>SJ>Pascal's point was that we *are* all wagering that we are right, against
>>*all* other religions and philosophies, whether we realise it or not:
>>
>>"Yes, but you must wager. There is no choice, you are already
>>committed. Which will you choose then? ... You would have to
>>play (since you must necessarily play) ..." (Pascal B., "Pensees,"
>>Penguin, 1966, p.123)
>>CC>If one is already committed, then there is no room for choice. The
>>choice, if any, has already been made. Thus, saying ,"Which will you
>>choose then?" becomes rather silly, because it assumes that one is *not*
>>committed. Pascal should make up his mind.
>Chris misunderstands Pascal. He is not saying that one has no choice
>at all. What he is saying is that one has no choice not to *wager*.
Chris
Oh.
>That is because if even if one does nothing one has in effect wagered
>that Christianity is false, because no one is born a Christian. That is
>what Pascal means by "you are already committed".
>CC>Further, though it's true that in a very narrow sense we may all be said
>>to be "betting" that we are right, this is really only meaningful if "live"
>>alternatives are in fact available. Christianity is too full of nonsense
to be a
>>meaningful alternative to many of us. In such a case. Besides, a God who
>>would have us try to brainwash ourselves into believing in him would be
>>too stupid to blow his own nose without help.
Stephen
>So Chris has made his wager based on his estimate that "Christianity is too
>full of nonsense to be a meaningful alternative." So In effect, Chris has
>estimated the probability of Christianity being true is 0.
>I have wagered the opposite to Chris. My estimate of Christianity being
>true is a probability of somewhere between 0.99 and 1 (the latter being
>absolute certainty). I am not exaggerating - based on the *evidence*
>that I know, I find it hard to imagine how Christianity could be false.
>I would now remind Chris of the consequences of our respective wagers.
>If he is right and Christianity is false, then he and I will both die and
never
>wake up. Then neither he nor I would have lost anything. Chris is presumably
>happy with his life as an atheist and I am very happy with my life as a
>Christian.
>But if Chris is wrong, and Christianity is true, then both Chris and I
will die
>and wake up. But then for Chris, there will be everlasting self-inflicted
>torment as he contemplates *eternity* with what might have been. OTOH
>for me there will be everlasting happiness.
Chris
If you are wrong, you sacrifice rational Earthly living for nothing.
Stephen
>In this classic version of Pascal's wager between an atheist and a
Christian,
>I can't lose anything, but I can gain everything. Chris OTOH cannot gain
>anything, but he can lose everything.
>CC>Thus, in another sense, no wager at all is involved, or, indeed, even
>>possible. We believe what we believe, for whatever reasons we believe it,
>>whether they are good or bad. We cannot *believe* on the basis of a
>>betting situation. If I thought there was a significant chance that the
>>Christian God existed, and that the rewards of *betting* on him were
>>sufficient, etc., and *if* there was some way to bet on him, I might do so.
>>But that would not change the cognitive basis of my belief, and it would
>>not enable me to *believe* in him. The best I could do would be to try to
>>hypnotize myself into believing in him, or something of that sort. But,
until
>>I succeeded, I would not be believing in him. I might be either
>>*pretending* to believe in him or simply worrying that he might exist and I
>>might lose out because I was not lucky enough to be *stupid* enough to
>>fail to see the flaws in the arguments for his existence, etc., but I
would not
>>be actually believing in him until the hypnosis or brainwashing actually
took
>>sufficient effect.
Stephen
>No. There are plenty of atheists who become Christians - I myself did. All
>one needs to do is admit that one could be wrong and look again at the
>evidence *without prejudice* to satisfy oneself whether Christianity is
>true or false.
Chris
"Without prejudice" appears to mean something like, "without significant
epistemological standards." Plenty of atheists do become Christians of one
sort or another, but a lot of Christians become atheists, too. Since I
believe I already *do* look at the "evidence" without prejudice, and find
it as severely wanting as the evidence for Islam and the evidence for the
existence of Quetzalcoatl and the evidence that the Earth is at the precise
center of the Universe, your statement here is as meaningless to me as
Pascal's wager (in *any* version).
Which epistemological standard(s) would you have me set aside in order to
look at the evidence "without prejudice"?
Stephen
>Chris cannot afford a false negative, i.e. deciding that Christianity is
false
>when it really is true, because the consequences are so ruinous. So Chris
>must satisfy himself that there is no reasonable possibility that
Christianity
>could be true.
>And by Christianity, I mean *real* Christianity, not some strawman of Chris'
>own imagining because that would have accomplished nothing and
>Chris would know in his heart that he was fooling himself.
Chris
I notice that each person who calls himself a Christian has his own
definition of what *real* Christianity is, and his own basis for making the
claim that *his* Christianity is the *real* Christianity. Often, I bet,
those definitions and criteria would make Stephen's Christianity
*unreal*. Since I don't really think that Jesus even existed, even as an
ordinary religious nutcake of those times, I find it hard to accept that
*any* version of Christianity has any particular claim to being the *real*
Christianity.
>Chris must satisfy himself, in his *heart*. The test would be that Chris
>would be then relaxed about Christianity, and not getting angry at
Christians
>or their God anymore. We do not get angry at some South Sea
>Islanders' god, or its followers, because we believes in our hearts that
>there is no real possibility of that god being true.
>I was reading the Koran the other day and it threatens me with eternal
>punishment unless I become a Moslem. But I don't bother attacking
>Moslems because I believe in my heart that there is *no* chance that
>Islam is true and so Mohammed's God is no more a threat to me than
>the Tooth Fairy.
>That Chris gets angry at the Christian God and Christians tells me that
>despite all his philosophising, Chris still believes in his heart that the
>Christian God is real enough to be a threat. If He is real enough to
>Chris to be a threat to him, then to Chris His probability cannot be 0.
Chris
I sometimes get angry at all major forms of stupidity that threaten human
life, including Islam, communism, the acceptance of quack medical theories
by the public, parents teaching their children that Santa Claus is real, etc.
>CC>But, then, what kind of slimy, malignant, deranged, mindless God
>>would ever make such demands of people, anyway? Such a God is not
>>even logically possible, so how could I even be slightly concerned that
such
>>a God might exist and that I'd be losing out for *failing* to brainwash
>>myself into believing in him?
>See above. Methinks Chris doth protest too much! If the Christian "God is
>not even logically possible" then why does Chris even *bother* to be angry
>at Him? Presumably Chris doesn't get angry at the Tooth Fairy?
Chris
Why do you think I'm angry at the Christian God? Further, the Christian God
is described (by *the* "sacred text" of its adherents!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) as a
malignant, deranged, and mindless God, especially in the Old Testament. He
mellows out a little by the time He gets to the New Testament, but He's
still way too malevolent to be anyone one I could call a friend or ever
love. The same applies, based on what little knowledge I have, to the God
of Islam, so it's not just the Christian God that I have a distaste for.
The Christian God get my disapproval because He happens to be the one we
are talking about, the one who is believed in most commonly in our culture.
The Tooth Fairy, in comparison, is a rather trivial stupidity. It is not
claimed ever to torture people for eternity, or to have wiped out whole
cities of people out of spite, etc. It merely buys up used teeth. If that's
all the Christian God was supposed to do, I *wouldn't* bother much with the
stupidity of believing in it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 11 2000 - 09:52:45 EST