Religion
Related: About this forumThe End Game: Taking the Bet of Pascal
Posted: 01/08/2013 1:09 am
Dr. Charles G. Cogan.
Associate, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School
In the Sunday Review section of the New York Times on Jan. 6, Susan Jacoby, a self-described atheist, secular humanist and freethinker, wrote an op-ed entitled, "The Blessings of Atheism: It is Here & It is Now." In it she argues that atheists should be more assertive about spreading their point of view, and she makes the claim that "the absence of an afterlife lends a greater, not a lesser, moral importance to our actions on earth."
The "blessing" of atheism, Jacoby seems to say, is that death puts an end to suffering: "atheism is rooted in empathy as well as intellect. Those we love suffer no more." The author of a forthcoming book on Robert Ingersoll, the well-known American freethinker, she quotes from Ingersoll to reinforce her point: "The larger and the nobler faith ... tells us that death, at its worst, is only perfect rest ... the dead do not suffer."
Those who lack the atheists' certitude that there is no afterlife, and who have never seen, and never will see, proof of the existence of God, are the thousands of agnostics -- those who do not "presume to know." Some are tempted toward the notion that underlies the famous bet of Blaise Pascal, the 17th century French philosopher.
The reasoning of Pascal is the following: in the absence of any proof of the existence of God, reason does not indicate to us whether to believe in Him or not. Since the choice is free, it is reasonable to lean, by calculation, against agnosticism: in effect, to decide to believe in God and live in consequence of that decision. If one leads a life in conformity with a belief in God, this guarantees inestimable benefits if it is revealed, after death, that God exists -- and costs nothing if he does not exist. Whereas agnosticism, in the latter case, does not bring any benefits, and on the other hand it is met with infernal punishment if God indeed does exist. Thus, it is rational to put faith in a belief in God and to lead a life that conforms to it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-charles-g-cogan/end-game-taking-the-bet-of-pascal_b_2429163.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)I can list many benefits to not believing in a god. Why do they not count to Pascal and those that take his wager?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Less obligatory Potlucks could be good or bad. Its a bit subjective. 
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)I agree, any alleged benefit would be quite subjective. That's one of the many reasons Pascal's wager is bunk all around.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)And believe in a headhunter God, thatll work out for me, right?
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)Seems to me, given the large variety of Gods available to choose from, the odds are definitely not in favor of you choosing the right one.
Personally, if forced to choose, I'd probably pick one of them that doesn't delight in dishing up big helpings of "infernal punishment."
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Some of those Gods are more forgiving to confused agnostics than to heretical worshippers of a false God.
The very act of picking a God can be suicidal and a downright insult if you choose the wrong one. Its much safer to stay neutral in the whole God-picking thing.
After all, if you get your time with the G-man, you can simply point out this very truth that you are far more likely to step in shit if you step. If God is a just, righteous, omnibenevolent God, He will get your drift. If God is not a just, righteous God, then it doesn't matter what you do or say; he would then not be bound by his nature to send anyone, even his own believers, to heaven.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)After checking out the 1,833 gods currently listed at http://www.who_you_can_send_money_to_for_immortality.com , I decided on the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
His Noodly Goodness is a neverending source of joy and happiness for me, and the sacraments (vodka penne & durum wheat wafers) are tasty!
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)One is that you do not entirely 'choose' to believe or not believe in something. You find it believable or you don't. You can control your actions. You may follow the behavioural rules of a faith. You may keep quiet about your beliefs or nonbeliefs. But if there is a God, then he presumably knows what you believe. And you can't make yourself believe what you don't think is true.
The second is that the 'wager' assumes a binary choice: either you believe in God or you don't. But there are many Gods in which you could believe. Suppose you choose to believe in the Christian God, but it turns out that you should really have believed in Allah, or the Hindu gods, or the Greek Pantheon? Even within a faith, many consider that only one form of belief will achieve salvation: some Protestant groups may consider Catholics as remote from salvation as atheists; some Catholics consider Protestants as heretics. Sunnis may not regards Shiites as true Muslims,and vice versa. The 'wager' requires you not just to believe in God, but to pick the right God out of many possibilities.
rug
(82,333 posts)In essence, he is saying the agnostic view is a perfectly valid alternative.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)But only as long as we are including knowledge about the existence of a god, not belief in a god.
rug
(82,333 posts)But it opens another distinction, that one may believe without knowledge.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I actually like the final quote from Dawkins - "believers will never discover that they are wrong, whereas atheists will never discover that they are right."
unblock
(52,253 posts)and he will lavishly reward the entire planet if you do.
wow, that's even more obvious than pascal's wager! you MUST commit unspeakable acts to save the planet!
sure, if you're wrong, you will have done something horrible, and probably go to prison for it, but a small price to pay for quite possibly saving the entire planet!
you'd have to be a really, REALLY, profoundly certain atheist with respect to this god before it made sense to turn down this wager.
by the way, what if the god of pascal's wager were reversed? what if god decided you go to heaven for being appropriately skeptical of his existence given the lack of evidence, and you get an eternity of fire and brimstone for foolishly believing something on the basis of nothing?
the fact is there little basis for deciding what god's criteria are, and unless you know this, you don't know how to act to benefit from pascal's wager.
longship
(40,416 posts)This has been hashed over for many years. I like Bertrand Russell's argument, related in the link below.
Pascal's argument is utterly refuted. It's shallow and obvious to even a casual observer, unless one is a particular form of theist who actually thinks it holds together.
Here's a good statement of the counter-argument:
http://coffeetheory.com/2012/01/06/pascal-was-wrong-rethinking-pascals-wager/
on edit: I have heard this argument dozens of times. As a professed atheist, one rarely doesn't hear some form of it. It really gets boring having to delve into it again and again. It's like deja vu all over again.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Most obviously if you follow Pascal, which God do you believe in? Which one earns your respect, your worship and do you follow the rules and teachings of that deity.
Let's say it is the God of the Old Testament. Remember you have sinned if you eat shellfish, wear mixed fibres, work in any way on the Sabbath (which is Friday nightfall to Saturday nightfall). Check the Mitzvot, those are the commandments you should be following. Remember that with that deity there is no hell, just the destruction of the soul or possibly a failure to resurrect you for the final triumph.
Don't like that one? Then how about the multiple aspects of God outlined by Hindu teaching? But I hope you do not like steak because that is a big no-no. For most favour you should arrange to have your ashes burnt and scattered on the Ganges. No hell, of course, just an eternity of miserable rebirths - in which you know nothing about your "true" self. Also, if you are lucky enough to be reborn as a human you must keep within the caste to which you were born - no upward mobility for you.
What about Baal? A big deity in his time but seems to have become reclusive.
What about Christian God? But which flavour do you choose? There's a chance that the Westboro Baptists are right, or the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Christadephians and most varieties of Christian have Hell which is a big disadvantage if you commit some minor error - torture for all eternity because you didn't fight the heretics living next door is a sodding awful result.
Perhaps all these are but aspects of the Big Kahuna and humans, in their limited way, have just misunderstood. Perhaps GOD is some all forgiving creature who does not punish you for truly believing what you practice.
In which case being an atheist is fine
rug
(82,333 posts)It's surprising how many religions say exactly the same thing.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Does the religion of the Mormons offer such solace? I think not. According to them failure to be a Mormon whilst still being "good" (in Mormon terms) means eternal 2nd class citizenry, unless some future Mormon baptizes you posthumously. (which means that some 10 x great grand-uncle Aelthwulf is in a mess because know one knows if he exists)
Catholicism? Well it does say good deeds are enough but kinda forget it if you have an abortion or are a homosexual.
Hinduism, theoretically doesn't care - as long as you follow their particular codes, which can include murder if you follow the aspect called Durga.
Taoism, - actually doesn't speak of any deity with lordship over the dead except in the most general way. What gods there are are more concerned with keeping the universe ticking and ensuring demons don't start kicking the living about.
Shinto? More ancestral spirits with the gods running the world and particularly Japan.
Buddhism? Well, again, that comes in many flavours. The background part of the faiths is that there are no gods judging humans; any judgment there is comes from some sort of mystical cosmic rule whose functioning cannot be divined (pun intended).
Unitarianism and Quakerism comes closest to what you say but that does tend to be about a God who might as well be not there.
rug
(82,333 posts)Actually six, since Catholicism also teaches that all, including noncChristians and nonbelievers, can be saved.
Amazing how quickly they come to mind.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)And which five do you include?
In respect of Catholicism if a woman procures an abortion and dies during the procedure can she still be saved? Or is she condemned to the flames of Hell? If you think that having done sufficient good works prior to her death might redeem her then I suggest you mention this to your local Bishop and either see how he wriggles or find out how much penance he asks you to perform. Similarly if a homosexual dies after a long and happy sexual and romantic life with his or her partner is that person still saved by good works? Remember that no less an authority than the Pope has recently declared that that good person would have lived a a "sinful" life.
If what you say is true then why bother to have faith at all? Remember religion offers no more moral guidance than secular ethics provides; given this why perform antique magical operations to appease a deity who will forgive you anyway? Why utter the incantations and pleas to a non-responsive superman? Why is it necessary to bow down (literally or metaphorically) to ordinary men and women who have happened to have had a magical transference of powers?
No credence can be given to the nonsensical Pascal's Wager. In effect you, personally, say that taking that bet is unnecessary, live a good life and despite your unbelief you are still entitled to eternal life.
rug
(82,333 posts)1) Yes.
2) No.
3) Good works is not the measure.
Your second paragraph is no more than rumination in sdearch of a justification for your stance.
Rather than tell me to speak to a bishop, I suggest you learn more about what you're trying to attack.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)What 5 faiths are you saying support your view? Come on you can do it, you do not have to be afraid.
Next, as I did not number my points, to what do the numbers (1) (2) and (3) refer?
Next, if (1) and (2) refer to my two examples then what does "Yes" and "No" mean? If you mean in the first case that the woman is saved then you are declaring that, despite dying in commission of a mortal sin, God will look after her? If in the second 2 loving and otherwise obedient (that is a sick term, are humans like dogs to be trained?) Catholics are condemned to Hell then how is your petty and pitiful little deity any better than a torturer?
I agree that Catholics do have to use "words and deeds" except your post seemed to say otherwise;
Next discontinuity
rug
(82,333 posts)The three answers are to your fist three questions.
There are many more than five religions that teach "salvation" or "liberation" whether one belongs to that religion or not.
Orthodoxy, Mormonism, Jainism and Buddhism, amog many others all teach that, although the eastern religons do not have the concept of "salvation". I suggest you read up on soteriology
As far as Catholcism goes, yor comments are simple ignorance. "
T)he faith you most readily espouse only saves people who convert" is flat out wrong. You confuse Feeneyism with Catholicism.
" T)he magical operations carried out in worship are also dead letters. Why genuflect if only faith and good works are sufficient to save you? Why utter incantations in specific form?" comes straight from a Jack Chick comic and is actually a distinct topic.
Really, educate yourself.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)So your first 2 answers referred to the first problem
Yes - She is saved and
No - She is not condemned to the flames of hell
Problem - the woman was disobedient to the teachings of Mother Church (I believe a venal sin) and also committing what Catholicism now describes as a deadly or mortal sin. And you say I need education about your faith, I suggest you look to the beam in your own eye.
Your 3rd response also doesn't measure up. Note I began the paragraph by stating that the paragraph by stating that these questions were in respect of Catholicism. This means that a Catholic man who is indulging only in love and sexual enjoyment, not necessarily lustful enjoyment, cannot have his good works placed in the balance in his favour. This is in direct contradiction of what is taught, that good works are a mitigation.
Finally you list four faiths (2 of which I did not mention) as examples of those offering non-believers solace. So in my my post there were only 4 that you believe grant the unshriven hope - please learn to count.
Lets first dispose of your arguments about "Eastern" religions. Liberation (of the soul) is not salvation; it is the ending of desire and the absorption into a cosmic all, the end of self. Similarly there is no punishment for failing to achieve that state apart from the continuance upon the Wheel. This is not what is taught as "salvation" in Christian based faiths where the self becomes raised up and survives for eternity and the "sinful" are cast down into the pit.
You obviously did not read what I said about Mormonism, what is more if that is wrong why do they go to all the trouble of posthumous baptism?
Orthodoxy - is now an eastern religion? You mean the Great Schism (1054) did not happen? And the nullification of the anathemas of 1965 did not happen?? Or are you confusing Oriental Orthodoxy with Eastern Orthodox faiths??? And Orthodox faiths do not teach that acceptance of the Creed (without the filioque) is necessary for the redemption of the human soul? Whoa, can I have some of the stuff you're taking?
About Catholicism, again you contradict yourself. If you do not need to be Catholic for redemption why bother being Catholic? By that argument deeds - not words of acceptance of dogma.
About ritual, and incantation. These are used in nearly every Christian service and in every Christian faith (even Quakerism). Let's use Catholicism:
What is the point of the bells chiming at the time of transubstantiation?
Why does the priest offer the host to the altar, why does he have to have hands laid upon him in order to serve?
Why does he normally dress up in robes?
Why do you need to accept the Creed (with filioque)?
Why the questions and responses in particular form?
Why do you offer prayers and finish them with "amen"?
Why is the Lords Prayer so essential?
Why do you need to take the flesh and blood of a god into your body?
Why attend a special building at all?
rug
(82,333 posts)The answer is the same. Under your scenario, it doesn't mean she is doomed at all. Your "education" seems to have stopped with a description of sin. You should continue on to mercy, culpability and mitigation.
Any talk of "good works" is entirely inapposite to the topic at hand, namely the problem of picking a god under Pascal's wager.
I already told you that eastern religions (of which Orthodoxy is not one) has a different path and a different goal than salvation. The point remains: the means to Nirvana, enlightenment or any other term you choose, is not exclusive to one religion.
It is true, Mormonism does teach universal salvation. It has no hell. Ask them about the specifics of posthumous baptism. But I suggest you learn what you're talking about first before you repeat the mistakes you've made here.
As to "Why bother being Catholic?", paste that into your Google. You'll be amazed.
As to your last nine questions, you're simply repeating yourself about "works". Go ask Jack Chick. You'll like his answers better than mine.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)In my world it is a null concept.
In respect of mercy, culpability and forgiveness; why do you contradict the teachings of your church about mortal sins? If there is forgiveness for all then why hell?
If good works are not apposite, only words can save. That too is in contradiction of dogma which teaches that mitigation of minor sin can be achieved by works; this little point is what distinguishes Catholicism from the extremes of fundamentalist Christianity some of whom insist exactly what you propose. Even so, how many times are you going to go round in the same circle? If you only need to accept God to be saved (words) then what is the point of good deeds? Of course if you only accept God the Father then you cannot be saved in Catholic dogma you also have to accept
Nirvana - you do not actually understand the term. One of the many meanings of the word is "leaving, going from, the path of rebirth," but one thing it is most definitely not heaven. It is not the completion of all worthy desires but the end of all desires, you do not even have to die to achieve Nirvana; contrast that with heaven.
If you did not intend to class Eastern Orthodoxy with Mormonism and Eastern religions, why did you group them together? You also ignored my differentiation of Orthodoxy into Eastern and Oriental, you are aware that they are different, are you not?
It is true that Mormonism does not preach a hell, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, they say that those who sin without mitigation are destroyed and they add that those who are righteous (but not Mormon) are second class citizens of eternity entitled only to be the servants and concubines of the deities that Mormons become. Personally I might prefer destruction to eternal servitude. Have a look at the ex-Mormon sites for details.
I did your Google search; one of the top results was this http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=39940 not helpful, unlike Ex-Christian it is more of a "hate site". Ex-Christian also includes testimony from doubters and those who continue to believe.
Now let me say I am tired of your ignorant, miss-spelled, poorly parsed badly edited posts. You accuse me of needing to learn, but you continue to espouse doctrine that should have you reciting Paters and Aves for weeks. This too is magic, surely if you are truly regretful of error why say these words? I notice you do not dispute the magical workings in the mass but instead assume that what you believe is the only correct thing
What you say just continually disproves Pascal's Wager but you want to make it an argument about Catholicism. Now go away and start making points about the OP. I have constantly tried to relate to the OP but you? No you're too good for that.
rug
(82,333 posts)Ok, run along then.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)No comments about how nobody understands?
No comments on Pascal's Wager?
If you want pettiness then ...
... Your second paragraph is no more than rumination in sdearch of a justification for your stance ...
... 1) Yes
2) No ...
... comes straight from a Jack Chick comic and is actually a distinct topic...
... paste that into your Google ...
... is entirely inapposite ...
I have refrained from raising this in the thread before because it was not germane. Interesting that you have chosen to make it so.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Certainly not the big 3. Which ones say that?
jamtoday
(110 posts)I saw when one theist proposed this was 'yes but this God of yours would know that person was lying and just covering their ass", seemed to do the trick.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)make it clear that when relieving themselves no matter how alone or distant in the desert, the most ardent Jewish believers covered themselves completely so as not to offend God. And never forget the nun who explained that she showered fully clothed so as not to offend. Reminded that she showered alone she remarked "Ah, but you forget the Good Lord."
If He cannot penetrate cloth, it's very doubtful that He penetrates the convolutions of the human heart.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)God uses religion to winnow out the gullible, those who would spend all their time in heaven genuflecting and singing hosannas, boring conversational partners in other words.
Easiest way to accomplish this is to cause to have written some really silly rule book that contradicts itself time after time, often within the same page and see who buys the stupid lock, stock and barrel and then proceeds to arrange their entire life around following this ridiculous rule book.
Interesting conversation never happens with someone who spends the entire time trying to suck up to you and God is lonely and desperate for some intellectual stimulation, yes men and women are not wanted.
Makes as much sense as any other theology.
Silent3
(15,228 posts)Not even to argue against those flaws if the author doesn't agree? That makes the author appear ignorant of common arguments against Pascal's Wager, or if not ignorant, smugly dismissive or dishonestly evasive.
