But by following Pascal’s wagger, you also lose something. If you bet on the existence of God, you’ll have to do or at the contrary avoid to do certain things. For instance, you’ll have to get baptized, and avoid cursing.
You could say there’s a difference between losing the time needed for a baptism and losing your whole life by jumping off a building, but actually, no, there isn’t. The idea is that by believing in god your potential loss is extremely small, and you potential reward is infinite. So, it’s in your best interest to believe. But it doesn’t matter whether what you’re betting is ten minutes of your life (the baptism) or your whole life (jumping off the building). Both are infinitely small as compared to the eternal reward.
Anyway, the best rebuttal, IMO, is still the fact that by following Pascal’s wagger, you have to believe in all the organized religions promising salvation, and even in the unexisting religions which don’t currently exist but possibly could. For instance, there could be a god who will grant you eternal life if only you eat red cabbages at every meal. There could be a god who only likes rational people, and since he didn’t give any clear evidence of his existence, he will grant eternal life only to the atheists, the others having failed the test. Since it’s indeed impossible to follow at the same time all the possible paths leading to salvation, Pascal’s wagger is nonsentical.
Pascal also didn’t consider that you can lose greatly by accepting the wager. Suppose you didn’t eat cabbage on a Tuesday and the punishment for that was being boiled in oil for eternity. I know that is silly and that the idea behind the wager is that you will lead a good life but the fact remains that a non-believer doesn’t even consider the wager because belief is not a choice.
I can’t even imagine the mindset of a rational person who would consciously change his world view in such a cavalier way. What I’m trying to say is that Pascal’s Wager only makes sense to someone who already believes and is trying to persuade the unpersuadable.
There is also another way to lose the wager. If this life is all you have, and if the only possibility for paradise is an earthly one, and the only real salvation is to gain a full sense of self and identity as a living individual, then choosing to believe in something “beyond” which isn’t in fact there causes you to lose everything, and gain nothing. You trade your life and your awareness for a mirage which you will never reach. Your life will remain in a state of incomplete fulfillment. *That * is Pascal’s Wager from the point of view of an atheist.
An atheist cherishes his sanity too much to trade it for insanity.
[Sorry Blaise ol’ buddy, the wager just don’t work. Maybe you should confine your aleatory theories to the craps table.]
I never thought about it that way, but that makes sense. Also, which religion’s guidelines should the atheist follow? To be sure, the logical atheist would follow the guidelines of all religions. Why just follow Christian guidelines? Perhaps they aren’t the correct religion. Might as well follow Islamic, Buddist, Scientology, Raelian, etc. as well just to be sure.
It actually had a point, but you missed it. I agree though, sarcasm is a wasted effort on anyone INTELLECTUALLY INCAPABLE of recognizing it.
I’ll try to keep it equally simple for you. “I don’t believe” is an opinion. “I” makes it a personal opinion. “Personal” makes it a decision made by one person, based on whatever input they have on the topic. Typically, because surely you should allow each person the right to their own thought processes, an agnostic does not believe in G-d. Same as you. The only difference is he admits he may not have all the information, so is not going to state that “G-d doesn’t exist”. A belief is what we all have, when there is no factual evidence to back our opinion up. A statement of fact requires more than an opinion. Someone with intellectual integrity recognizes the difference between an opinion and a statement of fact. My only objection to your initial post was the reference to intellectual incapability. Possibly you weren’t trying to be insulting and it was just an unfortunate choice of words. If that’s the case, then I apologize for my “condescending” tone.
I find this concept fascinating and puzzling. Maybe you can explain it more clearly? Oh, and I’m not insulted, just interested and not able to assess this without bias. How does believing in G-d prohibit my gaining a full sense of self and identity? What have I lost by this belief? I’m am willing to look at this from the perspective of “no G-d”, but am unable to follow you.
What do you think I’ve given up? What exactly am I missing? My awareness of what?
Okay, I can agree that if G-d doesn’t exist, then I can be considered somewhat delusion, at least as far as that specific topic goes. How does that add up to insanity?
I’m not going to go into some boring list of what my belief in G-d has given me, which btw is not reliant on whether or not he really does exist. Silly, I know, but true. I am interested in what you think it has taken away? If one day I simply end up with a mouthful of dirt and no life beyond, I guarantee you I’m not going to feel deceived.
“Fence”, yes. “Coward”, no. It’s a perfectly valid response to say that you don’t know the answer.
If I gave you a sealed box with a single button in it, and asked you what color you believed the button to be, any answer would be as valid as any other–it’s what you believe. The most correct answer, however, is, “I don’t know”.
Then, if I truthfully told you that I drew the button at random from a large barrel containing 1 million blue buttons and 1 red button, what is your answer now? Well, the answer, “blue” is far more often the right answer than “red” or even “yellow”. Yet, the answer, “I don’t know” is correct all of the time.
I’ve caught up with reading the thread, and a few things that stand out to me are. The penny anaolgy. I don’t see how this is even a good analogy for the existence of a god. Either I see the penny or I don’t, sure. I don’t believe most people’s definition of a god is that s/he is visible. So, I don’t see that analogy working at all. I’m sure if we could all see the god or not, we’d all (most of us?) see it as black or white.
The other mention of agnostics allowing for an absurdity. I think that’s possible, but it depends on whose definition. I’ve certainly heard concepts of gods that sound more plausible than others. I think to define someone’s belief as absurd, one would want to first define what that belief (absurdity) is, or ask for it to be defined, before dismissing it. To blanket all agnostics as allowing for an absurdity, I’d like to hear the definition, before I’d agree.
I see agnostics being attributed with allowing for a god(s), yet I don’t hear an agnostic arguing for one. I don’t see them as having a god on their agenda. In discussions I’ve had with agnostics, I don’t feel they are dodging the issue by saying they don’t know, or trying to leave an opening so as not to be incorrect. I don’t see it being an issue of ego for them at all, rather, an issue of genuinely not knowing. Aircraft carriers and pennies aside, I respect their position of not knowing.
Blast, I didn’t mean to submit that just yet. Anyway…
Having posited in GD, the burden of proof is on you, dear sir, to provide evidence for your assertions:)
Intellectually poor position? I would think it the ultimate height of arrogance to claim perfect (or even satisfactory) knowledge of God or no-God so as to say firmly one way or another “God exists; this is objective truth” or “God does not exist: this is objective truth”. Given your statement:
I would think any definitive statement on the existence of God, pro or con, would be a poorer position than one which is undecided. After all, making a decision either way based on what is by your statement incapable of being analyzed … well that’s just absurd;)
Care to show me where I’ve made a vacuous claim for evidence?
My definition of agnostic theist is a personal one, varied as I have seen the definitions of each term to be. For what little I am sure it is worth in the grand scheme of things, I hold that I do not, at present, have enough information to say for sure, one way or another, in a meaningful way, that God does or does not exist. I do not know if I ever will. I don’t know that most people who claim to have knowledge either way actually do, but that’s another matter.
I remain, possibly as a result of religious upbringing, with the somewhat weak notion that there might possibly be some sort of higher entity. I have no firm proof of it, and the theist part of “agnostic theist” plays little role in my life.
Not in the least. As I said in my post, I don’t adhere to the more recent Coca-Cola view of him.
But I don’t the definition of atheist leads to your characterization. Everyone is technically agnostic. No one “knows”. When someone says they “know”, they’re implying that their belief is held with as much conviction and on the same pedestal as those of “facts”
A more suitable set of questions for determining theist/athiest stance would be
[ul]
[li]Do you or have you make(made) allowance for an anthropomorphic deity’s intervention in worldy events on any scale?[/li][li]Do you consider plausible that such a deity exists? (not Einstein’s life force)[/li][/ul]
Well put. I have some sense of conviction on these matters, but one of the things I have conviction about is the unavoidable fallibility of human wisdom. Much of religion as an activity (and an institution) has been about the elimination of uncertainty (we seem to hate to be uncertain with regards to important stuff), but that’s a wasteful and usually destructive endeavor.
If all religious believers clutched their uncertainty in front of them, remaining always conscious of the possibility that they are under the sway of illusion (or delusion), the world would be a better place.
For that matter, the atheists would well do likewise.
To par a phrase, “I think, therefore I think I am”
While I agree with you in theory, my experience has shown me that the vast bulk of those who hold faith in God or no God do place their conviction, as well as their proof, in the realm of fact instead of in faith. While I would tend to the position that objective knowledge of God or no God is not possible (though I do not know for sure by any means:D), try telling some folk that their belief, what they take as fact, are not necessarily as objective as they hold them to be;)
Indeed it would, because the vast bulk of humanity would be face down and unable to inflict physical pain on anyone else:D
I’m sure many theist’s don’t like to be challenged on their beliefs, but as a theist, I can’t come up with one scrap of knowledge I have that is objective. All of the “facts” are dependant on an unsubstantiated belief that can only be considered subjective. Faith wouldn’t be necessary if my belief was objective. The minute my belief becomes objective, well, everyone would know. Don’t tell the other theist’s I said so, though.
The penny analogy was actually supposed to show that it was not a good analogy for the existence of God. The idea was that you could reasonably say that you did not know whether a penny was in a closed fist or not. You could be a ‘penny agnostic.’ But when the claim became that an aircraft carrier was in the fist then rational belief and experience hold sway. “Belief” loses the meaning of “guess” as in the penny game and moves toward a meaning of “knowledge” based in empirical observation and extrapolation. It would be absurd to claim that you ‘believe’ an aircraft carrier is in the fist and it would be equally absurd to say “I don’t know, there might be.” So it’s not about the concept of theoretical knowledge, it’s about rationality and the degree of absurdity of a claim.
As I’ve said before, what is ‘absurd’ is opposed to common sense. And it is possible to assign that quality to specific claims, e.g. the Santa Claus myth.
I have never heard a reasonable explanation for *belief in * or the existence of a theistic deity.
I would love to hear such an explanation which didn’t rely on such circular irrationalities as “everything is explainable because there is a reason for everything but we can’t know the reason because the will of God is a mystery and it will be revealed to us one day if we only have faith etc. etc. etc.”
Just give me one reasonable theory of theism which doesn’t rely on palpable absurdities and I will admit that agnosticism is a valid position of a rational mind.
What I mentioned above. The theistic position postulates the existence of a supernatural entity that interacts with life (specifically humans, but maybe all life) and can bring about physical change while alive or affect the supernatural component chained to the physical/natural representation during and beyond the physical lifespan. The thing is, if it’s true, you can’t prove it or disprove it. An entity with such capabilities could trivially design a physical system(“universe”) that hides these interactions.
Now, that is a reasonable theory of theism as far as pure philosophy divorced from psychology and culture is concerned. Of course, the (to me, compelling) argument against theism is that no philosophy is in actuality ever developed without the involvement of the psyche. After observing human aspirations, fear of uncertainty, self-pride, unchecked critical thinking, factors on how memes spread and succeed, I can then dismiss theism, but not on pure philosophical grounds.
Well here’s my theory, but it is not typically held by most theist’s. G-d set the universe in motion in a way that would be indistinguishable from a universe without him. You can ask why, but I think why not? This first stage of our “creation” is not his own closely supervised “pet project”. He is not particularly involved in our human endeavors, although I don’t believe he is completely univolved either. It is the only rational explanation for the random nature of events. Our physical selves are not a concern to him. Our purpose here is to devolope the non-physical aspects of ourselves. G-d is not good or bad, as our world’s standards try to make him, because there is no relevance. I don’t believe religion is inherently bad, but it is obviously wrong. My beliefs have more to do with what he isn’t, as far as our life is concerned than what he is. All of the religious “theories” about what he is and what his nature is, seem at odds with our present existence and even with themselves. I think we have created kind of a “designer G-d”, specifically to fit our needs and emotions. I’m not saying that he is not loving or any of the other attributes assigned to him(hey look, I’m hedging my bets;)), but it isn’t really very relevant to here and now. In spite of it all, for personal reasons, I am compelled to believe. Anyway, my theory is just as absurd, because there is no evidence behind it, but at least it isn’t at direct odds with our physical reality.
Because of Occam’s Razor, if nothing else. I don’t have a problem with people who acknowledge the limitations of proof and belief as you do; I just disagree with your opinions.
If I may quote a man I admire and miss very much:
“There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don’t think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don’t think the matter calls for even-handedness at all.”
I’m not talking about evolution, if that’s what it seemed like. I don’t know enought about it, but whether or not it has a purpose, it definitely has order. What I was referring to was, for example, in Christianity, G-d is personal, he’s all-benevolent, omnipotent, etc. and then 40,000 die in an earthquake, either his characteristics aren’t true, he’s not real or he’s not present. When good people get cancer and bad people get everything they could ever ask for, it’s hard to reconcile with a good personal saviour who answers prayers. Logically something has to give there. Conflicting details coupled with “it’s a mystery” are just downright embarrassing.
