in all two of their outcome (2a & b).

There are no “I told you so’s” in the next life. The chasm between Heaven and Hell is too great. Besides, I don’t think God would approve of taunting the damned.

 

[Oreoracle]

This does nothing to explain why.

Why does someone choose to stay in bed rather than get up and help his friend move, as he had promised?

Probably because it felt better at the time to stay in bed and rest.

I’m not sure what deep insight you think religion has on that matter that an atheist couldn’t tell you.

Actually, what you posited above sounds exactly like a shrugging of your shoulders–i.e. “We’re passionate people, we humans! 'Nuff said!”

I’m not sure what more you want. People kill for revenge. They rape to feel powerful. These feelings arise more with acquaintances than strangers. Do you deny that?

Well, that’s another inutile response.

Christianity has an answer. A very good one. It’s found in the Book of Genesis.

The reason you aren’t satisfied with my answers is because you have a preconception that there has to be a “why” rather than just a “how”. You, like many faithful, think everything happens for a reason. Not a physical reason, or a biological reason, or a psychological reason. No, the universe had to be ordered for the express purpose that particular events would happen.

If you want answers of that form, then I agree that atheism offers no answer for “why” evil happens. Then again, there is no reason to assume that evil is intended on a cosmic scale. Thanks to science, we can now explain disease and natural disasters without invoking spirits or gods. We’ve made a lot of progress explaining the evils caused by humans through psychology and sociology. We don’t have to fall back on cosmic planning and “whys” to explain such things.

This is unlike the Problem of Evil for Christians. Christians DO believe that everything was intended by a being that could have stopped all evil. So the ball is in their court to explain why evil exists when it didn’t have to. Atheists do not presuppose magical means of eliminating evil, or a cosmic source of evil, so there is no Problem of Evil for the atheist.

 

[PRmerger]

Probably because it felt better at the time to stay in bed and rest.

Not a very satisfactory answer.

QED.

 

[Oreoracle]

Not a very satisfactory answer.

QED.

Okay, what is the religious answer to that question? People stay in bed rather than help their friends because of Original Sin?

 

[PRmerger]

The reason you aren’t satisfied with my answers is because you have a preconception that there has to be a “why” rather than just a “how”. You, like many faithful, think everything happens for a reason.

I hope you see the irony in the above, Oreoracle.

While asserting that I have a preconception, you seem oblivious to the fact that your preconception is being limned.

If you want answers of that form, then I agree that atheism offers no answer for “why” evil happens.

Egg-zactly. Atheism offers no answer to the very real problem of evil.

Then again, there is no reason to assume that evil is intended on a cosmic scale.

This is very Catholic, Oreoracle.

Thanks to science, we can now explain disease and natural disasters without invoking spirits or gods. We’ve made a lot of progress explaining the evils caused by humans through psychology and sociology. We don’t have to fall back on cosmic planning and “whys” to explain such things.

Yes, indeed. Thanks to science we do have an answer to why (some) physical evils occur.

Now, it’s curious, then, that you would assume: there is an answer as to why there is physical evil…

but, there is no answer as to why there is moral evil.

Where does this idea come from that we can question and investigate why disease and natural disasters occur–that’s good to do…

but that it’s useless to question and investigate why moral evil occurs…that’s just unnecessary, according to you.

And it’s peculiar that you acknowledge that there are answers for the cause of* physical *evil…

but for some weird reason we just have to thwart any questions about the cause of moral evil.

Why the double standard?

 

[PRmerger]

So the ball is in their court to explain why evil exists when it didn’t have to.

We do have an explanation.

And The Solution.

Atheists do not presuppose magical means of eliminating evil,

And this makes them very Catholic in that regard.

or a cosmic source of evil, so there is no Problem of Evil for the atheist.

This is a curious position to espouse.

You don’t see the beheading of a journalist as a Problem?

Your explanation to your daughter who says, “Why, Daddy*?” is “It just…is…the way the world is.”

Oh, and you would also say, “That’s your problem, darling. You ask ‘why’. You shouldn’t ask that. That’s what Christians do. Not everything has a reason.”

*Male is the default gender I use. Sorry if I am incorrect in this assignation.

 

[Oreoracle]

I hope you see the irony in the above, Oreoracle.

While asserting that I have a preconception, you seem oblivious to the fact that your preconception is being limned.

I’m sure whatever you’re doing would seem terribly clever if I could make heads or tails of it.

Egg-zactly. Atheism offers no answer to the very real problem of evil.

I think there’s a misunderstanding here of what the Problem of Evil is. You seem to think it’s the question “why is there evil?” but it’s actually the question “why is there evil when a supposedly good being could prevent it?”

The question is not how evil arises, but rather why it hasn’t been dealt with if there is a god. Atheists do not postulate a god, so there is no Problem of Evil for atheists.

This is very Catholic, Oreoracle.

I think you mistook my meaning. I mean there is no reason to assume that evil happens for some deeper reason than the psychology of human behavior. There is no reason to assume there is a plan to all of this.

The assumption is made so often by people that it is rarely noted. “Why are we here?” is a standard question of philosophy, for example, but it presupposes that our existence was intended by another being. That may be true, but it has not been demonstrated. “Is there a reason that we are here?” would be a better starting question. Likewise, “Is there a deeper reason for evil than humans doing what they want?” would be a better question.

Yes, indeed. Thanks to science we do have an answer to why (some) physical evils occur.

Now, it’s curious, then, that you would assume: there is an answer as to why there is physical evil…

but, there is no answer as to why there is moral evil.

I’ve given you answers. You’ve just decided beforehand that you won’t accept them unless they invoke something greater than human psychology. For example, in explaining why someone would stay in bed rather than help a friend, “they wanted rest” or “they are lazy” aren’t good enough answers for you. I suppose if you asked why people fornicate, “they wanted sexual pleasure” also wouldn’t be good enough for you.

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve given you answers. You’ve just decided beforehand that you won’t accept them unless they invoke something greater than human psychology.

Now I’m sure you won’t judge me for finding this amusing.

Just read your above response again.

Imagine if it was written by a Believer to you.