Pascal's Wager

[valis]

Your second assertion is utterly nonsensical, as time started at the big bang. Asking what happened before the big bang is like asking "when is yellow?" or "why is Thursday?"; the question is utterly meaningless.

That was kind of the point I was trying to make. Not that I want to skip any one persons questions but these discussions always end up going the same way.

I do not feel it is valid; if there is a point beyond which nothing can be known or tested, to give any one possibility any advantage over another. You simply can't know.

I belive Atheism is a religion because it is a system of dealing with the unknowable on the terms of the Universe we understand. Thus the rhetorical question of what happened five minutes before the big bang.

In other words we take our observations in A, the material universe we exist in and attempt to apply it to B, the whatever is beyond the bounds of our universe that we cannot begin to comprehend.

 

[valis]

So you took Pascal's wager?

Actuall no. I had completely different reasons for becoming a Christian.

The point of my post is this:

Randi's statement was factually incorrect. The reason I mentioned my own belifes is so that I can state with authority beliving in God does not result in a bill or a requirement to say any catch phrases. Or for that matter any of the other cartoonish behaviour that Mr. Randi assigned.

 

[valis]

I care about why you changed my mind, because there is always the possiblity that you have found some undeniable proof that has dire implications.

I highly doubt that I have. I just tried to think about the subject with an open mind. I also tried to put aside my anti Christian prejudice, and read the bible with an open mind. There is nothing anyone told me to change my mind, so I doubt I could change yours. And if I could I wouldn't want to. What good would faith be if it was based on someone else talking you into it?

 

[politas]

I belive Atheism is a religion because it is a system of dealing with the unknowable on the terms of the Universe we understand.

Is that your definition of the word "religion"? Your entire definition?

religion: a system of dealing with the unknowable.

That's a completely new definition of the word as far as I'm concerned, but using just that definition, then atheism is still not a religion, because atheism involves not dealing with the unknowable. Atheism is saying "bugger the unknowable, let's concentrate on the knowable."

Feel free to refine your definition of the word "religion" further. I'm sure if you expand it sufficiently, you can find a definition which does include atheism. I suspect that such a definition would be difficult to find that does not also include such things as watching television, jogging, buying christmas presents for your children, and cooking.

 

[geni]

That's a completely new definition of the word as far as I'm concerned, but using just that definition, then atheism is still not a religion, because atheism involves not dealing with the unknowable. Atheism is saying "bugger the unknowable, let's concentrate on the knowable."

No that would be agnostic position. Athism spends long enough dealing with the unknowable to delcare that certian unknowable (in fact argubly an infinite number of unknowables) does not exist.

 

[Darat]

No that would be agnostic position. Athism spends long enough dealing with the unknowable to delcare that certian unknowable (in fact argubly an infinite number of unknowables) does not exist.

No that is not the agnostic position, the agnostic position is that there are some things that are not knowable.

(Albeit that a common usage of agnostic today is to describe fence sitting.)

 

[geni]

No that is not the agnostic position, the agnostic position is that there are some things that are not knowable.

(Albeit that a common usage of agnostic today is to describe fence sitting.)

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

Relisticaly there is going to be space for a god of the gaps for a long time yet.

 

[SezMe]

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.

Aha! You're an agnostic! Nothing wrong with that at all. So am I.

That said, I would be interested in learning how you resolve your agnosticism and your Christianity. Those positions seem fudamentally inconsistent, but maybe I don't understand your POV.

 

[Pup]

I have come to the conclusion that; when faced with the unfathomable it is not valid that we should presuppose one possiblity over another when we cannot, or at least I cannot even envision the possiblities fully.

And yet that's exactly what Christianity and most religions require you to do, to presuppose that god caused things which are unfathomable, such as how the universe was created.

Having to force yourself to reject conclusions which you'd otherwise think were reasonable, is one good example of the cost of believing in god.

 

[Rasmus]

Aha! You're an agnostic! Nothing wrong with that at all. So am I.

Ah, but do you believe in god?

My guess is that no, you don't and hence you are still an atheist, albeit an agnostic one.

You can only either be an atheist or a theist. There is, by definition, no middle ground.

 

[SezMe]

Yes, a more complete description of me would be "agnostic atheist". I don't know whether there is a god (I think, more strongly, that for any traditional definition of "god" that its existence is fundamentally unknowable) but I do not have a belief in one.

 

[valis]

And yet that's exactly what Christianity and most religions require you to do, to presuppose that god caused things which are unfathomable, such as how the universe was created.

Having to force yourself to reject conclusions which you'd otherwise think were reasonable, is one good example of the cost of believing in god.

What other conclusions?

For personal reasons I picked a conclusion that I liked. I'm not too terribly pig headed; as soon as you can come up with proof of what happened to set the universe in motion I will be more than happy to reconsider.

In the meantime I don't see any price associated with a self aware choice to belive in the existence of God. If you feel otherwise then by all means do what works for you.

 

[dv82matt]

Aha! You're an agnostic! Nothing wrong with that at all. So am I.

That said, I would be interested in learning how you resolve your agnosticism and your Christianity. Those positions seem fudamentally inconsistent, but maybe I don't understand your POV.

I don't think that agnosticism is nessessarily inconsistent with a God belief. One could say that it is not possible to know whether God exists yet still believe that God exists.

 

[valis]

That said, I would be interested in learning how you resolve your agnosticism and your Christianity. Those positions seem fudamentally inconsistent, but maybe I don't understand your POV.

Well it does sound a bit confusing. Basically I feel when faced with an infinite number of choices all of which are equally valid then you can pick a choice that works for you for other reasons. That sounds pretty incoherent.

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.

There is an element of Pascal's wager in that I don't see the harm if it turns out I am wrong. Although there are other elements of his argument that I disagree with.

 

[politas]

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.

The trouble with that from my perspective is that "being a Christian" doesn't involve accepting some of the tenets and beliefs of Christianity, it involves accepting all the tenets and beliefs of Christianity. And there are a hell of a lot of those tenets I don't agree with, and cannot accept.

Do you accept all the tenets and beliefs of Christianity, or are you cherry-picking the parts you like, and therefore not really being a Christian at all?

I consider it perfectly acceptable for me to agree that killing people and stealing are wrong, but disagree about the need to venerate some mystic sky-father and stone homosexuals. I cherry-pick the parts of the Bible I agree with, so clearly I can't call myself a Christian.

 

[geni]

The trouble with that from my perspective is that "being a Christian" doesn't involve accepting some of the tenets and beliefs of Christianity, it involves accepting all the tenets and beliefs of Christianity. And there are a hell of a lot of those tenets I don't agree with, and cannot accept.

Where have you been for the last 200 years. It isn't as if "Christianity" is a single homogenius religion. Compare C of E to Catholic to Southern Baptist.

 

[Aepervius]

christian = beliefe in christ as a savior

You do not need to believe in all of the bible to be a christian. You only need to believe in christ as a savior (and its teaching). Now there are various flaviour of christian (catholic, protestant, lutheriste, last day, etc...etc...) some having mainstream following in the billions, some not even enough to fill a congregation.

Now accepting parts or all the tenets of the bible make you part of the big christinist family, what it *does not make* you is a catholic/protestant and so on.

 

[Pup]

What other conclusions?

I was referring to the conclusion in your previous post (emphasis added): "I have come to the conclusion that; when faced with the unfathomable it is not valid that we should presuppose one possiblity over another when we cannot, or at least I cannot even envision the possiblities fully."

To be a faithful Christian (edited to add: according to the beliefs of all the major sects I'm aware of), you're not allowed to think like that, because when faced with such unfathomable things like how the universe was formed, you're required to believe that God did it, and reject other possibilities, including the possibility that we don't know and may never know.

For personal reasons I picked a conclusion that I liked.

That's fine, but I'm just looking for some logical consistency. It can't be both valid, and invalid, to pick one possibility over another. If the conclusion in your previous post is your personal best shot at reasoning, you've had to reject that to become a Christian, by presupposing that "God did it."

That's a cost: giving up some of your freedom to reason for faith, even if it's a cost you're gladly willing to pay.

The cost becomes more obvious when knowledge advances to the point where the unfathomable becomes at least a little comprehensible. The current classic example is evolution. Depending on the particular sect, some have taken it easily, others are obviously hurting with some major cognitive dissonance.

as soon as you can come up with proof of what happened to set the universe in motion I will be more than happy to reconsider.

I agree with that outlook, but the difference is that an atheist or agnostic doesn't have to worry whether they'll suffer eternal torment if they reject their former conclusions (or give up their lack of conclusions), based on new scientific-based evidence. A faithful Christian may, since "reconsidering" basic tenets of the church isn't exactly encouraged. Guilt over accepting new evidence is a cost that atheists/agnostics don't have to pay.

 

[politas]

Where have you been for the last 200 years. It isn't as if "Christianity" is a single homogenius religion. Compare C of E to Catholic to Southern Baptist.

Well, my experience with religious authority has been that they all say it's an all-in proposition. If you want to be a Christian, you have to believe it all. Yes, every single one of those authorities have a slightly different set of beliefs, which just makes the entire thing completely ridiculous as far as I can see.

Christians cherry-pick from the bible, while simultaneously claiming that they don't. It's the ultimate hypocrisy. They claim that the book is the ultimate authority, but ignore large parts of it.

This is why I could never be a Christian. I have other reasons for not following other religions.

 

[politas]

You do not need to believe in all of the bible to be a christian. You only need to believe in christ as a savior (and its teaching).

This wussy liberalistic view of Christianity I consider rank hypocrisy. The only authority that defines Christianity is the bible. Either it's an authority, or it's not an authority. If you can ignore some of it, you can ignore all of it. Are you saying that you can believe that murder is fine and dandy and still be a good Christian?

Have you read the book "Life of Pi"? The early chapters of that book really annoyed me, with the main character professing to believe Christianity, Islam and Hinduism all at the same time. That's called atheism. No real belief in either of those three religions is compatible with a real belief in the other two.

Now accepting parts or all the tenets of the bible make you part of the big christinist family, what it *does not make* you is a catholic/protestant and so on.

Bull. I can agree that we should be nice to each other, that helping people is a good thing, that murder and theft are wrong, and many other tenets from the bible without being a Christian. You just said above that I "only need to believe in christ as a savior". The reverse of that is that if I don't believe in Christ as a saviour (which I don't), I can't be a Christian, however much of the bible I agree with.