Tercel

On the original topic...

I would like to note that some of the generalisations being made aren't true. I, for example am a moderate-liberal Protestant/Eastern Orthodox Christian. As such, I don't see belief or otherwise as necessary for salvation.
But I do think Pascal's Wager has a lot of value. Or, more accurately, I think the logic behind Pascal's wager can be adapted to a more appropriate argument.

Pascal's insights were that:
1. At the end of the day, many people aren't going to have utterly convincing evidence about God's existence or non-existence. Therefore they have to make a choice about how they want to live their lives.
2. Doing what you think is best from your point of view is the general principle that people follow in making decisions. ie selecting the choice whos outcome has the highest Expected Value as judged in retrospect from your point of view. (of course this might include selfless acts such as giving your life to save a friend if you thought a world in which your friend lived and you died was a better one) It is therefore reasonable to apply this principle to answering part 1.

In Pascal's day, for most people the choice was only between conservative Christianity and atheism. Hence Pascal constructed a scenario inside that worldview which suggested Christianity as the better choice and hence, the one people should logically make. Of course Pascal's scenario fails today in a world where we have multiple religions, and people like me who believe in (a modified form of) heaven/hell but don't believe your decision to be a Christian is the deciding factor.

Nevertheless we can still construct scenarios using Pascal's ideas which fit with our own worldviews. Instead of concentrating on the threat of an afterlife like Pascal did (which is irrelevant to most of us today for reasons outlined above), it is probably best to concentrate on happiness in this life. Reasons to want to believe are readily apparent: A desire to see dead friends and family once more, a desire for a "meaning" to life, a desire for a foundation for objective morality, a desire for an emotional crutch etc. Scenarios analogous to Pascal's original one can be readily constructed with one or more of these ideas in mind, to show that belief is to be preferred over non-belief.

The idea that "we cannot force ourselves to believe" is an irrelevant tangent. It makes me sick to see people saying "I really want to believe, but just can't". For goodness sakes peoples, it's your life, you live it how you want to. If you want to believe, then just decide that you're going to live your life as if you believed. Trying to force yourself to believe is like trying to force yourself to "be happy": It ain't gonna work. But you don't let your life be entirely dictated by your emotions do you? Hopefully you still can act charitably to others sometimes when you're unhappy. Things like emotions and beliefs are outside your direct control, they'll happily fluctuate and change regularly under their own steam, so you're free to ignore them when convenient. (Unless you'd prefer to live your life dictated by pseudo-random changes?) After having watched The Matrix I cannot force myself to believe for a certainty that I am not in a similar matrix. Nevertheless that does not stop me assuming I'm not and acting as if I'm not. Similarly I occasionally have doubts about my belief in God... "what if I'm wrong?"... yet that doesn't stop me continuing my life with the assumption that God exists and acting as if he does. That's a decision that I've made and I simply stick to it. That's who I want to be and how I want to live my life.

Angrillori

Backing up to something that struck me as questionable:

Is there always merit in simply obeying?

(As a horrible, but direct analogy: )
Was it meritous for the SS to obey their commanders in WWII at the gas chambers?

Ernest Sparks

Tercel,

you say:

I find that extraordinary. All Eastern Orthodox believers in my acquaintance are not only non-protestant (any more), but, frankly, orthodox in theology as well as practice. That is why they remain/became Eastern Orthodox. How does this work for you?

Thanks,

ES

Littledrummerboy

Don, I'm confused, why is that just because my views on God change, as do most people's through their lives, he must be simply a belief? I'm not sure if that is what you are saying, but it is what I summed from it...am I reading this wrong? My views on many things in life change, love for instance, I do not see how that illigitimizes a belief in God...am I understanding you correctly, or am I talking about nothing again? In reference to a remark earlier, yes to say it is logical to believe an omnipotent God could create us and reveal himself to us as he wishes could be viewed as speculation...or as a postulate. As I'm sure you know, many things, if not all things, in Science and Math, are based off of postulates that cannot be proven and must be taken on faith, everything is extrapulated from something coming before it until it eventually leads to that postulate...my postulate is that God does exist. Molly, I do not like to put God in a box, he reveals himself to different people in different ways, I don't know that he reveals himself to everyone...I'm not willing to say what God definately does or does not do. I think it would be a waste of time to explain how I believe he revealed his will to me because many of you, if not all of you, would find faults or holes in the belief anyway. I'm sure I've left a lot out, and hopefully I have not gone on too much of a tangent, it is half past midnight, and I'm am up on a coffee buzz, but yet very tired (you know what I'm talking about?) It is quite a terrible feeling, I hope to be asleep soon....dare to dream....thanks

Stephen :notworthy

Tercel

I was brought up a Protestant and subsequently became reasonably liberal. (ie pretty much CS Lewis type liberal)
I was pleasantly suprised to learn that in the main area where I was liberalizing the Protestant doctrine (salvation theology), my beliefs were actually the same as the Eastern Orthodox teachings on the subject. But there are stuff-all Eastern Orthodox churches in my country, so I attend a Protestant church. Anyway I enjoy the Protestant informal services and probably wouldn't want to attend Orthodox services on a regular basis even if I could.
Whether I'm closer to being Protestant or Orthodox, I really don't know: I'm just eccumenical.

MollyMac

You make it sound simple, Tercel, but much as I might like the idea of a God who loves me, of being able to find comfort in prayer, of being reunited with my loved ones in Heaven etc. I (a) find the concept of God so utterly unbelievable for so many different reasons and (b) find the concept of a loving God...well, even more unbelievable for even more reasons. What does "living your life as if you believed'" mean anyway? That you condemn practising homosexuals like it does in the bible, for example?

It's easy for us to say we want to believe, as long as we don't get too bogged down in defining what exactly it is we want to believe in. Once we do, all those old problems of rational evidence etc start rearing their ugly heads

-DM-

Not what I said, of course.

Back up to the statement that Plantiga allegedly made (and your support of it). IF "[you] could no easier not follow God, or not believe in him, than [you] could not follow the laws of Physics, or not believe that Venus is the second planet in the solar system," then you would essentially be asserting that you were so closed-minded that nothing could possibly make you change your mind with regard to your present view of "God" and what it means to "follow Him."

Not only would that NOT be an enviable position, the fact is that you have already changed your mind with regard to aspects of "God" and what "He" allegedly wanted when you changed from Pentecostal to Catholic.

Your ideas about "God" may change yet again. Plantiga may change his ideas. Therefore, the statement that Plantiga allegedly made (and which you supported) is not only foolish--but likely erroneous.

You are not talking about anything I have argued.

Postulates in science are eventually supported through observation and/or experiment, both of which can be and usually are verified by other scientists--or else they are discarded.

To postulate the existence of "God" and then say "It is completely logical to speculate that a larger force, beyond our comprehension, deals with individuals differently," is simply to add a second postulate to the first. There is nothing inherently logical about it until you make some sort of logical argument out of your postulate(s). So far, you haven't.

This is merely an assertion, a belief statement. It cannot be verified or falsified. It is of no more value that a belief statement on the part of a theist who asserts that "God" does not reveal himself to anyone, ever.

You just got through saying that "God" reveals himself to different people in different ways, therefore you are willing to say what "God" definitely does.

One of the problems with the theory that "God" reveals himself to different people in different ways is that we end up with different and mutually exclusive gods having allegedly revealed themselves. With no way to verify or falsify these alleged revelations, there is no evidential reason to believe in one god over another.

-Don-

Littledrummerboy

Don, I finally understand what you are saying...because my view of God has changed, how can I believe in him the same way I believe in Physics etc. Well, my understanding of him does change, yes, but that has never changed the fact that I believe he exists. Plantiga has never said his view on God has not changed, what he is saying is that the existence of God has changed. Yes, changing from Pentecostal to Catholic has changed my perception of God, but that does not change that he is as real to me as are the laws of physics. I think we have a problem here though. You want me to scientifically prove a social science. The postulate that God exists has been verified by other theists, not neccesarily to all scientists, or to you, obviously, but many billions of people on this planet have found sufficient evidence of a higher being, why is that not adequate? I would say that my comment could be verified, fairly easily. Talk to people who have "had God reveal himself to them," and listen to their story...then look at yourself and see how God has not revealed himself, thus your disbelief...that would show some evidence that perhaps he does reveal himself differently, or not at all to some. All right, I had a terrible nights sleep, but had a good run this morning, off to work..thanks!

Stephen :notworthy

Hawkingfan

Just because billions of people believe something does not make it true. By using your logic, it would mean that Allah is the true god and that the Judeo-Christian god is not the one true god because there are far more followers of Allah (and the two gods are mutually exclusive, each sends the other's followers to hell).
Talk to muslims who have "had Allah reveal himself to them," and listen to their story...then look at yourself and see how Allah has not revealed himself, thus your disbelief...that would show some evidence that perhaps he does reveal himself differently, or not at all to some.

-DM-

No, that is not what I am saying (or asking). What I am saying is that the statement allegedly made by Plantiga, quoted and supported by you, indicates that neither Plantiga nor you understand either your faith or the laws of physics.

You have no choice but to follow "the laws of physics."

You have a choice as to whether to believe in "God" at all, a choice as to which "God" to believe in (assuming you are going believe in some god in the first place), which set of "God's laws" you accept as being from "God," and which of those allegedly god-given laws you will follow.

Even if we grant that Plantiga does his best to follow what he believes to be the laws of the Christian "God," there is not a chance that he does so in every single instance and completely. Everyone follows the laws of physics.

It was a foolish and erroneous statement.You are off on a tangent. The question is not whether "God" is as real to you as the laws of physics, rather the question is whether "[you] could no easier not follow God, or not believe in him, than [you] could not follow the laws of Physics, or not believe that Venus is the second planet in the solar system." As has been proven over and over, theists who at one time felt as you and Plantiga allegedly feel have changed their minds. By contrast, one cannot change his mind about following the laws of physics; you cannot, for example, decide to cease following the "law" of gravity.I don't want you to prove anything. What I want you to do is to see the fallacy in the statement that was allegedly made by Plantiga and supported by you. What I also want you to do is to see that your statement "it is completely logical to speculate that a larger force, beyond our comprehension, deals with individuals differently," is nothing but one postulate piled on top of another, that it does not involve logic at all given that you have not presented any logical argument based on either of the two postulates.[QUOTE]The postulate that God exists has been verified by other theists, not neccesarily to all scientists, or to you, obviously,[QUOTE]Verification of a postulate involves repeatable observation and/or experiment. No one has ever verified the existence of "God" or proven that any god exists, let alone the "God" of Christianity. As a matter of fact, your statement "the postulate that God exists has been verified by other theists" tends to provide evidence that you do not understand what it means to verify a postulate.It is not adequate for anything other than that people are willing to believe.I have listened to people who claim that "God" revealed "Himself" to them. In fact, a painter who was working at our place yesterday and the day before was the most recent example. He spent about 2/3 of his time "witnessing" to me and about 1/3 of his time painting. This fellow--as an agnostic--allegedly had three, different, "supernatural" experiences which brought him to the knowledge of "God." He now "knows" with absolute certainty that "God" exists and what "God" wants of us. Only trouble is that his "God" is very different from your "God." His "God" is definitely not the "God" of Christianity, not the "God" of the Bible, not the "God" of the Catholic Church.

Although there is always the exception to the rule (as in the case of the painter, above), people tend to believe in their local, regional, or national "God." Had you been born and raised in Iran, and were you still living there, the chances are very good that you would not ever have been Pentecostal or Catholic. The chances are very high that you would have been a Muslim, a believer in Allah, following a different set of "God-given laws." The same goes for Plantiga.

-Don-