david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (12/30/83)
>> (Dave Norris) >> Christianity, whether one accepts it or not, tells us that >> in the end we will all end up eternally blessed or forever >> damned in hell. Now, these are serious consequences. If >> any man thought that his life would not be affected IF SUCH >> A PROPOSITION COULD BE PROVEN, he would have to be a fool. >> Non-Christians would agree with me, I think. > (John Hobson) > This sounds to me like a version of Pascal's wager, that one should > have faith because, if God exists, one shall then be saved, whereas > if God does not exist, one hasn't really lost anything. (This > always reminds me of the then Pope's comment on hearing of the > death of Cardinal Richelieu: "If there is a God, the Cardinal will > have much to answer for. If there is not a God, then he lived a > successful life.) The answer to this is that God knows our > motivations, and is not going to be fooled. Anyway, the operative > statement here is "IF SUCH A PROPOSITION COULD BE PROVEN" to which > the only real comment is "well, it can't". (Me again) I think not (poof! :-). Pascal's wager is loosely based on the "you don't have anything to lose" premise, whereas I was trying to point out that such a proof should cause *some* change in a person. You are correct in pointing out the operative statement, in any case; although I have yet to see a decent argument in reverse. Russell tried it in his book "Why I am not a Christian" (someone here recommended it), and didn't do too well (here we have an unsupported statement that is sure to add more spice to net.religion! Any takers?). My statements were not an attempt to provide justification for the Christian faith; I was only trying to say that acceptance of such a proposition would require action of some sort from a reasonable person (refuting the "if I became a Christian, it wouldn't change the way I do business" argument). But I wanted to speak on Pascal's wager. Some time ago, I was discussing Christianity with a good friend of mine (witnessing, we call it), and brought up the wager. He quickly responded: "But that would be cheating, Dave. You are accepting God on your own terms, and only to suit your ends. Christianity teaches a self-sacrificing love." This is a loose quote, but over time his remarks made a lot of sense. Accepting the wager will probably make you guilty of an intellectual acknowledgment of God, and at best can only make you a carnal Christian. The idea has some merit, and may (for some) be a starting point for God, but I think that it is a very bad approach; it is as if you are deciding whether or not God exists. I do not think that one can be a Christian with the attitude "Well, if You don't exist, I haven't lost anything, right?", because that implies that there is no personal relationship between the "Christian" and God, and that God is an impersonal being who lives "up in heaven" as opposed to the hearts of His believers. But John is correct; God is not deceived by externals. -- David Norris -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (12/31/83)
Pascal's wager reminds me (although I'm not sure why) of a story from my early
childhood. When I was four years old I lived in Ft. Worth, Texas. My family
went to the Unitarian Church, I attended nursery school at the Jewish Community
Center, and many of my playmates were (as one would expect in Ft. Worth) from
fundamentalist families. I'm told that I once said to my mother, "Mom, I know
that you and Dad would like for me to be a Unitarian when I grow up, the ladies
at nursery school would like for me to be a Jew, and Mitch [my best friend]
would like for me to be a Baptist; I think I'll be a Baptist, because Hell is
so exciting!"
(In case you're curious, I turned out to be None of the Above.)
----
Prentiss Riddle
("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.")
{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddlemark@utzoo.UUCP (mark bloore) (12/31/83)
pascal's wager (leading a pious life gets you into heaven if there is a god, and loses you nothing if there isn't) contains a feature which seems to be very common in existence-of-god arguments: the choise is between no god and some particular god. this can save the god's advocate a great deal of trouble, since he need prove only that SOME god exists, and then allow it to be assumed that it is HIS god that exists. it reminds me of the von daniken style of argument: here is something strange. the only explanation i can think of is such-and-such, therefore this must be the case.
tim@unc.UUCP (01/02/84)
[From Pamela Troy] There is a serious fallacy in Pascal's wager. It assumes that the only religion which threatens unbelievers with an unpleasant afterlife is Christianity. Suppose I accept Christianity on Pascal's wager and wake up in the afterlife being judged by Osiris? I would end up in a nasty circle of Hell if the Moslems are right, or reincarnated as an earthworm or spider if the Buddhists are right. Christianity is not the only horse in the running. -- Tim Maroney, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill duke!unc!tim (USENET), tim.unc@csnet-relay (ARPA)
rf@wu1.UUCP (01/04/84)
David Norris quotes his friend as saying "But that would be cheating, Dave. You are accepting God on your own terms, and only to suit your ends. Christianity teaches a self-sacrificing love." So, is a man who does only the Christian good and yet does not believe damned? Randolph Fritz