Your argument against "many paths to God"

[ToddNotTodd]

...then to apply that the way you do would be to ignore the overall context in which Pascal presented the Wager. The Wager is something one does AFTER considering many of the other things that Pascal brings to our attention in his Pensees ...

So are you saying you have to apply the wager an equal number of times as definitions of "god"? Or would you just somehow decide upon one definition and then apply the wager? Or something else?

I'm apparently not as well read on the history behind it. Not that I particularly think it's necessary, but I suppose it can't hurt. The only thing I know is that it's a terrible argument as presented by most people.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So are you saying you have to apply the wager an equal number of times as definitions of "god"? Or would you just somehow decide upon one definition and then apply the wager? Or something else?

I'm apparently not as well read on the history behind it. Not that I particularly think it's necessary, but I suppose it can't hurt. The only thing I know is that it's a terrible argument as presented by most people.

What did I say earlier about Pascal's overall context, Todd? Have you read the entire Pensees? Or even a good chunk of it?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

What did I say earlier about Pascal's overall context, Todd? Have you read the entire Pensees? Or even a good chunk of it?

Nope, haven't read much Pascal. I'm mostly familiar with him through what others have written about his views. And I'm not likely to unless you're going to offer up something more than vague statements that I may be wrong in my interpretation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Nope, haven't read much Pascal. I'm mostly familiar with him through what others have written about his views. And I'm not likely to unless you're going to offer up something more than vague statements that I may be wrong in my interpretation.

You're not likely to? That's funny, I have ZERO problem in spending time (or in wasting it) in reading a number of Atheist books, or in watching various videos. But, whatever. I know everyone has their own time limitations, families to attend to, and levels of interest and motivation. But, one would THINK that with all of the hoopla that gets touted by atheists toward Pascal's Wager.....they would have taken the time to have read at least the Unclassified Papers Series I, II, & III in the Pensees. Of course, reading more of it would be beneficial in understand just 'how' Pascal comes by his Wager. But, who cares how or why someone fully comes to a conclusion, as long as we can shoot a bullet through it, right?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You're not likely to? That's funny, I have ZERO problem in spending time (or in wasting it) in reading a number of Atheist books, or in watching various videos. But, whatever. I know everyone has their own time limitations, families to attend to, and levels of interest and motivation. But, one would THINK that with all of the hoopla that gets touted by atheists toward Pascal's Wager.....they would have taken the time to have read at least the Unclassified Papers Series I, II, & III in the Pensees. Of course, reading more of it would be beneficial in understand just 'how' Pascal comes by his Wager. But, who cares how or why someone fully comes to a conclusion, as long as we can shoot a bullet through it, right?

Oh for pete sakes... Fine, I'll read them. But if I don't find them addressing the issue I've raised about the wager, you're going to get a strongly worded response from me...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh for pete sakes... Fine, I'll read them. But if I don't find them addressing the issue I've raised about the wager, you're going to get a strongly worded response from me...

...remember that on Pascal, we're only trying to understand what, how, and why he applies His Wager. But, if you find something in the Pensees that you question, ....FINE. Be angry. Be very angry.

 

[Tolworth John]

Uniqueness alone doesn't preclude there being many paths to a god.



Not all historians conclude that there was an existent Jesus Christ. And of those that do, not all of them believe any supernatural stories about him.

Very few will dispute that Jesus existed. As for the resurrection I notice you do not even attempt to deal with it. In a more clever way historians use words that say, 'the disciples believed they had met the risen Jesus'. They carefully like you refuse to face the implication that if Jesus had risen from the dead, then he was more than just a 'good' or 'moral' teacher.

Please stop playing with ideas and explain what happened to Jesus's body?
What evidence can you supply to support your claims?

 

[cloudyday2]

I'm content in pointing out that the actual table that would describe the wager has an infinite number of columns corresponding to an infinite number of god concepts, therefore making it statistically impossible to pick the correct one.

The main problem I see is Islam. At least on the surface Islam is a clone of Christianity. A person must choose one or the other, and the choice is not obvious.

Of course most atheists would give Islam and Christianity an infinitesimal probability that cancels out the infinite reward, so the expected value of Islam and Christianity become infinitesimal.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Very few will dispute that Jesus existed.

And you've dismissed the claims of those that say that Jesus may not have existed by what method?

As for the resurrection I notice you do not even attempt to deal with it. In a more clever way historians use words that say, 'the disciples believed they had met the risen Jesus'. They carefully like you refuse to face the implication that if Jesus had risen from the dead, then he was more than just a 'good' or 'moral' teacher.

Yes, if someone rose from the dead it would be pretty amazing. I'm not seeing any incontrovertible evidence that this actually happened though.

Please stop playing with ideas and explain what happened to Jesus's body?

First show that Jesus existed. Then show that he was crucified. Then show that someone looked for the body afterward. Then show that the body was missing and the only explanation had to be that Jesus was resurrected. And by "show", I mean give enough evidence that any other conclusion would be seen as outrageous.

Then we'll talk about where the body went.

What evidence can you supply to support your claims?

I don't believe I've made any claims other than not all historians believe there was an existent Jesus, and of those that do, not all of those believe he rose from the dead. If that's what you're talking about, I can provide links to papers or YouTube videos or whatever.

 

[Silmarien]

It is really funny how much I disliked Pascal's Wager when I was a non-theist and how sympathetic I am to it now. Not necessarily the tongue-and-cheek version that is so infamous, but simply the fact that if you think any particular belief system is reasonable, if you think it would be personally beneficial to accept it, then what grounds do you have to reject it? If Christianity is not true, Christians still gain the psychological benefit of believing it in this life. If it is true, then the whole playing field looks different. I don't find the idea that nonbelievers are damned terribly plausible, but rejecting faith out of fear that you might be wrong does sound like a dangerous move to make.

Pascal's Wager is not an argument aimed at atheists, though. It's theoretically for agnostics, but I think is better aimed at philosophical theists who for whatever reason are more sympathetic to one religion than others. Atheists may think that all God concepts are equally implausible, but theists most certainly do not agree.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The main problem I see is Islam. At least on the surface Islam is a clone of Christianity. A person must choose one or the other, and the choice is not obvious.

Of course most atheists would give Islam and Christianity an infinitesimal probability that cancels out the infinite reward, so the expected value of Islam and Christianity become infinitesimal.

I can't give any probability to any god without first knowing what that god's specific properties are, so I can determine if that god can't exist for me (e.g. a god that can create a married bachelor). After that, I'm still left with an incalculable probability that any particular god exists. Which means if I'm going to honestly look at the wager, I have no idea what's more likely among the infinite number of possible gods. I could posit a god that sends all non theists to a paradise after they die and all theists to an unimaginably horrible afterlife. Is there any way to calculate the likelihood this god does or does not exist?

 

[cloudyday2]

Nope.. i repond to the OP who is a Christian looking for Arguments to give to other theists.. I am not here in this thread to respond to athiests, who incidentaly will not be satisfied with any answer given to them.. I don't waste my time banging my head against brick walls..

No problem. I'm glad you replied earlier in the thread. It would be nice if you continue in the discussion, but I know it can be stressful and pointless if people are too far apart to persuade each other.

 

[cloudyday2]

I can't give any probability to any god without first knowing what that god's specific properties are, so I can determine if that god can't exist for me (e.g. a god that can create a married bachelor). After that, I'm still left with an incalculable probability that any particular god exists. Which means if I'm going to honestly look at the wager, I have no idea what's more likely among the infinite number of possible gods. I could posit a god that sends all non theists to a paradise after they die and all theists to an unimaginably horrible afterlife. Is there any way to calculate the likelihood this god does or does not exist?

Of course you must put yourself in the shoes of the hypothetical seeker who wants to try some religion - at least for a short time as a test drive. So you've got to work with the data that you have and make a choice.

I was thinking that the popularity of a religion might be related to its expected value - assuming other people might know something I don't. If a religion has been around for centuries with millions of followers, then any fatal flaws should have been noticed by now. Also if the gods are trying to help humans, then a religion with many followers is likely to have some inspired ideas.

Another factor in my evaluation would be claims of miracles. This is a bit like evaluating claims of UFOs, ghosts, and so on. Even though the evidence isn't that good, it is important to me. Without these claims I wouldn't even consider a religion. There are some Christian members who claim to have come to believe through philosophical reasoning. I don't understand that at all.

In practice it seems that most Christians were either indoctrinated as children or they have had some sort of mystical or paranormal experience such as the born-again conversion experiences.

EDIT: Another factor for me would be a hope that God isn't picky. We have almost no data to work with, so I would hope that any God would keep that in mind.

Also like you mentioned, some beliefs can be discounted by looking at the history or the internal consistency of the theology.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It is really funny how much I disliked Pascal's Wager when I was a non-theist and how sympathetic I am to it now. Not necessarily the tongue-and-cheek version that is so infamous, but simply the fact that if you think any particular belief system is reasonable, if you think it would be personally beneficial to accept it, then what grounds do you have to reject it? If Christianity is not true, Christians still gain the psychological benefit of believing it in this life. If it is true, then the whole playing field looks different. I don't find the idea that nonbelievers are damned terribly plausible, but rejecting faith out of fear that you might be wrong does sound like a dangerous move to make.

Pascal's Wager is not an argument aimed at atheists, though. It's theoretically for agnostics, but I think is better aimed at philosophical theists who for whatever reason are more sympathetic to one religion than others. Atheists may think that all God concepts are equally implausible, but theists most certainly do not agree.

Pascal's Wager. I love it.

Tell me, will your chances of getting into heaven decrease if you sell all that you have, give to the poor, and wander the world doing good works and preaching the gospel? No. Will those actions increase your chances? Possibly. Therefore, by the wager, you should kiss your stuff goodbye.

So unless you've done that, maybe keep the wager to yourself.

 

[Silmarien]

Pascal's Wager. I love it.

Tell me, will your chances of getting into heaven decrease if you sell all that you have, give to the poor, and wander the world doing good works and preaching the gospel? No. Will those actions increase your chances? Possibly. Therefore, by the wager, you should kiss your stuff goodbye.

So unless you've done that, maybe keep the wager to yourself.

I don't actually share your conception of heaven as a place to be "gotten into" (to the extent that I believe in an afterlife at all), so this is pretty much incoherent to me. But if you are not interested in talking about alternative ways to look at the wager, you are certainly welcome to not take part in the conversation.

That said, faith without works is dead.

 

[cloudyday2]

It is really funny how much I disliked Pascal's Wager when I was a non-theist and how sympathetic I am to it now. Not necessarily the tongue-and-cheek version that is so infamous, but simply the fact that if you think any particular belief system is reasonable, if you think it would be personally beneficial to accept it, then what grounds do you have to reject it? If Christianity is not true, Christians still gain the psychological benefit of believing it in this life. If it is true, then the whole playing field looks different. I don't find the idea that nonbelievers are damned terribly plausible, but rejecting faith out of fear that you might be wrong does sound like a dangerous move to make.

Pascal's Wager is not an argument aimed at atheists, though. It's theoretically for agnostics, but I think is better aimed at philosophical theists who for whatever reason are more sympathetic to one religion than others. Atheists may think that all God concepts are equally implausible, but theists most certainly do not agree.

Probably you are familiar with "The Will to Believe" speech by William James ( The Will to Believe ). I thought his description of the decision making process of a prospective religious person was very accurate and insightful.

 

[Silmarien]

Another factor in my evaluation would be claims of miracles. This is a bit like evaluating claims of UFOs, ghosts, and so on. Even though the evidence isn't that good, it is important to me. Without these claims I wouldn't even consider a religion. There are some Christian members who claim to have come to believe through philosophical reasoning. I don't understand that at all.

The linchpin is objective value, I would say. If you are a theist and believe that morality has objective truth value, that truth value must be grounded in the nature of God. If God is conceived of as good, then the Problem of Evil comes into full force, and it is very easy to argue that a good God could be expected to take action to rescue Creation from the forces of entropy. There's only one religion that really fits that particular bill, though there are certainly less powerful versions elsewhere such as in the myth of Prometheus.

Anyway, that is how you get from your basic cosmological argument to philosophical support for Christianity in specific. I'm not sure how common it is to get all the way there on philosophy alone, at least outside of the really rarified Thomist circles, but it has been known to happen. I can come close, but at the end of the day, there are so many asterisks involved in my reasoning that it tends to end up a 50/50 coin flip.

EDIT: Another factor for me would be a hope that God isn't picky. We have almost no data to work with, so I would hope that any God would keep that in mind.

Agreed. I have a hard time believing that the correctness of ones beliefs is as important as the condition of ones heart, though I don't think they're entirely unconnected concepts.

Probably you are familiar with "The Will to Believe" speech by William James ( The Will to Believe ). I thought his description of the decision making process of a prospective religious person was very accurate and insightful.

I was not, thank you!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Probably you are familiar with "The Will to Believe" speech by William James ( The Will to Believe ). I thought his description of the decision making process of a prospective religious person was very accurate and insightful.

I like some of James' points, but we do need to realize that in relation to the various epistemological positions we can take in appropriating religious belief, William James is officially classified as a Pragmatist. This epistemic position probably isn't quite what most Christians are really doing when they "attempt" to have faith in Christ, or at least it only plays a lesser portion in their overall belief structure.

Just an FYI, Cloudy.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I don't actually share your conception of heaven as a place to be "gotten into" (to the extent that I believe in an afterlife at all), so this is pretty much incoherent to me.

Yet you are sympathetic to the wager. Bizarre.

But if you are not interested in talking about alternative ways to look at the wager, you are certainly welcome to not take part in the conversation.

I just did provide an alternative way to look at the wager. I upped the ante.

That said, faith without works is dead.

We hardly exchanged words and yet this is one of the most bizarre conversations I've ever had. Goodbye.

 

[Silmarien]

Yet you are sympathetic to the wager. Bizarre.

It is weirdly transactual in its formulation, but voluntarism certainly doesn't have to be.

We hardly exchanged words and yet this is one of the most bizarre conversations I've ever had. Goodbye.

I was agreeing with you. Or at least with what I thought you were implying.