Because the point of adding a kid to the mix is that is where most people learn this stuff and then are unable to seperate themselves from it once they are past a point where nobody would rationally accept it with the lens of experience firmly placed over their eyes.
Whats that old Jesuit saying?
I think I need to clarify. My point is he changed the scenario. He is not specific in his intial post.
Maybe BlinkingSpirit did not intend this, but the illogical follow through is "I have as much reason to believe in any given religion as any ridiculous belief I make up on the spot." This is not true, because he has the experience of creating the ridiculous belief, and knows it to be an invention.
That is not to say an earnest belief is inherently correct, by any means.
Anyway, I only wish I could string my thoughts together as eloquently as this guy did in this video. His conclusion, of accepting infinite hell fire for his beliefs (or disbelief) because he couldn't stomach the fact of spending an eternity with a being whose "empathy would be so easily trumped by his vanity", pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly.
Let's not be overdramatic. I think if we really sat down and thought about it, most of us would admit that we'd rather be forced to hang out with a narcissist for all eternity than suffer excruciating torture. I know I would. So that's not the problem with Pascal's Wager. The problem is simply that it presents a false dichotomy and illicitly assumes that both horns of the dichotomy have equal weight. It's a false dichotomy because it assumes that if Christianity is false, then you will suffer no bad consequences - but we can just as easily and with just as much supporting evidence (i.e. none) introduce the proposition, "If you live life as an atheist, then the irony-god will reward you, and if you live as a Christian, he will punish you." And there are infinitely more propositions that describe arbitrary consequences for your belief or disbelief. Maybe the moon will explode tomorrow if you don't wear a bunch of bananas as a hat. Maybe the moon will explode tomorrow if you do wear a bunch of bananas as a hat. Since each of these propositions is directly contradicted by another, there is no way that you can evaluate a priori the best course of action for yourself. You have to start reasoning a posteriori, looking at the evidence to weigh which propositions are more or less plausible. And of course, looking at evidence is precisely what Pascal's Wager was proposed to avoid in the first place...
No, I said it was ludicrously dogmatic to equate an earnest belief with one created on the spot specifically to denigrate that idea.
Regardless of your opinion, I don't think "dogmatic" is the word you're looking for. And no, the earnestness of a proposition is not relevant to determining whether it is supported by the evidence. I could teach a young child my exploding-moon idea, and he'd then believe it every bit as earnestly as any Christian. I could even start my own religion and get millions to believe. (See: Mormonism and Scientology.) It would not change the fact that the idea is totally unjustified, and a rational person ought not to believe it, or waste their time "seeking the truth" about lunar explosions.
Am I incorrect to say you've changed you intial scenario by adding a child to the mix?
I will also note that when debating BS about Pascal's wager, one of the points you tried to utilize was that you're beliefs were more legitimate than the ones he made up on the spot, right? Your claim was that the resurrection of Jesus should be given more weight in the Wager than BS's example, correct? I asked you to backup that claim, and you refused.
No, I said it was ludicrously dogmatic to equate an earnest belief with one created on the spot specifically to denigrate that idea.
Taylor, do you feel victorious reiterating what I freely admit?
Consider a extremely personal memory of your own. Suppose I want internet text evidence that it occurred. Also, you suspect I want you to tell it to me in a public forum so that I can crap all over it. If you don't, I'll say that your memory has as much basis as whatever absurd notion I make up on the spot. Does this seem reasonable?
If you will notice, my purpose participating in this thread is to discuss Pascal's wager, not provide evidence to anonymous masses that what I believe is correct. I contend his wager has merit beyond the ready solution they teach in Philosophy 101, although certainly not equal merit to all ideas.
Then it was misleading of you to claim your beliefs had more credibility than the "banana hat vs. moon" theory, and get my hopes up.
If you read my posts, I did no such thing at any time, at least in terms of credibility for others as you apparently expect. I have said my experience is useless to anyone else.
In the post you cite above, I pointed Pascal wasn't making up something out of the blue. This is different than BS making up some BS on the spot. To equate the two ideas entirely is not sensible. And yes, obviously a historical root does not make a resulting theology true.
My only intent in this thread has been to point out that the particulars of this 17th century philosopher can be extended into a more universal terms. The response has been, "show us the evidence of God that meets our criteria, and then maybe we'll look."
Should you put stock in an anonymous internet person?
I might be willing to trust if the person was willing to put out more than a waved hand.
Taylor, I am not trying to be cryptic. I am absolutely no authority on this matter. You are as able as I to petition whatever Creator might be out there.
Let me give you an example of a woman who lived some centuries ago. I don't recall who she was, but she had a vision of a blue Jesus. When we heard this story, the religion class laughed because they didn't understand it, and it seemed silly to them. That is how religious experiences often are: They cannot make sense to someone else.
I realize I need to clarify: When I say "conviction" I mean it not only as "belief" but more as "self-conviction". That is, confronting and disassembling one's own motives and preconceptions.
The reasons I believe in resurrection are borne of my own search. They are meaningless, worthless and unusable to others.
The credibility of others is a bit of a red herring. Should you put stock in an anonymous internet person? Pascal? St. Paul? Aren't the stakes a bit high to rest one's beliefs on a human?
Understand, I use scripture often because I think it describes something well. I do not cite it as a matter of proving fact.
I'm not saying to wholly disregard every idea another person has, but strongly question the motives of all parties therein, including yourself. Be aware, as with Eve sharing the fruit in the garden, man is not content to sin alone.
You inadvertently could be leading people to waste precious time in their lives chasing a falsehood. I find that cruel and irresponsible.
By that same logic, you can understand why I decline to remain silent.
@ Taylor, although I believe in the resurrection and kingship of Jesus Christ, I did not insist on any particulars. My only point is to encourage searching, and not be intimidated by others, whether those others are supposedly religious or non-religious. Moreover, I encourage one to test their own motives and ambitions.
There is no basis whatsoever for belief in any kind of existence after death. The proposition is as completely speculative as my exploding-moon idea. Nobody who could have observed heaven is in any position to report back to us, just as nobody who could have observed the moon exploding in the future is in any position to report back to us. It's just people making up cool-sounding stuff about areas they cannot observe.
I did not assert there was a basis for belief in the existence after death. But since we are here, there may be no scientific basis for belief in existence after death, but that does not equate to no basis.
If you generate an idea from your imagination, and you know it is an absurd idea concocted to belittle another idea, then you have no basis to believe in the reality of that idea. As with the moonhat.
My point is that "seeking the Creator" is not actually a pursuit. We as a community have no way of making advances in our knowledge on that front. There are no common benchmarks and goals, no way of settling what direction we're supposed to be going and how to get there. One person can say, "Aha, I have scored a touchdown; I have made contact with God!", then another person can respond, "You haven't even rounded first base."
Are you asserting here that only collaborative pursuits are worthwhile?
This prompts the same question as "intelligent design": Doesn't this elevate Creation to a role greater than the Creator?
Or more to the point: You'll tie your bets to someone else? Are these questions their responsibility?
Religious contemplation is an attempt to reach a posteriori conclusions without engaging in a posteriori reasoning. You cannot just sit there and think and reliably come up with a truth about the world outside your brain, like "God exists" or "Good and faithful people go to Heaven". All you can do is speculate, and speculations are wrong more often than they're right. To learn about the outside world, you must observe the outside world. And if you can observe the outside world, others must be able to reliably make the same observations.
There is no obvious way to seek the Creator through scientific means. And yet we can test and weigh our motives and convict ourselves. That is my purpose.
Science is a collaborative effort. If you have observed something, but none of the rest of us can replicate your result, then your observation does not constitute evidence for any hypothesis about objective reality.
And yet, science works. The scientific community very quickly reaches consensus on detailed, quantitative theories of the world, where the religious community can't even agree on the most basic questions about the divine. This is because the religious community accepts subjective experiences as valid evidence, which of course leads to irresolvable contradictions (and, eventually, bloodshed), whereas science demands experimental results that anyone can replicate objectively.
Of course, if religious ideas would lead one to bloodshed, then testing is in order. Gideon is a premiere example of this. I'm not encouraging bloodshed, by any means. I hate bloodshed.
I am humbly suggesting that people seek the Creator, and there is nothing ignoble in doing so. I do not even propose a method or direction, as if there is a great Creator that wants to be found, it can. I do not suggest that doing so is without cost, as the more you learn, the more you will lose.
We can await some great collaboration, and the testimony may shift there someday. But at the time, we have little evidence, yet arguably more abundant understanding of God now than when He stood as a pillar of flame.
Why? If I only make up stuff involving people that really existed is it more believable? If I believe Abraham Lincoln can resurrect the dead, does that fact Abraham Lincoln is in recorded history make my argument more credible? I'm "halfway there" or something?
No, but I don't think a parallel between his beliefs and banana hat moon salvation is a fair comparison. Moreover, it isn't difficult to update or generalize his concept.
I also object to BS' saying "we have observed" because he does not know what I have observed.
To attain conviction, we must test our own reasons. No one can do this for another person.
Would it be fair to say that Christianity has more evidence than "banana hat vs. moon" theology?
What evidence is there for Christianity?
Historical Jesus debate begins here.
So far, we're pretty damn sure that Jesus was a dude, he started a religious movement, and was crucified by the authorities for it.
As far as I'm concerned, he was either an absolute nutcase or everything he said he was.
The fact that Jesus is even recorded by history is significant enough to differentiate Pascal's ideas from "whatever ridiculous idea I can make up on the spot."
Not in the relevant sense. We have observed a faith-in-God/going-to-Heaven correlation exactly as often as we have observed a banana-hat/moon-exploding correlation. We have more evidence for stuff like the existence of a historical person Jesus, but that doesn't get us any closer to Pascal's point..
I disagree. The banana hat instance you cite appears to equate the absurd with something that at the very least has some basis in reality. Although Pascal makes a convenient 17th century straw man, I don't think the comparison to a faith yanked entirely out of the imagination is apt.
We should seek out all knowledge, and reject all falsehood. But it's premature to assume that there is a Creator to seek out, or to privilege that proposition with more attention than the evidence warrants. Speculation and navel-gazing about some hypothetical God is not nearly as interesting as, say, working to understand autism, or trying to figure out quantum gravity, or searching for life elsewhere in the universe.
First, I don't see this as a matter of resource allocation. One pursuit does not inherently exclude the other.
Secondly, is it your intention to dismiss religious contemplation as "speculation and navel-gazing"? I've seen you elsewhere express admiration for some religious thought, so I don't think this is the case. If so, what is your reason behind this choice of words?
I question the outcome of your contention that it is "premature to assume there is a Creator to seek out." Is it therefore "premature to seek a Creator"?
Anyway, I only wish I could string my thoughts together as eloquently as this guy did in this video. His conclusion, of accepting infinite hell fire for his beliefs (or disbelief) because he couldn't stomach the fact of spending an eternity with a being whose "empathy would be so easily trumped by his vanity", pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly.
Let's not be overdramatic. I think if we really sat down and thought about it, most of us would admit that we'd rather be forced to hang out with a narcissist for all eternity than suffer excruciating torture. I know I would. So that's not the problem with Pascal's Wager. The problem is simply that it presents a false dichotomy and illicitly assumes that both horns of the dichotomy have equal weight. It's a false dichotomy because it assumes that if Christianity is false, then you will suffer no bad consequences - but we can just as easily and with just as much supporting evidence (i.e. none) introduce the proposition, "If you live life as an atheist, then the irony-god will reward you, and if you live as a Christian, he will punish you." And there are infinitely more propositions that describe arbitrary consequences for your belief or disbelief. Maybe the moon will explode tomorrow if you don't wear a bunch of bananas as a hat. Maybe the moon will explode tomorrow if you do wear a bunch of bananas as a hat. Since each of these propositions is directly contradicted by another, there is no way that you can evaluate a priori the best course of action for yourself. You have to start reasoning a posteriori, looking at the evidence to weigh which propositions are more or less plausible. And of course, looking at evidence is precisely what Pascal's Wager was proposed to avoid in the first place...
Would it be fair to say that Christianity has more evidence than "banana hat vs. moon" theology?
To be fair, the traditional Christian God explicitly eschews demands for evidence, citing it as a symptom, so the Christian God would reasonably be eschewed by those that demand evidence. Contrast this to Gideon, who righteously asked for the proof of God's will that he might obey.
But, I have argued that a more modern Pascal might phrase his wager in more universal terms. "It's a no-brainer to seek out the Creator." Yes, one can retort with several arguments of "why I shouldn't", but those arguments offer no more evidence either.
As in all arguments, the motives behind the argument weigh more than the words.
It is not clear to me that the assumption of infinite resources, on its own, would undermine the concept of ownership even in the slightest.
Forget heaven for the moment, because really, it's a logic knot that can undermine any example. Instead imagine a world that is like ours, only with infinite space and the infinite, free ability to produce matter.
There are still things that I would not be comfortable sharing with other people at all (my toothbrush, my underwear), and there are still things that, while shareable in principle, I would expect to have exclusive rights to at my whim. (my bedroom, my television) Indeed, the presence of infinite resources and absence of scarcity makes "That's mine, just go get your own" a completely viable answer to any situation of contention -- it reinforces ownership rather than undermining it.
Great points.
If one believes:
In the bodily resurrection of Christ and
That this resurrection is extended to others
Principles of a "golden highway" as evidenced in Acts 8
Then one arrives at a similar situation to the one you describe (that is, access to infinite time and space in a physical reality) with one exception: I am unaware of a scriptural indication that the saints will be able to spontaneously generate existence.
So considering that we take your hypothetical sans the spontaneous genesis:
Items such as toothbrushes and underwear would relate to a post-fall existence. What constitutes a "robe of glory"? I will mention the buck-naked folks running around pre-fall (also check out the Gospel of Thomas and the parable of the children in the king's field).
How long would one hold interest in any particular item?
If I had an interesting non-unique item, given infinite time and motion, how long before I chance upon a similar instance of that item?
If I had an interesting unique item, what would I do with it?
Some people say that ownership rules are never respected because of knowledge of it's existence and acceptance but by of force, which i disagree. Force plays a role when people don't agree to the same ownership terms and one try to get something other consider under it's right. But people accepting the same rules can live in peace, that's obvious.
Makes sense.
Do you think a context of infinite space and time would undermine ownership?
I think I need to clarify. My point is he changed the scenario. He is not specific in his intial post.
Maybe BlinkingSpirit did not intend this, but the illogical follow through is "I have as much reason to believe in any given religion as any ridiculous belief I make up on the spot." This is not true, because he has the experience of creating the ridiculous belief, and knows it to be an invention.
That is not to say an earnest belief is inherently correct, by any means.
Am I incorrect to say you've changed you intial scenario by adding a child to the mix?
No, I said it was ludicrously dogmatic to equate an earnest belief with one created on the spot specifically to denigrate that idea.
Consider a extremely personal memory of your own. Suppose I want internet text evidence that it occurred. Also, you suspect I want you to tell it to me in a public forum so that I can crap all over it. If you don't, I'll say that your memory has as much basis as whatever absurd notion I make up on the spot. Does this seem reasonable?
If you will notice, my purpose participating in this thread is to discuss Pascal's wager, not provide evidence to anonymous masses that what I believe is correct. I contend his wager has merit beyond the ready solution they teach in Philosophy 101, although certainly not equal merit to all ideas.
If you read my posts, I did no such thing at any time, at least in terms of credibility for others as you apparently expect. I have said my experience is useless to anyone else.
In the post you cite above, I pointed Pascal wasn't making up something out of the blue. This is different than BS making up some BS on the spot. To equate the two ideas entirely is not sensible. And yes, obviously a historical root does not make a resulting theology true.
My only intent in this thread has been to point out that the particulars of this 17th century philosopher can be extended into a more universal terms. The response has been, "show us the evidence of God that meets our criteria, and then maybe we'll look."
Taylor, I am not trying to be cryptic. I am absolutely no authority on this matter. You are as able as I to petition whatever Creator might be out there.
Let me give you an example of a woman who lived some centuries ago. I don't recall who she was, but she had a vision of a blue Jesus. When we heard this story, the religion class laughed because they didn't understand it, and it seemed silly to them. That is how religious experiences often are: They cannot make sense to someone else.
The reasons I believe in resurrection are borne of my own search. They are meaningless, worthless and unusable to others.
The credibility of others is a bit of a red herring. Should you put stock in an anonymous internet person? Pascal? St. Paul? Aren't the stakes a bit high to rest one's beliefs on a human?
Understand, I use scripture often because I think it describes something well. I do not cite it as a matter of proving fact.
I'm not saying to wholly disregard every idea another person has, but strongly question the motives of all parties therein, including yourself. Be aware, as with Eve sharing the fruit in the garden, man is not content to sin alone.
By that same logic, you can understand why I decline to remain silent.
@ Taylor, although I believe in the resurrection and kingship of Jesus Christ, I did not insist on any particulars. My only point is to encourage searching, and not be intimidated by others, whether those others are supposedly religious or non-religious. Moreover, I encourage one to test their own motives and ambitions.
I did not assert there was a basis for belief in the existence after death. But since we are here, there may be no scientific basis for belief in existence after death, but that does not equate to no basis.
If you generate an idea from your imagination, and you know it is an absurd idea concocted to belittle another idea, then you have no basis to believe in the reality of that idea. As with the moonhat.
Are you asserting here that only collaborative pursuits are worthwhile?
This prompts the same question as "intelligent design": Doesn't this elevate Creation to a role greater than the Creator?
Or more to the point: You'll tie your bets to someone else? Are these questions their responsibility?
There is no obvious way to seek the Creator through scientific means. And yet we can test and weigh our motives and convict ourselves. That is my purpose.
Of course, if religious ideas would lead one to bloodshed, then testing is in order. Gideon is a premiere example of this. I'm not encouraging bloodshed, by any means. I hate bloodshed.
I am humbly suggesting that people seek the Creator, and there is nothing ignoble in doing so. I do not even propose a method or direction, as if there is a great Creator that wants to be found, it can. I do not suggest that doing so is without cost, as the more you learn, the more you will lose.
We can await some great collaboration, and the testimony may shift there someday. But at the time, we have little evidence, yet arguably more abundant understanding of God now than when He stood as a pillar of flame.
No, but I don't think a parallel between his beliefs and banana hat moon salvation is a fair comparison. Moreover, it isn't difficult to update or generalize his concept.
I also object to BS' saying "we have observed" because he does not know what I have observed.
To attain conviction, we must test our own reasons. No one can do this for another person.
The fact that Jesus is even recorded by history is significant enough to differentiate Pascal's ideas from "whatever ridiculous idea I can make up on the spot."
I disagree. The banana hat instance you cite appears to equate the absurd with something that at the very least has some basis in reality. Although Pascal makes a convenient 17th century straw man, I don't think the comparison to a faith yanked entirely out of the imagination is apt.
First, I don't see this as a matter of resource allocation. One pursuit does not inherently exclude the other.
Secondly, is it your intention to dismiss religious contemplation as "speculation and navel-gazing"? I've seen you elsewhere express admiration for some religious thought, so I don't think this is the case. If so, what is your reason behind this choice of words?
I question the outcome of your contention that it is "premature to assume there is a Creator to seek out." Is it therefore "premature to seek a Creator"?
Would it be fair to say that Christianity has more evidence than "banana hat vs. moon" theology?
To be fair, the traditional Christian God explicitly eschews demands for evidence, citing it as a symptom, so the Christian God would reasonably be eschewed by those that demand evidence. Contrast this to Gideon, who righteously asked for the proof of God's will that he might obey.
But, I have argued that a more modern Pascal might phrase his wager in more universal terms. "It's a no-brainer to seek out the Creator." Yes, one can retort with several arguments of "why I shouldn't", but those arguments offer no more evidence either.
As in all arguments, the motives behind the argument weigh more than the words.
Great points.
If one believes:
- In the bodily resurrection of Christ and
- That this resurrection is extended to others
- Principles of a "golden highway" as evidenced in Acts 8
Then one arrives at a similar situation to the one you describe (that is, access to infinite time and space in a physical reality) with one exception: I am unaware of a scriptural indication that the saints will be able to spontaneously generate existence.So considering that we take your hypothetical sans the spontaneous genesis:
Makes sense.
Do you think a context of infinite space and time would undermine ownership?