enemigo

Since you've made the claim, the risk must be real. The rational course of action is to send you the money.

Mageth

Umm, the question is one of belief - whether the implied threat of Hell is sufficient to motivate one to believe. The argument fails before it gets off the ground - one has to believe (in the implied threat) to believe (in the escape plan).

Of course, the other problem is that the actual possibilities are countless; it's simply not a binary choice as rhutchin presents it. This gets back to the problem of having to first believe the Bible - you have to believe it's a binary system (and to thus believe the Bible is true). It's a circular argument.

Mageth

On that note:

"Christianity invents a disease for which it sells the only cure."

That's an apt summary of my main objection to the Wager.

Johnny Skeptic

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...n/martin1.html

Michael Martin

Position: Professor of Philosophy Emeritus

Education:

Ph.D. (Philosophy) Harvard University, 1962

M.A. (Philosophy) University of Arizona, 1958

B.S. (Bus. Ad.) Arizona State University, 1956
Teaching Positions:

Professor of Philosophy, Boston University, 1975 -
Associate Professor of Philosophy, Boston University, 1969-1975
Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Boston University, 1965-1969
Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of Colorado, 1962-1965

Major Areas of Interest:

Philosophy of Religion
Philosophy of Social Science
Philosophy of Law
Post Doctoral Research Grants, Fellowships, and Visiting Professorships

Visiting Professor, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, Fall Semester, 1995
Liberal Arts Fellowship in Law and Philosophy, Harvard Law School. (1979-1980)

Post Doctoral Fellowship at The Center for The Advanced Study of Theoretical Psychology, University of Alberta. (1969-1970)
Summer research grant from Boston University to study the objectivity of the social sciences. (1971)

Summer research grant from Boston University to study anthropological theory and method. (1967)

Summer research grant from Boston University to study anthropological theory and method. (1966)

"Dr. Fernandes claims that he cannot prove the existence of God with rational certainty but that the cumulative case for theism is far superior to the case for atheism. On the contrary, his case for theism is extremely weak: his three main arguments fail completely and his other points are based on misunderstandings of atheism. He may realize this for in the last paragraph of his opening statement he beseeches his readers to choose God by utilizing Pascal's Wager--a pragmatic argument for God that is normally used when rational epistemic arguments fail. However, Dr. Fernandes seems to be unaware of the many problems with this argument--one of them being that God might reserve a special place in Hell for those people who choose God because of Pascal's Wager!"

I was a fundamentalist Christian for over 35 years, and I attended churches of various denominations, and based upon what I know about what the Bible teaches about the God of the Bible, I believe that Dr. Martin has made a very good point. Rhutchin assumes that God will tolerate his arguments, but he does not have any rational basis upon which to make such an assumption.

In one of my previous posts, I said:

To that I will add that if the God of the Bible exists, and if he showed up and proved that he could convert energy into matter, a lot of non-Christians would become Christians. Surely rhutchin would be quite pleased if that happened, just like he would have been quite pleased to see people accept Jesus because of the miracles that he performed.

Mageth

As do I.

Not only that, he doesn't even have a Biblical basis upon which to make such an assumption.

Johnny Skeptic

Using your apt argument as a basis, if a doctor discovered a cure for cancer, he would want eveyone to have it, but obviously the God of the Bible did not have any problems at all with hundreds of millions of people dying without ever having heard the Gospel message. How did the spreading of the Gospel message help those people?

Mageth

More apt if the Doctor invented cancer, and then tried to sell the cure for the cancer he invented.

Johnny Skeptic

Glenn Miller is a brilliant, educated (he has degrees in philosophy and computer science), and well-known Christian. He is highly regarded among fundamentalist Christians. His web site is at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/, and it is quite extensive. Following is a letter from one of his readers:

“I found the whole thing quite refreshing ; there is rather too much ‘apologetics’ for my liking but at least it is honest; it has links to other sites & documents which disagree with it, which is unusual for Christian sites in my experience.

And no sign of Pascal's Wager (hooray!)�

Glenn Miller’s reply to a reader:

“To me, truth is not a game and these issues are serious ones. If we were discussing the economy or politics or science I would not be concerned (and probably wouldn't be involved). But we are talking here about long-term issues, GK. If the position I hold is true, you are running out of time. If the position you hold is true, I am only wasting time. (Sounds too much like Pascal's Wager, doesn't it?).�

Following is another letter from one of Glenn Miller’s readers:

“Hi, My name is ABC. I corresponded with you over a year ago about a book I read and found quite disturbing. Your reply was very encouraging. For some reason, doubt has been my greatest spiritual stumbling block. I managed for years to keep it at bay with Pasal's wager. However, as you know, the wager itself is cold comfort, and I found that whenever I would pray, or worship, or do anything remotely spiritual, I found myself thinking ‘All this may not be true.’ About a year and a half ago, that seed of doubt took root and bloomed into something much more pernicious and destructive. That is when I corresponded with you, in a state of crisis and desperation.

“You will be happy to know that I appear to have turned a corner, spiritually. Somehow, I am more able to commit myself to spiritual life without the reservations I previously had. Intellectual problems are not so problematic, and I now understand that the real problem was never really intellectual at all. It was spiritual, an admixture perhaps of fear, pride, and perhaps even demonic oppression that kept me from experiencing the joy of my salvation.

“I am increasingly able to see this life as a grand adventure and a spiritual battle, rather than the arid Dali-esque landscape I once thought of it as.

“Just a note to say thanks for the encouragement you gave me. I still visit that tank, and read your work with interest.

“Christus Victor!�

Rhutchin's arguments have taken the fun out of being a Christian and reduced belief in Christianty to a universal game of roulette with an unknown number of slots that completely discounts the ministry and influence of the Holy Spirit. In my opinion, if the God of the Bible exits, that is tantamount to blasphemy and places rhutchin at great risk.

I doubt that rhuchin actually gets any personal pleasure out of Pascal's Wager. There is not any doubt whatsoever that Pascal's Wager is rotten to the core. It is the kind of argument that a computer would make. A computer couldn't be influenced by the Holy Spirit. It would discount the influence of the Holy Spirit, and it would consider probablities in the cold, calculating, non-human way that Pascal did.

Pascal insisted that the only way that a person could become saved was to follow Jansenism, and Jansemism taught against free will.

rhutchin

If there is the risk that one could face eternal torment, then the rational response is to not take that risk.

Your question relates to deciding which god to follow among all those who threaten eternal punishment. So far we have two gods that we know threaten eternal punishment, the Biblical god and the Koranic god. Both require that you believe them and no other god. At least one of them is a fraud. The challenge before you now is to determine which god is the fraud.

In this case, the prophet Muhammed accepted the Bible but claimed that Jesus was just a prophet and not God. You have his lone testimony to this over against the testimony of the apostles and Paul that Jesus was God. Since the Bible that Muhammed accepted stated that one was not to accept a claim without the word of 2-3 witnesses, there is no basis to accept the word of Mohammed. The rational decision is to believe Jesus and not Muhammed.

rhutchin

It is true that the presence of competing scenarios complicates the matter. However, the fundamental decision that one makes is always to believe in God. There is never a situation where one would decide not to believe in God if one were taking a purely logical approach to the issue.