Pascal's Wager

[Hellbound]

Politas:

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.

That was kinda my point. "Christian" can vary from a raving fundie who thinks Jesus was a divine space alien to a person, such as valis, who simply has a rather non-specific belief in his divinity.

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.)

I don't believe the Bible is the only source, there are a few references to him (or, at least, the movement in his name) from other sources. I would agree that the Bible is the only source claiming his divinity, though.

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".

Well, I was moving away from PAscal's Wager to speak more generally, because, to be honest, Pascal's Wager was not really all that central to the OP (IMHO). The contention was about the characterization of Xians.

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.

And I would disagree here. Christians are no more a single community than atheists. There are thousands of Christian sects, some of whom consider themselves together and some who do not. There are many who hold their own personal beliefs, and don't ascribe to a particular sect's dogma. I'd say that it is similar to atheist, to a degree. I'd be suprised if you could find one statement (other than the required "belief that Jesus existed and was divine") thayt was accepted by all groups labelling themselves Christian.

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.

This I can agree with, and I'd see the point of your argument if valis had claimed to be, for example, Roman Catholic, or Southern Baptist. Both of these specify a particular set of rules and dogmas within the larger Christian set, just as Humanist specifies a set of values within the larger atheist set.

Macgyver:

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

Well, as I see it, valis has not claimed to subscribe to a particular dogma. As I stated earlier, the only thing required to be Chrisitna is belief in the divinity of Jesus.

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.

Yes, but Christian is a label that simply means "belief in Christ's divinity". The rest varies from sect to sect. I made similar points above, in a bit more detail.

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.

I agree with this statement, to a degree. Skeptisim impaired? Yes, in this instance, but I could easily make the claim that this applies to all of us, only in differing areas. NONE of us are completely skeptical in all aspects, and often we choose to put aside skepticism for other reasons. Is it a failure of slepticism? Yes, that case could be made, and I'd probably agree with it. But I don't think it would necessarily refute the label of skeptic applied to such a person. I think that would depend more on the pattern of applying skepticism...if the person acknowledges and admits that this was not a view arrived at logically or skeptically, and is skeptical in other areas, I really don't see it as "severe" impairment.

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.

THe bolding is mine. The label Christian simply requires a belif in the divnitiy of Jesus, and that's pretty much it. IOf there was a requirement for belief in the Bible, I'd agree. But there isn't for the label Christian. IF valis had claimed to be, say, Church of Christ, then I'd say he was hypocritical .

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.

I too made that journey. My main point is that we tend to treat almost every believer as if they were leaning far to the fundie side. I'm generalizing, not necessarily saying we all do it or even that it's common among people, but enough do it that the idea comes across in almost every religious discussion I've seen on this board. And for some beliefs, I can see going a bit stronger after them . But valis's statements of belief seem fairly benign, he's givewn his reasons for them, and admits that they aren't completely skeptical, and I really don't see that as much of an issue.

And I think the diservice done is that almost immediately we set up the discussion as an adversarial exchange, consciously (for some) or unconsciously. My main worry with this is that it rarely causes re-evaluation. Not to say we can't disagree, or have to wear kid gloves, or anything oif that nature, but it seems that we all get a bit more rabid about religious beliefs than some other irrational or paranormal ideas (and I include myself in this statement, as well. Something I'm thinking through as I write here).

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...

*chuckle*

Well, I can't say I disagree in all aspects of faith. We are human, and faith is a part of that. The difference is in the grounding of faith, and how faith is viewed as a validation.

I have no problem with faith, as long as a person accepts and understands that faith is not evidence, and is not acceptible means for reaching truth. I don't think skepticism necessarily precludes faith, although skeptical process does (hopefully I'm making sense there). I mean that a person can be skeptical, and still hold some irrational or faith-based beliefs...as long as that person accepts and understands the reasons for his or her beliefs, and admits that. You could easily make a similar argument about choice of music or reading preference. It's not logical to waste two hours watching a movie about fictional space ships, for example, when one could be learning, improving oneself or others, etc (the argument could be made). However, enjoying a movie each weekend is not enough to label the person a lazy bum. Likewise, religious belief alone is not necessarily preclusive to skepticism...when religious belief becomes a persons personal assigner of truth, then I think it becomes a problem. Valis, however, seems to apply logic and skeptical thought without religion being a factor in that thought, which is the type of religion/skepticism blend I really don't take issue with.

 

[bruto]

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.

I think it depends on what you mean by "like to believe." I would "like to believe" that there are monsters in Lake Champlain, but if I went beyond that and asserted that I actually believe it because it has not been entirely disproven, I think that would be a lapse of critical thought at least worth noting, and if I touted such a belief publicly, I would be a skeptical and level headed person in about the same way as a person who gets drunk only on Saturday night is a sober person.

That said, I think Yahzi's argument against credo consolans is a bit of a low blow. To accept one thing is not to accept everything else. To go along with something you cannot be sure of because it feels right is not quite the same thing as suspending moral judgment because it feels good.

 

[politas]

Unofficially, they don't [change scripture] either.

Well, not since Gutenberg's wonderful invention, anyway.

Hmm.. well.. do they really change the interpretation?
Could you give some examples?

Well, the RCC now teaches that slavery is wrong, although they used to be happy with it.

From the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church, http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm):

100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

I think that's pretty clear, but here it is in more detail:

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."

There you go. The authority for interpretation is servile to the "Sacred Scripture" and "Sacred Tradition", and the RCC quite clearly claims the right to change that interpretation in the CCC.

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'

To a large extent, the Catechism is an interpretation of some parts of the bible, as well as the "Sacred Tradition." After some reading, it appears that I have been to some extent mistaken. The RCC draws far more authority from "Sacred Tradition" than I previously stated. That doesn't mean that they abandon the "Sacred Scripture", though.

 

[politas]

Politas:

I don't believe the Bible is the only source, there are a few references to him (or, at least, the movement in his name) from other sources. I would agree that the Bible is the only source claiming his divinity, though.

The references you are thinking of are only to "Christians", from my understanding. I cannot consider such references to be any kind of support for the existence of Jesus, much less the details of his life and associated miracles. They only prove that Christianity was around then.

Well, I was moving away from PAscal's Wager to speak more generally, because, to be honest, Pascal's Wager was not really all that central to the OP (IMHO). The contention was about the characterization of Xians.

My characterisation of Christianity as being inherently hypocritical, or Randi's characterisation of Xians?

And I would disagree here. Christians are no more a single community than atheists. There are thousands of Christian sects, some of whom consider themselves together and some who do not. There are many who hold their own personal beliefs, and don't ascribe to a particular sect's dogma. I'd say that it is similar to atheist, to a degree. I'd be suprised if you could find one statement (other than the required "belief that Jesus existed and was divine") thayt was accepted by all groups labelling themselves Christian.

I think the majority of Christians consider themselves part of such a community. Certainly the Catholic Church considers all believers to be Christians, even if they are going to hell for not taking communion and receiving forgiveness. Those sects which affirm that other sects are "not Christian" are by far the minority, and you could argue that as far as they are concerned, they still share a community of belief with all Christians.

Whereas, I think the majority of, if not all atheists, consider atheism no more than a descriptive label. People don't choose to be atheists, they realise that they are atheists, having chosen not to believe in any offered religion.

 

[Hellbound]

My characterisation of Christianity as being inherently hypocritical, or Randi's characterisation of Xians?

I was speaking of the Op, which was more about Randi's characterization than about Pascal's Wager itself.

I think the majority of Christians consider themselves part of such a community. Certainly the Catholic Church considers all believers to be Christians, even if they are going to hell for not taking communion and receiving forgiveness. Those sects which affirm that other sects are "not Christian" are by far the minority, and you could argue that as far as they are concerned, they still share a community of belief with all Christians.

Only becuase they have the same basic belief, though. This really seems to be a non-argument, and I'm still not seeing your point. I consdier myself part of the "atheist community", simply as a descriptive label. For many Christians, this is their view as well. I don't really see a difference here, socially, or why this matters. Perhaps you coudl clarify this?

Whereas, I think the majority of, if not all atheists, consider atheism no more than a descriptive label. People don't choose to be atheists, they realise that they are atheists, having chosen not to believe in any offered religion.

I chose to be atheist. But again, I fail to see what this has to do with anything. Some Christians chose to be Christian, others will make the same statements (I didn't chose it, I realized it). It's a choice either way, the only real point of contention is what you base that choice on, and whether or not it is valid.

 

[Jon.]

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.

I applaud you for your honesty, both to yourself and to us. What you have said, I think (correct me if I'm wrong), can be summed up in the following points:

1. You feel better by being part of a community of people that believes in some cosmic purpose and order.

2. The most convenient such community for you to join is a Christian one.

3. You therefore adopt the beliefs of the Christian community near you.

4. You make no claims about the truth of the beliefs of the Christian community to which you belong, either in the absolute sense or in comparison to the beliefs of other religious communities.

Fair enough. And, I suspect, quite common among believers. I wish they were all as intellectually honest about it.

 

[macgyver]

valis,

I stand corrected. Apparently you did answer Jon's question sufficiently, and he interpreted your answer much differently than I did.

My curiosity in what motivated your choice is really just that; curiosity. A basic "rule" that I live by is that we all need the freedom to choose and think independantly. In that way, I honestly do respect your choice.

However, in that same way, it's perhaps fundamental to my difficultly in understanding the dichotomy of being (obviously) an intelligent and critical thinker, but reserving one place in your mind for "magic".

I understand that it can be done (and has been by far greater minds than my own) but do you need to weave your christian belief into the rest of your world view (including science) or are you truly content to just have it be something that IS and doesn't need to be rational?

I only ask that, because I remember going through a period myself, where I attempted to explain God's hand in the world by simply saying "science is uncovering the mechanism by which HE works". So evolution, physics etc. all fit into my christian worldview quite nicely, since those were the "mysterious ways" that God got things done.

 

[Yahzi]

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.

I completely agree, although I would describe it as a conclusion rather than a prejudice.

My point was that the evidence you cited did not support the case you cited it for.

 

[Yahzi]

Absolute nonsense! You are equating abhorent beliefs with unevidenced ones.

The abhorrent ideas are abhorrent precisely because they are unevidenced. If black people really were dangerous sub-human animals, then it wouldn't be abhorrent, it would just be another unpleasant fact of life. Like tigers. Are tigers abhorrent?

What is abhorrent is the injustice of labeling people something they are not. What is abhorrent is the untruth, and thus the injustice.

If the KKK wizard told you he had evidence for his beliefs would that make you feel any better?

Of course it would. In fact, if the KKK wizard had valid and compelling evidence for his position, I would agree with him. So would every rational person. That's what "rational" means.

You seem to think that only ideas that you like should be considered to be true. But this puts you in exactly the same position as the KKK wizard. To him, the idea that black people are human is abhorrent. Why isn't his disgust as valuable as yours?

Because you do not value his opinions. While you are shouting for equal rights for everybody, you are in fact demanding that the KKK wizard be treated unequally. Your goal is not really equal rights; it is rights for people you like, and non-rights for people you don't like. Which is exactly what the KKK wizard's goal is.

The only difference between your position and the KKK position is who you give rights to. Not how you give them, but who. Not qualititative, but quantitative. A difference of degree, not quality. A difference of flavor, not substance.


Now, if you would like to consider the rational position: that evidence decides truth, regardless of who the evidence comes from or what the truth is; then you will see that position is fair to everyone. If you can prove your case, then we have to agree; and if you can't, then you have to shut up. See how this is absolutely, qualitatively different than your position (that truth should be decided by what is abhorrent to you) and the KK position (that truth should be decided by what is abhorrent to them)? See how it is fair to everyone, because it relies on objective facts instead of personal emotional responses?

 

[Yahzi]

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

Looking carefully at my post, I do not see where I used the word "change."

If your position is that they leave the words on the page alone, but change what they mean, and this does not count as "correcting" scripture, then your position is what we call "hair-splitting."

The point is that if the text on the page says one thing, and the Church wants it to say another thing, then it says what the Church wants it to say. This demonstrates that the Church does not consider scripture to be the sole source of truth about God. Which was my point.

 

[Yahzi]

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

What a brilliant, reasoned, logical, compelling counter-argument.

But of course - trying to defend your position logically wouldn't make you feel good, so why would you even think about doing it?

I'll tell you what: we'll agree to disagree. And when that KKK wizard starts stomping on your face, I'll just walk away and forget about the whole thing, with my fingers in my ears so I can't hear your screams.

Because, after all, thinking about you being beaten up doesn't make me feel good. So why would I think about it?

I have demonstrated that your position is selfish to the point of immorality. Your response is to ignore any evidence or conclusion you don't like. Well, doh!

 

[Yahzi]

After some reading, it appears that I have been to some extent mistaken. The RCC draws far more authority from "Sacred Tradition" than I previously stated. That doesn't mean that they abandon the "Sacred Scripture", though.

I didn't mean to imply that they had abandoned scripture. Just that they do not consider it the final word.

As one Catholic explained to me, the concept of "Sola Scriptura" was a Protestant invention.

 

[dv82matt]

The abhorrent ideas are abhorrent precisely because they are unevidenced. If black people really were dangerous sub-human animals, then it wouldn't be abhorrent, it would just be another unpleasant fact of life. Like tigers. Are tigers abhorrent?

No matter how slavery is justified, whether by evidence and logic or by ignorance and lies, it is still immoral. Tigers are not immoral simply because they are not expected to abide by human morality.

What is abhorrent is the injustice of labeling people something they are not. What is abhorrent is the untruth, and thus the injustice.

In that case you should be very careful about what labels you apply to people such as valis.

Of course it would. In fact, if the KKK wizard had valid and compelling evidence for his position, I would agree with him. So would every rational person. That's what "rational" means.

You are implicitly assuming that you and the KKK wizard share a common moral outlook. I very much doubt that this is the case. Consider a hypothetical eugenics program which is based on solid evidence. Would you really abandon your right to object to it on purely moral grounds?

You seem to think that only ideas that you like should be considered to be true.

Not as true but as moral. You continue to conflate the two.

But this puts you in exactly the same position as the KKK wizard. To him, the idea that black people are human is abhorrent. Why isn't his disgust as valuable as yours?

Morals are funny that way. They are valued relative to the culture in which they exist.

Because you do not value his opinions. While you are shouting for equal rights for everybody, you are in fact demanding that the KKK wizard be treated unequally. Your goal is not really equal rights; it is rights for people you like, and non-rights for people you don't like. Which is exactly what the KKK wizard's goal is. The only difference between your position and the KKK position is who you give rights to. Not how you give them, but who.

We do not deny the right to own slaves only to the KKK wizard, we deny everyone that right.

Not qualititative, but quantitative. A difference of degree, not quality. A difference of flavor, not substance.

Right morality is relative not absolute.

Now, if you would like to consider the rational position: that evidence decides truth, regardless of who the evidence comes from or what the truth is; then you will see that position is fair to everyone. If you can prove your case, then we have to agree; and if you can't, then you have to shut up. See how this is absolutely, qualitatively different than your position (that truth should be decided by what is abhorrent to you) and the KK position (that truth should be decided by what is abhorrent to them)? See how it is fair to everyone, because it relies on objective facts instead of personal emotional responses?

The evidence only decides truth, not morality. I do not and never have said that the truth should be decided by what I personally find abhorrent, but I can see how you would misunderstand as morality and truth are one and the same to you.

 

[politas]

Looking carefully at my post, I do not see where I used the word "change."

If your position is that they leave the words on the page alone, but change what they mean, and this does not count as "correcting" scripture, then your position is what we call "hair-splitting."

The point is that if the text on the page says one thing, and the Church wants it to say another thing, then it says what the Church wants it to say. This demonstrates that the Church does not consider scripture to be the sole source of truth about God. Which was my point.

But they do consider scripture to be the "Revealed Word of God", and thus inerrant. This is why they do not actually change scripture. It goes to the status of scripture as an authority. They certainly do consider scripture to be authoritative and inerrent. Any errors by definition are in the interpretation, which is not inerrent, since it is not part of the "Revealed Word of God".

Thus, from the RCC perspective, no part of scripture can be simply ignored. If it appears to say something other than what they wish it to say, they must find a way to interpret another meaning from it.

The RCC and the Fundies have quite similar positions on the bible, really. The difference is that fundamentalism accepts no argument against its interpretation.

 

[Rustle]

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.

YES YES IT DOES AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH

 

[Rustle]

I can still reason just fine thanks. I have reasoned that I will belive God created the Universe ...

...except you really have not reasoned. You've done an emotional inventory, not an intellectual one. You are entitled to your beliefs. You do not have to justify them if you don't care to. However, the way you use phrases like "critical thinking", "logic", and "skeptical" is causing my brain to bleed a little.

 

[Darat]

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.

What we now call the Roman Catholic Church existed before the Bible, the Bible was and is a creation of that church. It is also accurate to say that the recent (in terms of Christian history) Protestant based churches also existed before their Bible. You may not be aware but there are significant differences in what the Roman Catholic Chruch considers to be the Bible and what (most) Protestant denominations consider the to be the Bible.

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

You may consider it nonsense but the Roman Catholic Church doesn't. As far as it is concerned the Church itself and the Pope in particular is the ultimate authority on the faith.

 

[Darat]

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

Yes they did and still do.

A good starting point to gain a better understanding of what has been (and still is) the dominate form of Christianity is to start reading up on the First Council of Nicaea^WP.

(ETA)

I hadn't read it before but Wikipedia also has a good introductory peice on the history of the Christian Bible^WP.

 

[Darat]

...snip...


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.

I tend to be a strong critic of the Roman Catholic Church but we should never forget it has been around for a long, long time. It has had to deal with mad popes, popes that are murderers, one pope that kept a little boy under his papal garments and so on. As an institution is has proven to be very, very resilient to internal and external attacks and one of the things it excels at is being able to explain why when the Pope of yesterday said 2+2=5 and the Pope of today says 2+2=4 neither of them were wrong -as they say practice makes perfect and it's had almost 2000 years of practice!

 

[politas]

What we now call the Roman Catholic Church existed before the Bible, the Bible was and is a creation of that church. It is also accurate to say that the recent (in terms of Christian history) Protestant based churches also existed before their Bible. You may not be aware but there are significant differences in what the Roman Catholic Chruch considers to be the Bible and what (most) Protestant denominations consider the to be the Bible.

I must admit to having never studied a Catholic bible. Just how different are they?

You may consider it nonsense but the Roman Catholic Church doesn't. As far as it is concerned the Church itself and the Pope in particular is the ultimate authority on the faith.

Um, the debate's moved on a bit. I have already admitted to being mistaken on that point. They do still consider the bible to be authorative, though. Read the Catchism.