Pascal's Wager

[politas]

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.

Its claim to being the "successor of Peter" is where it bases its claimed right to interpret on behalf on adherents, but the Bible is still the source of the religion.

They are the authority for interpretation of the Bible's authority, which gives them the effect of being the ultimate authority, but it is not the same as claiming the ultimate authority. The leaders of the Catholic church do not decide how to change the bible. They do not adjust the bible. All their deliberations are about interpreting and explaining how the bible should apply and what it means.

Are you really trying to say that the Roman Catholic Church does not consider the Bible to be their ultimate authority? That's nonsense.

 

[macgyver]

The leaders of the Catholic church do not decide how to change the bible. They do not adjust the bible.

any longer....

 

[politas]

any longer....

But they never claimed to do so. We're not talking about actuality, here, we're talking about justification.

 

[valis]

This position is sometimes known as credo consolans: I believe because it makes me happier to do so. It is a position that asks no proof of the existence of god(s) and acknowledges that there is no such proof. It is therefore an unassailable position, philosophically. It is also quite respectable, held by no less a skeptic than Martin Gardner.

I would, however, ask one question: why Christianity? Why not Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Shinto, or innumerable other belief systems?

The first paragraph hits it right on the head. I wish I could have put my own thoughts as well and as succintly as you did!

To answer your question:
Two things mainly: 1. familiarity. Even though I used to get in fights in grade school when I declared I did not belive in God; I have been exposed to the bible much of my life and have a, I feel, good basic understanding of the religion. It would literaly take years to learn and understand another one. I have no doubt that there are many useful things in other religions.

2. Accesibitlity: There is a Unity church nearby that fits my needs fine and I can relate to the other people there. If I were to be say a Hindu; well there are quite a few Indians in this area so I don't doubt there are Hindu places of worship around. But then I would not only have to learn the religion but also there would be a cultural and perhaps language barriers.

 

[macgyver]

It would literaly take years to learn and understand another one. I have no doubt that there are many useful things in other religions.

Why would you have to learn and understand another one?

I would urge you to have doubt of the usefullness of the other religions...in fact of religion at all.

There's certainly no harm in asking the questions at least.

 

[Yahzi]

Perhaps Pascal didn't go into it because it isn't true. How can their be a fee or required behavoir to belive in a philosophical idea?

When Pascal said it, there was a fee.

How very odd that you should excuse Pascal for not going into a subject because, hundreds of years after his death, after the Catholic Church has been forced out of temporal power, it should be the case that the required fees, donations, and payments extorted by the Church in Pascal's lifetime are no longer compelled by law.

In the world we live in today, many, many religions still extract money from their adherents in a variety of ways, from the Mormon tithe to the Baptist collection to the Vatican's bank.

To assert that your personal view on religion should trump several billion other people's understanding of the matter is... arrogant, to say the least. To accuse Randi of prejudice because he is aware of historical facts you seem to have forgotten is indescribable. At least according to the rules of this forum.

 

[Yahzi]

Are you really trying to say that the Roman Catholic Church does not consider the Bible to be their ultimate authority? That's nonsense.

No, it it not nonsense; it is true. The RCC fairly plainly asserts its right to correct Scripture when necessary. RCC doctrine is considered at least as correct as scripture.

They declared their Popes are infalliable. They have never said the Bible was infalliable.

 

[Yahzi]

The first paragraph hits it right on the head. I wish I could have put my own thoughts as well and as succintly as you did!

Suppose you meet a KKK wizard handing out hate literature in the streets, arguing that black people are dangerous sub-human animals who should be enslaved for their own benefit. Suppose you ask him why he believes this. Suppose he says,

"Because it makes me happy to believe it."

Imagine what your reaction would be.

Now you know how I feel.

I can't remember who said it, but...

"Not caring whether something is true or not because it makes you happy, is the moral equivalent of not caring how you got your money because it makes you wealthy."

 

[valis]

When Pascal said it, there was a fee.

That is an interesting point; in Pascal's time it was true that religion was a much more top down affair. On the other hand you did not have the multitude of choices either. Most people viewed it either as believe or don't.

That said Mr. Randi is quite the stickler for precise language and he did say Requires not Required.

In the world we live in today, many, many religions still extract money from their adherents in a variety of ways, from the Mormon tithe to the Baptist collection to the Vatican's bank.

There is a wide range to that though. Many ministers hold regular jobs because their churches cannot afford to pay them. In fact the Minister who lived two doors down from me and had a large role in changing my opinion of religion, he is a full time pharmacist and runs his church for free.

Many others receive enough pay to live a middle class life but then they perform a lot of valuble services. When the woman across the street from me, who already had severe mental problems lost her husband and basically lost what was left of her mind, it was the leader of her church that interceded. I am sure most paid Ministers spend a great deal of time doing such work. The opulence of the Catholic church hirachy or the big name evangelists is what people think of when they think of giving money to the church but I would guess they are the exception and not the norm.

To assert that your personal view on religion should trump several billion other people's understanding of the matter is... arrogant, to say the least. To accuse Randi of prejudice because he is aware of historical facts you seem to have forgotten is indescribable. At least according to the rules of this forum.

I feel from reading Mr. Randi's newsletter faithfully for years, by email before the web page existed, that he has a clear prejudice against religous people and religion in general. If you feel other wise you are entitled to your opinion.

I had a much better rebutal but it was indescribable.

 

[valis]

Suppose you meet a KKK wizard handing out hate literature in the streets, arguing that black people are dangerous sub-human animals who should be enslaved for their own benefit. Suppose you ask him why he believes this. Suppose ....

Suppose we just say that we disagree. I get the idea you have some deep seated feelings at work here.

 

[macgyver]

I feel from reading Mr. Randi's newsletter faithfully for years, by email before the web page existed, that he has a clear prejudice against religous people and religion in general. If you feel other wise you are entitled to your opinion.

I had a much better rebutal but it was indescribable.

I don't think it's any more prejudiced than his feelings for any type of paranormal claim. I can't speak for him, but I know that in my mind there is no special treatment deserved by religion. There's nothing about religious beliefs that make them any more important than say belief in alternative medicine, or telepathy, or perpetual motion machines...

I lump it all together in the same bag. There's no proof for any of it, so why believe it?

 

[politas]

No, it it not nonsense; it is true. The RCC fairly plainly asserts its right to correct Scripture when necessary. RCC doctrine is considered at least as correct as scripture.

They declared their Popes are infalliable. They have never said the Bible was infalliable.

Bull. The RCC do not officially change scripture. They change interpretation and explanation of scripture.

I believe one of their defining principles since the Age of Reason has been "Where our understanding of scripture disagrees with physical evidence, it is our understanding of scripture that is at fault." Understanding of scripture, not the scripture itself.

 

[valis]

I don't think it's any more prejudiced than his feelings for any type of paranormal claim. I can't speak for him, but I know that in my mind there is no special treatment deserved by religion. There's nothing about religious beliefs that make them any more important than say belief in alternative medicine, or telepathy, or perpetual motion machines...

I lump it all together in the same bag. There's no proof for any of it, so why believe it?

The challenge is for TESTABLE ideas.
There is really no point in saying anything more; the rest of this has already been discussed a few times in this thread.

 

[macgyver]

To answer your question:
Two things mainly: 1. familiarity. Even though I used to get in fights in grade school when I declared I did not belive in God; I have been exposed to the bible much of my life and have a, I feel, good basic understanding of the religion. It would literaly take years to learn and understand another one. I have no doubt that there are many useful things in other religions.

2. Accesibitlity: There is a Unity church nearby that fits my needs fine and I can relate to the other people there. If I were to be say a Hindu; well there are quite a few Indians in this area so I don't doubt there are Hindu places of worship around. But then I would not only have to learn the religion but also there would be a cultural and perhaps language barriers.

I don't know that this really answers Jon's question. You are basically saying that you chose Christianity because it fell in your lap?

It seems like such an important thing to attach one's life to, yet you're saying you didn't give it much more thought than you heard of it before and there was a church within walking distance?

With all due respect, but to sum it up: you chose christianity because you're lazy?

That's the part that is so hard to believe. I know that my own journey to atheism was long and required a LOT of time and thought. It also required that I look at many of the other offerings out there as well.

So the question was why Jesus, why not Zeus or Mithras or countless other deities?

I'm honestly not trying to beat up on you, I'm genuinely astounded that these kind of life decisions can be made (seemingly) so flippantly.

There must be more to the story?

 

[valis]

There's certainly no harm in asking the questions at least.

I asked the question for many years, decades I guess really. I came to a different conclusion than you.

 

[macgyver]

I asked the question for many years, decades I guess really. I came to a different conclusion than you.

Fair enough. Interestingly, we also apparently started at different ends of the field. I spent my childhood as a christian and left it later in life, you did the opposite.

Perhaps there's something about where you start?

 

[joller]

Bull. The RCC do not officially change scripture.

Unofficially, they don't do it either.

They change interpretation and explanation of scripture.
I believe one of their defining principles since the Age of Reason has been "Where our understanding of scripture disagrees with physical evidence, it is our understanding of scripture that is at fault." Understanding of scripture, not the scripture itself.

Hmm.. well.. do they really change the interpretation?
Could you give some examples?
I thought it's the catechism that changes, and it is based on other sources as well as bible. Different vatican congregations etc can also change the rules. the whole infallibility of the pope is often misunderstood as well, there's a number of conditions that need to be present for the papal teachings to be considered 'ex cathedra'

Source from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility :

For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must make it clear that it is definitive and binding. There is not any specific phrasing required for this, but it is usually indicated by one or both of the following: (1) a verbal formula indicating that this teaching is definitive (such as "We declare, decree and define..."), or (2) an accompanying anathema stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church. For example, in Pope Pius XII's infallible definition regarding the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, there are attached these words: "Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."

Of course RCC is not the whole christianity, but the truth is, officialy, if you do not accept any of the papal 'rulings' and catechism of the RCC, you're not a part of RCC, so you shouldn't call yourself a 'roman catholic', although you can of course still remain christian. There is no single body governing the rules of christianity.
Not accepting the rulings excludes one from being a part of RCC, although if you accept them, but disobey them from time to time, you're OK, you're a sinner though and will burn in hell if you won't do something about it (confession and other methods).

EDIT:
that's interesting, from the same source, directly following the previous paragraph:

An infallible teaching by a pope or ecumenical council can contradict previous church teachings, as long as they were not themselves taught infallibly. In this case, the previous fallible teachings are immediately made void. Of course, an infallible teaching cannot contradict a previous infallible teaching.

That's the only way it can work of course, but it opens the whole infallibility to abuse, what if a pope goes mad (or becomes an extremist) and infallibly declares something he shouldn't? there's no way to reverse it.

 

[macgyver]

The challenge is for TESTABLE ideas.

I didn't realize we were discussing the challenge. I thought we were discussing Randi's supposed prejudice against religious folk.

I was just offering an explaination for why I don't think it's prejudice necessarily.

 

[valis]

I didn't realize we were discussing the challenge. I thought we were discussing Randi's supposed prejudice against religious folk.

I was just offering an explaination for why I don't think it's prejudice necessarily.

Okay sorry for any confusion. Forget the part about the challenge, I belive the other part has been addressed in the previous posts.

Edit to add: Many people believe many things. I know of one person, one of the most skeptical level headed people ever, who liked to believe that mammoths still roam the Earth. He knows that there is no hard evidence. It doesn't make him any less the critical thinker.

 

[dv82matt]

Suppose you meet a KKK wizard handing out hate literature in the streets, arguing that black people are dangerous sub-human animals who should be enslaved for their own benefit. Suppose you ask him why he believes this. Suppose he says,

"Because it makes me happy to believe it."

Imagine what your reaction would be.

Now you know how I feel.

I can't remember who said it, but...

"Not caring whether something is true or not because it makes you happy, is the moral equivalent of not caring how you got your money because it makes you wealthy."

Absolute nonsense! You are equating abhorent beliefs with unevidenced ones. If the KKK wizard told you he had evidence for his beliefs would that make you feel any better? Seriously, think about it.