Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rhutchin · 02-20-2006, 07:36 AM

Quote:

JPD
Let's see...

There is no evidence that God exists or that God does not exist.
There is no evidence that, if God exists, eternal torment is the punishment for non-belief.
There is no evidence that there is, or isn't, an afterlife existence.
There is no evidence that any given belief or non-belief will result in any particular outcome, if any outcome at all.
There is no evidence that there is none, one, a couple, a few, many, an infinity of Gods.
There is no evidence that any of those other possible Gods has or has not the power to punish an individual for believing in another God.

rhutchin
Your basic position is that people who read the Bible, the Koran, or other religious books are idiots. The only problem is that you can't explain why they are idiots and you are not.

Ubercat
Ahh, the classic INSULT defence. I can't win. I have no position, so I'll imply that everyone is being rude and nasty to me. How can I debate in such conditions?

A more timid xian poster would have used this on page 2. Not Rhutchin though. He made us waste our time for 70+ pages before we got to this point! He'll be leaving the thread soon, with his head held high as if he'd won. So long Rhutchin. See you in another thread.

I think the issue here is whether a person (X) will tolerate another person having different views of the Bible (or other religious books) and allow that person to accept the Bible as evidence where X, personally, absolutely refuses to do so.

rhutchin · 02-20-2006, 08:11 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
The arguments that have been presented have ignored the Wager and raised issues that mean nothing a far as the Wager is concerned. Those who raise such issues then claim that their refusal to address the Wager means that they have won the debate. I am not convinced.

Maybe you could actually explain the arguments in context with the Wager and avoid the rabbit trails and other irrelevancies that people keep bringing up.

Ubercat
Of course you're "not convinced." That would require concessions that you are incapable of making. Namely "I was wrong, you guys were right. Gee, I WAS pretty silly wasn't I?"

Maybe you could actually explain why your position makes any sense, WITHOUT using arguments that have already been shown at least 50 times to not make any sense. Perhaps you could even uncover your eyes and read the counter arguments posted here. You look pretty funny, sitting there like that.

How about picking a neutral issue, devise a methodology to deal with it, and see if it is any different than that which which the Wager promotes.

Suppose someone thinks that there might be a terrorist attack at the building where he works. He is not certain that there will be one. Given his uncertainty, what should he do? Is there a means available to this person to analysis his situation and make a decision whether to do something or nothing?

rhutchin · 02-20-2006, 08:15 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
So what!!! The Wager is only to be used by that person (not you) who is uncertain whether eternal torment exists (based on the Bible or other document that describes a system of judgment and eternal punishment). You might call such people fools because you can prove with certainty that such people have nothing to fear. However, as irrational as you may think it for these fools to actually believe that eternal torment is possible, it is possible to suggest to such fools a rational methodology (the Wager) for addressing their uncertainty.

You seem to have little tolerance for those you consider to be fools. I am not sure that you can prove to them that you are not really the fool. Rather than calling people fools, maybe you should explain why they are foolish and do so with the sound information and reasoning that you claim they lack.

JPD
They believe in things for which no evidence exists and build entire systems on that basis that cannot be related to anything.

Isn't that as much your opinion as is that which other people believe but in the opposite direction?

rhutchin · 02-20-2006, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knotted paragon

Pascal states that it would be better to believe in a nonexistent god than to offend one that did exist. This statement avoids three things: Does a god exist? Does a faith-rewarding god exist? And, can belief be chosen?

How about focusing on the Wager specifically and not confuse issues involving the Wager with Pascal's personal beliefs.

The Wager states that it would be rational to address uncertainty about eternal torment by taking action to avoid eternal torment rather than do nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by knotted paragon

When a person that has no belief in the supernatural (his name is Bob) considers this statement, it is illogical since gods do not exist as other than fictional entities. A fictional entity cannot reward or harm, so further contemplation of the statement becomes hypothetical. Now, let's look at the problems I mentioned, this time from Bob's perspective.

Why deal with people who are certain that there is no eternal torment and no need to escape from eternal torment. The Wager would not be applicable to such people. Let's deal with those people who are uncertain whether eternal torment is real and uncertain what action to take concerning eternal torment. Why deal with Bob, when the Wager is not intended to be used by people like Bob?

Quote:

Originally Posted by knotted paragon

1. The wager fails to account for foundational beliefs.

- No attempt has been made to convince Bob that his default philosophical position of non-belief in the supernatural is invalid. Indeed, Pascal asks that Bob not consider any evidence. There is no chance that Bob will change his foundational belief in reality. Bob remains an unbeliever.

No problem. Bob is certain of his position and is quite willing to accept any possibility that he made be wrong. He firmly believes that he can prove that he has nothing to worry about. If Bob were the least bit uncertain about his beliefs, then we could offer the Wager as a methodology to analyze his position and decide on a course of action to deal with that uncertainty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by knotted paragon

2. Pascal's own premise that god is infinitely incomprehensible cripples the wager. An infinite number of equally probable theologies about god render the wager useless as a tool to choose.

- Since god is infinitely incomprehensible, Bob realizes immediately that, when the potential pool of candidate theologies is infinite, the wager does him no good in trying to sort out a theology to believe in. Bob remains an unbeliever.

Agreed. The purpose of the Wager is not to help Bob determine which theology to believe. The Wager is designed to help Bob decide whether he should believe in a theology at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by knotted paragon

3. The theological doctrine of predestination renders the wager meaningless since reward is an arbitrary choice of god.

- If Bob considers the wager in light of predestination, he realizes that nothing he might do or believe would make any difference. He is still an unbeliever.

In light of predestination, Bob might rationally conclude that his situation is hopeless. However, Bob could also conclude that those predestined to be saved must first be brought to the point where they can admit that their situation is hopeless. Bob could then follow the Biblical instructions to acknowledge his inability to save himself and place his life in God's hands knowing that God will save him if God has predestined to do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by knotted paragon

4. Megath's Hellish Wager negates the wager a priori based on Pascal's own premise that we cannot understand god.

- One (or maybe many) of the infinite number of gods that have an equal probability of existing actually makes it unwise for Bob to listen to Pascal. Bob's default unbelief is unaffected.

Unbelief offers no chance to be saved. It is better to pick a god to believe even where that that choice is made by throwing dice. A small chance (no matter how small) is always preferrable to a zero chance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by knotted paragon

So you see rhutchin, Bob has remained rational and unemotional throughout his contemplation of the wager. He remains an unbeliever simply because no evidence has been presented that might convince him to change his view of reality.

The Wager is not designed to convince Bob that his view of reality is false. If Bob's view of reality includes uncertainty about eternal torment, then the Wager can help Bob decide what action to take.

Quote:

Originally Posted by knotted paragon

You, rhutchin, complain that the bible would have convinced Bob otherwise - that it somehow has a special meaning or message that makes it more important than other books.

But you are wrong. That's not how Bob sees it. Bob sorts books differently than you do rhutchin. He has a big stack of books and magazines that claim things happen by magic, that beings exist who can do magic, that stepping on cracks might break his mother's back. The bible is just another book in his stack of fiction, no more important than Edith Hamilton's Mythology or the Koran, or his six year old daughter's worn out copy of An Illustrated Treasury of Read-Aloud Myths and Legends.

For Bob to make a decision in real life based on a threat from Loki in an old copy of the Avengers comicbook would be irrational. Wouldn't you agree rhutchin?

Nope. If Bob is uncertain about the threat he faces based on a threat from Loki in an old copy of the Avengers comicbook, then the rational action is for Bob to address that uncertainty. He could walk through the methodology offered by the Wager to get him started on a course of action. A person may have fears that the majority of people may view as irrational. However, the proper course of action would be to help the person address those fears in a rational manner (at least, that is the way it seems to me).

Ubercat · 02-20-2006, 08:51 AM

Quote: