The essay by Richard Carrier is interesting but also moot, at least to me. I read "The Necessity of the Wager" many years ago. To me it's most obvious flaw is that belief is not something you can turn on and off like water from a faucet. That is what is required in order to make the wager. I find it hard to believe that anyone could make this wager and not be a hypocrite and therefore lose the wager. True Belief is a critical ingredient in the wager, Belief without proof is called faith. Theists claim to have an abundant supply, I don't know, maybe some of them really do. But I don't think any of them would attribute that faith to a calculation of the probability of the existence of god and the inherent risks and rewards. I think all of us whether atheist, agnostic or theist believe in whatever pleases us most. Whatever belief we are most comfortable with is the one that ultimately attracts us and claims our loyalty. Logic, rationality and intelligence are not immune from this, they end up serving our belief just as much as emotion does. This in no way adds or detracts from the correctness of the argument made by Richard Carrier. Just an idea I wanted to present. I'm an agnostic in case it matters. One last comment/question. Theists are forever trying to save the non-believers. Are the non-believers not responding in kind?

Richard Carrier

Note that the premise of Christianity appears, ultimately, to be "believe in order to be saved." Thus, the entire religion seems to me to be premised on making a leap of faith for personal gain, the very underlying premise of Pascal's Wager. That is probably why the wager appears in the Christian tradition and is so popularly touted even today by lay Christians: it strikes at the very heart of Christian epistemology, which is fundamentally opportunistic. The very shame of this kind of behavior is indeed a core point in my essay: good people don't think like that.

Littledrummerboy

I would disagree that Christians believe and follow for personal gain as was said in the previous post. I believe, as a Christian, that we follow because it is what we are told to, or commanded to do. Would accuse a child of selfish motives when he or she obeys his or her parents because they do not want to be punished? Or would you commend them for obeying what they were told to do? Just to be a different angle on it...I agree, however, that Pascal's Wager is flawed, to me there is no wager. Thanks

Stephen :notworthy

-DM-

Stephen:

When a child--or anyone else--does something because they are told that by so doing they will receive a reward, or does NOT do something because they are told that they by so doing they will receive a punishment, there is self-interest, or selfishness, involved in the motivation for complying.

Further, as an ex-Christian it is a fact that the Bible church with which I was predominantly associated taught that we were perfectly justified in going for the big gain (i.e., salvation) and avoidance of the big punishment (i.e., an eternity in hell). Not only that, we were taught that we were perfectly justified in working for a higher station in heaven by means of our dedication to the Church and to "Christ." In other words, there was justifiable self-interest, or "selfishness" if you will.

-Don-

Littledrummerboy

I see your point, and I agree with it. I'm a Catholic, so my views would be quite different than your Bible Church, in fact, I used to be Pentecostal, but left the movement for more substence when I started seeing more beauty, more relevence, etc. in a more liturgical worship. Anyway, some Christians, and children, for that matter will do things for the fear of punishment, more than the respect of doing what they are told by one who have the authority to tell them what to do, I am not one of them, if you could believe it. While hell does not sound pleasent, I follow God because I am commanded to do so. There is no other option for me. A philosopher, Alvin Plantiga, sums it up well, "I could no easier not follow God, or not believe in him, than I could not follow the laws of Physics, or not believe that Venus is the second planet in the solar system," in other words, it is instilled in us as such fact, that it is isseperable with reality, and function. Your argument is quite strong for Christians who do not understand the full meaning of their faith...unfortunately, there are quite a few. Thanks

Stephen ::notworthy::

-DM-

if Plantiga and you truly believe that it is "no easier [to] not follow God, or not believe in him than [to] not follow the laws of Physics, or not believe that Venus is the second planet in the solar system," then I say that neither Plantiga nor you understand either your faith or the laws of physics. The mere fact that you yourself used to be a Pentecostal, the fact that some atheists become theists, some theists become atheists, and plenty of theists change their views about "God" and what he allegedly wants--proves my point.

The laws of "God," even the very existence of "God," cannot be proven or falsified. For that reason, the so-called laws of "God" vary from religion to religion and even vary somewhat from one denomination to the next within Christianity. You cannot even begin to be sure that you know what it means to follow "God."

What you believe about following "God" is just that, a belief and a belief only. It is hardly in the same category as the existence of so-called physical laws (which merely describe how things work) and which can be verified through repeated experiment and repeated observation.

"Science is the record of dead religions."
- Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Anglo-Irish author

-Don-

Littledrummerboy

Don, I disagree. While God can never be scientifically proven, that does not mean he does not exist. It is completely logical to speculate that a larger force, beyond our comprehension, deals with individuals differently. What I mean is, for me I found him, or rather he revealed himself, via the Catholic Church, for others the Pentecostal, the fact that many atheists leave the churches does not prove that God does not exist, it only proves that people, in their free will exists. We are commanded to follow God, he is not commaded to follow us. If a person leaves a church for atheism, I would venture to guess that most of the time (as is the case with most of the Christian to Atheist converts I know) it is something the church did to tick them off (i.e. politics of the church) or something tragic in their life happened (i.e. the death of somebody close etc.) and that person decided that this was not for them, either the church or God, or both. I would wonder if that persons faith was every satisfactorly (is that a word? :banghead: ) grounded to begin with. On to your other point; just because the beliefs of God change from religion to religion does not make him nothing but a belief. It simply means that people interperate what they've experienced, either correctly or incorrectly. This is obviously up for debate as to which is right, if any of them are. But, just because 150 years ago scientists had different ideas and speculations of what the atom looked like, and how it reacted within itself, no one would question that the atom only began to exist when one model became universal. Do you see my point? Thanks

Stephen :notworthy

-DM-

Of course, I did not say that "God" does not exist nor did I say the fact that "He" cannot be proven to exist means that "He" does not exist. therefore I am uncertain as to what it is that you disagree with. To address your point, however, keep in mind that while it is true that something (such as "God") which cannot be proven to exist might nevertheless exist, the same thing could be said about Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster.

What it seems to boil down to is whether one finds the evidence for or against the existence of any of these "beings" convincing. I find the evidence against the existence of the "God" of Christianity much more compelling than the evidence for "his" existence. If you find it the other way around, so be it.
At this point, your statement is merely an unsupported assertion. You would need to provide the actual logical argument to demonstrate the truth of your assertion before it could be considered true or false.
There is a problem here. If "God" actually reveals himself both through the Pentecostal Church(es) and the Catholic Church(es), then "He" is a chameleon who is anything but immutable.
It proves neither that "God" does not exist nor that people necessarily have so-called free will.
If you mean that we are commanded by "God" to follow "God," then you are stating yet another unsupported assertion, the truth of which cannot be verified or falsified, at least not as it now stands.
None of that was true in my case. In my case, it was biblical problems and the holes in Christian theology which led me away from belief in the "God" of the Bible, the "God" of Christianity. And yes, my faith was very well-grounded to begin with. It is a similar situation with many ex-Christian atheists. I think that you need to adjust your thinking on this.
You need to understand the first point, first. The first point is that people change their ideas about "God." Yours may change again. Plantiga may change his ideas. That point has nothing whatsoever to do with proving the nonexistence of "God" but rather with proving the misunderstanding of reality by both you and Plantiga if you believe "[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."
Nor did I say that such was the case.

On the other hand, given that those various beliefs are sometimes mutually exclusive, there is a problem in the way that "God" allegedly reveals himself to people. Now that you brought up this aspect of it, I will add that a perfect, omnipotent, loving "God" could be expected to do a much better job of it--and to reveal himself directly so that there were no atheists or believers in false gods. The fact that "God" does not do so seems to me to be evidence against his alleged existence and/or evidence against his alleged goodness.
Science tends to be self-correcting. Religion tends to perpetrate and perpetuate error--until it is forced (often through the findings of science) to change its "truths."
You have essentially been arguing against a straw man, against a position which I did not state. It would seem that you didn't correctly understand my point.

Regards,
-Don-

-DM-

[Moved here from Feedback to facilitate ongoing discussion. -Don-]

MollyMac

Hi Stephen

In the above quote you've summed up three of the most common "theories" that theists offer to explain why other theists, deconvert. But the deconversion stories told by former theists on this board reveal many more reasons that are to do with the faith's teaching and the lack of satisfactory evidence and while for some - including myself - it may well be that our 'faith' didn't add up to much in the first place, for many others the exact opposite is the case.

I have personally observed that the death of a loved one, in particular, is often more likely to strengthen, rather than diminish, faith and I think it's pretty obvious why. The idea of meeting your loved one again in Heaven must be tremendously comforting.

You don't say how God revealed himself to you. Why do you suppose he only reveals himself to some but not to others? Or do you think he reveals himself to all of us - we're just not interpreting the experience correctly?

I tend to agree with the sentiments expressed in the OP: belief is not something that can be turned on and off. Surely one must "experience" God in some way before you can have faith in something for which there is no demonstrable evidence though my own belief is that people who claim to have experienced God are deluding themselves. I have no reason to see it any other way.