Where does morality come from?

[createdtoworship]

What a bizarre and perverted conversation. My God is better than your God because my God imposes the more terrible eternal punishment on those who fail to perform the correct ritual behavior in this life than your God.

yes! from the outside it seems quite morbid. However if you follow the logic, we are using pascals wager as a statistical analysis that it is wiser to believe in the worst case scenario and hedge your bets, than to ignore it and burn for eternity. What do you think of that logic? So again the proving it is a worst case scenario is really the only premise of pascals wager that one need to verify. And for sake of argument I cannot find a worse place to be, than burning alive for ever. Better than stabbing, electrocution, drowning, hanging, and any one of a million tortures. 100% pain is always worse than all of that.

 

[gaara4158]

This is just a red herring. Seeing you don't have any beliefs about the after life at all that you are willing to debate. I am sorry if I will take my chances hedging my bets with the unconfirmed, rather than absolutely nothing (what atheists and agnostics believe). Now that I have successfully refuted this concept, I will no more address it, as I am busy. However if you wish to place an alternative on the table, that you wish to confirm, then by all means do so. Or else this is just a red herring.

Good, by replying you just confirmed that credibility outweighs intensity and therefore Pascal’s wager is not a good reason to believe. I understand you’re eager not to have to face this anymore, so by all means skitter away now. Everyone just witnessed you admit Pascal’s wager doesn’t work on atheists.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Your avoiding the point. Do you not believe Christians should have logical and rational reasons for their belief?

Don't assume that I'm avoiding "your" point, Clizby. Just right out of the starting gate, one problem with your question is that it involves an implied imperative, and you seem to be assuming that the epistemological arguments of someone like W.K. Clifford have some actual teeth if and when any one of us finds the interest to make an evaluation of the Christian faith. But there really is no "should" implied; however, if we might request that Christians be reasonable people in all cases of life and not just when they contemplate how they will explain their own faith in Christ, then we would have the makings of a more equitable expectation.

The reality of the matter is that when skeptical folks such as yourself come to rely too much on Foundationalistic and Evidentialistic frameworks for their skeptical assertions and at the same time, while supposedly being leashed by their own pretenses and faintly nods towards logic and rationality, they ignore various Hermeneutical and other philosophical considerations, all that stands to happen is that Christians will find themselves "gummed" to death by the onerous skeptic. And this is essentially what Pascal implies ... especially in what I call his "Argument Against Sociopathic Skepticism," or A.A.S.S., for short, which precedes his well-worn but never really understood Wager.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It seems to me that for a thread like this it is sufficient to address the argument as it has been made.
Maybe, before atheists are called to down the Wager it would be a good call to challenge believers to present it correctly.

Without speaking for other Christians here, or on behalf of skeptics or atheists for that matter, I'd say that it's everyone's responsibility to present and account for their own perceptions and conceptions of whatever ideas are under discussion, especially if they've ALREADY had the audacity to put themselves out there in presenting their own "evaluation" of the issue(s) being scrutinized.

 

[stevevw]

I have another very important question to ask of everyone.

I am a firm believer in God and believe that morality is certainly derived from Him and Him alone... that being said, however, I'm wondering how a person would debate this with someone like an Atheist? Atheists do not believe in God, so telling them that morality comes from God would probably not be all that convincing.

If morality comes from God and God only, then there would obviously be no other answer to tell anyone who was asking since the truth is objective and not just some kind of malleable or subjective reality. But, even still, how would someone discuss this point with an Atheist who clearly does not believe in God and seems highly unlikely to cave in to the idea?

IMO I think there are certain morals that everyone has but they may be denied. If you look at societies norms and organizations like the United nations people agree that there are certain behaviors that are good. In some ways the UN has taken an objective stance because they say that the codes of conduct they promote with human rights should apply to all nations in the world and they will call out those who violate those codes. But if we say that these norms and codes or morals only come from a persons subjective view then we cannot really say that they should be imposed on others as this goes against the relativists stance for subjective morality. So I think that people do have a sense that there are certain morals that are right no matter what the individual view is and that these come from outside human subjective views.

 

[quatona]

Without speaking for other Christians here, or on behalf of skeptics or atheists for that matter, I'd say that it's everyone's responsibility to present and account for their own perceptions and conceptions of whatever ideas are under discussion, especially if they've ALREADY had the audacity to put themselves out there in presenting their own "evaluation" of the issue(s) being scrutinized.

I beg to differ. In a discussion I think it is our foremost responsibility and courtesy to address the idea that the posters have presented (i.e. gradyll´s argument that he keeps repeating ad nauseum) - no matter whether they misname and/or misattribute it. Or else we are comitting a strawman fallacy.

If, however, your main concern is the misnaming or misattribution, I think you better call upon it as soon as it happens, even if it´s your fellow Christian who started it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I beg to differ. In a discussion I think it is our foremost responsibility and courtesy to address the idea that the posters have presented (i.e. gradyll´s argument that he keeps repeating ad nauseum) - no matter whether they misname and/or misattribute it. Or else we are comitting a strawman fallacy.

Within certain limits I would agree with your point, but when I see a thread that after 44 pages results in redirection and tangential disharmony---as is so typically the case here on CF---I thought I'd just swoop down for a casual comment of my own, off the cuff.

If, however, your main concern is the misnaming or misattribution, I think you better call upon it as soon as it happens, even if it´s your fellow Christian who started it.

... I imagine you'd all like it if I were to get into it with gradyll. Well, that already happened several months ago on another front, however brief the engagement was, and he and I found out very quickly that we didn't exactly see eye to eye on a number of Christian things. With that in mind, I thought from that point on I'd just stick with what I'm actually here for instead of making the ongoing refutation of gradyll's arguments either my life's work or my career. Surprisingly, some here seem to have made it their life's calling.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Here is a link to the text: https://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/pascal_wager.pdf

First sentence: "Our soul has been cast into the body, where it finds number, time and dimension."
This is an assertion that we have souls without any evidence.

Another assertion without evidence: "The justice of God must be as vast as His mercy."

"But we know neither the existence nor the nature of God, because He has neither extension or limits."
This should be the end of the discussion. This is the honest position of we don't know, so a lack of belief is warranted.

Another assertion without evidence: "If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible,..."

"Who then can blame the Christians for not being able to give reasons for their belief, professing as they do a religion which they cannot explain by reason."
What if I said this about the moon being made of cheese? "Who then can blame Atheists for not being able to give reasons for their belief, professing as they do that the moon is made of cheese which they cannot explain by reason." This is silly.

"Let us examine this point of view and declare: ‘Either God exists, or He does not.’ To which view shall we incline? Reason cannot decide for us one way or the other: we are separated by an infinite gulf. At the extremity of this infinite distance a game is in progress, where either heads or tails may turn up. What will you wager? According to reason you cannot bet either way; according to reason you can defend neither proposition."
I agree with this. He advocates suspending reason for a belief in something, mainly god. This does not work for any other belief, why for god?

"The right thing is not to wager at all.’ Yes; but a bet must be laid."
Why? He asserts many times that we must play the game when there is no evidence there is a game to play. Why do we need to play? I don't know is the only honest answer for a non believer not choose between two things that I have no evidence for.

"Thus our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the infinite at stake in a game where there are equal chances of winning and losing, but the infinite to gain."
There is not an equal chance of winning or losing. There is a small chance of winning and a greater chance of losing. We can not believe or believe in many of the other gods that is not the correct one. This makes the chance of winning very small.

"But understand at least that your ability to believe is the result of your passions; for, although reason inclines you to believe, you cannot do so. Try therefore to convince yourself, not by piling up proofs of God, but by subduing your passions."
He thinks that we can decide what to believe. I disagree. I cannot subdue any passion I have and believe that the moon is made of cheese.

"You desire to attain faith, but do not know the way. You would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and you ask for remedies."
This seems to be for people who want to believe in the first place and not for every non believer.

"But to show that such practices lead you to belief, it is those things which will curtail your passions which are your main obstacles."
He believes I don't want to believe for some reason or that I can't believe not because of reason and evidence but because of some passion I have against belief. This is untrue for me anyway. I don't believe because there is insufficient evidence to believe. No one can choose to believe something that they are not convinced of by evidence. So even if his rationale is good we still cannot do what he says we should do.

"Now, to what harm will you come by making this choice? You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful."
Really? Many Christians are hateful towards homosexuals, women, blacks, Jews, etc. because of what the bible says. Maybe you will have no harm but there has been many harm to others based on believing in Christianity.

"I tell you, you will thereby profit in this life; and at every step you take along this road you will see so great an assurance of gain, and so little in what you risk, that you will come to recognize your stake to have been laid for something certain, infinite, which has cost you nothing."
This is untrue. It will cost you your honesty and reason. Two things this world needs more of. I would have to lie to myself enough to start believing something that I have no evidence for. I would need to believe false things to convince myself. That is not a good way to come to truth.

Ok. Thank you for providing your commentary, but in doing so, you have proven my point, that atheists not only take Pascal's Wager out of context, but when they bother to consider it as you've attempted to do here by citing it in isolation from everything else that Pascal wrote in his Pensees, they only do so in a way that is akin to haphazardly gutting a pig for no good reason, ripping its intestines out and then pronouncing to the crowds around them, while holding the dripping, dying intestines, that a thorough study has been made...and the tissues have been found to be (you guessed it!) ... dead.

Obviously, you're an intelligent chap, Clizby, but that's not how we should be handling Pascal's Wager, even if you're intuition is that it will still be found to be insufficient for your own use ... and as for you're individual comments in your post above, I'll try to get to them in a day or so if and when I can.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Pascal's Wager says if you're right I will burn in Hell, and you go to Heaven. If I'm right, nothing happens to either of us so I might as well take my chances and assume you are right.

My rebuttal went something like this:
What if we are both wrong; that God does exist, but you are praying to the wrong one, and the real God keeps getting madder and madder each time you ignore him and pray to your fake one? I'd rather not pray at all!

If you read the Pensees, Pascal already generally accounts for "other gods" scenarios; and his Wager is only meant for those who have the emotional inclination and motivation to want to believe but find it difficult to do so. It is not a replacement for belief or faith, and it is not being recommended by him to those hard-core skeptics who think they couldn't give a rat's petute about the God question. Rather, it is simply a mental exercise one can do to encourage himself to consider the various outcomes and to value of placing of one's self in a position that could make it more conducive to finding faith in Christ.

But for some reason or other, many seem to think that Pascal is offering a statistical means by which to brainwash oneself into being "religious," and that is not its actual purpose. If anything, that misconstrual about the Wager is a strawman.

 

[quatona]

... I imagine you'd all like it if I were to get into it with gradyll.

I can´t speak for "us all" (whomever you subsume under that phrase), but I have no interest in you getting into it with gradyll about his line of reasoning. Dead horses needn´t be beat.
I´m just saying: He´s the guy who initially misattributed his argument to Pascal. Not the atheists/skeptics.

Surprisingly, some here seem to have made it their life's calling.

I am also suprised by the amount of attention he gets.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I can´t speak for "us all" (whomever you subsume under that phrase), but I have no interest in you getting into it with gradyll about his line of reasoning. Dead horses needn´t be beat.
I´m just saying: He´s the guy who initially misattributed his argument to Pascal. Not the atheists/skeptics.

I am also suprised by the amount of attention he gets.

Although I could be at fault for coming across at times in the same caustic way that gradyll does, I think gradyll gets a large heaping of attention because his disposition and framework reminds so many former Christians (especially those in the U.S.) of what it is that made them feel like they just wanted to pack up their bags and leave the Christian life behind. In some ways, I don't blame them. However, as I briefly mentioned, I'm not here on CF with the main purpose of corralling my fellow Christians. I figure the atheists and skeptics already have that job well in hand.

 

[quatona]

Although I could be at fault for coming across at times in the same caustic way that gradyll does, I think gradyll gets a large heaping of attention because his disposition and framework reminds so many former Christians (especially those in the U.S.) of what it is that made them feel like they just wanted to pack up their bags and leave the Christian life behind. In some ways, I don't blame them. However, as I briefly mentioned, I'm not here on CF with the main purpose of corralling my fellow Christians. I figure the atheists and skeptics already have that job well in hand.

I guess I just don´t see pointing out the flaws in poor arguments that are meant to support my view as "coralling my fellows". They don´t help my case - quite the opposite: they weaken it even more than good arguments against it, so I have a vested interest in only good arguments being presented for my case. Ymmv.
So to summarize the main points we seem to agree upon:
1. gradyll´s argument is not Pascal´s Wager.
2. Pascal´s Wager wasn´t meant to convert non-believers.
3. gradyll´s argument is poor.
This means: Nothing that has been discussed here in this context is actually relevant for the discussion "God vs. no God (Christians vs. atheists/skeptics, if you will)" - and neither is the value that Pascal´s Wager may have for the believer.
(Not to mention the fact that it has nothing to do with the thread topic, anyway.)

Also off-topic: Our latest conversation over in the other thread really strengthened my conviction that there must be better ways of theists meeting non-theists than the ongoing discussion/debate/investigation of rational arguments thing.

 

[Pommer]

well you provided no details that would be worse than burning alive. You merely said beating drums while they were burning, but I said that it would be arbitrary to have beating drums, if you eardrums were on fire. Case settled. Agreed? Unless you can find some sort of pain worse that being 100% burned alive. I doubt you can.

I find that, for myself, attempting to believe in (let alone worship) a “god” that has devised a “Hell”, where souls are tormented forever and ever causes me to conclude that this Entity is not interested in “Justice” but rather just in getting Its own way.
If I, as a fallible human being, (“sinful”, if you like), have moral qualms over this sort of afterlife scheme, then I must conclude that this “god” isn’t worthy of my belief/worship.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I guess I just don´t see pointing out the flaws in poor arguments that are meant to support my view as "coralling my fellows". They don´t help my case - quite the opposite: they weaken it even more than good arguments against it, so I have a vested interest in only good arguments being presented for my case. Ymmv.
So to summarize the main points we seem to agree upon:
1. gradyll´s argument is not Pascal´s Wager.
2. Pascal´s Wager wasn´t meant to convert non-believers.
3. gradyll´s argument is poor.
This means: Nothing that has been discussed here in this context is actually relevant for the discussion "God vs. no God (Christians vs. atheists/skeptics, if you will)" - and neither is the value that Pascal´s Wager may have for the believer.
(Not to mention the fact that it has nothing to do with the thread topic, anyway.)

Also off-topic: Our latest conversation over in the other thread really strengthened my conviction that there must be better ways of theists meeting non-theists than the ongoing discussion/debate/investigation of rational arguments thing.

On those points, I agree. I don't know if you noticed, but in one of my posts to another poster above I mentioned that I thought all of this type of discussion was a bit out of place and probably more suitable for other forums. Moreover, I'm getting kind of fatigued with even attempting the whole "Apologetics" thing anyway.

 

[quatona]

On those points, I agree. I don't know if you noticed, but in one of my posts to another poster above I mentioned that I thought all of this type of discussion was a bit out of place and probably more suitable for other forums. Moreover, I'm getting kind of fatigued with even attempting the whole "Apologetics" thing anyway.

Which alternatives can you think of?

 

[Ken-1122]

If you read the Pensees, Pascal already generally accounts for "other gods" scenarios; and his Wager is only meant for those who have the emotional inclination and motivation to want to believe but find it difficult to do so. It is not a replacement for belief or faith, and it is not being recommended by him to those hard-core skeptics who think they couldn't give a rat's petute about the God question. Rather, it is simply a mental exercise one can do to encourage himself to consider the various outcomes and to value of placing of one's self in a position that could make it more conducive to finding faith in Christ.

But for some reason or other, many seem to think that Pascal is offering a statistical means by which to brainwash oneself into being "religious," and that is not its actual purpose. If anything, that misconstrual about the Wager is a strawman.

What is this "Pensees" that you speak of?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Which alternatives can you think of?

...I guess there's always the approach of just going all Winnie-the-Pooh on everyone. Sounds kind of low-key, though ...

 

[Kylie]

thanks for confirming your arguments have no logical validity. Hell is logically possible, in a parallel universe, or in a metaphysical realm. There is nothing that logically states it cannot exist. Yet in your comment, 200% pain is logically impossible.

You're the one saying that a person can survive forever while also being engulfed in unending fire. Care to tell me how that's logical?

 

[Kylie]

it is logically possible to live eternally (if you exist in a dimension at a higher level than ours), and again "constant flame" is simply a reference to being outside of time while in hell. Nothing illogical about that. But your comments however were proven illogical. Now in your favor I have held a view that our bodies will live forever because of the fact our souls are massless and outside of time. However in a glorified state there is a type of flesh that is flesh, but is also glorified, in that it does not die. The only way that can happen is a hybrid type of flesh that is somehow not mass but that can manifest on demand and controlled by something external to the mass or the non mass. Sort of like how a ghost can go through walls in one aspect, and throw dishes in another aspect. ( I don't claim to have evidence of ghosts, but since we are talking hypotheticals, lets just say in a metaphysical realm it is possible for such beings to exist). While it seems to contradict, being in a higher dimension there no reason to think this cannot be possible due to the liberties of a higher dimension which are not visible in this dimension. When time is taken out of the equation there is more possibilities. But on the other hand even in the metaphysical realm, 2 plus 2 still equals 4. And logic still rules even within that realm. It's just that the laws of physics are not the same exactly as in our 4 dimensions. Quantum theory can explain that better than myself. So logic is not ruled out simply because of the metaphysical. Go to a quantum theorist and tell them that because they are dealing with more than four dimensions that they are illogical and see how far you get. So now that we ruled out the illogicality argument. Lets repost what I found illogical about your argument once again for the readers:

in relation to ouchiland which has a fate worse than hell, and has the addition of pounding drums in the ears of all the inhabitants making it worse....


The actual sensation of being burned in 1000 degree heat would be unbearable if it was 100% of your body, again let me ask you....how does a beating of a drum make it any more painful that 100% pain? You can only have 100%. Secondly, say the drumming is not painful but an irritation, wouldn't that be worse than hell? Again say a million flies landed on you while in hell, yes it would be irritating but would it even matter if you are currently experiencing 100% pain sensation? Would you even feel it at all? I don't think so. But even if you could feel it (hypothetically), would the sensation overcome the 100% pain feeling? Again I don't think so. So I really don't feel you have a strong argument here, and notice no one is defending this position as it has been so completely dismantled.

Wow. You literally made this up from supposition and mumbo jumbo, and yet you claim it is logical? HA!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What is this "Pensees" that you speak of?

Basically, just as described in the definition below, although there is more than one arrangement or version of the Pensees, making it so that Pascal's written fragments are arranged in a different order and this could affect the sense and flow when read. Pascal's Wager is just one of the many fragments within that collection.

Pensées - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pensées

The Pensées ("Thoughts") is a collection of fragments on theology and philosophy written by 17th-century philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal.