Pascal's Wager

[BPScooter]

This is so interesting and good and well-written, that you all might want to click on the whole article. Ponnuru and Derbyshire are both frequent contributors to National Review. They are both smart and able. What I wonder is which of them will be disappearing? I bet both of them will continue to write and disagree...I hope so.

http://www.olimu.com/WebJournalism/Texts/Reviews/Party of Death.htm

 

[Darat]

...snip...

What exactly is involved in belief in the teachings of Jesus? Well, for a start, it involves a belief that what is written in the bible is an accurate record of Jesus' teachings, since no one can hear him speaking today. (Ok, there are some people that claim to do so, but most of them are considered mentally unsound).

...snip...

I've italicized a part of your post above - I address this misconception in this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1698673&postcount=57

I'll say it again your view of Christianity is a comparatively recent position that at best applies to a small minority of people who today would describe themselves as Christians.

 

[Darat]

I've always felt that agnosticism is a somewhat transistional stage on the way to or from atheism.

...snip....

That is indeed how it is often used in the modern world but it's not really what agnosticism means and we should fight its misuse!

Agnosticism takes a very definite position regarding the existence or not of a God, its simplest expression is "we can never know if God exists or if God doesn't exist".

It is a philosophy that sets, as one of its axioms, a limit on what we can ever know about God, for an agnostic it will never mater how much we know about the universe they have faith that we can never know about God.

 

[gruk]

Dunno. Your post reminds me of that old question, "Can god create a four-sided triangle?" Seems to me that if you have a cause that is the sole and only cause of an effect, and you have no doubt about the effect, then you must therefore have no doubt about the cause....no matter what the cause and effect are.

Maybe one of our resident philosophers/logicians can point out an error in my argument if there is one.

It, roughly, depends on what you mean by sole and only cause of an effect.

Let me hark back to the well-loved domain of logic expressions. I will use C to signify a cause, E to signify an effect, & for logical and, | for logical inclusive or, ~ for negation and -> for logical implication.

If you mean:
~C -> ~E (without Cause C, there will be no effect E)
we can conclude that E is sufficient evidence for C.

An implication is false only if the left-hand side is true and the right-hand side is false, so given that we hold the implication to be true, the existence of E (thus, ~E being false), we will need ~C to be false and the only way that can happen is if C is true.

 

[politas]

I would say that worked VERY well. You just proved that the Bible is not historically accurate, especially if multiple extant sources are in agreement and the Bible is not.

...

I'm by no means an expert in this...but evidence seems overwhelmingly against accuracy of any kind in the Bible...

I agree with you, but we're not arguing whether or not the bible is accurate, here. We're talking about what it takes to be a christian believer.

 

[politas]

It’s a very common misconception in the USA and UK, that the Bible is the authority for a Christian.

...

Your question is answered by what is and always has been the dominant form of Christianity, i.e. what we call Roman Catholicism. In very simplified terms "The Bible" is not to be interpreted by your or I, indeed there is no real reason for us to ever even read the Bible, according to RC the “church” provides people with the doctrine they should follow. And ultimately the matter of what is “metaphor” or “literal” is decided by God’s representative on earth i.e. the Pope.

Yes, but the Roman Catholic church only draw their authority from the bible. While it is their prerogative to interpret the bible on behalf of adherents, the bible is still the source of their claimed authority. The authority which says that Jesus was god is the bible. No other document claims this without referencing the bible.

 

[politas]

Fortunately, as macgyver points out, valis is NOT a hypocit. He admits upfront that his religion makes him feel good and therefore he is religious. Thus, I do not think you are correct that "all christians" do this.

Isn't he? he agrees with and values some things from the Bible, so he has decided to be a Christian, even though he doesn't agree with or value all the things in the Bible. So either he is not completely being a Christian, or he is abrogating his personal morality to a book/church. To me, that is hypocrisy, though I understand that other people may disagree.

It's far more a societal hypocrisy, rather than a personal one, and it has existed since the early days of the Roman Catholic church (one of the most hypocritical organisations in the world). After all, the RC church claims that its doctrinal position is infallible, even though they have changed their doctrinal position constantly over the years.

Other examples are those extreme sects that do, in fact, agree with all parts.

I challenge you to present a single person that does. There are many that claim they do, but if you ask them to give you their wallet, I bet they won't.

In any case, agreeing with every single part of the bible is literally impossible, since it includes contradictory exhortations.

 

[Hellbound]

You know...

I do think we tend to fall into a reverse of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy when discussing religion, and valis does have a point.

As skeptics, we become most familiar with the extremes of religion, as that's what tends to get more press (so to speak). And it is easy to start grouping them all into that category.

Even outside that, we have a tendency to do much of what we're doing here..."If you're a Christian then you have to X" or "If you're a Muslim then you have to Y". Personally, I tend to think if one claims to be a Christian (or Muslim or whatever) then that's what they are.

Is it hypocritical to believe in Jesus without believing in the Bible? Possibly, but not necessarily. One could believe that Jesus existed, and was the divine incarnate, but also recognize that the Bible is the work of men, and distrust its accuracy. While this does take some mental gymnastics, to a degree, as long as one accepts that this is purely an article of faith, and not a logical belief...and as long as one does not allow this article of faith to take the place of logic in other decisions of import, I don't really see a problem. None of us are 100% skeptical or 100% logical in all our beliefs or actions. We're human

The insistence that all Christians must believe the Bible or be hypocrits is, frankly, a strawman that we are throwing up. At best, it's simply a matter of categorization, at worst it's a strawman. Does it matter if we call valis a Christian or not? He could call himself a Neochristipatomian and it really doesn't change any part of the central argument he's making.

This is analogous to those who make accusations against skeptics about what we must believe, or against those calling themselves atheists, or agnostics, or whatever. I think we really do aourselves a dis-service with this type of argument, as one the one hand it's somewhat strawish, and on the other it's primarily semantic.

 

[macgyver]

That is indeed how it is often used in the modern world but it's not really what agnosticism means and we should fight its misuse!

I think that you know that I wasn't offering a definition of agnosticism, but rather an observation of those who call themselves that.

It's fence sitting, and I sat that fence for a very long time. However, to stay at that place I'd suggest that you have grown weary of the debate, and have decided not to decide.

which, in itself, is a decision I suppose....

What's interesting about it, however, is that as an atheist, I don't know that my position has changed much. I'm still of the philosophical position that perhaps we can never know, however, all indications are that God(s) don't/cannot exist.

The difference here, is that I've decided not to believe until proven there's something to believe in. As an agnostic, I was giving either possibility equal billing. Almost a half-assed Pascal's Wager of sorts...(to come back to the topic).

 

[macgyver]

As skeptics, we become most familiar with the extremes of religion, as that's what tends to get more press (so to speak). And it is easy to start grouping them all into that category.

Actually I try to be careful to avoid that, we do need to understand that even if people subscribe to a particular dogma, there is variation because of the individuality of the person

Even outside that, we have a tendency to do much of what we're doing here..."If you're a Christian then you have to X" or "If you're a Muslim then you have to Y". Personally, I tend to think if one claims to be a Christian (or Muslim or whatever) then that's what they are.

This is not true. There are actually basic tennants of each of these religions that need to be met before you can adopt the label. Otherwise you've just started something uniquely your own. Which is fine, because that's how they all start. Just don't call yourself something you're not, or you'll upset the ones who are.

Is it hypocritical to believe in Jesus without believing in the Bible? Possibly, but not necessarily. One could believe that Jesus existed, and was the divine incarnate, but also recognize that the Bible is the work of men, and distrust its accuracy. While this does take some mental gymnastics, to a degree, as long as one accepts that this is purely an article of faith, and not a logical belief...and as long as one does not allow this article of faith to take the place of logic in other decisions of import, I don't really see a problem. None of us are 100% skeptical or 100% logical in all our beliefs or actions. We're human

It's not necessarily hypocritical to believe in Jesus and not the Bible, unless you belong to a church that requires that of you. If you do, perhaps the hypocrisy will motivate you to look elsewhere (as it did me). However, is it hypocrisy to be a skeptic, and believe in the Jesus myth? I'd say that your skepticism is, at least, severly impaired.

The insistence that all Christians must believe the Bible or be hypocrits is, frankly, a strawman that we are throwing up. At best, it's simply a matter of categorization, at worst it's a strawman. Does it matter if we call valis a Christian or not? He could call himself a Neochristipatomian and it really doesn't change any part of the central argument he's making.

Again, not necessarily a strawman, if believing in the Bible is part of defining a Christian. We're not saying HOW the Bible needs to be believed, but it's obviously central to the faith. This thread is about Pascal's wager, which is to say that it's a "safer bet" to believe. So the question of belief is still central to the debate.

This is analogous to those who make accusations against skeptics about what we must believe, or against those calling themselves atheists, or agnostics, or whatever. I think we really do aourselves a dis-service with this type of argument, as one the one hand it's somewhat strawish, and on the other it's primarily semantic.

I don't see a diservice in the debate at all. As long as mutual respect is applied. I've personally travelled the path from believer to non-believer so I'm not unsympathetic to the believer's position.

My main dislike of ANY supernatural belief is that it's intellectually stunted, and requires faith to maintain. I think faith is the central problem, and perhaps we need to find a way to spell it with only four letters...

 

[Darat]

Yes, but the Roman Catholic church only draw their authority from the bible. While it is their prerogative to interpret the bible on behalf of adherents, the bible is still the source of their claimed authority. The authority which says that Jesus was god is the bible. No other document claims this without referencing the bible.

Not quite, the Roman Catholic Church claims its authority comes from the fact that is governed by "the successor of Peter". That is not biblical but it is self-referential.

 

[Rissask]

Don't worry, that's not original with Rissask. It's public domain.

Very true. I read it on a quotations site, I think it was this one:

www dot wisdomquotes dot com (I guess I can't do links yet, sorry)

 

[SezMe]

Linky for those who are interested. Nice site, Rissask.

 

[Rissask]

I think that you know that I wasn't offering a definition of agnosticism, but rather an observation of those who call themselves that.

It's fence sitting, and I sat that fence for a very long time. However, to stay at that place I'd suggest that you have grown weary of the debate, and have decided not to decide.

which, in itself, is a decision I suppose....

What's interesting about it, however, is that as an atheist, I don't know that my position has changed much. I'm still of the philosophical position that perhaps we can never know, however, all indications are that God(s) don't/cannot exist.

The difference here, is that I've decided not to believe until proven there's something to believe in. As an agnostic, I was giving either possibility equal billing. Almost a half-assed Pascal's Wager of sorts...(to come back to the topic).

I think the correct term for those of us who think the way you (and I!!) do are 'agnostic atheists'. We are different from both atheists and agnostics.....we don't believe in the christian god, or any other god or goddess, but as far as being able to say we are 100% certain that there is no higher power at all in the universe, we are agnostic.

Does that fit you too?

I believe there is an entry in Wiki with the terms....or maybe it was religioustolerance.org, I can't recall now.

 

[Rissask]

Yes, that is a good one, Sez Me. This one is even better, though (I meant to post it the first time, sorry again ) I believe the bald/atheist quote may be on this one.


www(dot)nobeliefs.com(backslash)SomethingToThinkAbout

 

[macgyver]

as far as being able to say we are 100% certain that there is no higher power at all in the universe, we are agnostic.

Does that fit you too?

Well, by that reasoning, it's the same stance I would say ANY atheist would have.

I can't be 100% certain, because absence of proof is not proof of absence.

But that means that every theory, and every God(s) and every human thought has the infintessimal chance of being true. That's too many things to keep track of as having "truth potential".

That's why I state that my atheism is best described as having no belief.

I do not believe in Santa Claus for the same reason. I do not believe in the efficacy of homeopathy for the same reason.

They are all bereft of evidence to convince me otherwise.

However, it's not in anyone's best interest to put on blinders. Randi has even stated himself that he's more than willing to pay the million to have paranormal events be proven true. Until that happens, however, there's no point to believing they are.

It's up to the claimant to prove their statement, not for me to disprove it.

 

[bruto]

edit: oops, sorry a double post.

 

[bruto]

Backing up a bit, I was under the impression that Pascal considered the choice as much more limited than we might. When he opted for religion, he did so on the assumption the Catholic Church was the only religious option, and that he would join in the rites and sacraments of the R.C. Church. The fix was already in, or the bet would not have been such a safe one. It that is the only religious choice, then there is indeed some personal cost to making it.

 

[politas]

Because that's not what agnosticism means. Agnostics claim that the question of whether god exists or not is something which cannot be proven known, leaving it as a matter of faith to believe or not believe.

There, I made a nit-picky correction because even religion doesn't claim to prove god exists; it is a matter of faith. That said, reading my post that you replied to, I don't see that we disagree.

I disagree with your correction, because I was using a nonmathematical definitition of "prove".

I have asked many religionists to show me "proof", and they have sometimes responded by telling me it is "in the bible", or that they have been "given proof" on a personal level which they cannot effectively share. Clearly, therefore, some theists do claim that the existence of god is proven.

 

[politas]

Even outside that, we have a tendency to do much of what we're doing here..."If you're a Christian then you have to X" or "If you're a Muslim then you have to Y". Personally, I tend to think if one claims to be a Christian (or Muslim or whatever) then that's what they are.

I completely agree. if someone claims to be a Christian, then they are a Christian. I just don't think that really means all that much, since "Christianity" is such an inclusive term that it gives you no additional information about the person.

Is it hypocritical to believe in Jesus without believing in the Bible? Possibly, but not necessarily. One could believe that Jesus existed, and was the divine incarnate, but also recognize that the Bible is the work of men, and distrust its accuracy. While this does take some mental gymnastics, to a degree, as long as one accepts that this is purely an article of faith, and not a logical belief...and as long as one does not allow this article of faith to take the place of logic in other decisions of import, I don't really see a problem. None of us are 100% skeptical or 100% logical in all our beliefs or actions. We're human

The bible is the only source for knowledge about Jesus. To believe in Jesus is to believe some of the bible. The bible is the ultimate and single authority for belief in Jesus as a divine entity. Therefore, since it is impossible to follow every jot and tittle of the bible, all christian faiths, whether personal or intitutional, involve a selection of which parts of the bible to believe in. To then claim that they "follow the bible" is strictly a lie, since they only follow parts of the bible. To accept a single source as both an authority and not an authority is hypocrisy. There are far worse forms of hypocrisy, but it is still hypocrisy. (Actually, the Mormons may be excluded from this, since the book of Mormon apparently replaces the Old and New Testaments. I haven't read enough of it to determine whether it is internally consistent.)

The insistence that all Christians must believe the Bible or be hypocrits is, frankly, a strawman that we are throwing up. At best, it's simply a matter of categorization, at worst it's a strawman. Does it matter if we call valis a Christian or not? He could call himself a Neochristipatomian and it really doesn't change any part of the central argument he's making.

As I said above, being a Christian implies believing some of the bible. Pascal's Wager implies far more than merely believing in the divinity of Jesus, though. Very few, if any, Christians think that merely believing is sufficient to gain Pascal's "infinite reward".

This is analogous to those who make accusations against skeptics about what we must believe, or against those calling themselves atheists, or agnostics, or whatever. I think we really do aourselves a dis-service with this type of argument, as one the one hand it's somewhat strawish, and on the other it's primarily semantic.

I don't believe it is analogous. Christians claim to be part of a community of believers, claim that their beliefs bring them together. Atheists and skeptics make no such claims. Atheists claim no belief in gods, which is entirely different to communal belief.

On the other hand, I can say that anyone claiming to be a Humanists should agree with the entire Humanist Manifesto. The Humanist Manifesto is an internally consistent and complete document making clear moral statements. If a person accepts the Humanist credo, then they can accept the entire document.

The Apostolic Creed is a workable definition of beliefs, but it is an incomplete statement. It requires knowledge of the bible to define its terms, where the Humanist Manifesto only requires a dictionary.