When one does the "risk analysis" one must take into account the old adage sometimes refered to as Pascals Wager. While athiests discredit ro ignore it completely the fact is that God not only recognizes it but uses it to help many begin their journey.

The old adage is this.
If I believe in God and am wrong - then I have lost nothing
If I don't believe in God and am wrong - I lose much.
To the above I would add this.
If I believe in God, but in the "wrong way", - then, if he exists, I will likely be judged on my sincerity in seeking His Truth.

Athiests will say that believing, or practiceing, out of fear is not belief but hypocracy. Which to an extent I agree with.
However, look at what the Bible says about it, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom". (Ps 111:10)
So if one begins his belief and his journey out of "self serving" fear, it is none the less a start. Then as one coninues the journey and grows in wisdom, fear is replaced by Love until fear vanishes altogether.
This then is the goal as set forth by Christ in the Gospels. The Goal of being eprfect in Love.

Athiests can call into doubt many "historical facts" in the Bible. They can point to inconsistancies in christian faiths. But they cannot deny the root core of Christ' teaching which is Love.
i am trying to use this as my goal and guide and ANY of the bible canons will be sufficient.
Of course we must not forget or deny the necessity of the Love and discipline offered to us By Christ through the magisterium of His Church.

Argument from inconsistent revelations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_inconsistent_revelations).

Since this has been posted in the comparative religion forum, I can only assume that you are willing to accept the teachings of other religions as being relevant to the discussion, in which case the above link becomes highly relevant.


It asserts that it is unlikely that God exists because many theologians and faithful adherents have produced conflicting and mutually exclusive revelations. The argument states that since a person not privy to revelation must either accept it or reject it based solely upon the authority of its proponent, and there is no way for a mere mortal to resolve these conflicting claims by investigation, it is prudent to reserve one's judgment.

We can ignore the part about the unlikeliness of God's existence and just concentrate on the part about mutually exclusive revelations so far as it relates to the usefulness of pascals wager as an argument to accept religion.

EDIT: By the way, I was watching some Heaven's Gate videos on youtube a couple of weeks ago (initiation tapes, exit statements etc) and one thing that struck me was the testimony about how many members had left the group but had later returned to it after realizing that life just wasn't fulfilling on the outside. As strange as some of the members were, they clearly felt a sense of divine purpose and belonging. What we can learn from this is that some people will even see divine revelation in the idea that the earth is about to be "recycled" and that we must all escape onto a spaceship trailing behind a comet by committing suicide. Since many of these people did in fact follow through with said course of action (and it was within a "cult" that didn't try to stop you from leaving if you wanted to) one can only conclude that a significant amount of faith was in play.

What is the topic of this thread?
What is the question?

If I believe in God and am wrong - then I have lost nothing.As the former Data Security Officer for one of the world's largest government agencies, I have considerable formal training and experience with risk analysis and risk management.

Your assertion appears to be correct, but only upon superficial analysis, and this error is what causes many risk analyses to fail disastrously, as yours does. It completely avoids discussion of the reality that only an insignificant percentage of theists merely sit at home basking in the love of their imaginary deity.

The overwhelming majority of theists belong to one of the world's organized religions. Most of these organizations (obviously I'm referring to the monotheistic, evangelical Abrahamic religions, which metastasize out of the Middle East like a cancer epidemic every couple of millennia and now dominate civilization) come with a gigantic list of requirements and prohibitions that go far beyond simple belief in a deity. They teach their members that they are just ever so slightly better than non-believers, and this gives them not just the right but the duty to at least harrass them and at worst persecute them in order to "save" them from their own "ignorance." Many of their diverse sects interpret this as a mandate to suppress the teaching and tolerance of "blasphemous" ideas and behavior within their countries, such as evolution, racial equality, first-class citizenship for women, homosexuality, music, dancing, and the keeping of mankind's oldest and most loyal companions as pets.

If the theist would kindly keep his belief-inspired behaviors to himself--such as refusing vaccination and ignoring scientific evidence--this would be bad enough but perhaps it would be a tolerable balance between individual rights and the maintenance of a civilized society. If he would just restrict it to his own family--not allowing "sinners" to patronize his business, sequestering his wife and daughters from public life (so long as they retain their legal right to flip off the asshole and walk out)--this would be markedly worse but a case could still be made for tolerating it in the name of "diversity."

But when these theists band together and achieve political power, all HELL breaks loose. They create entire nations in which members of one sect are given second-class citizenship by the dominant sect (the differences between which are so subtle as to be virtually indistinguishable to outsiders). Entire nations in which women are allowed to die in a burning building because it would be a "sin" for the fireMEN to carry them out. Entire nations in which gay people, people of African ancestry, adulterers and women who run for public office are murdered with impunity.

Worst of all, their nations go on campaigns to subjugate (or simply annihilate) other nations who do not practice the same brand of religion.

Belief in a god almost never stops at the personal level--at least not in Abrahamic societies. It almost always gives the believer a sense of superiority and a sense of mission: that he must spread his belief throughout the world--by violence, if necessary. Thus, the history of the monotheistic Abrahamic religions has been a non-stop campaign of violence and depravity.The cleansing of the Roman Empire when it first adopted Christianity as its state religion. (If you haven't seen "Agora," rent it.) The centuries of war between the Catholic (Rome) and Eastern Orthodox (Byzantium) empires over which version of Christianity was the "true" faith. The destruction of the "heathen" civilization of Egypt by the Muslim armies of Caliph Omar. The Crusades. The Inquisition. The century of non-stop war in Europe between the upstart Protestants and the entrenched Catholics that we shrug off as the "Reformation." The obliteration of two of the world's six precious independently-developed civilizations (Inca and Olmec-Maya-Aztec), for being "pagans," by the Christian armies of Europe, with the blessing and encouragement of the Pope--right down to burning the Aztec libraries and melting down the golden art of the Incas. The millennium of violent antisemitism that virtually defined European Christendom. The Holocaust, which was the culmination of that millennium. The current holy war, in which the Christians, Muslims and Jews threaten to annihilate each other (and themselves, not to mention all the rest of us) with nuclear weapons.This is why we can't simply roll our eyes at the childish, irrational, antiscientific belief in gods, angels, demons, and other invisible and illogical supernatural phenomena for which no evidence has ever been found, and say, "Well some people are just stupid, let them have their silly fun."

Their "fun" constantly threatens to destroy us personally and our civilization as a whole.

We cannot continue to tolerate these dangerous fools. We have to educate them before they do even more damage.
If I don't believe in God and am wrong - I lose much.But you could say exactly the same thing about any carefully constructed fantasy of evil. If you believe that the Klingons are coming and learn all of their submission rituals, and you are right, you will survive their invasion, although as a captive. But if you don't believe, they will kill you.

Does this mean it's rational for you to believe that FTL travel exists, that creation of a galactic empire is economically feasible in an Einsteinian universe, and that the Klingons have a technology that can detect our presence? Is this good risk analysis and risk management?

This is no different from belief in an invisible, illogical supernatural universe in which creatures and other forces exist which occasionally, capriciously, whimsically, and often angrily perturb the behavior of the natural universe.

No wait. Actually, it is quite different. People who believe in Klingons don't try to convince us that they have already been here. People who believe in gods constantly tell us that there is plenty of evidence for them. Yet the "evidence" never turns out to be valid. The best they come up with is one tortilla, out of the billions that are manufactured every year, which appears to have a scorch mark that resembles a person who lived two thousand years ago, of whom there are no portraits against which to compare it for accuracy.

The Rule of Laplace reminds us that extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat them with respect. The extraordinary assertion of the existence of a supernatural universe has no evidence at all. To believe in it is irrational, foolish, in fact it is downright childish. It is much more reasonable to believe that one will win the lottery. After all, every few months someone actually does. The probability is so small as to be inconsequential, but nonetheless evidence exists to indicate that it is non-zero. There is no such evidence to justify belief in the supernatural.

Therefore we can give grudging respect to the person who thinks he will win the lottery, because out of the millions of them who say that, one will actually win it one day. By the same token, we owe only disrespect to people who think gods exist. They are wasting their mental resources and leading civilization down dark paths, in order to not admit that it is a fairytale like Santa Claus.
Atheists will say that believing, or practicing, out of fear is not belief but hypocrisy.[Please do us the courtesy of using your spell checker.] You don't know much about atheists. It's not hypocrisy. It's simply irrational risk management. You only have a finite amount of mental energy. Use it to accomplish things that will improve your own life, the lives of your family members, the welfare of your community, and the advance of this wonderful superorganism we have created, of which we are the cells, named civilization. Don't squander it on an obsession with childish bogeymen. Look at how much intellectual energy and physical energy and resources people waste by veering off course to avoid crossing paths with a black cat, by redesigning their living space (or turning down a good deal on a perfectly nice house) to improve its feng shui, or by turning on a burner at sundown Friday and leaving it burning for 24 hours so they can cook on the Sabbath.

Supernaturalism impairs one's quality of life in very real ways. In aggregate, it is a drag on civilization
This then is the goal as set forth by Christ in the Gospels. The Goal of being perfect in Love.[Please, please, please turn on your spell checker. You insult your readers with this lazy, haphazard writing.] Setting a goal does not automatically ensure that it will be met. The world's Christian population, taken in aggregate, has not acquitted itself well and, if Jesus were a real person, he would be ashamed of the things they have done in his name. The destruction of an entire civilization, much less two of them, is a "sin" which can never be atoned. There is nothing Christians can do to compensate the world for the wealth of philosophy, art, history, and culture that they destroyed in the New World. If Christianity survives for a million years, it will still be haunted by a legacy of unspeakable evil that will forever prevent it from deserving anyone's respect.

And we don't even need to talk about the Holocaust, in which Christians attempted to actually exterminate an entire people. And please don't give me the facile bullshit about how that was fascism, not Christianity. Those people were Christians and they wholeheartedly supported it. Very few of them spoke out against it, and when the war was over and we experimented with letting the Jews move back to their old homes in Poland, the motherfucking Polish Christians started killing them all over again.
Athiests can call into doubt many "historical facts" in the Bible. They can point to inconsistancies in christian faiths. But they cannot deny the root core of Christ' teaching which is Love.I have no problem with Jesus. I love Jesus the same way I love Winnie the Pooh, Frodo Baggins, Santa Claus, Robin Hood, and dozens of other fictional characters. Fiction teaches us great things. It teaches us that there is good inside of us and all we need to do is to tap into it.

But I absolutely despise the religion that has sprung up in Jesus's name, and if you think Jesus would be even slightly pleased with it, you are too far gone to reason with. On the balance, measured over the roughly two thousand years since Jesus's alleged birth, lifetime and death, Christianity has accumulated a legacy of overwhelming evil that will haunt humanity until our sun becomes a red giant and boils the life off of this hapless planet.
i am trying to use this as my goal and guide and ANY of the bible canons will be sufficient. Of course we must not forget or deny the necessity of the Love and discipline offered to us By Christ through the magisterium of His Church.You've got to be joking. It is the churches and the church leaders who have led their followers to commit these unspeakable crimes against humanity.

If Christianity were merely a personal belief system, it might work. But when Christians get together, they rise up in unison in paroxysms of violence every two or three generations, and undo what little good work they might have accomplished between wars.

Christianity is evil and it is the duty of every decent, rational, educated human being to speak out against it.

Here is how I see it. Get a red letter version of the bible. A red letter version of the bible will have just the teachings of Jesus, in red letters, to help separare his teachings from the other teachings in the bible. This limited set of primary Christian teachings does not suggest any of the atrocities you mention.

When Christianity merged with Rome, Roman ways were added to Christianity, which went beyond the scope of the red letter teachings. These were beneficial to the needs of Rome. For example, the red letter version says, Blessed are the poor. Rome was not about being poor, but was much more about opulence; they gots its. Blessed are the meek. Rome was not about being warm and fuzzy, but more about the power of cold steel, etc.

If you look at Rome, compared to the red letter version, it was also about art, sculplture, philosophy, science, law, social classes, paganism, atheism, with these influences all impacting the red letter version. The atheist-christians played their own role in the atrocities being part of the group but not under the red letter teachings since god is dead, but the needs of day to day is right in front of us.

Although history has Rome disappearing in the dark ages, it never really ended, but merged into the Holy Roman Empire and the Catholic Church. That was what was suppose to happen after the transgression.

The outward weakness of the red letter Christians, needed the strengthes of Rome to survive, less other violent religions do them in. These same religions won't bully Rome the same way, who will protect their own, until it was time. The atheists and Christians of today, were once on the same team as the holy roman empire. The atheists had more options for atrocity. Who presecutes who nowadays? The atheists are on the offensive and the red letter are on the defensive. Atrocity is offensive not defensive.

Pascal's "wager" depends upon the almost perfectly circular insistence that belief in Christianity is the only way to avoid a grave threat that's only visible to those who believe in Christianity.

If we don't already believe in Christianity, then we aren't likely to have any concern about the damnation that we supposedly face for not believing in Christianity.

Historically, I don't think that Pascal really intended his "wager" to be an argument that would convince atheists and non-Christians.

He was a mid-1600's French mathematician, physicist and intellectual who suffered some kind of psychological crisis in midlife that rendered him devoutly Christian in his last few years. (He died relatively young.)

The problem that faced him at that point was justifying his newly hightened religiosity to himself.

He agreed with the rather skeptical Paris deist circles that he socialized with that there wasn't really any convincing evidence for special religious revelation. Nevertheless, he still found himself attracted to a rather Protestant-style Catholic Jansenism for psychological reasons that had very little to do with evidence.

He'd been thinking about probabilities and the rationality of gambling strategies around that time, so he created what seemed to be a novel game-theoretical argument for why it was rational for him to believe in Christianity even without any credible evidenciary justification for that belief.

He convinced himself (or at least tried to) that if Christianity was true, then believing in it had an infinite pay-off while disbelief had an infinite cost. But if Christianity wasn't true, he figured that it didn't matter what he believed and that there would be no cost to believing.

This line of reasoning simply assumes that Christianity is the one and only religious option. The fact that the world offers lots of religious choices wasn't universally recognized in Europe in the 1650s, despite that date already being 150 years after the voyages of discovery.

But what if Christianity is false while another religion, Indian Saivism say, is actually the one true road to salvation? Would a shot-in-the-dark belief in Christianity result in Pascal receiving no payoff from the Christian illusion while his false belief prevents him from winning whatever payoff Saivism offers?

And there's another and perhaps more fundamental objection as well--

Intellectual integrity demands that we affirm truths because we honestly believe that they are true.

It's intellectual dishonesty to affirm that something is true with no other justification for the assertion than our calculation that making it is in our personal interest.

That's not very remote from lying.

Christianity is evil and it is the duty of every decent, rational, educated human being to speak out against it.
*************
M*W: Thank you for saying that. It seems that everywhere I go, be it Sciforums, talking with family members, friends, and even strangers, I get lambasted for my personal opinions. I never bring it up to anyone first, but when I'm constantly confronted by christians who want to bless me, pray for me, lay hands on me or save my soul, I feel the need to profess my own non-belief to shut them up. Most of the time they are stunned and speechless. Sometimes they run from me like I'm carrying the plague. Other times they get belligerent and argumentative. I feel that it is necessary to continue expressing my opinions of non-belief when the opportunity arises. Otherwise, who else is going to do it? Maybe if these people heard it a few times, they might check into the rationality of it all. The worst case scenario is that if they study their religion more, they might begin to see the lies come through. The more polite ones will ask, "can I pray for you?" I simply say, "no thank you, I'm an atheist."

Here is how I see it. Get a red letter version of the bible. A red letter version of the bible will have just the teachings of Jesus, in red letters, to help separare his teachings from the other teachings in the bible. This limited set of primary Christian teachings does not suggest any of the atrocities you mention.

When Christianity merged with Rome, Roman ways were added to Christianity, which went beyond the scope of the red letter teachings. These were beneficial to the needs of Rome. For example, the red letter version says, Blessed are the poor. Rome was not about being poor, but was much more about opulence; they gots its. Blessed are the meek. Rome was not about being warm and fuzzy, but more about the power of cold steel, etc.

If you look at Rome, compared to the red letter version, it was also about art, sculplture, philosophy, science, law, social classes, paganism, atheism, with these influences all impacting the red letter version. The atheist-christians played their own role in the atrocities being part of the group but not under the red letter teachings since god is dead, but the needs of day to day is right in front of us.

Although history has Rome disappearing in the dark ages, it never really ended, but merged into the Holy Roman Empire and the Catholic Church. That was what was suppose to happen after the transgression.

The outward weakness of the red letter Christians, needed the strengthes of Rome to survive, less other violent religions do them in. These same religions won't bully Rome the same way, who will protect their own, until it was time. The atheists and Christians of today, were once on the same team as the holy roman empire. The atheists had more options for atrocity. Who presecutes who nowadays? The atheists are on the offensive and the red letter are on the defensive. Atrocity is offensive not defensive.
I posted this on another thread. It took a couple of complimentary paths. One relating to the Bible, another relating to the validity of the Church’s authority and finally a look at the fruits of each Church system.

First we must start with the acceptance of Christ, His life, death and resurrection.
So. If we accept Christ we need to ask some questions to arrive at a decision as to which church is correct.

First let’s deal with the Bible since that is a crux of teaching and the center of what we as Christians know of Jesus.
1) Do all Christians accept the Bible as the Word of God? - Yes
2) Do all Christian bibles have the same books in them? (the same canon) - No
3) Does it make sense that the “Holy Word of God “, used by Christians should have differing canons? - No
4) Then why the difference and which canon is correct? - This led me to an investigation of how the Bible as we use it today came about. The result was that the universally accepted Bible in the Catholic Church from around 400 AD to 1500 AD, 1100 years had 73 books in it. It was at the time of the Protestant Reformation that the reformers removed the seven OT books AND, it should be noted, Martin Luther wanted to toss several NT books as well.
Upshot? The Catholic Church compiled the Bible as we use it today. We accept these books as The Word of God because of the Authority of the Catholic Church. The Protestant denominations, who place such high regard on The Bible” and declare, as it says in revelation, that not one word is to be changed, started out by changing The Bible.

Now – How to deal with the issue of who is right among the Churches.
1) Can the Holy Spirit inspire or teach conflicting doctrine? - No
2) Did Christ establish a community/Church? - Yes
3) Did Christ establish multiple independent Churches? - No (Christ says “Church”)
4) Did Christ give this Church Authority? - Yes (Mt 16:18-19 and Mt 18:15-19)
Note that these are the only 2 places in the Gospels where the term Church is used. 5) Did Christ Promise to be with His Church, to not leave us orphans and to Send the Paraclete? - Yes
6) Did Christ leave us a Church to guide us, or did He leave us a book? - A Church

So – Based on the above, we can see that, Christ established a Single, Authoritative Church, that hell will not overcome, and has the authority to Bind and Loose. Since Christ cannot lie, it follows that His Church will be in continuous and visible existence and not fall into apostasy as some claim, but will persevere. (Which is not to say individuals, even high ranking ones, will not fall into apostasy.) She will also act authoritatively in matters of faith and morals. The only church that fits that description is the Catholic Church. That same Church acted authoritatively in selecting the Books to be included in the canon of the Bible.
Therefore the correct church, for correct teachings on faith and morals must be the Catholic Church.

Now let’s look at the “Fruits” of “Catholicism” and “Protestantism”.
CatholicismCatholicism is built upon the Three legged stool of Scripture, Tradition (Oral teachings), and Magisterium. Each is critical to the Fullness of Truth and unity. We can also add Apostolic Succession – That is we have teachings not only from the Apostles but from those who were taught by the apostles and so on.
Catholicism has been messy from the beginning having to work constantly to define doctrine, answer questions and fight those who would teach a different Gospel. However the Church places a huge emphasis on Unity. Christ has One Mind. There is One Truth. There has been and will continue to be discussion, argument and within the Church. However, such problems are dealt with within the structure of the Church and decisions reached prayerfully in unity and always with reference to the Holy Bible as well as the many great writings of the Church fathers and Doctors. Once a decision is reached by the Church (always after much prayer, discussion and consultation) the faithful who might still disagree submit their will to the Will of Christ in The Church thus maintaining unity and fulfilling Christ’s command to “Tell it to The Church”, and reinforcing Paul’s teaching that it is The Church that is the “Pillar and Foundation of Truth”.

ProtestantismProtestantism in it’s most basic, submits that it is The Bible Alone, interpreted by the “Spirit Led individual”. That will lead one to Christ. However it became quickly evident that there were different “spirit led” interpretations flying around. Even the Reformers themselves could not come to agreement and since none was willing to submit their own “Spirit Led” wills to the others in for the sake of Truth and Unity, they each went their own way.
The result of this is many – many different and conflicting “Bible Based, and Spirit Led” beliefs among protestants and no way to distill them into one unified whole. Even the Old and established Protestant Churches are finding themselves splitting apart because they have no authority to tell the schismatic that they are wrong.

So – The fruits of Catholicism is Doctrinal Unity built upon Scripture, Tradition, and Teaching Authority. The Fruits of Protestantism is doctrinal chaos built upon the individual right of self interpretation.

You shall know them by their Fruits.

The fact that the world offers lots of religious choices wasn't universally recognized in Europe in the 1650s, despite that date already being 150 years after the voyages of discovery.

Hence, it then does not prove that there is "one" right. So if the evidence is weak, why reject it instead of examining its context? :)

Rav,

I think Pascals Wager is not a proof of God per se. To me, it is more of an appeal. It tries to appeal to someone's sensibility by saying "what do you have to lose?"

A man by the name of Glenn Miller has a somewhat detailed method of discerning between different revelations which is probably much more than I could give here, so here it is http://christianthinktank.com/process1.html

Hence, it then does not prove that there is "one" right. So if the evidence is weak, why reject it instead of examining its context?

It's not clear how Pascal's Wager makes any sense if divorced from the idea that only one religion (as in "religious tradition", such as either Roman Catholicism, Calvinism, Saivism, etc.) is the right one.

It's not clear how Pascal's Wager makes any sense if divorced from the idea that only one religion (as in "religious tradition", such as either Roman Catholicism, Calvinism, Saivism, etc.) is the right one.
Quite right. Pascal's argument is aimed at atheists because he knows they do not want to find the idea of God reasonable. What he is therefore doing is to appeal to their sense of self interest. What if the atheist is wrong (that is, if you can find an atheist who is humble enough to admit he might be wrong)?

Before we continue this charade... do you believe in God so that you will get into heaven? Seriously, is that why you believe in God?

If the answer is no, then why do you think I would believe in God to get into heaven?

God plants in us the desire to be with him through all eternity. So yes, I believe because I want to be in heaven. I think you should believe in God for the same reason. If you are fighting God's will, it is up to you, not me, to figure out why.

Quite right. Pascal's argument is aimed at atheists because he knows they do not want to find the idea of God reasonable.
Um, no. It doesn't work with atheists. And you're wrong on the emboldened part. It's not a question of "not wanting" to find the idea reasonable, it just that the idea isn't.


God plants in us the desire to be with him through all eternity.
That's self-evidently incorrect.

Um, no. It doesn't work with atheists. And you're wrong on the emboldened part. It's not a question of "not wanting" to find the idea reasonable, it just that the idea isn't.


That's self-evidently incorrect.
"Human beings must be known to be loved; but Divine beings must be loved to be known." Blaise Pascal

"Human beings must be known to be loved; but Divine beings must be loved to be known." Blaise Pascal
Yeah blah blah blah.
Which isn't a reply to anything I wrote.

To me, it is more of an appeal. It tries to appeal to someone's sensibility by saying "what do you have to lose?"

What do I have to lose by trying to force myself to believe (and adhere to the teachings of) some random religion knowing full well that even if I picked correctly, it's unlikely that I will reap any of the rewards that are offered anyway because my faith wasn't genuine? Seriously?

Contrary to popular opinion among theists, it takes a lot more than open-minded investigation of religious claims to become religious. It takes someone who is also willing to put more emphasis on the usefulness of emotion than rational thought when it comes to determining the truth. Religion is ultimately about what "feels" right. Committing suicide to escape the recycling of the earth "felt" right to members of the Heaven's Gate cult.

you're wrong on the emboldened part. It's not a question of "not wanting" to find the idea reasonable, it just that the idea isn't.

Let's see if I was wrong. One question. If God stood in front of you today would you kneel down and worship Him?

Let's see if I was wrong. One question. If God stood in front of you today would you kneel down and worship Him?
Three questions:
how would I know he was god?
why should I "worship" him? (I doubt I would).

And how does your question relate at all to my comment?

Three questions:
how would I know he was god?
why should I "worship" him? (I doubt I would).
Fair enough - What would be the appropriate response?

WASSUP?


And how does your question relate at all to my comment?
re-read my posts.

Fair enough - What would be the appropriate response?
WASSUP?
Or its English equivalent.


re-read my posts.
I did. Hence my question.

I did. Hence my question.
Then re-read your posts. And read my replies again.

So you can't just say?
Okay.

So you can't just say?
Okay.
So because God has not acceded to your demand for proof in growing back limbs you do not believe in Him. Is this where you are hung up?

Quite right. Pascal's argument is aimed at atheists because he knows they do not want to find the idea of God reasonable.

I think you are operating out of bad faith here.

Atheists are people too.

Although I doubt that with your current outlook, you will make that experience.
Frankly, I don't think you understand much about atheism and atheists.


Whenever one operates out of bad faith, one gets self-fulflling prophecies.



God plants in us the desire to be with him through all eternity. So yes, I believe because I want to be in heaven. I think you should believe in God for the same reason. If you are fighting God's will, it is up to you, not me, to figure out why.

You are the one here who acts as a representative of God.
You are telling people what is in line with God's desires and what isn't.
You are judging their position before God.
That, in principle, places you into a responsible position.
But it appears that you are not willing to take that responsibility.
I am calling you on it.


Here is a book for you to read: Healing spiritual abuse and religious addiction (http://www.amazon.com/Healing-Spiritual-Abuse-Religious-Addiction/dp/0809134888/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1304871260&sr=8-13).

So because God has not acceded to your demand for proof in growing back limbs you do not believe in Him. Is this where you are hung up?
Growing back limbs? :confused:
I don't believe in god because the claims that he exists have not been shown to have any substance. It's that simple.
And again this isn't related to what I queried...

I think you are operating out of bad faith here.

Atheists are people too.

Although I doubt that with your current outlook, you will make that experience.
Frankly, I don't think you understand much about atheism and atheists.


Whenever one operates out of bad faith, one gets self-fulflling prophecies.

EDIT: Like this? And a lot of like this from the Atheist's mouth?

'What if' is great. BELIEF in god is BS.

Like this? And a lot of like this from the horse's mouth?

What? Is UD not a person?
Replying to bad faith with more bad faith somehow evens things out?

:o

What? Is UD not a person?
Replying to bad faith with more bad faith somehow evens things out?

:o
You are right. I apologize, I am so embarrassed.

But let me ask you... what do not not agree with?

1. God is absolutely perfect.
2. God is actually infinite in every perfection.
3. God is absolutely simple.
4. There is only One God.
5. The One God is, in the ontological sense, The True God.
6. God possesses an infinite power of cognition.
7. God is absolute Veracity.
8. God is absolutely faithful.
9. God is absolute ontological Goodness in Himself and in relation to others.
10. God is absolute Moral Goodness or Holiness.
11. God is absolute Benignity.
12. God is absolute Beauty
13. God is absolutely immutable.
14. God is eternal.
15. God is immense or absolutely immeasurable.
16. God is everywhere present in created space.

I'll have to deal with other aspects of these posts later. Good night. :wave:

Thank you for paying attention and calling a bad pitch.

But let me ask you... what do not not agree with?

Suppositions and pronouncements only get in the way of the search, as they have already been decided by fiat, making for no true search.

If Christianity were merely a personal belief system, it might work. But when Christians get together, they rise up in unison in paroxysms of violence every two or three generations, and undo what little good work they might have accomplished between wars.
as much as i agree with the results of your conclusions,the fact remains that it can apply to ANY group of humans, not just christians.
i think it is more basic than that..i think it has to do with our sense of worth,we establish an idea that gives us personal worth and seek out others who agree that the idea is worthy,enough ppl get together that believe in that idea,then they try to enforce that idea on others, they think they are doing the other person good, whether they like it or not.

so back to your statement of

If Christianity were merely a personal belief system, it might work.
i would agree 100%,to organize it REQUIRES a definition for God.to define God is to limit him.



Christianity is evil and it is the duty of every decent, rational, educated human being to speak out against it.

i rest my case..
(your argument applies to ANY ppl)

But let me ask you... what do not not agree with?

Personally, I do not find any of the statements you listed below to be problematic.

But what can become a tremendous problem is where, when, in what circumstances, and most of all, in relation to whom one agrees with those things.

For example, I am quite sure that if any of my old Christian "friends" asked me about my spirituality and God, I would pretend not to be interested or even pretend to be a hardcore atheist. I just don't trust them and don't feel safe around them. It's not like I can actually tell them that either. As far as I have come to know them, whatever personal insights and convictions I would share, they would just poke holes in them, look for flaws, find a way to demonize me. And I'm not into another round of that.
I have noticed how I lose touch with my convictions once I am under attack by such "well-meaning believers."


Bottomline, talking about God is often actually a very delicate matter and it is very easy to cross personal boundaries, upon which people tend to become defensive and neurotic and irrational and once this happens, it is very difficult to have any kind of reasonable conversation anytime soon.

We are people, not "opportunities for preaching" or "opportunities for religious experiments."

Bottomline, talking about God is often actually a very delicate matter and it is very easy to cross personal boundaries, upon which people tend to become defensive and neurotic and irrational and once this happens, it is very difficult to have any kind of reasonable conversation anytime soon.

like i said..it is tied to our sense of worth, make them feel worthless (does not have to be intentional,just perceived) and the conversation is over, they will then seek to prove to you that they are not worthless ,meaning they ain't listening anymore to the topic, and focused on arguing that they are right.

case in point..
have you ever had a conversation with someone about your own worth?
pry not because it makes you feel worth-less to talk about it..
(lets not get into being worthless as a comfort zone..)


We are people, not "opportunities for preaching" or "opportunities for religious experiments."
this is a two edged sword..
we are easily led..(do as your told is easier)
so if you do not want to be an 'opportunity' then either step up or step out..(question your pastor or find another church)
the more ppl that step up and question the pastors the more the pastors will get a clue and start caring about 'thinking for yourself'
your not gonna go to hell just because you pissed a pastor off..
he is human too...

We can ignore the part about the unlikeliness of God's existence and just concentrate on the part about mutually exclusive revelations so far as it relates to the usefulness of pascals wager as an argument to accept religion.
Religions needn't be mutually exclusive. Many religions make the same or similar claims, differing in some beliefs that are major and others that are minor.

Pascal himself spent a good part of Pensees examining the claims of different major religions around the world. He applied rational principles, and urged others to apply rational principles, when comparing religions. It is true that one might select the wrong religion, but it may be possible to select the right one. One does not sit safely on the fence refusing to choose any religion on the principle that God is going to favor those who refuse to gamble. And that's because you have already gambled ... on the notion that picking no religion is safer than picking the wrong one

God-belief is just as likely bad for your afterlife health.
After all, it's only proofs are not independently made, and cross-checked.

There is no operation manual for existence.

A sperm gets it right, and enters the kingdom.
The rest (of the sperms) do it wrong, and get rejected.
Natural selection has a louder voice than a god.

What do I have to lose by trying to force myself to believe (and adhere to the teachings of) some random religion knowing full well that even if I picked correctly, it's unlikely that I will reap any of the rewards that are offered anyway because my faith wasn't genuine? Seriously?.
You're assuming that once you choose to wager that God exists, you would go through the rest of your life without genuine faith, without a growing, evolving faith. That position fails to recognize what the wager actually is. The wager doesn't infer that you have a solitary utterance or fleeting thought of believing, and that's it. The wager is to concede that God probably does exist, and then to live out the remainder of your life truly seeking Him. God takes care of the rest. It is your seeking that needs to be genuine. God rewards those who truly seek Him, and promises that you will find Him.


Contrary to popular opinion among theists, it takes a lot more than open-minded investigation of religious claims to become religious. It takes someone who is also willing to put more emphasis on the usefulness of emotion than rational thought when it comes to determining the truth. Religion is ultimately about what "feels" right. Committing suicide to escape the recycling of the earth "felt" right to members of the Heaven's Gate cult.
Some "religions" may indeed be about what feels right. But Christianity is about what God has revealed about Himself to us. It is about genuine revelation, about objective truth. Emotional reaction to this revelation is common, but unnecessary for the human will to ascent to it.

Paraphrasing Dr. Peter Kreeft: "If all the religions in the world are like paths on a mountain, and God is on top of the mountain, then why aren't all religions the same? Simple. One path comes down the mountain, all the others go up. Christianity isn't man's word about God...it is God's word about man"

have you ever had a conversation with someone about your own worth?
pry not because it makes you feel worth-less to talk about it..

I'm not emo, but I did have such conversations. :o



this is a two edged sword..
we are easily led..(do as your told is easier)
so if you do not want to be an 'opportunity' then either step up or step out..(question your pastor or find another church)
the more ppl that step up and question the pastors the more the pastors will get a clue and start caring about 'thinking for yourself'

Generally, I agree. In fact, I am strongly against the current anti-bullying trends because I think they actually weaken people. And as a matter of private outlook, I think being bullied (in any way) is ultimately good for a person. One has to learn to survive in a dog-eat-dog world and this won't happen with all the pampering of the anti-bullying campaigns.

However, the danger of making such a view public is that many people tend to see it as a call to bullying, to saying "It's not that I hit him too much, it's that his bones are too soft."
And this is certainly not what I intend.

I certainly do not condone being harsh to people in the name of God.
But if someone is being harsh to one in the name of God, one needs to rise above that, for one's own sake, instead of enduring being a victim.



your not gonna go to hell just because you pissed a pastor off..
he is human too...

I think it takes quite a bit of experience and confidence to come to that conclusion and to act on it!

Religions needn't be mutually exclusive. Many religions make the same or similar claims, differing in some beliefs that are major and others that are minor.

Perhaps they needn't be, but many of them are. The problem with the idea that they are all true to some extent and that it doesn't strictly matter which one you adhere to is that you have to then concede that scripture is not the ultimate authority. Once it's integrity has been called into question you are left with the problem of trying to justify following one teaching at the expense of another in cases where all scripture is not in agreement. Ultimately you're left with a situation where you can't even be compelled to believe that Jesus died for our sins lest you be directly contradicting something like the Qur'an (which has equal claim to being the correct account of God's dealings with and what he expects from us).


You're assuming that once you choose to wager that God exists, you would go through the rest of your life without genuine faith, without a growing, evolving faith.

Unlike many atheists you might engage on these forums, I've had an inside view of what religion is. I understand what it feels like to believe in God; to have faith that borders on certainty. I used to think that this was something that only God could bestow upon someone since it seemed like such a positive affirmation of his existence; a reward or sorts. That "communion" seemed very real, and the emotional and psychological rewards were easily recognizable. It had to be "something" right?

Of course it was something. We are understandably willing to slip back into the mindset that we had as children, where adults were beings of great power and influence that protected us (or were at least in a perceived position to be able to) both physically and emotionally from the harsh realities of the world. Believing something like that once again brings us comfort and confidence. But what about the obvious benefits of communion (prayer) with God? Essentially no different from writing down your deepest thoughts and fears in a diary, or confiding in a friend who offers a supportive ear. Personally I am lucky enough to have a great bunch of intellectual and open-minded friends and I have come away from many a conversation with a clearer perspective and often a new inspirational outlook. But as previously alluded to, sometimes you already know what you need to hear, or what is at the core of a particular problem, and all that is necessary is for you to say it out loud, or write it down.

Finally, I've witnessed just as many spooky coincidences that I would previously have (at least tentatively) characterized as examples of "divine intervention" since moving beyond my faith in God as compared to when I felt certain that God was real. Often, things just happen, and it is we who attach a significance to them (that is usually consistent with what we already want to believe of course).

Since I now understand something about the psychology behind what people may describe as the tangible benefits of faith, the experience of those benefits no longer has any bearing on the question of the existence of the object of that faith. In other words, faith cannot sustain itself if one realizes that faith itself is evidence of nothing, unless one's rationality is overwhelmed by the emotional need to sustain it.

In the end it does indeed mean that my faith wouldn't be genuine because I would need to sustain it artificially, and I would know that I was doing it.

Rav,

In the end it does indeed mean that my faith wouldn't be genuine because I would need to sustain it artificially, and I would know that I was doing it.

So I suppose, you think everyone who believes in God is delusional?

If that is your attitude, how do you know you are not delusional with a superiority complex?

Perhaps they needn't be, but many of them are. The problem with the idea that they are all true to some extent and that it doesn't strictly matter which one you adhere to is that you have to then concede that scripture is not the ultimate authority.

This is a non-sequitur fallacy. No such concession has to be made.

Rav,

In the end it does indeed mean that my faith wouldn't be genuine because I would need to sustain it artificially, and I would know that I was doing it.

So I suppose, you think everyone who believes in God is delusional?

There is a difference between being delusional and believing in God. I'm not one of those atheists who tries to suggest otherwise. Theists could only be classed as delusional if they continued to believe even after if it was proven beyond all reasonable doubt that God does not exist. But since that's not possible, it wouldn't be proper to classify them as such.

I do however think that some theists border on being delusional, but then again, so do some atheists.


This is a non-sequitur fallacy. No such concession has to be made.

We can clear this up pretty quickly with a single example. The Bible teaches that Jesus died for our sins on the cross. The Qur'an teaches that Jesus was definitely not crucified, but was instead taken up to be with Allah. How do you reconcile this rather significant inconsistency with the idea that scripture is an ultimate authority on such matters?

In the end it does indeed mean that my faith wouldn't be genuine because I would need to sustain it artificially, and I would know that I was doing it.

Or simply the time came for you where you were faced with the option to "upgrade" your faith, or stagnate (and eventually leave).

It seems you came somewhere to Stage 4 on the Fowler scala ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fowler%27s_stages_of_faith_development ), but didn't go into it fully, perhaps because your life was otherwise so comfortable so there seemed to be no impetus to move on.

I suppose you can wait for the sky to fall down, or make a concentrated effort ahead.

I think Pascals Wager is not a proof of God per se. To me, it is more of an appeal. It tries to appeal to someone's sensibility by saying "what do you have to lose?"

What do I have to lose by doing... what? Willing myself to believe in Christianity?

I waver between two opinions on the possibility of doing that.

Sometimes I doubt whether it's possible for me to volutarily will myself to believe anything. My beliefs seem to be involuntary cognitive responses to my having been convinced somehow.

Other times I suspect that maybe I could make some mysterious inner movement and will myself to believe...anything at all. Perhaps I could start believing that space-aliens are inside my walls are talking to me with voices that only I can hear. That path scares me to death because it seems to lead direct to madness.

So that's one thing that I could possibly lose: my sanity.

Other times I suspect that maybe I could make some mysterious inner movement and will myself to believe...anything at all. Perhaps I could start believing that space-aliens are inside my walls are talking to me with voices that only I can hear. That path scares me to death because it seems to lead direct to madness.

So that's one thing that I could possibly lose: my sanity.

um..
this assume a 'once i believe it,it is set in stone' type thinking..
this couldn't be farther from the truth..

belief changes as more data comes in,
the immovability of a belief is just ones own conviction of how true the belief is.
(or an attempt to conform to a particular groups influence)(or results of an issue of worth)
either way, to believe in some thing, does not mean you will never 'not believe' it, it is a choice, not a feeling, and as such it is a choice we make everyday,
i choose to believe in God, everyday and every minute i make that choice, there is always a chance that someday i will choose NOT to believe in God, but i have learned, the more you choose him, the easier it is to choose him..

The more one thinks of God the easier it is to think of God.

The more one thinks of God the easier it is to think of God.

if God doesn't exist, why do you spend so much time thinking about something that doesn't exist?:p

Athiests will say that believing, or practiceing, out of fear is not belief but hypocracy.

As an atheist, I would not say that. Christianity is a religion whose theology includes eternal punishment for transgressors against God - the "something you have to lose" for not believing - so there is no real tension introduced by citing fear as a motivator to belief there. If someone believes that he will be horribly punished for disbelief, and wants to avoid that outcome, then pursuing some reglion to that end is exactly consistent.

Athiests will say that believing, or practiceing, out of fear is not belief but hypocracy. I would say that real fear is evidence of some level of real belief - proof of a lack of hypocrisy.

As far as what a person has to lose: even a casual perusal of history can impress the inexperienced with the miseries inflicted upon societies, or supported in their infliction, by false beliefs. So the betrayal of my neighbors is one of the things I risk by joining or supporting a system of false beliefs. While ensuring the safety of my own imagined soul at the expense of my tribe and society may seem a good bet, it is not a very comfortable one.

I am strongly against the current anti-bullying trends because I think they actually weaken people. And as a matter of private outlook, I think being bullied (in any way) is ultimately good for a person. One has to learn to survive in a dog-eat-dog world and this won't happen with all the pampering of the anti-bullying campaigns.Perhaps you are correct. Do you have the conviction to stand by your own words?


However, the danger of making such a view public is that many people tend to see it as a call to bullying, to saying "It's not that I hit him too much, it's that his bones are too soft."
And this is certainly not what I intend.Or shall you vacillate?


I certainly do not condone being harsh to people in the name of God.And ultimately capitulate?


But if someone is being harsh to one in the name of God, one needs to rise above that, for one's own sake, instead of enduring being a victim.Are there more than two sides of L. victor (http://www.answers.com/topic/victor)?

If neither victor nor victim, what alternative were you contemplating?
victor

Definition: winner
Antonyms: loserPerhaps you envision a "benevolent" winner?

Or maybe a "malevolent" loser?

Would either alternative sway your position on "being harsh to one in the name of God"?

What other choice is there? Innocent bystander?

Victory (http://www.answers.com/topic/victory)refers especially to the final defeat of an enemy or opponent: "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be" (Winston S. Churchill). Conquest connotes subduing, subjugating, or achieving control over: "Conquest of illiteracy comes first" (John Kenneth Galbraith). Triumph denotes a victory or success that is especially noteworthy because it is decisive, significant, or spectacular: preaching the eventual triumph of good over evil.

:shrug:

You're assuming that once you choose to wager that God exists, you would go through the rest of your life without genuine faith, without a growing, evolving faith. That position fails to recognize what the wager actually is. The wager doesn't infer that you have a solitary utterance or fleeting thought of believing, and that's it. The wager is to concede that God probably does exist, and then to live out the remainder of your life truly seeking Him. God takes care of the rest. It is your seeking that needs to be genuine. God rewards those who truly seek Him, and promises that you will find Him.Any citation from Pascal available here?

As far as what a person has to lose: even a casual perusal of history can impress the inexperienced with the miseries inflicted upon societies, or supported in their infliction, by false beliefs. So the betrayal of my neighbors is one of the things I risk by joining or supporting a system of false beliefs. While ensuring the safety of my own imagined soul at the expense of my tribe and society may seem a good bet, it is not a very comfortable one.

Even without going that far - just keeping it in the realm of purely personal gain and loss - the adherent loses time, energy, money, etc. by devoting such to the pursuit of a religion.

Given my estimates of the odds, I'd rather run the risk of eternal damnation, than wake up on Sunday mornings for the rest of my life, to put it concretely.

Given my estimates of the odds, I'd rather run the risk of eternal damnation, than wake up on Sunday mornings for the rest of my life, to put it concretely.Excellent point! :D

if God doesn't exist, why do you spend so much time thinking about something that doesn't exist?:p
*************
M*W: Good point, and I would like to answer your question. It's not so much that I think about god per se, but I give more thought to the people who believe in god, and why.

um..
this assume a 'once i believe it,it is set in stone' type thinking..
this couldn't be farther from the truth..

In my experience, the way many theists describe theistic beliefs, it seems precisely like "once and for all, set in stone, endure to the end" kind of thing.



i choose to believe in God, everyday and every minute i make that choice, there is always a chance that someday i will choose NOT to believe in God, but i have learned, the more you choose him, the easier it is to choose him

I think it's like this with everything.

If neither victor nor victim, what alternative were you contemplating?Perhaps you envision a "benevolent" winner?

If one sets out to defeat others, one has already been defeated.

When one does the "risk analysis" one must take into account the old adage sometimes refered to as Pascals Wager. While athiests discredit ro ignore it completely the fact is that God not only recognizes it but uses it to help many begin their journey.

Phrasing the topic like this is a set-up. It presumes the Absolute Truth is known to the speaker and relatively easily knowable for everyone else.
This is patronizing, and it makes actual discussion impossible.

If one sets out to defeat others, one has already been defeated.While this sounds like Sun Tzu, I am totally unable to find the reference. Could you provide the citation please?

After all, it's an art...

I think Pascals Wager is not a proof of God per se. To me, it is more of an appeal. It tries to appeal to someone's sensibility by saying "what do you have to lose?"

Gambling and sensibility are mutually exclusive.

If appealing to others, one ought to appeal to the best in them, not the worst.

Atheists often have plenty of interest in God, but theists don't seem to be all that good in building on that.
Which wouldn't be so much of a problem, were it not that theists are the ones claiming to be right and having the superior knowledge.

While this sounds like Sun Tzu, I am totally unable to find the reference. Could you provide the citation please?

After all, it's an art...

I have only heard it as a "Chinese proverb" so far. But I don't think the reference is important here, as I think the point stands on its own.

I have only heard it as a "Chinese proverb" so far. But I don't think the reference is important here, as I think the point stands on its own.Your thinking is flawed. Sorry...

Your thinking is flawed. Sorry...

What is flawed?

Popular wisdom doesn't require to state references.

You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink.


:shrug:

Popular wisdom doesn't require to state references.

You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink.It wasn't meant to be presented as a requirement, merely a desire.

As is, I simply choose not to drink from your well.

This has no impact on other topics or threads, at least to me.

Good day...

Or simply the time came for you where you were faced with the option to "upgrade" your faith, or stagnate (and eventually leave).

It seems you came somewhere to Stage 4 on the Fowler scala ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fowler%27s_stages_of_faith_development ), but didn't go into it fully, perhaps because your life was otherwise so comfortable so there seemed to be no impetus to move on.

I suppose you can wait for the sky to fall down, or make a concentrated effort ahead.

To be honest, I can't relate to any of that. I don't really see my experiences with faith accurately mirrored in that account at all.

To be honest, I can't relate to any of that. I don't really see my experiences with faith accurately mirrored in that account at all.

Why not? What are the differences?

What do I have to lose by trying to force myself to believe (and adhere to the teachings of) some random religion knowing full well that even if I picked correctly, it's unlikely that I will reap any of the rewards that are offered anyway because my faith wasn't genuine? Seriously?

How do you know the faith that is acquired does not become, in the course of time, genuine?

How does anyone know that his faith is genuine until he lives, acts, breathes, and loves by it?

Ask anyone baptized from childhood into the Christian faith and living his entire life in it whether he does not ask himself, from time to time, "Is my faith genuine?"

Mere assent is not sufficiently genuine, as Pascal would be the first to insist. It is too easy for us to lie to ourselves, never mind others.

You are not certain to be saved just by betting on God and throwing the dice. But if you don't bet on God, you are certain to lose :eek:

What do I have to lose by trying to force myself to believe (and adhere to the teachings of) some random religion knowing full well that even if I picked correctly, it's unlikely that I will reap any of the rewards that are offered anyway because my faith wasn't genuine? Seriously?

Contrary to popular opinion among theists, it takes a lot more than open-minded investigation of religious claims to become religious. It takes someone who is also willing to put more emphasis on the usefulness of emotion than rational thought when it comes to determining the truth. Religion is ultimately about what "feels" right. Committing suicide to escape the recycling of the earth "felt" right to members of the Heaven's Gate cult.
I would like to point out two lines of thought that might help answer your question:
1. The quote assumes that faith is based on accepting or rejecting revelation told to us by others. But there is such a thing as a personal call, where a person feels called by God. So people may choose their religion based on direct first-hand knowledge. I believe that anyone can come to know God if they devote sincere time to prayer.
2. Religious beliefs can, at least to some extent, be evaluated rationally. They aren't all equal. Some make more sense than others.

Why not? What are the differences?

For me, and most people I have ever known, faith was much simpler than all that. You either believed and did the things that flowed from that belief, or you didn't really believe and subsequently did a half-arsed job of it. The latter is not the kind of faith that the New Testament (for example) teaches that you're supposed to have.

Bible Jesus doesn't teach that it's OK to sit around and philosophize endlessly, and meaningfully "struggle" with your faith in order to mature it to a more significant level over a number of years, he taught that you just need to stop being such a fucking lukewarm disgrace and actually embrace his teachings and live them completely. That's what I did. I took religion (Christianity at least) out for a proper genuine spin. A couple of my friends have to and had similar experiences.

I do realize of course that my experiences wont necessarily reflect those of others, but I trust that I've highlighted the difference between my experiences and Fowler's stages of faith development.

We can clear this up pretty quickly with a single example. The Bible teaches that Jesus died for our sins on the cross. The Qur'an teaches that Jesus was definitely not crucified, but was instead taken up to be with Allah. How do you reconcile this rather significant inconsistency with the idea that scripture is an ultimate authority on such matters?
By observing that the documents upon which the Qur'an is based are the Old Testament and the New Testament. How can the New Testament be both false and true at the same time? Taken as the word of God it should be true all the way through. There is no way to justify changing the teaching, so the Qur'an fails to justify itself as to the New Testament teaching about the death of Jesus.

The fact of the matter is that the Qur'an would not exist if the Bible, upon which the Qur'an is largely based, did not previously exist. Jesus was prophesied in the Old Testament and appeared in the New Testament. Mohamed was not prophesied in either Testament.

The Qur'an was not written during the first generation of those who followed the life and death of Jesus. How is it they would not be believed, but Mohamed should be believed as the manner of the death of Jesus?

For me, and most people I have ever known, faith was much simpler than all that. You either believed and did the things that flowed from that belief, or you didn't really believe and subsequently did a half-arsed job of it. The latter is not the kind of faith that the New Testament (for example) teaches that you're supposed to have.

Bible Jesus doesn't teach that it's OK to sit around and philosophize endlessly, and meaningfully "struggle" with your faith in order to mature it to a more significant level over a number of years, he taught that you just need to stop being such a fucking lukewarm disgrace and actually embrace his teachings and live them completely. That's what I did. I took religion (Christianity at least) out for a proper genuine spin. A couple of my friends have to and had similar experiences.

I do realize of course that my experiences wont necessarily reflect those of others, but I trust that I've highlighted the difference between my experiences and Fowler's stages of faith development.

In that case, it would seem that you were in even earlier stages, and that there was significant discord between your cognitive and moral development on the one hand, and the development of your faith on the other hand.

When people are born into a religious family and practice it from birth on so to speak, ideally, the developments of their cognition, morality and faith are in harmony.
But with people who join religion later, there can be a significant discord.

By observing that the documents upon which the Qur'an is based are the Old Testament and the New Testament. How can the New Testament be both false and true at the same time? Taken as the word of God it should be true all the way through. There is no way to justify changing the teaching, so the Qur'an fails to justify itself as to the New Testament teaching about the death of Jesus.

The fact of the matter is that the Qur'an would not exist if the Bible, upon which the Qur'an is largely based, did not previously exist. Jesus was prophesied in the Old Testament and appeared in the New Testament. Mohamed was not prophesied in either Testament.

The Qur'an was not written during the first generation of those who followed the life and death of Jesus. How is it they would not be believed, but Mohamed should be believed as the manner of the death of Jesus?

But this line of argument suggests that mundane reasoning is above divine revelation - because you are using mundane reasoning (ie. archaeological and historiographical records that state that the Bible is older than the Quran) to invalidate one divine revelation (in this case, the Quran) from being the superior one.

If you want to use mundane reasoning in one instance of judging what is to pass as divine and what isn't, surely you must use it in other instances too.
Mundane reasoning would say that it is immoral to condemn people to eternal damnation, for example.

In that case, it would seem that you were in even earlier stages, and that there was significant discord between your cognitive and moral development on the one hand, and the development of your faith on the other hand.

I don't think so, since my morals were always cut from the same cloth so to speak. My moral and ethical framework is not fundamentally different now than it was then, nor was it fundamentally different initially.

Your comments sound an awfully lot like a dismissal of the legitimacy of my experiences so far as they relate to forming an informed opinion about the basic aspects of religious experience. The next logical step would be for you to repeat a previous assertion of yours about how one can only have a truly informed opinion about a religion if they have practiced it across the fullness of a lifetime. If that is your intention, I have already responded to that topic in the thread you created for it.

Any citation from Pascal available here?
Here it is:

"If you gain, you gain all. If you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then, without hesitation, that He exists…. At each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognize that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing." Blaise Pascal

I don't think so, since my morals were always cut from the same cloth so to speak. My moral and ethical framework is not fundamentally different now than it was then, nor was it fundamentally different initially.

Your comments sound an awfully lot like a dismissal of the legitimacy of my experiences so far as they relate to forming an informed opinion about the basic aspects of religious experience. The next logical step would be for you to repeat a previous assertion of yours about how one can only have a truly informed opinion about a religion if they have practiced it across the fullness of a lifetime. If that is your intention, I have already responded to that topic in the thread you created for it.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here.

I also said, after the portion you quoted:


When people are born into a religious family and practice it from birth on so to speak, ideally, the developments of their cognition, morality and faith are in harmony.
But with people who join religion later, there can be a significant discord.

Meaning: For a person who joins religion later, say, at age 30, their cognition and morality are at the level for 30-year-olds, while their faith is at the level of 2-year-olds. Understandably, there will be internal discord.

I'm not saying this to belittle anyone. It's simply how it is - if one takes up something later in life, one is a newcomer at it, regardless of how old and experienced they otherwise are.


EDIT:

Note that organized religions take this into account, so the materials for introducing children to the religion are different than those for introducing adults.

When one does the "risk analysis" one must take into account the old adage sometimes refered to as Pascals Wager. While athiests discredit ro ignore it completely the fact is that God not only recognizes it but uses it to help many begin their journey.

The old adage is this.
If I believe in God and am wrong - then I have lost nothing
If I don't believe in God and am wrong - I lose much.
To the above I would add this.
If I believe in God, but in the "wrong way", - then, if he exists, I will likely be judged on my sincerity in seeking His Truth.

Athiests will say that believing, or practiceing, out of fear is not belief but hypocracy. Which to an extent I agree with.
However, look at what the Bible says about it, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom". (Ps 111:10)
So if one begins his belief and his journey out of "self serving" fear, it is none the less a start. Then as one coninues the journey and grows in wisdom, fear is replaced by Love until fear vanishes altogether.
This then is the goal as set forth by Christ in the Gospels. The Goal of being eprfect in Love.

Athiests can call into doubt many "historical facts" in the Bible. They can point to inconsistancies in christian faiths. But they cannot deny the root core of Christ' teaching which is Love.
i am trying to use this as my goal and guide and ANY of the bible canons will be sufficient.
Of course we must not forget or deny the necessity of the Love and discipline offered to us By Christ through the magisterium of His Church.

So it's better to be slightly wrong than outright wrong? Sounds overly-simplistic to me.

But this line of argument suggests that mundane reasoning is above divine revelation - because you are using mundane reasoning (ie. archaeological and historiographical records that state that the Bible is older than the Quran) to invalidate one divine revelation (in this case, the Quran) from being the superior one.

If you want to use mundane reasoning in one instance of judging what is to pass as divine and what isn't, surely you must use it in other instances too.
Mundane reasoning would say that it is immoral to condemn people to eternal damnation, for example.
Would you mind defining "mundane reasoning"? It is not an expression with which I am familiar.

Pascal asks the atheist to reason his way to God. How is it that for the atheist Islam would be more reasonable than Christianity?

Would you mind defining "mundane reasoning"? It is not an expression with which I am familiar.

Common sense. The natural sciences. The social sciences.
That which is not divine reasoning.



Pascal asks the atheist to reason his way to God. How is it that for the atheist Islam would be more reasonable than Christianity?

That would depend on the brand of his mundane reasoning.

How do you know the faith that is acquired does not become, in the course of time, genuine?

If somebody proclaims that 'X is true', in full knowledge and recognition that he doesn't really know whether X is true or not, simply because there may be some benefit to him in saying the words...

How is that not a lie?

We consider it dishonest when advertisers do it.


How does anyone know that his faith is genuine until he lives, acts, breathes, and loves by it?

But how do we get from the "wager" to living, acting, breathing and loving one's faith?

That wasn't a problem for Pascal. He was trying to intellectually rationalize a deep and passionate faith that he already embraced for reasons that weren't intellectual at all. His faith was already present and he was just trying to convince his friends, and more importantly himself, that it wasn't irrational.


Mere assent is not sufficiently genuine, as Pascal would be the first to insist. It is too easy for us to lie to ourselves, never mind others.

You are not certain to be saved just by betting on God and throwing the dice.

Right. So the "wager" is just kind of empty.

It lacks force from both a religious perspective and from the atheist perspective.

From the religious perspetive, it doesn't support or motivate real faith.

From the atheist perspective, it's just another example of circular reasoning.


But if you don't bet on God, you are certain to lose :eek:

That's the circularity.

The only people who are likely to believe that rejecting Christianity is a losing proposition are people who are already Christians.

If somebody proclaims that 'X is true', in full knowledge and recognition that he doesn't really know whether X is true or not, simply because there may be some benefit to him in saying the words...

How is that not a lie?

Some theists will reply to this that we value our intellectual integrity too highly and that it is mere hubris to have the kind of concerns you raise above.



But how do we get from the "wager" to living, acting, breathing and loving one's faith?

That wasn't a problem for Pascal. He was trying to intellectually rationalize a deep and passionate faith that he already embraced for reasons that weren't intellectual at all. His faith was already present and he was just trying to convince his friends, and more importantly himself, that it wasn't irrational.

Exactly. Pascal did not arrive at his faith via the wager.
(Just like Descartes' philosophical maneuvers weren't what brought him to his faith.)



The only people who are likely to believe that rejecting Christianity is a losing proposition are people who are already Christians.

Or those with an obsessive fear that God is evil or that there is eternal damnation.

Some theists will reply to this that we value our intellectual integrity too highly and that it is mere hubris to have the kind of concerns you raise above.

Imagine a television advertiser. He creates a TV ad that loudly proclaims that Product X has Wonderful Features A, B and C.

But suppose that the advertiser doesn't have any clue about whether or not the product actually has those features. What he does know is that saying that it does will likely increase sales and could conceivably make him a lot of money.

How are the ethics of that different than those of Pascal's wager?

I agree that a theist might try to convince me that my moral objection is just hubris, just part of my damnable revolt against the Lord.

But the fact remains that I'm not willing to surrender my conscience and my sense of ethics quite that easily. The wager just doesn't smell right to me.

Originally Posted by Mind Over Matter
Athiests will say that believing, or practiceing, out of fear is not belief but hypocracy.
i consider myself a theist, and i believe that also..


then pursuing some reglion to that end is exactly consistent.

then your getting into the whole 'works' arguments, (If i only do as i'm told i will not go to hell..)

*************
M*W: Good point, and I would like to answer your question. It's not so much that I think about god per se, but I give more thought to the people who believe in god, and why.

i would think it is more critical to you of what You think of who/what God is,
not someone else...
of course your ideas about who/what God is won't line up with others,maybe thats just where God wants you to be..:shrug:

Bible Jesus doesn't teach that it's OK to sit around and philosophize endlessly,
jesus did..


That's what I did. I took religion (Christianity at least) out for a proper genuine spin. A couple of my friends have to and had similar experiences.
this is loaded with assumptions..too many to bother with..

<edit..stupid DBS..(Dumb Blonde Syndrome) attention was on the reply,forgot to combine replies>



Meaning: For a person who joins religion later, say, at age 30, their cognition and morality are at the level for 30-year-olds, while their faith is at the level of 2-year-olds. Understandably, there will be internal discord.

I'm not saying this to belittle anyone. It's simply how it is - if one takes up something later in life, one is a newcomer at it, regardless of how old and experienced they otherwise are.


i got into God around 30, i'm now 48, and how true that..

this is loaded with assumptions..too many to bother with..

I think you need to do better here. Don't be slack. Why don't you address his point?

I agree that a theist might try to convince me that my moral objection is just hubris, just part of my damnable revolt against the Lord.

But the fact remains that I'm not willing to surrender my conscience and my sense of ethics quite that easily. The wager just doesn't smell right to me.

Those theists in favor of the wager are in fact expecting people to abdicate the very capacities that those same theists are expecting the people to rely on in order to come to the conclusion that the wager is reasonable (and that a particular brand of theism is the one and only right one).
This is insanity, obviously.


Moreover, it is not uncommon in various religious doctrines and personal testimonies of believers to point out that being religious for the sake of the promised rewards is a lesser kind of religiosity.
There are thus theists who agree with atheists on this point.

Common sense. The natural sciences. The social sciences.
That which is not divine reasoning.




That would depend on the brand of his mundane reasoning.
I'm all for common sense. :)

I'm all for common sense.

Are you saying that by means of common sense one can assess whether something is divine or not?

The argument from Pascal Wager's:


"I confess it, I admit it. But, still, is there no means of seeing the faces of the cards?" Yes, Scripture and the rest, etc. "Yes, but I have my hands tied and my mouth closed; I am forced to wager, and am not free. I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe. What, then, would you have me do?"

True. But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavour, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness. "But this is what I am afraid of." And why? What have you to lose?
Lot's of people are critical of Pascal's wager, will comment endlessly on it, and never take the time to read it. I am always amazed by that.

I only wish people would read 233, that would be sufficient to address 90% of the comments made against it.
***
I think I see his wager as just one of his many thoughts, but we will never know, since he did not have a chance to organize them into a book.
***
Also, see Pensee 226:

What say [the unbelievers] then? "Do we not see," say they, "that the brutes live and die like men, and Turks like Christians? They have their ceremonies, their prophets, their doctors, their saints, their monks, like us," etc. If you care but little to know the truth, that is enough to leave you in repose. But if you desire with all your heart to know it, it is not enough; look at it in detail. That would be sufficient for a question in philosophy; but not here, where everything is at stake. And yet, after a superficial reflection of this kind, we go to amuse ourselves, etc. Let us inquire of this same religion whether it does not give a reason for this obscurity; perhaps it will teach it to us.[15]
That seems to confirm his intention in writing the Pensees... He was anticipating Sartre and the inevitability of commitment.

Pascal's wager seems to have been thoroughly debunked here.

Add the data that the most devout god-worshipers in the U.S. are in the southern states, where corresponding data shows interestingly, the highest levels of death from disease, and an unfair, almost spooky level of bad luck, bad weather/natural, and man-made calamities, etc.

MoM-
The passage you quote makes no difference for me.

The argument from Pascal Wager's:

Lot's of people are critical of Pascal's wager, will comment endlessly on it, and never take the time to read it. I am always amazed by that.

I only wish people would read 233, that would be sufficient to address 90% of the comments made against it.

I assume that 233 is your first quotation, so let's look at it.


"I confess it, I admit it. But, still, is there no means of seeing the faces of the cards?" Yes, Scripture and the rest, etc.

He seems to be alluding to deism there. They are the ones who question the credibility of special revelations and hence 'can't see the faces of the cards'. But Pascal, in his newly heightened religiosity, feels the pull of scripture and tips his hat to it.


"Yes, but I have my hands tied and my mouth closed; I am forced to wager, and am not free. I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe. What, then, would you have me do?"

I'm not sure what that means or who "you" is. God? Or perhaps he's addressing part of himself. This sounds like a cry of pain. Who or what ties his hands and closes his mouth? When he writes that he is "so made that he cannot believe", he seems to be suggesting that he still hasn't succeeded in throwing off all of his previous deist doubts.


True. But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavour, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions.

This seems to be an accusation directed towards reason, since it's what has brought him to "this". It isn't clear what 'this' is, but it likely refers to the existential predicament that he feels has trapped him. So if it's reason that got him into trouble, then he isn't going to be looking to reason to rescue him by increasing proofs of God. He needs to look elsewhere for the answer, to his passions, to his affective side.


You would like to attain faith and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it.

I assume that he's addressing himself in the third person there, along with others like him who want with all of their hearts to have calm and confident faith but can't seem to find it.


Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc.

But the people that Pascal so envies, the people who placidly go to church, who perform the religous practices, and who believe so easily, were never people like Pascal. They aren't intellectuals, they were never deist-style rationalists, and few if any of them have any sense that they are throwing dice into the dark.


Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness. "But this is what I am afraid of." And why? What have you to lose?

And that's a very peculiar way to end. Does Pascal really dream of (and perhaps dispair of ever being capable of) deadening his own acuteness? The fear he refers to here seems to the fear of surrendering one's critical intelligence.

My impression is that this isn't really a straightforward presentation of the "wager" argument at all. Maybe he provides that elsewhere in another of his written 'thoughts'. This quoted one seems to be a rather eloquent and moving expression of his own inner struggles.

That seems to confirm his intention in writing the Pensees... He was anticipating Sartre and the inevitability of commitment.

You are speaking with the benefit of hindsight.

And you seem to be alluding to Sartre's eventual renunciation of his existentialist philosophy and turning to Christianity.
(Supposedly Camus had made arrangements for a baptism too shortly before his death.)


I agree that commitment is inevitable, but it is not clear to what or to what extent.

This is an issue that is very much alive for me. It may sound proud, but I would gauge Pascal's stance to be one I was at until about two years ago.
I, too, thought "Well, just close your eyes and jump" - and at the time, it made sense, and I did it. But not for long. My "religious experiment" felt too much like a charade, it was a brute act of will, devoid of heart.
What Pascal says there simply strikes me as too simplistic.

Endeavour, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions.

"By the abatement of your passions" could be parallel to instructions we find in Eastern traditions. Namely, that first one must control one's mind, and then one can endeavor for higher realization.
But they don't talk about "convincing oneself" - that is not the issue there.

Adi Da (of all people), taught that the basic difference between Western and Eastern culture is that a Westerner tends to ask "Does God exist? What is the proof of God's existence?", while the Easterner will not ask such questions, but instead ask "How can I get out of samsara?"

I find that "Does God exist? What is the proof of God's existence?" is a hopeless outlook, a quest that can never really be completed.

"By the abatement of your passions" could be parallel to instructions we find in Eastern traditions. Namely, that first one must control one's mind, and then one can endeavor for higher realization.

Is Pascal concerned about controlling passions generally? Or is he mainly concerned with subduing the skeptical passions that prevent him from enjoying a placid and easy faith? Would Pascal favor abatement of passionate faith?

If I believe in God and am wrong - then I have lost nothing
If I don't believe in God and am wrong - I lose much.

I can't quite put my finger on it yet, but there is something wrong with this, besides what has already been pointed out.

Is Pascal concerned about controlling passions generally? Or is he mainly concerned with subduing the skeptical passions that prevent him from enjoying a placid and easy faith? Would Pascal favor abatement of passionate faith?

From what seems to be evident from the text, he wants to subdue the skepticism.

One thing that I find peculiar about some people (theist or not) is that they seem to view cognitive and character qualities as commodities somehow, as things one can use at will.

Note Elle Woods' graduation speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyvDW1rinfs&feature=related):

It is with passion, courage of conviction and strong sense of self that we take our next steps into the world, remembering that first impressions are not always correct. You must always have faith in people. And most importantly you must always have faith in yourself.

- as if "courage of conviction", "strong sense of self" and "faith in others" and "faith in yourself" would be things one can direct at will.

As the former Data Security Officer for one of the world's largest government agencies, I have considerable formal training and experience with risk analysis and risk management.
I like your tear down of Pascal's Wager.

You seem to be feeding the notion that Walter Wagner's and Eric Johnson's "risk management" ideas with respect to the Large Hadron Collider lack weight.


http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/05/the_future_of_colliders_beyond.php (Quoting Wagner from May 2009)

Eric E. Johnson "The Black Hole Case: The Injunction Against the End of the World (http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.5480)" Tennessee Law Review, 76 819-908 (2009).


The same sort of analysis translates easily to an injunction context, in which we can ask whether the benefits outweigh the costs. We can calculate the price of risk in a particular endeavor, and then add that to the costs in order to compare the sum to the expected benefit. Using P and L from the Hand formula, the price of risk, R, is calculated as:

R = PL (Eq. 1)

Let’s try plugging in a few numbers to see what turns up in the black-hole case. First, let us assume that since the Earth and everything on it is the sum of all value for humanity, there is no price worth paying to absorb that loss. Thus, the value of L is infinite.

Next we need to assign a numerical value for the probability. Let us take, for the sake of argument, Giddings and Mangano’s assessment that there is “no risk of any significance whatsoever” from the LHC in terms of a planet-devouring black hole.
...
So let’s insert an incredibly tiny number in there—something that, in terms of human experience, has “no . . . significance whatsoever.” Let’s try one in one trillion.
...
Quite to the contrary, in both Equation 2 and Equation 3, P equals “no risk of any significance whatsoever.” The only difference is in how we translate these words into numbers. In either case, we are taking Giddings and Mangano at their word.

Walter Wagner in Federal Appeals Court, June 17, 2010 (Unofficial transcript at http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2571435#post2571435 ) :

11:11: WW: No, that's not what I'm saying. The standing arises from the fact that this activity in Switzerland will affect me here in the United States, even here in Hawaii where the suit was filed because this .. should it create this kind of a condition of creating strangelets it would affect me here in Hawaii. And that's what gives me standing. Not the fact that they're doing something in Switzerland, but that what they're doing in Switzerland can affect me here in Hawaii. That's what gives us standing.

11:45: J2: There's an element of speculation there, is there not?

11:48: WW: It's a fifty-fifty so far as we know. There's an element of speculation on the part of Doctor Sancho as well.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2494393#post2494393

... we do not expect magic unicorns to form at the LHC.

But (playing by Eric Johnson's rules) we cannot rule out that the LHC will produce magic unicorns which will save the future of humanity. Eric Johnson does not argue that unknown is unknown, but argues that unknown is unbounded risk -- yet it could also be unbounded benefit. Neither is expected.

So EJ takes the whole of his ignorance of what will happen everywhere in the world, throws away hypothetical events that don't have a LHC tie-in, parameterizes this on the real number line, and throws away the positive numbers and then sloppily inserts (negative) infinity into the discussion. That's the abuse of math I was speaking about. What he would really want to do is integrate a probability distribution over the whole of the real line. Such a thing is done all the time in math and often with finite results, but when you start with only ignorance, of course your answer is going to be meaningless.

The question of balancing risk versus reward is meaningless until you have numbers all-around.

But this is what I am afraid of.

My impression is that this isn't really a straightforward presentation of the "wager" argument at all. Maybe he provides that elsewhere in another of his written 'thoughts'. This quoted one seems to be a rather eloquent and moving expression of his own inner struggles.
You have completely misread the passage. Back up and start over. The passage in quotes is the atheist speaking to Pascal, not Pascal speaking about an inner struggle within himself.

MoM-
The passage you quote makes no difference for me.
Have you read the pensees, in particular 233 in its entirety? You seem to be dodging that question. Maybe it makes no difference to your concern, because I provided a quote that is out of context to rest of the wager argument.

You have completely misread the passage. Back up and start over. The passage in quotes is the atheist speaking to Pascal, not Pascal speaking about an inner struggle within himself.

And we are telling you that to us, it seems like superficial reasoning.

Here's 233 in entirety, and what seems like its continuation 234:


233. Infinite--nothing.--Our soul is cast into a body, where it finds
number, dimension. Thereupon it reasons, and calls this nature
necessity, and can believe nothing else.

Unity joined to infinity adds nothing to it, no more than one foot to
an infinite measure. The finite is annihilated in the presence of the
infinite, and becomes a pure nothing. So our spirit before God, so our
justice before divine justice. There is not so great a disproportion
between our justice and that of God as between unity and infinity.

The justice of God must be vast like His compassion. Now justice to the
outcast is less vast and ought less to offend our feelings than mercy
towards the elect.

We know that there is an infinite, and are ignorant of its nature. As
we know it to be false that numbers are finite, it is therefore true
that there is an infinity in number. But we do not know what it is. It
is false that it is even, it is false that it is odd; for the addition
of a unit can make no change in its nature. Yet it is a number, and
every number is odd or even (this is certainly true of every finite
number). So we may well know that there is a God without knowing what
He is. Is there not one substantial truth, seeing there are so many
things which are not the truth itself?

We know then the existence and nature of the finite, because we also
are finite and have extension. We know the existence of the infinite
and are ignorant of its nature, because it has extension like us, but
not limits like us. But we know neither the existence nor the nature of
God, because He has neither extension nor limits.

But by faith we know His existence; in glory we shall know His nature.
Now, I have already shown that we may well know the existence of a
thing, without knowing its nature.

Let us now speak according to natural lights.

If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having
neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then
incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who
will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have
no affinity to Him.

Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for
their belief, since they profess a religion for which they cannot give
a reason? They declare, in expounding it to the world, that it is a
foolishness, stultitiam; [28] and then you complain that they do not
prove it! If they proved it, they would not keep their word; it is in
lacking proofs that they are not lacking in sense. "Yes, but although
this excuses those who offer it as such and takes away from them the
blame of putting it forward without reason, it does not excuse those
who receive it." Let us then examine this point, and say, "God is, or
He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide
nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is
being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or
tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can
do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can
defend neither of the propositions.

Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you
know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this
choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who
chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The
true course is not to wager at all."

Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which
will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see
which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and
the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your
knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun,
error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather
than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point
settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in
wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain,
you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without
hesitation that He is. "That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may
perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of
gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one,
you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would
have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you
would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your
life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and
gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being
so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be
for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you
would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one
life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances
there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy
life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life
to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss,
and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; where-ever the
infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against
that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all. And
thus, when one is forced to play, he must renounce reason to preserve
his life, rather than risk it for infinite gain, as likely to happen as
the loss of nothingness.

For it is no use to say it is uncertain if we will gain, and it is
certain that we risk, and that the infinite distance between the
certainly of what is staked and the uncertainty of what will be gained,
equals the finite good which is certainly staked against the uncertain
infinite. It is not so, as every player stakes a certainty to gain an
uncertainty, and yet he stakes a finite certainty to gain a finite
uncertainty, without transgressing against reason. There is not an
infinite distance between the certainty staked and the uncertainty of
the gain; that is untrue. In truth, there is an infinity between the
certainty of gain and the certainty of loss. But the uncertainty of the
gain is proportioned to the certainty of the stake according to the
proportion of the chances of gain and loss. Hence it comes that, if
there are as many risks on one side as on the other, the course is to
play even; and then the certainty of the stake is equal to the
uncertainty of the gain, so far is it from fact that there is an
infinite distance between them. And so our proposition is of infinite
force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are
equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain. This is
demonstrable; and if men are capable of any truths, this is one.

"I confess it, I admit it. But, still, is there no means of seeing the
faces of the cards?" Yes, Scripture and the rest, etc. "Yes, but I have
my hands tied and my mouth closed; I am forced to wager, and am not
free. I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe. What,
then, would you have me do?"

True. But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings
you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavour, then, to convince
yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of
your passions. You would like to attain faith and do not know the way;
you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it.
Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all
their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would
follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow
the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the
holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you
believe, and deaden your acuteness. "But this is what I am afraid of."
And why? What have you to lose?

But to show you that this leads you there, it is this which will lessen
the passions, which are your stumbling-blocks.

The end of this discourse.--Now, what harm will befall you in taking
this side? You will be faithful, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere
friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous
pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I will tell
you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you
take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much
nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognise that you
have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have
given nothing.

"Ah! This discourse transports me, charms me," etc.

If this discourse pleases you and seems impressive, know that it is
made by a man who has knelt, both before and after it, in prayer to
that Being, infinite and without parts, before whom he lays all he has,
for you also to lay before Him all you have for your own good and for
His glory, that so strength may be given to lowliness.

234. If we must not act save on a certainty, we ought not to act on
religion, for it is not certain. But how many things we do on an
uncertainty, sea voyages, battles! I say then we must do nothing at
all, for nothing is certain, and that there is more certainty in
religion than there is as to whether we may see to-morrow; for it is
not certain that we may see to-morrow, and it is certainly possible
that we may not, see it. We cannot say as much about religion. It is
not certain that it is; but who will venture to say that it is
certainly possible that it is not? Now when we work for to-morrow, and
so on an uncertainty, we act reasonably; for we ought to work for an
uncertainty according to the doctrine of chance which was demonstrated
above.

Saint Augustine has seen that we work for an uncertainty, on sea, in
battle, etc. But he has not seen the doctrine of chance which proves
that we should do so. Montaigne has seen that we are shocked at a fool,
and that habit is all-powerful; but he has not seen the reason of this
effect.

All these persons have seen the effects, but they have not seen the
causes. They are, in comparison with those who have discovered the
causes, as those who have only eyes are in comparison with those who
have intellect. For the effects are perceptible by sense, and the
causes are visible only to the intellect. And although these effects
are seen by the mind, this mind is, in comparison with the mind which
sees the causes, as the bodily senses are in comparison with the
intellect.


http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pascal/pensees.txt

Our soul is cast into a body, where it finds
number, dimension. Thereupon it reasons, and calls this nature
necessity, and can believe nothing else.

None of this has been agreed upon with the atheist.

That "our souls are cast into a body" is something that is not universally accepted, yet it is necessary to go with Pascal's wager.

Atheists usually believe that we are our bodies, or at least that when the body dies, there is nothing more to us, to life.
So from this perspective, it is also meaningless to be concerned about what might happen to one after death.

So firstly, as far as the wager goes, it would need to be established that "our soul is cast into a body".



Unity joined to infinity adds nothing to it, no more than one foot to
an infinite measure. The finite is annihilated in the presence of the
infinite, and becomes a pure nothing.

That sounds like SciWriter reversed.



We know that there is an infinite, and are ignorant of its nature.

This has not been established either.



As
we know it to be false that numbers are finite, it is therefore true
that there is an infinity in number. But we do not know what it is. It
is false that it is even, it is false that it is odd; for the addition
of a unit can make no change in its nature. Yet it is a number, and
every number is odd or even (this is certainly true of every finite
number). So we may well know that there is a God without knowing what
He is. Is there not one substantial truth, seeing there are so many
things which are not the truth itself?

If one doesn't know what something is, what point is there in saying that it is and that one knows it is?



Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which
will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see
which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and
the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your
knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun,
error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather
than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point
settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in
wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain,
you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without
hesitation that He is. "That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may
perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of
gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one,
you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would
have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you
would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your
life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and
gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being
so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be
for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you
would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one
life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances
there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy
life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life
to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss,
and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; where-ever the
infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against
that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all. And
thus, when one is forced to play, he must renounce reason to preserve
his life, rather than risk it for infinite gain, as likely to happen as
the loss of nothingness.

For it is no use to say it is uncertain if we will gain, and it is
certain that we risk, and that the infinite distance between the
certainly of what is staked and the uncertainty of what will be gained,
equals the finite good which is certainly staked against the uncertain
infinite. It is not so, as every player stakes a certainty to gain an
uncertainty, and yet he stakes a finite certainty to gain a finite
uncertainty, without transgressing against reason. There is not an
infinite distance between the certainty staked and the uncertainty of
the gain; that is untrue. In truth, there is an infinity between the
certainty of gain and the certainty of loss. But the uncertainty of the
gain is proportioned to the certainty of the stake according to the
proportion of the chances of gain and loss. Hence it comes that, if
there are as many risks on one side as on the other, the course is to
play even; and then the certainty of the stake is equal to the
uncertainty of the gain, so far is it from fact that there is an
infinite distance between them. And so our proposition is of infinite
force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are
equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain. This is
demonstrable; and if men are capable of any truths, this is one.

This is the passage that is usually referred to as Pascal's Wager.



234. If we must not act save on a certainty, we ought not to act on
religion, for it is not certain. But how many things we do on an
uncertainty, sea voyages, battles! I say then we must do nothing at
all, for nothing is certain, and that there is more certainty in
religion than there is as to whether we may see to-morrow; for it is
not certain that we may see to-morrow, and it is certainly possible
that we may not, see it. We cannot say as much about religion. It is
not certain that it is; but who will venture to say that it is
certainly possible that it is not? Now when we work for to-morrow, and
so on an uncertainty, we act reasonably; for we ought to work for an
uncertainty according to the doctrine of chance which was demonstrated
above.

My problem with PW is that it takes too much at once, too much in one step.
There is no real sense of graduality.

In comparison, in some Eastern traditions, they would expect a person first to gradually come to a point of mundane goodness, for mundane happiness' sake (which is something people can generally understand and strive for), and only after they have stabilized themselves at that level, begin to endeavor toward higher spiritual topics.

Abrahamic religions, on the other hand, expect people to make an enormous commitment right at the beginning, a commitment they do not understand and do not really know how to act on it on a daily basis.

Abrahamic religions are like enrolling an infant into kindergarden, grade school, highschool and college all at once, before the child even began attending to kindergarden.
So from the beginning on, the child already feels the pressure of being successful at college - even if that is still far away in the future, and all the requirements for it yet need to be fulfilled.

Although this perspective in Abrahamic religions is understandable - they have no notion of (serial) reincarnation, and are strictly limited to this one lifetime. With such an outlook, it indeed seems all or nothing, now or never.
With such an outlook, it is also easy to come to the point of presuming certainty about God.

(There is a parallel to this in those Western Buddhists who do not believe in reincarnation - they believe they will attain nirvana in this lifetime for sure, and it seems this also leads them to believe they have already attained it, even with very little practice and sins and impurities still in full bloom.)

Is there not one substantial truth, seeing there are so many
things which are not the truth itself?
Huh?
Is there not one definite unicorn, seeing as there are so many things which are not unicorns?

The end of this discourse.--Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side? You will be faithful, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognise that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing.

This is what the wager offers at the end of accepting the wager. It is not merely a wager, but a state of salvation that has grown out of the wager. One takes the plunge, and realizes the payoff. Nothing insincere about it. In fact, it would be more insincere not to take the plunge, since the reason for not taking the plunge makes no sense whatever ... because there is no payoff.

You cannot win if you do not wager. But you have to wager. You either wager there is a God, or you wager there is no God. What is the payoff for wagering there is no God?

Nothing! Or if anything ... HELL!

You are speaking with the benefit of hindsight.

"anticipating" does not always mean foreknowledge!


And you seem to be alluding to Sartre's eventual renunciation of his existentialist philosophy and turning to Christianity.
(Supposedly Camus had made arrangements for a baptism too shortly before his death.)

That is news to me!


I agree that commitment is inevitable, but it is not clear to what or to what extent.

In the context of this thread to - or not to - belief in God.


This is an issue that is very much alive for me. It may sound proud, but I would gauge Pascal's stance to be one I was at until about two years ago.
I, too, thought "Well, just close your eyes and jump" - and at the time, it made sense, and I did it. But not for long. My "religious experiment" felt too much like a charade, it was a brute act of will, devoid of heart.

It sounds as if you had a negative attitude rather than being genuinely open-minded..


What Pascal says there simply strikes me as too simplistic.
Either we're committed to belief in God or we're not. Belief in God is strong or weak but it is still distinct from unbelief or disbelief.

MoM-

I'm not going to reply to your posts here until you reply to my post #100.

....What is the payoff for wagering there is no God?....
Only a child or a buffoon needs a candy treat to instill incentive to a task. Only Pavlov's dog need show a stimulation response.


Belief in God is strong or weak but it is still distinct from unbelief or disbelief.
The only one making that distinction is a god-believer. Delusion spreads it's own prejudice before it.

My Dear Signal.

Pascal, thought 233 Our soul is cast into a body, where it finds
number, dimension. Thereupon it reasons, and calls this nature
necessity, and can believe nothing else.
None of this has been agreed upon with the atheist.

That "our souls are cast into a body" is something that is not universally accepted, yet it is necessary to go with Pascal's wager.

Atheists usually believe that we are our bodies, or at least that when the body dies, there is nothing more to us, to life.
So from this perspective, it is also meaningless to be concerned about what might happen to one after death.

So firstly, as far as the wager goes, it would need to be established that "our soul is cast into a body".
agree with you but Pascal preferred to attack atheism lock, stock and barrel rather than deal with details. He was probably right because his wager is that we have everything to lose - especially an afterlife - by not believing in God.

Unity joined to infinity adds nothing to it, no more than one foot to
an infinite measure. The finite is annihilated in the presence of the
infinite, and becomes a pure nothing.
That sounds like some atheists reversed.
Pascal wasn't infallible! The finite does not become a pure nothing.

We know that there is an infinite, and are ignorant of its nature.
This has not been established either.
As we know it to be false that numbers are finite, it is therefore true
that there is an infinity in number. But we do not know what it is. It
is false that it is even, it is false that it is odd; for the addition
of a unit can make no change in its nature. Yet it is a number, and
every number is odd or even (this is certainly true of every finite
number). So we may well know that there is a God without knowing what
He is. Is there not one substantial truth, seeing there are so many
things which are not the truth itself?

If one doesn't know what something is, what point is there in saying that it is and that one knows it is?
The point is that no reasonable person claims to know and understand God fully but that is a far cry from knowing nothing! The immense value of life shows that He is benevolent.

My problem with PW is that it takes too much at once, too much in one step.
There is no real sense of graduality.

But it is a question of all or nothing. Pascal is making the point that there cannot be half measures: either we survive after death or we don't. The gambler's stakes cannot be higher: win or lose all!


In comparison, in some Eastern traditions, they would expect a person first to gradually come to a point of mundane goodness, for mundane happiness' sake (which is something people can generally understand and strive for), and only after they have stabilized themselves at that level, begin to endeavor toward higher spiritual topics.

Abrahamic religions, on the other hand, expect people to make an enormous commitment right at the beginning, a commitment they do not understand and do not really know how to act on it on a daily basis.

The distinction between loving and ignoring your neighbour is clear enough.


Abrahamic religions are like enrolling an infant into kindergarden, grade school, highschool and college all at once, before the child even began attending to kindergarden.
So from the beginning on, the child already feels the pressure of being successful at college - even if that is still far away in the future, and all the requirements for it yet need to be fulfilled.

If you can't see very far you don't know where you're heading. We have to hitch our wagon to a star!


Although this perspective in Abrahamic religions is understandable - they have no notion of (serial) reincarnation, and are strictly limited to this one lifetime. With such an outlook, it indeed seems all or nothing, now or never.
With such an outlook, it is also easy to come to the point of presuming certainty about God.

I agree but it's also easy to go to the other extreme and presume certainty about God's non-existence even though there are many factors to be taken into account. Only the fool oversimplifies the issue.


(There is a parallel to this in those Western Buddhists who do not believe in reincarnation - they believe they will attain nirvana in this lifetime for sure, and it seems this also leads them to believe they have already attained it, even with very little practice and sins and impurities still in full bloom.)
There is hardly any limit to what people will believe - which is to be expected when life is such a great mystery!

MoM-

I'm not going to reply to your posts here until you reply to my post #100.
My Dear One.
Thanks very much for telling me! Sometimes it's hard to keep track if we're on several threads at the same time.

agree with you but Pascal preferred to attack atheism lock, stock and barrel rather than deal with details. He was probably right because his wager is that we have everything to lose - especially an afterlife - by not believing in God.

Then to Pascal, the distinction between loving and ignoring your neighbour was not clear enough.

But it is a question of all or nothing. Pascal is making the point that there cannot be half measures: either we survive after death or we don't. The gambler's stakes cannot be higher: win or lose all!

Only if God is evil.

This also from the Pensees.

"It is impossible that our rational part should be other than spiritual; and if anyone maintain that we are simply corporeal, this would far more exclude us from the knowledge of things, there being nothing so inconceivable as to say that matter knows itself. It is impossible to imagine how it should know itself."

Pascal challenges the atheist to prove that his rationale part is material. I have yet to see any such proof, except that the brain is the seat of intellect.

How does an atheist explain how man can conceive the origin of the universe, the future fate of the universe, the possibility of God, the immortality of the soul, without there being some part of man that transcends mere matter ... that connects man not only to the vast universe, but to the possibility of Something far more vast than the universe?

If that is all illusion … why does the illusion not only exist, but persist in spite of every effort to crush it?

Pascal challenges the atheist to prove that his rationale part is material.
Did you actually read what you posted?
Because, to me, this:

"It is impossible that our rational part should be other than spiritual; and if anyone maintain that we are simply corporeal, this would far more exclude us from the knowledge of things, there being nothing so inconceivable as to say that matter knows itself. It is impossible to imagine how it should know itself."
doesn't so much "challenge atheists" as make an unsupported claim.

It would suck to be a Baal worshipper conned into this bet - no win.

It is impossible that our rational part should be other than spiritual; and if anyone maintain that we are simply corporeal, this would far more exclude us from the knowledge of things, there being nothing so inconceivable as to say that matter knows itself. It is impossible to imagine how it should know itself.What preposterous bullshit. You've just lowered my opinion of Pascal tremendously.
Pascal challenges the atheist to prove that his rationale part is material.As opposed to what? "Spiritual" is a meaningless word since it refers to something imaginary.
How does an atheist explain how man can conceive the origin of the universe, the future fate of the universe . . . .In case you slept through the last half millennium, we have invented telescopes, spectrometers and lots of other instruments that provide a wealth of evidence about the nature of the universe.
. . . . the possibility of God, the immortality of the soul . . . .Belief in the supernatural is very likely an instinct. Either it was a survival advantage in some long ago era whose dangers we can't imagine, or it was just one more random mutation passed down through a genetic bottleneck.
. . . . without there being some part of man that transcends mere matter . . . .I just don't understand your leap of logic there. You've encountered a phenomenon that you can't explain using what you've learned, so you just throw up your hands and say, "Oh well, I guess that proves that there is an invisible, illogical supernatural universe." Duh??? Why can't it mean that there are maybe just a few things in the natural, logical universe that we haven't figured out yet? We've only had science for about 500 years, and the instruments that have made cosmology a science are even newer than that.
... that connects man not only to the vast universe, but to the possibility of Something far more vast than the universe?Your "reasoning," to put it charitably, is utterly unconvincing. It's the "Lazy Mind Syndrome" that underlies religion and all supernaturalism, "Oh shit, I can't figure this out. God must have done it then."
If that is all illusion … why does the illusion not only exist, but persist in spite of every effort to crush it?Read Jung. Some people try to answer questions instead of saying God did it.

Many people cling to their childish faith in the supernatural because it makes them comfortable. After all, who wouldn't be a little happier if they could be sure that their parent, spouse, child or friend who just got run over by a dumptruck is still alive and having a wonderful time learning to fly and play the harp? I'd be a lot more charitable toward Christians if they didn't keep telling me that my beloved dogs are gone forever, but my hateful parents are kicking back on Cloud Nine.

Then to Pascal, the distinction between loving and ignoring your neighbour was not clear enough.
I think rather than posing Pascal's Wager in terms of 'belief in a deity' it would be more persuasive if it was 'behaving and living as if there was a deity'.

As most religions are more concerned with how you live your life rather than what you believe (unless God is a Protestant!) so it would make more sense to be agnostic and act like there is a God rather than just having ingenuine belief in a God as some kind of hell insurance.

"Spiritual" is a meaningless word since it refers to something imaginary. That's like saying "musical" is a meaningless word.

Neither the theist or the atheist is justified in underestimating the natural world.

I think rather than posing Pascal's Wager in terms of 'belief in a deity' it would be more persuasive if it was 'behaving and living as if there was a deity'.

As most religions are more concerned with how you live your life rather than what you believe (unless God is a Protestant!) so it would make more sense to be agnostic and act like there is a God rather than just having ingenuine belief in a God as some kind of hell insurance.

Only if you believe that God is evil.

Originally Posted by Rav
Bible Jesus doesn't teach that it's OK to sit around and philosophize endlessly,jesus did..

So you're saying that Jesus wasn't living and preaching the truth, merely engaging in philosophical debate for intellectual edification?

Of course, I'm reasonably positive that you don't think that, which means that you either accidentally or purposefully misunderstood my point.

That's like saying "musical" is a meaningless word.Music is not imaginary. It's a combination of melody, harmony and rhythm, all of which are defined rather unremarkably by physics and mathematics. In fact one person described music succinctly as "the sound of mathematics."

Music isn't even dependent on the existence of humans. Many bird calls satisfy the definition.

Many atheists argue that if Pascal's Wager is correct then God values blind belief in a deity without any real reason to do so besides avoiding going to hell

Pascal's argument is no different than the position every atheist finds himself in as he nears death. Has he blown it by refusing to acknowledge and engage with God? Jean Paul Sartre and Antony Flew, two of the most famous atheists of the 20th century, as death approached found themselves nearer to God than they ever had been before.

In peril of losing God forever, they began to engage with Him.

This is Pascal's approach to all atheists. Live as though you had eight hour left to live. The mind gets wonderfully focused on what really matters in that condition. Instead of thinking you can get along just fine without God, you begin to think just the opposite. If there is a God and He wants a relationship with me and I have refused His advances into my heart ... how ungrateful I have been ... and what reward can I expect for such arrogance?

Better to live as if there is a God, learn gradually that indeed He exists and loves me and is worthy of my love ... that way lies my own best interest ... which is also God's own interest ... that I be with Him rather than without Him.

Jean Paul Sartre and Antony Flew, two of the most famous atheists of the 20th century, as death approached found themselves nearer to God than they ever had been before.
Oops!

Finally, Flew has also stated that "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction". Essentially then, once Flew decided to actually investigate the science, he reached the conclusion that the arguments he had used to justify his conversion were based on faulty conclusions.
Here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=108068&highlight=Flew).

None of this has stopped a multitude of Christian websites from continuing to frame this as an example of overwhelming scientific evidence leading to God of course.
:rolleyes: