Actually fairly necessary, or the field would go fallow and the crops would not grow. This is why three-field crop rotation was so important when invented in the middle ages, and why George Washington Carver was so intent on peanuts post civil war. (The peanuts fixated nitrogen back into the ground)
It’s interesting that (if memory serves) the commentators point out your very point - that the Torah’s purpose could not have been the mundane purpose of preserving the property’s value.
They prove this from the fact that the Torah commanded the entire population to stop working all the fields at the same time. George Washington Carver, however, merely rotated the fields.
Actually, rotating the fields was, again, discovered considerably before Carver. Read more carefully.
And the commentators are wise, but possibly mistaken. Never, ever, say ‘could not have been’. It is possible that this procedure simply worked, and persons did not know why or how. It is possible that if someone did not do it, then their crops failed, and thus, it was a curse from the Lord. Just because something is not maximally efficient does not mean it was not, at least in part, done for the same reason as similar, later, more efficient efforts.
Of COURSE the commentators point out my very point. Tis obvious to an elementary student. To prove it is anything other than common sense means that it must be explained away.
And we all know how good learned commentators are at sophistry.
This is called ‘hanging a lampshade’, by the way.
[quote=“E-Sabbath, post:163, topic:562323”]
Just because something is not maximally efficient does not mean it was not, at least in part, done for the same reason as similar, later, more efficient efforts.
[QUOTE]
Any action we do, of course, will have a positive effect. If I kill my gentle old neighbor, it may help the environment, since he could no longer drive his SUV.
Yet, we look at the totality of the effect of an action to see its motivation.
So, yes, of course, leaving all the fields of the entire land of Israel every seven years (and the count was believed to have been started from the time of Moses), might have a positive effect. More likely, however, it will lead to mass-starvation.
Merely pointing out one positive effect is not too compelling, or not compelling at all.
Did leaving all the fields barren once every seven years lead to mass starvation in Israel? I don’t recall this being reported by anyone, so cite?
I’d rather expect it to avoid mass starvation, as, since people expected a lean year, they’d be inclined to put things up in advance, a little at a time. Thus, in the case of famine, they’d have a little something extra stored.
But that’s just me. And my belief that one action can have several motivations and several results. The most efficient ones tend to behave that way.
Wow have we gone from one hijack to another?
This is gobbledegook. There is no circularity. A claim is extraodinary if there is no evidence for it and it is contradicted by existing evidence. Claims for gods fall into this category, claims for most things do not. Where’s the circularity?
(Princhester: What existing evidence contradicts the existence of God?)
I will sum up some of the points brought up against the Wager.
-
The fact that there are many religions: This does not defeat the Wager at all, since one should still pick at least one religion. If one is unsure which religion to pick, he should flip a coin on the issue.
-
The fact that the gods will punish us for picking the wrong God to worship. This does not defeat the Wager, since there is no evidence that the gods would rather you be an atheist than a wrong-god-theist.
-
**The fact that we can’t force ourselves to believe in God **. This is probably true, but the argument here hasn’t been to believe in God. Rather, it has been to follow His commandmnets.
-
The fact that there is zero evidence for the truth of any of the religions. Here, I agree that if there was zero evidence for the truth of any of the religions, then the Wager doesn’t make sense. However, Mr. Skeptic, are you really sure that there is zero evidence for religion? To me, that seems to be an impossible position to take.
-
The fact that God may reward even those who aren’t religious. Again, there is zero evidence that God will reward those who aren’t religious.
-
The fact that we will lose out a lot by when being restrained by a religious life. This is not relevant. If one has even a infinitesmal chance of getting infinite amount of reward, it is surely worthwhile to even give up our ephemeral lives for the sake of that reward. Second, it is simply not true that religious people are any less-happy. In fact, at least some research suggests that religious people are happier, more charitable, less likely to commit suicide, and will live longer than nonbelievers (on average, of course).
-
The fact that God doesn’t want someone who is just religious for selfish motives. Again, I don’t see evidence for this position, that God doesn’t want people who are FOLLOWING HIS COMMANDMENTS for selfish motives. It may very well be true, but I haven’t seen a shred of evidence for it.
It does seriously reduce the positivity of success, which can be very significant in terms of the downsides.
Well i would not say no evidence. In the the ten commandments for example you should not put other gods before him. Atheism is not a breach of any commandment.
I believe the argument is to comply with a religion and in Christianity you must accept Christ as savior. I don’t think that is possible without faith.
Well you have stated more than once there is zero evidence of things in this point. So it seems you are happy to take this stance. I will say I have never seen any evidence of any deities that would stand up to any structured analysis such as a court of law or science.
Zero?
It is very relevant.
First the reward could be something we don’t want. For example many claim that paradise could be eternally praising god. Sound iffy to me.
Second again with many religions the odds of success may be infinitesimal.
Third all religions could be wrong n which case you are wasting a significant part of the only life you will ever have.
This I agree with, but I feel that in many cases you must believe.
You should base your personal moral foundation and lifelong belief system on a coin flip? Are you serious?
What is your eternal reward from Jehovah if you are 1)an atheist, 2) a Buddhist, and 3) a worshiper of Set. Here’s a hint: it’s the same for all 3. God does not care what you do, if you don’t worship him you are wrong.
But if you don’t worship him exclusively, you’re breaking the first commandment. You know, the first and most important?
[QUOTE]
4. The fact that there is zero evidence for the truth of any of the religions. Here, I agree that if there was zero evidence for the truth of any of the religions, then the Wager doesn’t make sense. However, Mr. Skeptic, are you really sure that there is zero evidence for religion? To me, that seems to be an impossible position to take.
[/QUOTE
If you have some of this evidence, please present it. Until we actually have such evidence, we do in fact have zero evidence, regardless of what it seems like to you.
This is based on works vs faith, and your interpretation just weakens your argument from #2.
Pascal’s Wager isn’t about infinitesimal chances. It explicitly says you either believe or you do not, and so you either get the reward or you do not. There is nothing in it about the right god, and nothing in it about your chances of picking the right one.
Even saying you have to pick a religion because having a 1 in 5000 chance is better than no chance at (if you dont pick a religion) doesn’t work because it can’t be shown that any religion has it right.
You just said earlier that:
You can follow a lot of his commandments fairly easily without being religious. Pascal’s Wager is a straight cost/benefit analysis, and proposes that it is better to pretend to believe to gain the benefit than to not believe at all. If god is all knowing, and it is claimed that he is, then he will know you are faking it, and will know you are doing it selfishly rather than in good faith.
You are ignoring the possibility that the one true religion is a god who doesn’t mind atheists but won’t tolerate your worshiping a different god.
There’s no evidence that any god wants you to worship him or will reward you. An argument based on zero evidence is just silly, so why are you trying to make one?
Here we’re getting somewhere. You admit that the Wager is silly if there is zero evidence. Some of us think there is zero evidence, and you disagree. OK then, where is it?
Can you please respond to this point: The very first commandment, the very first, is that you shall not worship the wrong god. It’s ahead of all the rest, including prohibitions against murder and adultery. That’s the first commandment – it seems to me that under the terms of Pascal’s wager, that’s pretty good evidence that the gods or God or whoever would rather you be a well-intentioned atheist than a wrong-god-theist.
There is nothing in the 10 Commandments that says you shall not worship no god. Is there anything in the Pentateuch that is against being an atheist? (Genuine question – I don’t know the answer).
Flipping a coin to pick a god? Outside of the fact that most gods would feel insulted that your supposed love and devotion was decided by the flip of a coin…I wonder how many gods consider gambling to be a sin?
One
Would that be the one that Pascal was promoting?
Yes, I can respond to this point. As I have mentioned before, there are two flaws in your argument.
First, it uses a quote from the Bible’s description of God as relevant to the way Zues, for example, would think.
In other words, if a Greek Mythologist would tempt you to worship Zues using Pascal’s wager, you may be able to cite the Bible’s position against idol worship.
However, if a Christain tries to convince you to believe in the Biblical God, there is no use citing the Bible opinion against idol worship. What you should do, instead, is try to cite verses from Zues, assuming he said that he hates idol worship.
Second, and much more crucially, the mere fact that the Bible is against idol worship does not mean that it is worse than full-out atheism. Even if the Bible doesn’t talk about atheism, you can’t use absense of evidence regarding God’s position on atheism to assume that it isn’t as bad as idolatry. Miamonides, indeed, held that the Biblical God prefers pagans OVER atheists. You don’t have to accept everything Miamonides says; I am merely citing him to show you how the evidence from the Bible is far from absolute, regarding God prefering atheists over pagans (the Bible does mention atheism in Psalms: "A disgusting man says in his heart, ‘there is no God’)
It seems we are running in circles. So, I guess it is time for me to say goodbye.
Is there zero evidence for mormonism, for example? I can’t imagine how you can take such a position. Joseph Smith’s tesimony is evidence. Yes, it is fallible. Yes, the odds of him being a liar are high. But to say that his testimony, one man’s testimony, is ZERO evidence? That is simply not true.
(emphasis mine)
abele derer, all the “points against pascal’s wager” that you list already presume some form of religion. does this fact itself not seem like a point against the wager?