Your argument against "many paths to God"

[cloudyday2]

False.

Just like most other religions.

What other major religion claims that people on other paths are doomed? The traditional example I have heard is Islam, but actually Islam thinks other Abrahamic religions are valid. Islam's hell is based on bad behavior - not choosing the wrong path.

EDIT: This might seem similar to Pascal's Wager, but it is fundamentally different. It is about walking more than one path - essentially hedging. No matter which path is true, the Christian's butt is covered. If Hinduism/Islam is true, the Christian with good behavior is just fine. One problem with this approach is that Christianity often is understood to require faith/belief. However, faith/belief can sometimes be cultivated through desire and practice. The other problem is that a person must consider Christianity's concept of salvation plausible enough to consider. I find that my faith in Christianity is about zip due to my belief that the historical Jesus did not teach Christianity.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What other major religion claims that people on other paths are doomed? The traditional example I have heard is Islam, but actually Islam thinks other Abrahamic religions are valid. Islam's hell is based on bad behavior - not choosing the wrong path.

That's not actually correct.
Islam considers itself to be Abrahamic religion 3.0 and considers 1.0 (judaism - moses) and 2.0 (christianity - jesus) to be the valid ancestors of islam.

When it says that Jews and Christians, the "people of the book" are 'safe', it is actually talking about jews before Jesus came on the scence and christians before Mohammed saw the light of day.

Jesus, in islam, is considered a very important prophet.
The current christian belief about Jesus, that he actually IS god, is considered blasphemy and idolatry in Islam.

Jews and Christians are actually only tolerated insofar as their beliefs actually line up with islam. So essentially, it says that Jews and Christians are "safe" - as long as they believe the islamic version of abrahamic religion. Which is just to say, they'ld have to be actual muslims.

A christian who says that Mohammed is not a proper prophet, is not to expect any mercy when facing Allah.

The general islamic perspective is that judaism and christianity were valid "revelations" of the true god, but that both those revelation got corrupted through time and that what jews and christians believe today, is thus not the "true" religion, but a corrupted version thereof.

When it says that jews and christians are "safe", it is talking about those jews and christians who believe in the non-corrupted original version of those religions. And, from the Islamic perspective, not a single Jews or Christian alive today, follows that non-corrupted version, because it simply doesn't exist anymore.

Well... no, actually, it does still exist. Muslims call that non-corrupted version "Islam".

Having said all that.... I'm not aware of any religion that has a concept of hell/heaven, where one can manage to be admitted to its version of heaven, without doing what needs to be done according to that religion to be admitted in that heaven.

EDIT: This might seem similar to Pascal's Wager, but it is fundamentally different. It is about walking more than one path - essentially hedging. No matter which path is true, the Christian's butt is covered. If Hinduism/Islam is true, the Christian with good behavior is just fine

I just explained how that is not true.
According to Islamic theology, not a single christian alive today meets the criteria.

One problem with this approach is that Christianity often is understood to require faith/belief. However, faith/belief can sometimes be cultivated through desire and practice. The other problem is that a person must consider Christianity's concept of salvation plausible enough to consider. I find that my faith in Christianity is about zip due to my belief that the historical Jesus did not teach Christianity.

For me it's easy... I don't believe because I have never been given a rational reason to believe.

Having said that, what you describe turns christianity into self-contradictory nonsense. If the God of the bible is indeed "benevolent" and "all just", then he would NEVER let rewards or punishments depend on mere beliefs, regardless of behaviour.

A system where a believing mass murderer can obtain eternal bliss while a non-believing dedicated charity worker gets eternal punishment is about the most unethical, unjust and immoral system I can think of.

By that fact alone, I can dismiss the entire thing as nonsense.

 

[Adstar]

@HereIStand and @Adstar seem to be dodging the more challenging posts.

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..

 

[cloudyday2]

Jews and Christians are actually only tolerated insofar as their beliefs actually line up with islam. So essentially, it says that Jews and Christians are "safe" - as long as they believe the islamic version of abrahamic religion. Which is just to say, they'ld have to be actual muslims.

Thanks. It appears you are correct. I misunderstood the Muslim tolerance of other Abrahamic religions. That throws a monkey wrench in my argument.

If a person was choosing between Hinduism and Christianity, he/she might still use the argument I proposed. A Christian can be a good Hindu (from the Hindu perspective), but a Hindu cannot be a good Christian (from the Christian perspective). So Christianity covers the person's butt either way.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Thanks. It appears you are correct. I misunderstood the Muslim tolerance of other Abrahamic religions.

np

If a person was choosing between Hinduism and Christianity, he/she might still use the argument I proposed. A Christian can be a good Hindu (from the Hindu perspective), but a Hindu cannot be a good Christian (from the Christian perspective). So Christianity covers the person's butt either way.

I guess. However, I've seen christians themselves, argue against this very notion, by invoking the concept of "religious hypocrits".

It was in a debate between some atheists and a few christians. One of the christians made the Pascal's Wager version of that argument after which the other christians jumped on it saying that such people aren't "real christians" because they don't really believe in christianity, or they simply are motivated for all the wrong reasons (saving your own butt vs actually loving and surrendering to god). He said "we call those people religious hypocrits, and if we can sniff them out - then god surely can too".

In the theology of "faith" and the importance thereof, "hedging your bets" will simply not be sufficient, because you wouldn't actually have real faith. You'ld be living the life "just to be sure", without actually really believing it.

Just as you say: your beliefs are actually more important then your actions, in such a view! Merely "living the life", is all about actions.

In this sense, really believing it and NOT "living the life" will actually serve you better then NOT really believing it but indeed "living the life".


I get what you're saying though. But I think a lot of christians would disagree with it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

np



I guess. However, I've seen christians themselves, argue against this very notion, by invoking the concept of "religious hypocrits".

It was in a debate between some atheists and a few christians. One of the christians made the Pascal's Wager version of that argument after which the other christians jumped on it saying that such people aren't "real christians" because they don't really believe in christianity, or they simply are motivated for all the wrong reasons (saving your own butt vs actually loving and surrendering to god). He said "we call those people religious hypocrits, and if we can sniff them out - then god surely can too".

In the theology of "faith" and the importance thereof, "hedging your bets" will simply not be sufficient, because you wouldn't actually have real faith. You'ld be living the life "just to be sure", without actually really believing it.

Just as you say: your beliefs are actually more important then your actions, in such a view! Merely "living the life", is all about actions.

In this sense, really believing it and NOT "living the life" will actually serve you better then NOT really believing it but indeed "living the life".


I get what you're saying though. But I think a lot of christians would disagree with it.

It's too bad people on both sides don't really take the time to understand Pascal's Wager.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's too bad people on both sides don't really take the time to understand Pascal's Wager.

Honestly, I couldn't care less about anyone's "wager".

Things can either be shown to exist / be true, or they can't.
Whatever incarnation you wish to use of this "wager", it doesn't matter, because it always misses the point of actually rational reasons to accept something as true.

Appeals to emotions, consequences, authority, popularity, ignorance,.... it's all the same, in the sense that none of them is a valid reason for believing anything.

If you make a claim and are asked to support it, and instead of actually supporting it you start talking about appeals like mentioned above, all you are really doing at that point is acknowledging that you don't have actual sensible reasons to believe the claim.

Consider gravity. When you explain to someone what gravity is, how it works and try to support the claim that it is real.... you'll be able to say and demonstrate all kinds of things and you will have no need to appeal to "fear tactics" saying "better safe then sorry, so don't jump off the building! just believe it!".

You don't need to go down that route. Because you have actual sensible and rational evidence to share on the matter and that evidence by itself is enough to convince anyone.

In short: when you have good reasons, you don't need to engage in bad reasons.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'm not useing uniqueness as the only evidence of truth, but as an argument against the post, that there are many paths to God.

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

Evidence of the truth of Christianity is, as we've gone overbefore, found in the historical facts of Jesus, his life, death and resurrection.

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.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Honestly, I couldn't care less about anyone's "wager".

Things can either be shown to exist / be true, or they can't.
Whatever incarnation you wish to use of this "wager", it doesn't matter, because it always misses the point of actually rational reasons to accept something as true.

Appeals to emotions, consequences, authority, popularity, ignorance,.... it's all the same, in the sense that none of them is a valid reason for believing anything.

If you make a claim and are asked to support it, and instead of actually supporting it you start talking about appeals like mentioned above, all you are really doing at that point is acknowledging that you don't have actual sensible reasons to believe the claim.

Consider gravity. When you explain to someone what gravity is, how it works and try to support the claim that it is real.... you'll be able to say and demonstrate all kinds of things and you will have no need to appeal to "fear tactics" saying "better safe then sorry, so don't jump off the building! just believe it!".

You don't need to go down that route. Because you have actual sensible and rational evidence to share on the matter and that evidence by itself is enough to convince anyone.

In short: when you have good reasons, you don't need to engage in bad reasons.

...AAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNDDDDD.......you've just proved my previous point. Good job for falling into that web I wove. (And no, I'm not going to explain it to you ... at least not right now. Maybe I'll start a thread at some point soon on 'understanding' Pascal's Wager.)

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It's too bad people on both sides don't really take the time to understand Pascal's Wager.

No kidding. And when you do, you'll realize that it's even worse than you originally thought it was...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No kidding. And when you do, you'll realize that it's even worse than you originally thought it was...

I'm sure that a lot of things that are either ripped out of context, or simply do not receive the full attention of readers to the authors intended meaning(s), do seem worse than originally thought ...

 

[DogmaHunter]

...AAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNDDDDD.......you've just proved my previous point. Good job for falling into that web I wove. (And no, I'm not going to explain it to you ... at least not right now. Maybe I'll start a thread at some point soon on 'understanding' Pascal's Wager.)

It's funny that you think I'm not aware what Pascal's Wager is all about, including its various incarnations.

Like I said, it doesn't matter. What matters is rational evidence and Pascal's Wager does not provide that. Instead, it only provides irrational appeals to anything but evidence to accept a certain claim as true.

You can start as many threads as you like on the subject... it won't change the facts.

 

[cloudyday2]

Maybe I'll start a thread at some point soon on 'understanding' Pascal's Wager.

That would be an interesting discussion IMO. I think I understand Pascal's Wager, but maybe I don't.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Honestly, I couldn't care less about anyone's "wager".

... and THAT is precisely the central focus of Pascal's Wager, i.e. whether you care about the possibilities involved with it....or not as in your case; this is the central focus.

Of course, to understand the Wager, you'd have to take into account all of what Pascal has written that relates to religion and psychology, all of which in turn provides the overlaying context FOR the Wager in the first place.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That would be an interesting discussion IMO. I think I understand Pascal's Wager, but maybe I don't.

...see the previous post (#134) for what the discussion would end up being, in a nutshell.

 

[cloudyday2]

... and THAT is precisely the central focus of Pascal's Wager, i.e. whether you care about the possibilities involved with it....or not as in your case; this is the central focus.

Of course, to understand the Wager, you'd have to take into account all of what Pascal has written that relates to religion and psychology, all of which in turn provides the overlaying context FOR the Wager in the first place.

One part of that context might be Pascal's Catholic perspective. The modern born-again Christian understanding that makes belief essential was not so important, so a person could choose to be a Christian as a form of fire insurance.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

One part of that context might be Pascal's Catholic perspective. The modern born-again Christian understanding that makes belief essential was not so important, so a person could choose to be a Christian as a form of fire insurance.

...yes, Pascal's Wager was colored a little bit by Catholicism, but being that his form of Catholicism was Jansenism and not the typical Roman Catholic version you may be thinking of. Some aspects of Pascal's view(s) have some strong overlap with today's evangelical Christians, with the main difference being that he thinks that God has to draw a person in on the one hand, and that a person has to work through his/her existential angst on the other, as well as consider the rational prospects of the Christian faith, in order to reach out to Jesus as Lord and Savior.

The Wager comes in as a means of helping yourself be in a better position so that faith might come about. His Wager might be likened to the suggestion made to someone that if they are indeed thirsty, they'd best not go out into the desert, but rather ask those in the city where the nearest watering hole (or cantina ) might be.

More often than not, what happens is that both atheists and Christians trot out some similacrum of the Wager and then try to pass it off as if its purpose is to be a kind of "fake it till you make it" approach to faith. No, rather, it is a matter of doxastic openness to finding what one needs ... what one 'cares' about.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

More often than not, what happens is that both atheists and Christians trot out some similacrum of the Wager and then try to pass it off as if it purpose was to be a kind of "fake it till you make it" kind of approach. No, rather, it is a matter of doxastic openness to finding what one needs ...

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.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Nope.. i repond to the OP who is a Christian looking for Arguments to give to other theists..

The OP is not a Christian.

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..

This is the apologetics forum. If you're not here to talk to atheists, then you must be lost.

And what great answers have you given that have been rejected? Again, all I saw here was your refusal to even answer a question, so it is asinine for you to whine that atheists reject your answers when the reality is that an atheist is begging you for one.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

...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 ...