Pascal's Wager

[Aepervius]

Just one word

This wussy liberalistic view of Christianity I consider rank hypocrisy.

Whatever rock your boat. The definition I gave above is the dictionary definition :

Main Entry: 1Chris·tian
Pronunciation: 'kris-ch&n, 'krish-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin christianus, adjective & n., from Greek christianos, from Christos
1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (*)
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Christian

Where does it say the whole bible must be the authorithy ?

Maybe you do not like websters :

(*) I think quoting a sentence is fair use as long as you give the original web page, or is it now completly forbidden ?

 

[macgyver]

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

In truth, most people are agnostic.

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

To be agnostic is in many ways "keeping a foot in the door....just in case".

However, I've since moved on to atheism for several reasons. The most prominent being:

1) God doesn't have a job. There's litterally no reason for him
2) What's the difference between there being no God, and there being a God that leaves no evidence?

The second is very much like Sagan's dragon in Demon Haunted World.

Other reasons deal more specifically with the different flavours that organized religion takes on and the fact that any depth of review will result in coming to a few conclusions:

1) God, or Gods; non have been described that are worthy of worship. They all have critical flaws

2) Heaven would be a horrible exclusionary place of infinite boredom...

 

[dv82matt]

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.

The logic seems to hold but I'm not sure of its relevance to the question at hand. It seems to me that the salient question is whether Christianity permits doubt of it's core tenets or not.

 

[NiallM]

Okay asserting then. I don't see much practical difference.
Same place as premarital sex did apparently.
Perhaps one could assuage ones feelings of guilt by joining a cult then. Or are you saying that feelings of guilt would be appropriate in this case?
Right I agree.
Historically that may be true but there has been a significant liberalization of many sects of Christianity over the last half century or so.Somedenominations do. Emphasis on 'some'.
You're talking as if all denominations are identical. This is mostly a Catholic thing.
Indeed it is.
Some theists, not all theists, not even all Christians. There is much variety to choose from.
I'm not sure that it would be purely aesthetic to a person who truly believed though.
Agreed.
Yes, it is the history of humanity. I think you could make an equally compelling case against the nation state as you could against religion however. What nation has not commited atrocities at one time or another? What king was ever not a tyrant? So it goes.
Very true. Well put.
How would you address and deal with the fear of death and are you sure that your solution would be satisfying to everyone? Some may need to cling to their cherished beliefs and in fact not be better off without them.Indeed, but that is your conclusion. It may not work for everyone.

Damn you anyway! We're pretty much agreed. Maybe even converging on the same point from different sides of the line.

 

[Rissask]

The very short, highly abridged version is that I came to realise that there is absolutley no way, for me at least, to know whether God exists or not.

That is you have just as much reason to belive there is a God as not; in fact I have a very hard time defining what the definition of a God would be or what the lack of one would imply. Why? Because all the answers would lie in a 'time' before the creation of the uninverse, in other words in a time before time itself existed.

How I came to decide that Christianity makes sense; that is a long story that basically involved trying approach the subject withouth prejudice (as much as possible of course) and then coming to a personal decision.

In my opinion Atheism is just as much a religion as Scientology or Christianity or any other faith.

You are right in that you cannot 'prove' a negative; there is no way of proving whether or not God exists.

But to me, that is like saying, well, heck- I cannot prove there are no fairies living in my garden (I believe this a Dawkins analogy), so therefore I should be open minded on the subject of fairies in my garden. I should be agnostic on the subject of fairies.

Um, no- that makes no rational sense, believing something to be even possibly true, for which there exists no evidence!

And saying atheism is a religion is like calling bald a haircolour.

 

[macgyver]

And saying atheism is a religion is like calling bald a haircolour.

That's awesome! Can I use that?

 

[gnome]

2 cents here myself...

It appears that valis has chosen Christianity as a result of concluding that atheism is just another choice about the unknowable.

I explain the logical difference this way: arbitrarily choosing Christianity involves supposing very specific things that are unknowable. The divinity and sacrifice of Jesus, in particular.

Atheism does not require you to suppose the existence of anything without reasonable evidence. Where atheism leaves a blank, theism (especially choosing a specific theism) has the gumption to fill in the blank, based on what?

 

[macgyver]

To further Gnome's point:

It appears that many theists view atheists as having a "belief" just as they do.

However, atheists are not saying that they have a disbelief in something for which there is evidence (ie water) because that also would require "faith".

I believe water exists, because there is ample evidence, and I (or scientists) can test it's qualities. If I stated that I don't believe in water, only my faith could help me hold onto that belief.

Atheism is the lack of that kind of belief.

I don't believe in God because no evidence has been offered that proves his existence. No faith required!

 

[SezMe]

That's awesome! Can I use that?

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

 

[Jon.]

After reading the bible and thinking about it at length I decided that I enjoyed and valued many of the things I found in Christianity. All things being equal I made an informed descision to be a Christian. It was a personal decision and I have no desire to convert others or argue over the merits of one world view over the other.

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?

 

[macgyver]

Allow me to try again. After reading the bible and thinking about it at length I decided that I enjoyed and valued many of the things I found in Christianity. All things being equal I made an informed descision to be a Christian. It was a personal decision and I have no desire to convert others or argue over the merits of one world view over the other.

I'm also curious as to why you would necessarily buy the subscription, if you only had to read a few articles to take away the information?

I can understand, perhaps, that after filtering out the vast majority of what's written in the Bible one could distill some words of wisdom to live by. How does one make the leap to believing in God's only Son being killed on a cross and then resurrected?

That's the price of admission to that show, and it's far too steep for this skeptic...

 

[politas]

Whatever rock your boat. The definition I gave above is the dictionary definition :

Main Entry: 1Chris·tian
Pronunciation: 'kris-ch&n, 'krish-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin christianus, adjective & n., from Greek christianos, from Christos
1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (*)
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Christian

Where does it say the whole bible must be the authorithy ?

Maybe you do not like websters :

(*) I think quoting a sentence is fair use as long as you give the original web page, or is it now completly forbidden ?

I've got nothing against Websters. I like dictionaries. I sometimes read them for pleasure.

But a dictionary definition is only the start of a concept, it is not the entirety, otherwise there would be no need for non-fiction books other than a comprehensive dictionary.

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).

So being a Christian implies acceptance that at least some of the bible is accurate. Given that, how does a person choose which parts are accurate, and which parts are metaphors or inaccurate? Some metaphors are obviously metaphors, obviously intended to be metaphors by the authors. The rest is presented as fact. How do we decide what is fact and what is not out of the parts which are not obviously metaphors?

One way would be to compare the biblical record with other extant historical sources. That doesn't work very well, since none of the extant historical sources provide any confirmation for the events in the bible. Indeed there are parts that are quite clearly fictional, since known writers would surely have written of such events, e.g. the Slaughter of the Innocents from Matthew.

So we're left with merely choosing the parts we agree with, and that's a very slippery path for Christianity to base itself on. That's what all christians actually do, in effect, though they rarely admit to it. That is hypocrisy.

 

[SezMe]

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

 

[macgyver]

One way would be to compare the biblical record with other extant historical sources. That doesn't work very well, since none of the extant historical sources provide any confirmation for the events in the bible.

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.

Also, you mentioned that nobody can hear Jesus speaking today. First of all, you have to accept that there actually was a single man named Jesus (rather than Jesus being an amalgam of many existing, and pre-existing messiah figures) and that you actually speak his language. The writers of the Gospels didn't hear him either, since they were written generations after his alleged death. Two of them most likely copies of Mark, and then there's Paul/Saul..

Then there's the striking similarities between the Jesus story and that of Mithras...hundreds of years prior to Jesus being "born"

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

 

[valis]

valis, I somewhat agree with your initial critisism of Randi's take on Pascal's Wager, although he is essentially just saying that he doesn't think it's a good bet, the more salient point to me is that it's based on a false premise.

I wonder if you would agree that any God belief is inherently an abdication of logic since it is not based on evidence.

I wish I could be a little more literate in explaining this but simply put no I don't because I readily admit there is no evidence. This is where I get a little stumped trying to explain: It is not a matter to be proved or disproved. It does not require evidence because it deals with non material matters.

The actual criticism I had of Randi's article is the way he derisivly treats all Christians as brainwashed buffons Hallelujahing and tithing their way through life. My wife was raised by fundementalists and even though they are about as far from me belief wise as you can get they are still nothing like the carictacure Mr.Randi and many others seem to have.

 

[SezMe]

I wish I could be a little more literate in explaining this but simply put no I don't because I readily admit there is no evidence. This is where I get a little stumped trying to explain: It is not a matter to be proved or disproved. It does not require evidence because it deals with non material matters.

I don't think you are stumped at all. You just say, "I take it as an article of faith."

The skeptic say, "But there is no evidence!"

You say, "I take it as an article of faith."

As long as you are clear that you are not trying to defend your religious beliefs as being logical, you are OK. It is when someone tries to defend their religion or justify its application to others that they go off track.

 

[BPScooter]

Hi again, I'm prophetic because in post #3 on this thread I predicted that we would get into issues like 'mind' and 'belief.' I neglected to mention 'self' but we have plenty of time for that.

This quote comes from John Derbyshire, whose writings are available (thanks to his own scupulous archive) on www.olimu.com

" Nobody even glancingly acquainted with the history of the last quarter-millenium would assert that you can arrive at a rational social order by dumping religion overboard. My own estimate of the power of reason in human affairs is, I am willing to bet, a lot smaller than Ponnuru’s—it is, I think, smaller than that of anyone I have ever met—and I am sure that poor beleaguered reason needs all the help it can get. A sophisticated religious belief (I am not speaking of shamanism or voodoo) can indeed supply an organizing principle within which reason might usefully operate, “might” being of course the key word there. "

Ponnuru is having his book reviewed, and arguing a Right to Life case, but not from entirely religious grounds. Derbyshire is disagreeing. This is an interesting development for anyone that thinks that all Conservatives are Christian, or all scientists are atheists, or all mathematicians can't write decent English.

 

[valis]

along with the health risks that obtain with certain belief systems.

Here I'll pick an easy one. Did you consider the health benifits of some religions. Mormons are some healthy little devils. In fact isn't Utah one of the healthiest states in the US if I recall correctly. I would bet that some eastern religions call for meditation has some health benifits. Many religouse folks don't drink or smoke (although frankly I drink enough to make up for it and I'm reading the same bible so go figure).

So here is what I guess we have to do. Add up the health benifits from religion and then weigh that against the detrimental effects from some of the other religions. BTW at least in the US the number of people that refuse health treatment on biblical grounds is a tiny minority so I would wager that the good far outweighs the bad. But please by all means run the numbers, worldwide of course and get back to me.

I have no intention of imagining a world run by your examples. There's simply no point because you are proposing a false dichotomy. By asking me to, you are inferring that that is the alternative option.

Only I can truly know what I am in inferring and I am inferring no such thing. I am trying to point out that crappy behaviour and irrational decison making can be done just as easily by the Atheist as by the believer.

I'm interested to hear how a rather smaller brush - applied to the points that I have pulled out - will demonstrate that they are not costs.

ETA: Since you haven't addressed even one of my points, I will use an illustrative example to demonstrate the cost of one of my examples.

I mentioned the cost to education of religious belief.

Here in France education is determinedly secular. As a result we do not have the xtian fundamentalists hammering away at Science eduation and trying to force their version of events on our children. Creationism is not taught in the schools and will never find its way into the science books.

Then again maybe the public debate is good in an overall fashion. I would bet at the end of the day there will be less belief is the fundementalist view of creation and not more as the result of the issue being discussed in public.

Also I almost forgot, what about the church's contribtation to education. My Sister in law is spending her own money and vacation time to go on a church trip to Central America to work on a school. She and the other members of her church belive that they are compelled to do such things by Jesus.

Perhaps the school will poison the little shoeless children's minds with religion but at least they will learn to read and write and do a little math.

 

[dv82matt]

I wish I could be a little more literate in explaining this but simply put no I don't because I readily admit there is no evidence. This is where I get a little stumped trying to explain: It is not a matter to be proved or disproved. It does not require evidence because it deals with non material matters.

But by bypassing evidence aren't you nessessarily also bypassing logic? Are you utilising logic in some other way? I admit that your position is not specifically ruled out by logic but I don't see how it can be derived from logic either. (other than in a purely pragmatic way of course)

The actual criticism I had of Randi's article is the way he derisivly treats all Christians as brainwashed buffons Hallelujahing and tithing their way through life. My wife was raised by fundementalists and even though they are about as far from me belief wise as you can get they are still nothing like the carictacure Mr.Randi and many others seem to have.

Yeah, I hear you.

 

[valis]

."
The skeptic say, "But there is no evidence!"

You say, "I take it as an article of faith."

As long as you are clear that you are not trying to defend your religious beliefs as being logical, you are OK. It is when someone tries to defend their religion or justify its application to others that they go off track.

I would prefer to say that 'I am logical in things that call for the application of logic'. But then I am splitting hairs.

As far as pushing my beleifs on others, no way, people should decide on their own. I normally never even bring the subject up but it is dang hard not to fall in the trap of discussing religion on this site. Anyhow if I were to encourage people to share my beleifs or come to a service with me and they were to get bit by one of the snakes, well I would just feel awful