I just came across this video in response to Pascal's wager and was hoping it could catalyze a conversation. For anyone unfamiliar with Pascal's wager, it essentially states or argues that since the existence of God is possible, the rational person should operate under the assumption that such a proposition is true. Not accepting God yields an infinite loss if wrong and pays no dividends if correct. This is an argument based on probability theory.
Anyway, I only wish I could string my thoughts together as eloquently as this guy did in this video. His conclusion, of accepting infinite hell fire for his beliefs (or disbelief) because he couldn't stomach the fact of spending an eternity with a being whose "empathy would be so easily trumped by his vanity", pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly.
It is a good video, my problem though is obviously that Pascal's Wager and this guys counter-argument (which is quite common if not often articulated so well) fail certain litmus tests...
A) It could one of thousands of different god's that humanity has created throughout history
B) It could be the Christian God (YHWH), and he actually IS vain, petty, and tyrannical
C) We could all be wrong, and God is Malevolent
D) There could be a God, and still not be a soul, afterlife, heaven, or hell
E) There could be a God (creator of the universe) but it's long been deceased
F) Perpetual Reincarnation could be true, enjoy being a dog, a frog, a fish, a Mormon...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
His conclusion, of accepting infinite hell fire for his beliefs (or disbelief) because he couldn't stomach the fact of spending an eternity with a being whose "empathy would be so easily trumped by his vanity", pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly.
But isn't that itself just narcissism disguised as self-righteousness? I don't mean to be flip, but the idea that your understanding of the plans and intentions of an unknowable and omniscient deity is so complete that you can make the ultimate judgment based on it (and if there is a Heaven and a Hell, this really is the biggest decision you can ever possibly make) seems to me incredibly arrogant.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Ah, but why believe in the New Testament God? He seems like something of a forgiving guy. So, if I place my "bet" with him, but it turns out Osiris is really the real God I'd be ****ed.
On the other hand, if I worship Osiris and it turns out Yahweh is the real one, I might be able to make a deal with Him and be forgive.
The logic of Pascal's Wager dictates you should find the most spiteful, hateful, unforgiving God and worship HIM and just cross your fingers if you're wrong you can work something out with the real guy. http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=9947363#post9947363
Ah, but why believe in the New Testament God? He seems like something of a forgiving guy. So, if I place my "bet" with him, but it turns out Osiris is really the real God I'd be ****ed.
On the other hand, if I worship Osiris and it turns out Yahweh is the real one, I might be able to make a deal with Him and be forgive.
The logic of Pascal's Wager dictates you should find the most spiteful, hateful, unforgiving God and worship HIM and just cross your fingers if you're wrong you can work something out with the real guy. http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=9947363#post9947363
But Osiris and other similar gods of antiquity are tribal or ethnic gods; they don't require you to worship them "or else"; those who worship them go to their afterlife, and those who worship the gods of their own people go to that pantheon's afterlife. Osiris doesn't give a **** if you worship Yahweh or Shiva; you're not an Egyptian.
The concept of a God who is both for all people and requires your devotion is uniquely Judeo-Christian.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
The concept of a God who is both for all people and requires your devotion is uniquely Judeo-Christian.
So then why not just worship an infinitely spiteful god that nobody has yet claimed exists? If such a being existed, then the fact that it leads the followers of other religions astray would be right in line with its personality.
Of all possible gods, one should pick the most heinous and disagreeable one can conceive.
The concept of a God who is both for all people and requires your devotion is uniquely Judeo-Christian.
So, why did all of those Christians get tortured by the Romans for not adhering to the Roman Panthon?
I wish I had time to research up a more comprehensive list for you, but--sufficient to say--every time someone makes the statement that something general is "uniquely Judeo-Christian," they're wrong.
So then why not just worship an infinitely spiteful god that nobody has yet claimed exists? If such a being existed, then the fact that it leads the followers of other religions astray would be right in line with its personality.
Of all possible gods, one should pick the most heinous and disagreeable one can conceive.
I'm not actually in disagreement with you here; I think Pascal's wager is pretty dumb.
But what I'm saying is that it's far dumber to accept the possibility of the Christian God and still refuse him out of spite.
So, why did all of those Christians get tortured by the Romans for not adhering to the Roman Panthon?
Because they refused to pay worship to the Imperial Cult, which was less a religious concept than a political one, and because they worshipped instead a crucified criminal, which is about the lowest thing you can get in Roman society. Whether or not the Roman gods were tolerant had absolutely nothing to do with it; the Romans were syncretists at heart (cf. "the interpretatio Romana").
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Anyway, I only wish I could string my thoughts together as eloquently as this guy did in this video. His conclusion, of accepting infinite hell fire for his beliefs (or disbelief) because he couldn't stomach the fact of spending an eternity with a being whose "empathy would be so easily trumped by his vanity", pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly.
Let's not be overdramatic. I think if we really sat down and thought about it, most of us would admit that we'd rather be forced to hang out with a narcissist for all eternity than suffer excruciating torture. I know I would. So that's not the problem with Pascal's Wager. The problem is simply that it presents a false dichotomy and illicitly assumes that both horns of the dichotomy have equal weight. It's a false dichotomy because it assumes that if Christianity is false, then you will suffer no bad consequences - but we can just as easily and with just as much supporting evidence (i.e. none) introduce the proposition, "If you live life as an atheist, then the irony-god will reward you, and if you live as a Christian, he will punish you." And there are infinitely more propositions that describe arbitrary consequences for your belief or disbelief. Maybe the moon will explode tomorrow if you don't wear a bunch of bananas as a hat. Maybe the moon will explode tomorrow if you do wear a bunch of bananas as a hat. Since each of these propositions is directly contradicted by another, there is no way that you can evaluate a priori the best course of action for yourself. You have to start reasoning a posteriori, looking at the evidence to weigh which propositions are more or less plausible. And of course, looking at evidence is precisely what Pascal's Wager was proposed to avoid in the first place...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Because they refused to pay worship to the Imperial Cult, which was less a religious concept than a political one, and because they worshipped instead a crucified criminal, which is about the lowest thing you can get in Roman society. Whether or not the Roman gods were tolerant had absolutely nothing to do with it; the Romans were syncretists at heart (cf. "the interpretatio Romana").
There was a very strong Roman tradition that all the world should be part of their religion. Whether or not they were syncretists—or whether or not there was a strong political influence in their quasi-theocracy—isn't the point. They felt strongly their religion was for everyone, and were willing to go out of their way to make it happen. However, they were not the only ones to think everyone should worship their gods.
You're going to have explain how Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and pretty much any religion that engages in Religious conversion doesn't think everyone should be a part of the "correct" religion.
While you're right that many "tribal/ethic cults" were not big into Proselytizing, it's not anywhere near an uniquely Judeo-Christian practice.
His conclusion, of accepting infinite hell fire for his beliefs (or disbelief) because he couldn't stomach the fact of spending an eternity with a being whose "empathy would be so easily trumped by his vanity", pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly.
But isn't that itself just narcissism disguised as self-righteousness? I don't mean to be flip, but the idea that your understanding of the plans and intentions of an unknowable and omniscient deity is so complete that you can make the ultimate judgment based on it (and if there is a Heaven and a Hell, this really is the biggest decision you can ever possibly make) seems to me incredibly arrogant.
Narcissism? What an absurd thing to say.
And since he obviously does not, nor does he insinuate, that he understands the plans and intentions of an unknowable and omniscient deity completely, you are pretending otherwise. That is absurd as well.
And after seeing someone with the humility and integrity to make decisions based not on ignorantly accepting what he wants to be true or selfishly seeking reward or avoiding punishment, but based on the reason and intelligence which could even have been bestowed on him by God...and you call that arrogant? No sir, that is the opposite of arrogance.
What is funny to me about the idea of Pascal's Wager is that even if God was real and I accepted him as being a loving, benevolent being - I would go to hell. Because the proponents of this wager that I see spend their lives promoting God as the spiteful, cruel, awful being portrayed in the bible. Even if God did exist, I fail to see how a life of insulting Him (and let me tell ya, if half the stuff I read about him is true, its a pretty huge insult) would grant me reward in the afterlife.
Also, if a life of brown-nosing to a malevolent deity will send me to heaven, and a life of making honest decisions sends me to hell...why on earth would I want to go to heaven? If that is what it takes to get in then think of the calibre of people that go there.
And since he obviously does not, nor does he insinuate, that he understands the plans and intentions of an unknowable and omniscient deity completely, you are pretending otherwise. That is absurd as well.
No, that's exactly what he's saying.
See, the OP (and the video he linked to) argues that they would rather spend an eternity in Hell1 than spend eternity with "a being whose empathy would be so easily trumped by his vanity." In order to make this judgment, whoever makes it must believe that they know a number of things about the God in question:
1) He has empathy;
2) He has vanity;
3) The reason that he would send people to Hell is because of vanity, and not some other cause.
To presume to know any of these three things about God is an immense leap of faith. For example, we might presume that God has no vanity at all; after all, the Bible says that "God is love," and that would seem to leave little room for hurt feelings. But if we suppose this, it requires us to think about Hell very differently from the way the OP suggests, and there is at least as much reason to understand it this way as his way.
To therefore make a judgment of such weight on such an unstable conjecture is foolhardy.
Quote from rockondon »
And after seeing someone with the humility and integrity to make decisions based not on ignorantly accepting what he wants to be true or selfishly seeking reward or avoiding punishment, but based on the reason and intelligence which could even have been bestowed on him by God...and you call that arrogant? No sir, that is the opposite of arrogance.
No, what's really arrogant is to assume that everyone who believes in religion is "ignorantly accepting what he wants to be true or selfishly seeking reward or avoiding punishment." I think that if you ever seriously pondered the question (and given this post, I sincerely doubt that you have), you'd realize that people come to religion by many paths, and ignorance and selfishness are not necessarily the most common ones.
Quote from rockondon »
What is funny to me about the idea of Pascal's Wager is that even if God was real and I accepted him as being a loving, benevolent being - I would go to hell. Because the proponents of this wager that I see spend their lives promoting God as the spiteful, cruel, awful being portrayed in the bible. Even if God did exist, I fail to see how a life of insulting Him (and let me tell ya, if half the stuff I read about him is true, its a pretty huge insult) would grant me reward in the afterlife.
God is certainly at times tempestuous, cruel, and difficult to know; he is also infinitely forgiving, infinitely loving, and infinitely wise. To love God is the same as to love any other; no-one always does what you think is best, but you love them anyway.
Quote from rockondon »
Also, if a life of brown-nosing to a malevolent deity will send me to heaven, and a life of making honest decisions sends me to hell...why on earth would I want to go to heaven? If that is what it takes to get in then think of the calibre of people that go there.
Given that Heaven is an eternity spent in the awareness and presence of infinite love and happiness, and Hell is an eternity spent in the awareness that other people have infinite love and happiness and you do not because you refused to accept it, I don't believe the "caliber of people there" really has anything to do with it.
1: However you define it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
I just came across this video in response to Pascal's wager and was hoping it could catalyze a conversation. For anyone unfamiliar with Pascal's wager, it essentially states or argues that since the existence of God is possible, the rational person should operate under the assumption that such a proposition is true. Not accepting God yields an infinite loss if wrong and pays no dividends if correct. This is an argument based on probability theory.
Anyway, I only wish I could string my thoughts together as eloquently as this guy did in this video. His conclusion, of accepting infinite hell fire for his beliefs (or disbelief) because he couldn't stomach the fact of spending an eternity with a being whose "empathy would be so easily trumped by his vanity", pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly.
What if I'm wrong? If I'm wrong I'll go to Hell. But if I believed there was a Hell, I would have no reason to believe the rules for avoiding it as laid out in the Bible are correct. If I were able to believe in an idea like the Hell I would have to entertain all the different variations of Hell from every religion that has metaphysical punishment built into its dogma.
So, there is just as good a chance that the Muslims are right as there is that the Christians are. Or the Buddhists, or Hindus, or Mormons, or Scientologists, or Wicca, or the religion that my 12 year old nephew made up. Being that there are an infinite number of different religious dogmas we can conjure up, and all them have about the same chance of being correct, we’re looking at a [1/(infinity)] chance that any particular religion is correct. That basically saying the chance is very close, as close as you can get, to zero of any particular religion being correct (this is under the assumption that there is no scientifically vetted evidence for any metaphysical claim to data, which I’m pretty sure is correct).
What this really boils down to is a scare tactic. Fear. “But what if you end up burning for eternity!!!” What happens if I turn into a balloon and float into the air? I guess I should stay inside just in case. Or not… I’m not scared of the idea of Hell (because I don’t believe it exists), hence Pascal’s Wager is meaningless to me.
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Anyway, I only wish I could string my thoughts together as eloquently as this guy did in this video. His conclusion, of accepting infinite hell fire for his beliefs (or disbelief) because he couldn't stomach the fact of spending an eternity with a being whose "empathy would be so easily trumped by his vanity", pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly.
Let's not be overdramatic. I think if we really sat down and thought about it, most of us would admit that we'd rather be forced to hang out with a narcissist for all eternity than suffer excruciating torture. I know I would. So that's not the problem with Pascal's Wager. The problem is simply that it presents a false dichotomy and illicitly assumes that both horns of the dichotomy have equal weight. It's a false dichotomy because it assumes that if Christianity is false, then you will suffer no bad consequences - but we can just as easily and with just as much supporting evidence (i.e. none) introduce the proposition, "If you live life as an atheist, then the irony-god will reward you, and if you live as a Christian, he will punish you." And there are infinitely more propositions that describe arbitrary consequences for your belief or disbelief. Maybe the moon will explode tomorrow if you don't wear a bunch of bananas as a hat. Maybe the moon will explode tomorrow if you do wear a bunch of bananas as a hat. Since each of these propositions is directly contradicted by another, there is no way that you can evaluate a priori the best course of action for yourself. You have to start reasoning a posteriori, looking at the evidence to weigh which propositions are more or less plausible. And of course, looking at evidence is precisely what Pascal's Wager was proposed to avoid in the first place...
Would it be fair to say that Christianity has more evidence than "banana hat vs. moon" theology?
To be fair, the traditional Christian God explicitly eschews demands for evidence, citing it as a symptom, so the Christian God would reasonably be eschewed by those that demand evidence. Contrast this to Gideon, who righteously asked for the proof of God's will that he might obey.
But, I have argued that a more modern Pascal might phrase his wager in more universal terms. "It's a no-brainer to seek out the Creator." Yes, one can retort with several arguments of "why I shouldn't", but those arguments offer no more evidence either.
As in all arguments, the motives behind the argument weigh more than the words.
Would it be fair to say that Christianity has more evidence than "banana hat vs. moon" theology?
Not in the relevant sense. We have observed a faith-in-God/going-to-Heaven correlation exactly as often as we have observed a banana-hat/moon-exploding correlation. We have more evidence for stuff like the existence of a historical person Jesus, but that doesn't get us any closer to Pascal's point.
But, I have argued that a more modern Pascal might phrase his wager in more universal terms. "It's a no-brainer to seek out the Creator." Yes, one can retort with several arguments of "why I shouldn't", but those arguments offer no more evidence either.
We should seek out all knowledge, and reject all falsehood. But it's premature to assume that there is a Creator to seek out, or to privilege that proposition with more attention than the evidence warrants. Speculation and navel-gazing about some hypothetical God is not nearly as interesting as, say, working to understand autism, or trying to figure out quantum gravity, or searching for life elsewhere in the universe.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Not in the relevant sense. We have observed a faith-in-God/going-to-Heaven correlation exactly as often as we have observed a banana-hat/moon-exploding correlation. We have more evidence for stuff like the existence of a historical person Jesus, but that doesn't get us any closer to Pascal's point..
I disagree. The banana hat instance you cite appears to equate the absurd with something that at the very least has some basis in reality. Although Pascal makes a convenient 17th century straw man, I don't think the comparison to a faith yanked entirely out of the imagination is apt.
We should seek out all knowledge, and reject all falsehood. But it's premature to assume that there is a Creator to seek out, or to privilege that proposition with more attention than the evidence warrants. Speculation and navel-gazing about some hypothetical God is not nearly as interesting as, say, working to understand autism, or trying to figure out quantum gravity, or searching for life elsewhere in the universe.
First, I don't see this as a matter of resource allocation. One pursuit does not inherently exclude the other.
Secondly, is it your intention to dismiss religious contemplation as "speculation and navel-gazing"? I've seen you elsewhere express admiration for some religious thought, so I don't think this is the case. If so, what is your reason behind this choice of words?
I question the outcome of your contention that it is "premature to assume there is a Creator to seek out." Is it therefore "premature to seek a Creator"?
Would it be fair to say that Christianity has more evidence than "banana hat vs. moon" theology?
What evidence is there for Christianity?
Historical Jesus debate begins here.
So far, we're pretty damn sure that Jesus was a dude, he started a religious movement, and was crucified by the authorities for it.
As far as I'm concerned, he was either an absolute nutcase or everything he said he was.
The fact that Jesus is even recorded by history is significant enough to differentiate Pascal's ideas from "whatever ridiculous idea I can make up on the spot."
The fact that Jesus is even recorded by history is significant enough to differentiate Pascal's ideas from "whatever ridiculous idea I can make up on the spot."
Why? If I only make up stuff involving people that really existed is it more believable? If I believe Abraham Lincoln can resurrect the dead, does that fact Abraham Lincoln is in recorded history make my argument more credible? I'm "halfway there" or something?
Why? If I only make up stuff involving people that really existed is it more believable? If I believe Abraham Lincoln can resurrect the dead, does that fact Abraham Lincoln is in recorded history make my argument more credible? I'm "halfway there" or something?
No, but I don't think a parallel between his beliefs and banana hat moon salvation is a fair comparison. Moreover, it isn't difficult to update or generalize his concept.
I also object to BS' saying "we have observed" because he does not know what I have observed.
To attain conviction, we must test our own reasons. No one can do this for another person.
I disagree. The banana hat instance you cite appears to equate the absurd with something that at the very least has some basis in reality.
There is no basis whatsoever for belief in any kind of existence after death. The proposition is as completely speculative as my exploding-moon idea. Nobody who could have observed heaven is in any position to report back to us, just as nobody who could have observed the moon exploding in the future is in any position to report back to us. It's just people making up cool-sounding stuff about areas they cannot observe.
First, I don't see this as a matter of resource allocation. One pursuit does not inherently exclude the other.
My point is that "seeking the Creator" is not actually a pursuit. We as a community have no way of making advances in our knowledge on that front. There are no common benchmarks and goals, no way of settling what direction we're supposed to be going and how to get there. One person can say, "Aha, I have scored a touchdown; I have made contact with God!", then another person can respond, "You haven't even rounded first base."
Secondly, is it your intention to dismiss religious contemplation as "speculation and navel-gazing"? I've seen you elsewhere express admiration for some religious thought, so I don't think this is the case. If so, what is your reason behind this choice of words?
Religious contemplation is an attempt to reach a posteriori conclusions without engaging in a posteriori reasoning. You cannot just sit there and think and reliably come up with a truth about the world outside your brain, like "God exists" or "Good and faithful people go to Heaven". All you can do is speculate, and speculations are wrong more often than they're right. To learn about the outside world, you must observe the outside world. And if you can observe the outside world, others must be able to reliably make the same observations.
I question the outcome of your contention that it is "premature to assume there is a Creator to seek out." Is it therefore "premature to seek a Creator"?
I also object to BS' saying "we have observed" because he does not know what I have observed.
Science is a collaborative effort. If you have observed something, but none of the rest of us can replicate your result, then your observation does not constitute evidence for any hypothesis about objective reality.
To attain conviction, we must test our own reasons. No one can do this for another person.
And yet, science works. The scientific community very quickly reaches consensus on detailed, quantitative theories of the world, where the religious community can't even agree on the most basic questions about the divine. This is because the religious community accepts subjective experiences as valid evidence, which of course leads to irresolvable contradictions (and, eventually, bloodshed), whereas science demands experimental results that anyone can replicate objectively.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
As far as I'm concerned, he was either an absolute nutcase or everything he said he was.
Strictly speaking, we don't have him saying anything about himself.
What we have is the telephone game with people writing down what he is supposed to have said, with no copies of the originals, our own earliest copies written in greek as well. Most of the actual texts we have are centuries after the events. Wait, greek, wouldn't jesus have spoken aramaic?
Man, and then we have problems regarding the actual copying since, up until Christianity became pretty dominant, a lot of the copy work in those early years was done by regular parishoners and not by trained scribes. Our earliest texts show more disagreement, more errors, than the more modern ones. What, exactly, did Jesus say he was? We don't know. We know what MMLJ (whoever they were) said he was, but we hardly have "The Jesus Diaries" where he penned his actual thoughts. The guy, after all, was an apocalyptic preacher. The world rolled up in a scroll, some of you standing here will still be alive when the son of man comes again, yadda etc yadda.
And, like Taylor said, the trilemma? Really?
Maybe he was a dude who wanted to reform judaism and the story got embellished between the point where it was supposed to have happened and the point where anyone wrote anything down? Maybe the dude was kind of nuts, but had some good moral intuitions and was persuasive. Why's he gotten be a total nutcase when he could just be a little delusional but otherwise fine? Like, maybe when his family left israel and thought they went to Egypt they instead went East becaus that joseph cat was, like, a carpenter and not a cartographer. Maybe Jesus picked up some of the morality of Buddhism and incorporated that in Judaism.
Who knows? But I know it aint so simple as the trilemma.
Oh, and Is Mark 16:9-20 part of the words of Jesus?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You can trust me, I work for the government
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Anyway, I only wish I could string my thoughts together as eloquently as this guy did in this video. His conclusion, of accepting infinite hell fire for his beliefs (or disbelief) because he couldn't stomach the fact of spending an eternity with a being whose "empathy would be so easily trumped by his vanity", pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly.
A) It could one of thousands of different god's that humanity has created throughout history
B) It could be the Christian God (YHWH), and he actually IS vain, petty, and tyrannical
C) We could all be wrong, and God is Malevolent
D) There could be a God, and still not be a soul, afterlife, heaven, or hell
E) There could be a God (creator of the universe) but it's long been deceased
F) Perpetual Reincarnation could be true, enjoy being a dog, a frog, a fish, a Mormon...
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
But isn't that itself just narcissism disguised as self-righteousness? I don't mean to be flip, but the idea that your understanding of the plans and intentions of an unknowable and omniscient deity is so complete that you can make the ultimate judgment based on it (and if there is a Heaven and a Hell, this really is the biggest decision you can ever possibly make) seems to me incredibly arrogant.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
On the other hand, if I worship Osiris and it turns out Yahweh is the real one, I might be able to make a deal with Him and be forgive.
The logic of Pascal's Wager dictates you should find the most spiteful, hateful, unforgiving God and worship HIM and just cross your fingers if you're wrong you can work something out with the real guy.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=9947363#post9947363
But Osiris and other similar gods of antiquity are tribal or ethnic gods; they don't require you to worship them "or else"; those who worship them go to their afterlife, and those who worship the gods of their own people go to that pantheon's afterlife. Osiris doesn't give a **** if you worship Yahweh or Shiva; you're not an Egyptian.
The concept of a God who is both for all people and requires your devotion is uniquely Judeo-Christian.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
So then why not just worship an infinitely spiteful god that nobody has yet claimed exists? If such a being existed, then the fact that it leads the followers of other religions astray would be right in line with its personality.
Of all possible gods, one should pick the most heinous and disagreeable one can conceive.
So, why did all of those Christians get tortured by the Romans for not adhering to the Roman Panthon?
I wish I had time to research up a more comprehensive list for you, but--sufficient to say--every time someone makes the statement that something general is "uniquely Judeo-Christian," they're wrong.
I'm not actually in disagreement with you here; I think Pascal's wager is pretty dumb.
But what I'm saying is that it's far dumber to accept the possibility of the Christian God and still refuse him out of spite.
Because they refused to pay worship to the Imperial Cult, which was less a religious concept than a political one, and because they worshipped instead a crucified criminal, which is about the lowest thing you can get in Roman society. Whether or not the Roman gods were tolerant had absolutely nothing to do with it; the Romans were syncretists at heart (cf. "the interpretatio Romana").
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
There was a very strong Roman tradition that all the world should be part of their religion. Whether or not they were syncretists—or whether or not there was a strong political influence in their quasi-theocracy—isn't the point. They felt strongly their religion was for everyone, and were willing to go out of their way to make it happen. However, they were not the only ones to think everyone should worship their gods.
You're going to have explain how Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and pretty much any religion that engages in Religious conversion doesn't think everyone should be a part of the "correct" religion.
While you're right that many "tribal/ethic cults" were not big into Proselytizing, it's not anywhere near an uniquely Judeo-Christian practice.
And since he obviously does not, nor does he insinuate, that he understands the plans and intentions of an unknowable and omniscient deity completely, you are pretending otherwise. That is absurd as well.
And after seeing someone with the humility and integrity to make decisions based not on ignorantly accepting what he wants to be true or selfishly seeking reward or avoiding punishment, but based on the reason and intelligence which could even have been bestowed on him by God...and you call that arrogant? No sir, that is the opposite of arrogance.
What is funny to me about the idea of Pascal's Wager is that even if God was real and I accepted him as being a loving, benevolent being - I would go to hell. Because the proponents of this wager that I see spend their lives promoting God as the spiteful, cruel, awful being portrayed in the bible. Even if God did exist, I fail to see how a life of insulting Him (and let me tell ya, if half the stuff I read about him is true, its a pretty huge insult) would grant me reward in the afterlife.
Also, if a life of brown-nosing to a malevolent deity will send me to heaven, and a life of making honest decisions sends me to hell...why on earth would I want to go to heaven? If that is what it takes to get in then think of the calibre of people that go there.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
No, that's exactly what he's saying.
See, the OP (and the video he linked to) argues that they would rather spend an eternity in Hell1 than spend eternity with "a being whose empathy would be so easily trumped by his vanity." In order to make this judgment, whoever makes it must believe that they know a number of things about the God in question:
1) He has empathy;
2) He has vanity;
3) The reason that he would send people to Hell is because of vanity, and not some other cause.
To presume to know any of these three things about God is an immense leap of faith. For example, we might presume that God has no vanity at all; after all, the Bible says that "God is love," and that would seem to leave little room for hurt feelings. But if we suppose this, it requires us to think about Hell very differently from the way the OP suggests, and there is at least as much reason to understand it this way as his way.
To therefore make a judgment of such weight on such an unstable conjecture is foolhardy.
No, what's really arrogant is to assume that everyone who believes in religion is "ignorantly accepting what he wants to be true or selfishly seeking reward or avoiding punishment." I think that if you ever seriously pondered the question (and given this post, I sincerely doubt that you have), you'd realize that people come to religion by many paths, and ignorance and selfishness are not necessarily the most common ones.
God is certainly at times tempestuous, cruel, and difficult to know; he is also infinitely forgiving, infinitely loving, and infinitely wise. To love God is the same as to love any other; no-one always does what you think is best, but you love them anyway.
Given that Heaven is an eternity spent in the awareness and presence of infinite love and happiness, and Hell is an eternity spent in the awareness that other people have infinite love and happiness and you do not because you refused to accept it, I don't believe the "caliber of people there" really has anything to do with it.
1: However you define it.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
God knows everything, so he'd know we were lying. Wouldn't the source of justice punish a lie?
What if I'm wrong? If I'm wrong I'll go to Hell. But if I believed there was a Hell, I would have no reason to believe the rules for avoiding it as laid out in the Bible are correct. If I were able to believe in an idea like the Hell I would have to entertain all the different variations of Hell from every religion that has metaphysical punishment built into its dogma.
So, there is just as good a chance that the Muslims are right as there is that the Christians are. Or the Buddhists, or Hindus, or Mormons, or Scientologists, or Wicca, or the religion that my 12 year old nephew made up. Being that there are an infinite number of different religious dogmas we can conjure up, and all them have about the same chance of being correct, we’re looking at a [1/(infinity)] chance that any particular religion is correct. That basically saying the chance is very close, as close as you can get, to zero of any particular religion being correct (this is under the assumption that there is no scientifically vetted evidence for any metaphysical claim to data, which I’m pretty sure is correct).
What this really boils down to is a scare tactic. Fear. “But what if you end up burning for eternity!!!” What happens if I turn into a balloon and float into the air? I guess I should stay inside just in case. Or not… I’m not scared of the idea of Hell (because I don’t believe it exists), hence Pascal’s Wager is meaningless to me.
I find that many religious people have a hard time comprehending that Atheism isn't a choice, hence this idea never occurs to them.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Would it be fair to say that Christianity has more evidence than "banana hat vs. moon" theology?
To be fair, the traditional Christian God explicitly eschews demands for evidence, citing it as a symptom, so the Christian God would reasonably be eschewed by those that demand evidence. Contrast this to Gideon, who righteously asked for the proof of God's will that he might obey.
But, I have argued that a more modern Pascal might phrase his wager in more universal terms. "It's a no-brainer to seek out the Creator." Yes, one can retort with several arguments of "why I shouldn't", but those arguments offer no more evidence either.
As in all arguments, the motives behind the argument weigh more than the words.
What evidence is there for Christianity?
We should seek out all knowledge, and reject all falsehood. But it's premature to assume that there is a Creator to seek out, or to privilege that proposition with more attention than the evidence warrants. Speculation and navel-gazing about some hypothetical God is not nearly as interesting as, say, working to understand autism, or trying to figure out quantum gravity, or searching for life elsewhere in the universe.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Historical Jesus debate begins here.
So far, we're pretty damn sure that Jesus was a dude, he started a religious movement, and was crucified by the authorities for it.
As far as I'm concerned, he was either an absolute nutcase or everything he said he was.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
I disagree. The banana hat instance you cite appears to equate the absurd with something that at the very least has some basis in reality. Although Pascal makes a convenient 17th century straw man, I don't think the comparison to a faith yanked entirely out of the imagination is apt.
First, I don't see this as a matter of resource allocation. One pursuit does not inherently exclude the other.
Secondly, is it your intention to dismiss religious contemplation as "speculation and navel-gazing"? I've seen you elsewhere express admiration for some religious thought, so I don't think this is the case. If so, what is your reason behind this choice of words?
I question the outcome of your contention that it is "premature to assume there is a Creator to seek out." Is it therefore "premature to seek a Creator"?
The fact that Jesus is even recorded by history is significant enough to differentiate Pascal's ideas from "whatever ridiculous idea I can make up on the spot."
Lewis's trilemma? Really? Com'on now, we're better than that.
Why? If I only make up stuff involving people that really existed is it more believable? If I believe Abraham Lincoln can resurrect the dead, does that fact Abraham Lincoln is in recorded history make my argument more credible? I'm "halfway there" or something?
No, but I don't think a parallel between his beliefs and banana hat moon salvation is a fair comparison. Moreover, it isn't difficult to update or generalize his concept.
I also object to BS' saying "we have observed" because he does not know what I have observed.
To attain conviction, we must test our own reasons. No one can do this for another person.
Why not? Earlier you alluded to the reason having something to do with evidence for Christianity, but then you never presented any.
Well then, enlighten us.
My point is that "seeking the Creator" is not actually a pursuit. We as a community have no way of making advances in our knowledge on that front. There are no common benchmarks and goals, no way of settling what direction we're supposed to be going and how to get there. One person can say, "Aha, I have scored a touchdown; I have made contact with God!", then another person can respond, "You haven't even rounded first base."
Religious contemplation is an attempt to reach a posteriori conclusions without engaging in a posteriori reasoning. You cannot just sit there and think and reliably come up with a truth about the world outside your brain, like "God exists" or "Good and faithful people go to Heaven". All you can do is speculate, and speculations are wrong more often than they're right. To learn about the outside world, you must observe the outside world. And if you can observe the outside world, others must be able to reliably make the same observations.
See above viz pursuits.
Science is a collaborative effort. If you have observed something, but none of the rest of us can replicate your result, then your observation does not constitute evidence for any hypothesis about objective reality.
And yet, science works. The scientific community very quickly reaches consensus on detailed, quantitative theories of the world, where the religious community can't even agree on the most basic questions about the divine. This is because the religious community accepts subjective experiences as valid evidence, which of course leads to irresolvable contradictions (and, eventually, bloodshed), whereas science demands experimental results that anyone can replicate objectively.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Strictly speaking, we don't have him saying anything about himself.
What we have is the telephone game with people writing down what he is supposed to have said, with no copies of the originals, our own earliest copies written in greek as well. Most of the actual texts we have are centuries after the events. Wait, greek, wouldn't jesus have spoken aramaic?
Man, and then we have problems regarding the actual copying since, up until Christianity became pretty dominant, a lot of the copy work in those early years was done by regular parishoners and not by trained scribes. Our earliest texts show more disagreement, more errors, than the more modern ones. What, exactly, did Jesus say he was? We don't know. We know what MMLJ (whoever they were) said he was, but we hardly have "The Jesus Diaries" where he penned his actual thoughts. The guy, after all, was an apocalyptic preacher. The world rolled up in a scroll, some of you standing here will still be alive when the son of man comes again, yadda etc yadda.
And, like Taylor said, the trilemma? Really?
Maybe he was a dude who wanted to reform judaism and the story got embellished between the point where it was supposed to have happened and the point where anyone wrote anything down? Maybe the dude was kind of nuts, but had some good moral intuitions and was persuasive. Why's he gotten be a total nutcase when he could just be a little delusional but otherwise fine? Like, maybe when his family left israel and thought they went to Egypt they instead went East becaus that joseph cat was, like, a carpenter and not a cartographer. Maybe Jesus picked up some of the morality of Buddhism and incorporated that in Judaism.
Who knows? But I know it aint so simple as the trilemma.
Oh, and Is Mark 16:9-20 part of the words of Jesus?