What Do You Think Of Emmanuel's Wager©?

[schaeffer]

I am simply offering a little whisper that the atheist who questions the Believer with some “gotcha!” question ought to be aware that he, too, can be questioned in a manner that may, indeed, be a “gotcha!” moment for the Believer as well.

IOW: “I don’t know” ought to be a respected answer on both sides, no?

Incidentally, when one has an “I don’t know” to an answer, but still believes in a particular concept, would that not be construed as believing based on Faith?

Whisper away. I am not sure what you mean by “gotcha” moments as I don’t argue either for or against the existence of a god, but it makes sense to me that such “arguments” and tactics are surely applicable on both sides.

And yes “I don’t know” ought to be respected on all sides. As I’ve said, I respect “I don’t know” as an honest answer, especially in lieu of bizarre and ridiculous explanations or smoke screens.

I believe that all people live on Faith. Faith in a variety of things, but yes, faith. Some people are uncomfortable with the fact that no one can live without taking some things on faith, and I would think that must be a very difficult way to live.

But when it comes to arguing as to what someone should or must have faith in, we end up where this discussion is, with people having fundamentally different requirements as to what constitutes making something worthy of being believed in.

To be fun, games must have rules and the players must agree upon them accept them. The point of what makes something worthy of having faith in it is a rule that people can’t agree on, so the game is no longer fun.

I like to discuss things, but I really don’t have interest in arguing or debating. It takes the focus off of the things I find most interesting and helpful. It’s a sport I have no skill in either.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I like to discuss things, but I really don’t have interest in arguing or debating. It takes the focus off of the things I find most interesting and helpful. It’s a sport I have no skill in either.

What are you doing at Catholic Answers? It seems to me you are engaging in the things you’d rather not rather engage in, or that you have no skill in by your own admission.

 

[schaeffer]

So I think hope also motivates, or gives us the impetus, to believe a thing is true or false.

I think so as well. Many of the most difficult moments of my life were at a point when I had to admit that what I hoped was not true, and I could no longer put my faith in it, if I were to make any progress in life.

I have many times caught myself being lulled into believing something I hoped to be true with little evidence for it, and often with significant evidence to the contrary.

 

[schaeffer]

What are you doing at Catholic Answers? It seems to me you are engaging in the things you’d rather not rather engage in, or that you have no skill in by your own admission.

It’s not my experience that most of the threads at CAF are debates or arguments, most are discussions. Sometimes I find I’ve thrown my hat into the ring without realizing it. I should know by now that any thread on the Philosophy forum is essentially a debate. My bad.

So, to answer your question. I’m here because I like to discuss things, and it’s a forum!

I admit, I’m sort of a forum junkie, I belong to several on a wide variety of topics.

 

[PRmerger]

Whisper away.

Thank you.

It actually sounded like you were objecting to my model. But I am glad that you have given me the thumbs up. And I mean it in the least snarky way possible, truly.

And yes “I don’t know” ought to be respected on all sides. As I’ve said, I respect “I don’t know” as an honest answer, especially in lieu of bizarre and ridiculous explanations or smoke screens.

Indeed.

I believe that all people live on Faith. Faith in a variety of things, but yes, faith. Some people are uncomfortable with the fact that no one can live without taking some things on faith, and I would think that must be a very difficult way to live.

I like to discuss things, but I really don’t have interest in arguing or debating. It takes the focus off of the things I find most interesting and helpful. It’s a sport I have no skill in either.

There are a multitude of ways to discuss things, schaeffer.

If the models being presented here are not to your liking, so be it.

This discussion has been going strong for quite a long time, and it will continue here, and in other venues with or without your contribution.

Just sayin’…

 

[schaeffer]

This discussion has been going strong for quite a long time, and it will continue here, and in other venues with or without your contribution.

As well it should!

 

[Oreoracle]

I don’t have a problem with that.

It would seem, then, that it’s quite illogical to reject this evidence and remain an atheist.

Given the evidence AND the fact that a multitude of other religions use these arguments it would seem…untenable for you to reject that evidence.

But they use these arguments for their particular gods, especially arguments based on personal revelation. Why is it that Christians find it so convincing when they hear a story about someone having a near-death experience and seeing Jesus, but a Muslim seeing Muhammad is dismissed, or relegated to being only evidence for “a god” rather than “their god”?

And it’s not just a matter of disputing which god is real. Polytheists use similar evidence to support the claim that there are multiple gods, and other religions claim to intuit that there are no gods in the usual sense, but offer a more pantheistic view. The fact that Christians are unresponsive to all of this “evidence” suggests that they don’t find it convincing, either.

It seems, just based on logic ALONE, that something that has a beginning can’t come from nothing.

And science is quite clear that the universe had a beginning.

I think the jury is still out as to whether the Big Bang wasn’t the result of a Big Crunch of a previous universe. Regardless, the notion that the universe needs a beginning rests on our intuition that the world proceeds by cause and effect. Firstly, physics at the quantum level has already thrown that idea into doubt, but even if it were so, there is a difference between saying that phenomena need causes and that the universe needs to be caused. The universe isn’t a phenomenon, but rather the set of phenomena. As any logic/math student knows, a set shouldn’t be confused with its constituent elements.

Once we have agreed that reason tells us that there is a God, then we can discuss why this God is the Christian God.

I think that’s a waste of time given that I know beforehand that you’re going to be dismissive of the evidence other religions use anyway. Don’t draw on other religions for support if you think the non-Christian or at least non-Abrahamic ones are wrong.

You’ve never flown in an aircraft piloted by someone else?

Really?

I don’t travel very much.

You have great faith, then, that the airline has adequately vetted their pilots, and that this particular pilot passed her classes, is not drunk or mentally ill, and has flown before and landed the aircraft safely.

It’s not really faith in the airline, because it’s in the airline’s best interest to make sure everything checks out. When you buy food at the grocery store, you don’t actually have faith that the corporations mass-producing your food are doing a good job. Rather, you know that the FDA will flay them alive if they don’t, so it’s in their best interest to send out a good product. That is exactly why we have things like the FDA: Why leave it to faith when you can make it a matter of self-interest?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I have many times caught myself being lulled into believing something I hoped to be true with little evidence for it, and often with significant evidence to the contrary.

I’ve been there as well. At one time I found myself lulled into believing there is no God without any evidence for atheism, and often with significant evidence to the contrary.

Experiencing the absence of God became as important to me as experiencing God had once been. Then gradually over the years I discovered that without God life had lost its delicious flavor and the answers to some of its greatest mysteries. Living in a meaningless universe became repulsive to me. And it occurred to me that this was also why so many other atheists had also converted to Christ. They wanted to hope for something better, and they found it in Christ. There is a saying by St. Margaret of Cortona in which Christ is the speaker: “I am concealing myself from you so that you can discover by yourself what you are without Me.”

There is a good reason why St. Paul lists hope among the three great virtues of faith, hope, and charity. Without hope we might cease to have faith, and without faith and hope there would be less reason to love.

 

[SecretCatholic]

After reading the new posts on this thread, my conclusion is that its not going anywhere. Frankly, though I appreciate the arguments by my fellow Catholics for the truth of Catholicism, I also understand Oreoracle (and others’) argument:

That atheists don’t need non-material non-natural reasons for why things happen. I get it. I think that’s a very sad view, of a supposedly purposeless world, but its understandable. Believing in God and in Catholicism simply requires some amount of faith.

But I think the atheist view also requires a little faith of its own- since its asserting the non-existence of God. I know that atheists now are trying to redefine atheism as the “default” position of not knowing, but that’s called being agnostic.

After being disappointed time and again, we eventually see that no substantive arguments are being put forward, and the Wager begins to sound very desperate. It’s like telling consumers that they could save a lot of money by purchasing your product but failing to actually address the quality of the product or its utility.

I’m sincerely sorry that this is your experience. Nevertheless, I think there are indeed significant “substantive arguments” for God. I have heard even some atheists attest to how compelling some arguments are, even though they do not personally believe in them for other reasons. I’m not going to go into any argument here, because it’s off topic and you seem well aware of them, at least superficially, and you have the same access to the Internet that we all do to seek further arguments out.

To be honest, I don’t find any of the arguments compelling. In fact, I don’t know a single Christian who became a Christian because they were presented with a solid argument. Contrast this with atheism: I know people who became atheist (they would prefer the term “agnostic”, probably) through argumentation.

I came back to Catholicism in large part thanks to such arguments. I was never antithetical to Christianity, though. I just felt I didn’t have enough information to make a decision about it or God. These arguments “tipped the scale” for me. The rest is a leap or “jump” of faith, since not everything can be reasoned out. I’m still open to new arguments for or against God. But this makes most sense to me.

BTW, I don’t know why you place the term agnostic in quotes. It is this “atheism” that pretends to say “I don’t know” that seems a faulty term, rather than the more honest “agnostic”.

Now, who knows in 20 years? Maybe we’ll discover this is all a big computer simulation run by an angry atheist alien. Then we’ll have to consider the possibilities the new data presents. One always has to be open to possibilities and greater understandings of truths. As such, I was an am also open to God, and have embraced him as truth and love.

Uncertainty is disconcerting.

I think that’s why both religion and atheism are most popular and agnosticism is often ignored, even though it is the most logical position.

 

[SecretCatholic]

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

Correct.

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.

It depends on the kind of atheist. To reject God is one thing. But many people nowadays who call themselves atheists don’t actually reject God, they just don’t believe, they don’t have faith. But they may still try to live moral lives and order themselves towards the good, which ultimately, as we know, is God.

Pope Francis has said these things:

huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/12/pope-francis-letter-atheists_n_3909425.html

“Given that — and this is the key point — God’s mercy has no limits, if you go to him with a sincere and repentant heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience,”

huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/pope-francis-good-atheists_n_3320757.html

“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!”… We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

The best predictor of someone’s religion is the religion of their parents.

It’s whatever is in the culture. I am seeing the same thing with the new generation of atheists. They think they’re somehow very independently-minded, but they’re just spitting out what they are getting from the culture. Everyone comes to a point where they are called to question their beliefs, though. We’re all dressed by our parents when we are children, but eventually what we have on is chosen by us and not by our parents. If we choose to ignore that call and continue dressing ourselves like our parents did, well then that’s also a decision and its a very unfortunate one, no matter what one calls oneself.

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

I do too.

But I do not think all truth can be arrived at through science or even reason, though truth cannot contradict truth, so faith shouldn’t be contradictory with science or reason either. This is the Catholic stance, and I’ve agreed with it since before I considered myself Catholic.

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.

Maybe this comment was simply in jest, but truly why would you conclude you have better sense based upon that? After all, life without God tends to become subjective, without objective grounds of moral judgement. Pascal was obviously happier that way.

 

[Oreoracle]

But I think the atheist view also requires a little faith of its own- since its asserting the non-existence of God. I know that atheists now are trying to redefine atheism as the “default” position of not knowing, but that’s called being agnostic.

BTW, I don’t know why you place the term agnostic in quotes. It is this “atheism” that pretends to say “I don’t know” that seems a faulty term, rather than the more honest “agnostic”.

There are endless varieties of definitions of “atheist” and “agnostic”. My usage is as follows: An atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in any gods. They may or may not be asserting that there are no gods (some people make the “strong atheism” and “weak atheism” distinction). An agnostic claims that knowledge of gods is impossible, or at least that we currently have none. Note that it’s possible to be agnostic and Christian. I know several who are.

So, with respect to the Christian God, I am both atheist and agnostic; I don’t believe in him, but I concede that he is defined so as to be unfalsifiable and unverifiable. In general, I am “ignostic” with respect to the more generic notion of gods; that is, I think the term is ill-defined and must be specified further before I can answer questions of the form “Do you believe in this god?”

For an exotic example, I believe in the pantheist “god” because, to pantheists, there is no distinction between believing in God and believing in the universe. I think it’s an empty sort of claim, because it seems to me that if everything’s divine it’s really no better than nothing being divine–similar to defining “blue” to be the entire color spectrum. But whatever floats their boat, I suppose.

I think that’s why both religion and atheism are most popular and agnosticism is often ignored, even though it is the most logical position.

To the contrary, only about 2% of the U.S. population are atheists, but the percentage is multiplied when you ask whether the respondents are “atheist, agnostic, or secular”. So I think that either A) people can’t agree on a definition of “agnostic”, or B) “agnostic” has become a politically correct term one uses when they don’t wish to offend anyone. In my experience, it’s a bit of both.

It depends on the kind of atheist. To reject God is one thing. But many people nowadays who call themselves atheists don’t actually reject God, they just don’t believe, they don’t have faith. But they may still try to live moral lives and order themselves towards the good, which ultimately, as we know, is God.

I agree, and this leads me back to my ignosticism. My answer to the question “Do you believe in God?” changes with the definition of “God”. In this case, you’re saying a belief in God is just a belief in morality, which only a psychopath wouldn’t hold.

It’s whatever is in the culture. I am seeing the same thing with the new generation of atheists. They think they’re somehow very independently-minded, but they’re just spitting out what they are getting from the culture.

Hmm…Yes and no. Young people react to their culture very strongly, certainly. But the trend toward atheism among people who are “jumping on the bandwagon” arises because of its appeal as a counterculture. It so starkly contrasts with society’s norms that some rebellious teens turn to it. “Satanism” is an extreme example of this. (Disclaimer: No one actually worships Satan, they simply aim to upset Christians by saying they do. That’s textbook counterculture.)

But I do not think all truth can be arrived at through science or even reason, though truth cannot contradict truth, so faith shouldn’t be contradictory with science or reason either. This is the Catholic stance, and I’ve agreed with it since before I considered myself Catholic.

And if that’s true, I can respect that. However, many Catholics I know do have beliefs that are at odds with what we know from science. So, official stance of the Church or not, this phenomenon of faith vs. science has to be addressed. Unfortunately, some innocent Christians get caught in the crossfire.

That being said, there is a distinction between “I have a solid foundation for my beliefs” and “My beliefs are consistent with known facts”. If I claim that alien life exists in our galaxy, that is consistent with known facts–nothing we know of contradicts it. If I claim that this alien race demands our obedience and that any moral person would comply with their wishes, I have clearly overstepped the boundaries of an “innocent” or “harmless” belief. I would be making normative claims based on nothing.

Maybe this comment was simply in jest, but truly why would you conclude you have better sense based upon that? After all, life without God tends to become subjective, without objective grounds of moral judgement. Pascal was obviously happier that way.

I’m not entirely sure that Pascal mortified his flesh as some saints did, as I only vaguely remember reading it and can’t seem to find it now. But I think it’s safe to say that his religiosity wasn’t truly an intellectual endeavor. His belief in God surged after a near-death experience. Everyone thinks their life is meaningful when an accident nearly kills them and they are accidentally spared. We tend to search for meaning in accidents.

 

[PRmerger]

I think that’s a waste of time given that I know beforehand that you’re going to be dismissive of the evidence other religions use anyway. Don’t draw on other religions for support if you think the non-Christian or at least non-Abrahamic ones are wrong.

So are we agreed that the arguments presented by Aquinas and others do give evidence for the existence of a god? Just not necessarily the Christian god?

If so, then we can discuss the above.

If not, then where is the error in their arguments?

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not really faith in the airline,

Of course it is.

Given the, er, evidence, that lots of companies do NOT put view their customers’ interests as paramount, but rather view profit as their number 1 priority, it would seem that you have great faith in the airlines.

because it’s in the airline’s best interest to make sure everything checks out. When you buy food at the grocery store, you don’t actually have faith that the corporations mass-producing your food are doing a good job. Rather, you know that the FDA will flay them alive if they don’t, so it’s in their best interest to send out a good product. That is exactly why we have things like the FDA: Why leave it to faith when you can make it a matter of self-interest?

All of the above: a matter of faith.

Unless you have actually studied the FDA’s guidelines as well as the science behind their guidelines…you have simply put your faith in the FDA.

 

[PRmerger]

But I think it’s safe to say that his religiosity wasn’t truly an intellectual endeavor.

LOL!

I will guess that you haven’t read his Pensees if you can posit the above.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It depends on the kind of atheist. To reject God is one thing. But many people nowadays who call themselves atheists don’t actually reject God, they just don’t believe, they don’t have faith. But they may still try to live moral lives and order themselves towards the good, which ultimately, as we know, is God.

I think maybe this is splitting hairs. An atheist is an atheist. If you don’t believe in God, you have rejected God. People can lives moral lives to a degree. Catholics can live moral lives. But to die in sin is not good for an atheist any more than it is good for a Catholic. Atheism is a mortal sin as defined by the Church in the CCC. One cannot overcome mortal sin by virtues that apply in other parts of our conduct.

All this is at the heart of Pascal’s Wager.

 

[Oreoracle]

So are we agreed that the arguments presented by Aquinas and others do give evidence for the existence of a god? Just not necessarily the Christian god?

If so, then we can discuss the above.

If not, then where is the error in their arguments?

It’s not so much that there are “errors”, it’s more that there are gaps in the proofs. For example, arguments for a Prime Mover assume that infinite regressions are impossible, but this is never substantiated. Even Aquinas, who reasoned very meticulously (within the narrow scope of his considerations), never attempted to disprove infinite regressions to my knowledge. He simply took it as a premise that they are impossible, or deliberately formulated his definitions so as to make them impossible.

Given the, er, evidence that lots of companies do NOT put view their customers’ interests as paramount, but rather view profit as their number 1 priority, it would seem that you have great faith in the airlines.

Companies tend to do a decent job on average, else they wouldn’t be in business. The free market is our first line of defense against incompetence and dishonesty. The second is government oversight.

You seem to be doing something I’ve witnessed all too often on these forums: You are acting as if any uncertainty at all requires faith. There is a big difference between having faith, which appeals to no evidence, and acknowledging uncertainties in spite of solid probabilistic arguments to the contrary. Yes, it’s conceivable that the sun will implode tomorrow and obliterate us all. I don’t believe it will, and conceding the scant possibility that I may be wrong isn’t an admission of faith in the sun’s endurance.

All of the above: a matter of faith.

Unless you have actually studied the FDA’s guidelines as well as the science behind their guidelines…you have simply put your faith in the FDA.

Actually I am familiar with some of the guidelines. Some of these guidelines are covered in high school.

As for the science, again, trusting professionals isn’t comparable to religious faith. It is in their best interest to do good work. If they did shoddy work in preparing food, don’t you think I’d be dead or at least very ill by now? Don’t you think they would fear losing millions if I sued them blind for it? Don’t you think that, if a scientist feigned results to help out the FDA, other scientists would leap on the opportunity to prove them wrong and garner all the fame of refuting a popular notion?

It amazes me that conspiracy theorists and their ilk think it takes faith to conclude that people tend to act in their best interest. They think people will deceive them without any incentive at all, which flies in the face of not only common sense, but psychology and sociology.

LOL!

I will guess that you haven’t read his Pensees if you can posit the above.

So you think it’s just a staggering coincidence that Pascal’s religiosity intensified shortly after his near-death experience? His invigorated faith in a comforting worldview just happened to coincide with a traumatic event?

 

[PRmerger]

So you think it’s just a staggering coincidence that Pascal’s religiosity intensified shortly after his near-death experience? His invigorated faith in a comforting worldview just happened to coincide with a traumatic event?

All I’m saying is that saying Pascal’s theological beliefs weren’t steeped in intellectual calculus is indicative that you haven’t read more than a paragraph of his writings.

What you are proposing is like my saying that Beethoven didn’t really write music because he became deaf in his later decades of life. No one would fault you for saying, “Um…have you ever listened to Beethoven?”

 

[Oreoracle]

I think maybe this is splitting hairs. An atheist is an atheist. If you don’t believe in God, you have rejected God. People can lives moral lives to a degree. Catholics can live moral lives. But to die in sin is not good for an atheist any more than it is good for a Catholic. Atheism is a mortal sin as defined by the Church in the CCC. One cannot overcome mortal sin by virtues that apply in other parts of our conduct.

“Only a Sith speaks in absolutes.”

More seriously, distinctions exist regardless of whether or not you appreciate them. If you want to lump every non-believer in the same category (after all, non-belief in God covers more than just the atheists), then you can do so. But don’t act incredulous when others disagree with your oversimplifications.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not so much that there are “errors”, it’s more that there are gaps in the proofs. For example, arguments for a Prime Mover assume that infinite regressions are impossible, but this is never substantiated.

Philosophically, it is substantiated.

If infinite regressions are possible, then,* logic dictates,* we would never be able to achieve the present.

That’s basic philosophy (and math), Oreoracle.

 

[Oreoracle]

All I’m saying is that saying Pascal’s theological beliefs weren’t steeped in intellectual calculus is indicative that you haven’t read more than a paragraph of his writings.

I think he did what many religious academics including Aquinas did; he began by assuming the truth of a religion, then he manufactured a (supposedly) internally consistent belief system around that religion.

That’s one of the major differences between science and apologetics. In science, we have data and we ask what conclusions can be inferred from it. In apologetics, you take the conclusion for granted and seek out only the data that supports it. In statistics this sort of thing is called confirmation bias, and in this case it’s an instance of rationalizing.