No.

No. — 180 Proof

I was referring to something along the lines of Pascal's wager.

Pascal's wager — Agent Smith

I suspect no one has ever believed in g/G because of a Pascal's Wager who wasn't already riding the fence up his sacramentally Confirmed keester. Pascal, the mathematical rationalist, was a religious fideist and proposed the wager as a prophylactic against promiscuous doubt rather than as "a reason to believe".

So what other non-reason reason you got, Smith?

Argumentum ad baculum, argumentum ad misericordiam, and their like.

I was referring to something along the lines of Pascal's wager. — Agent Smith

I've never seen how this wager is meant to work. I personally do not believe that we can cynically choose our beliefs in this way. You are either convinced, or you are not convinced. How could anyone genuinely accept and integrate 'the truth' of a metaphysical presupposition like theism because of a potential consequence of a piss-poor bet?

An additional problem is which god do we undertake this wager on? The wager has no way of informing us what god to bet upon. What if the Muslim god is the true god? Or one of the gods of Protestant Christianity (surely Christianity amounts a series of different religions, with different gods vicious or accommodating, depending on the sect). Or Hinduism; Zoroastrianism...?

A final problem of course is how do we imagine a god would regard us for choosing to believe in it just for the sake of a wager? Fake it until you make it? Seems an approach completely lacking moral integrity or fidelity to an ideal, a contemptuous exercise in shallow self-interest.

Si, the devil is in the details.

An additional problem is which god do we undertake this wager on? — Tom Storm

As far as Pascal was concerned, no other gods but Jehovah would come under consideration; everyone whose religion was not rooted in the bible was simply pagan.
The real problem with the wager is that the Christian god had, by that time, been elevated to omni-mind-reader, so you couldn't fool him with insincere belief.

As far as Pascal was concerned, no other gods but Jehovah would come under consideration; — Vera Mont

Indeed. But for anyone thinking of using the wager today this is a problem since it begs the question.

elevated to omni-mind-reader, so you couldn't fool him with insincere belief. — Vera Mont

Yep.

I am not at all sure that there is a life beyond this one, but I'm certain that I came into this life with some memory of previous lives, ill-defined but at times vivid. So I have the tentative view that life extends beyond the bounds of an individual birth and death and so am alive to the possibility that heaven and hell are more than myth. So with that in the background, something like Pascal's wager assumes a greater urgency. I frequently contemplate the gloomy possibility that at the point of death, you will realise that your life has been misdirected, at the precise moment when you know you have no more chances to do anything about it.

What is Christian faith supposed to be about, in philosophical terms? I would put it like this: it is about realising one's identity as a being directly related to the intelligence that underlies the Cosmos, a direct familial relationship, not as abstract philosophical idea. (This is the gist of Alan Watt's book The Supreme Identity).

The name 'Jupiter' was derived from the Sansrit 'dyaus-pitar' meaning 'Sky Father'. There are versions of that name all through ancient culture. The name sounds like 'Jehovah' even though it is etymologically unrelated. But the point is, for a great many people, believers and unbelievers alike, Jehovah is conceived as a 'sky-father'. But underneath or concealed by the popular image, there's another level of meaning although it's very difficult to convey. The name 'Jehovah' was derived from the Hebrew yahweh, itself a derived from the tetragrammaton, a sequence of consonants that was literally un-sayable. In ceremonial religion, the name of God was invoked using other terms, but the 'sacred name' was unsayable because it was unthinkable, it was over the horizon of being, so to speak. By uttering the name casually, one profaned it, by bringing it into the profane world.

As a consequence of these complexities, many of the arguments about 'theism' are based on very confused accounts of what really is at issue. (David Bentley Hart's book The Experience of God addresses this confusion.)

What is Christian faith supposed to be about, in philosophical terms? I would put it like this: it is about realising one's identity as a being directly related to the intelligence that underlies the Cosmos, a direct familial relationship, not as abstract philosophical idea. — Wayfarer

:roll:

... many of the arguments about 'theism' are based on very confused accounts of what really is at issue.

No doubt this is the case with the so-called "New Atheists" (except Victor Stenger or Rebecca Goldstein) which is why I consider their arguments (those of e.g. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett) to be irreligious humanist polemics instead of philosophical critiques of theism or theology.

I'm certain that I came into this life with some memory of previous lives, ill-defined but at times vivid. So I have the tentative view that life extends beyond the bounds of an individual birth and death — Wayfarer

I find it difficult to reconcile this ^ with this v

you will realise that your life has been misdirected, at the precise moment when you know you have no more chances to do anything about it. — Wayfarer

If reincarnation is an actual thing, that's just the moment you must resolve to do better - no?

Of course, I also have a problem with the idea of "directing" one's life, as if the playing field were level and every newborn soul had the same degree of control over their path between that point and their death... which might be only a few days off.

What is Christian faith supposed to be about, in philosophical terms? I would put it like this: it is about realising one's identity as a being directly related to the intelligence that underlies the Cosmos, a direct familial relationship, not as abstract philosophical idea. — Wayfarer

That sounds a lot like an abstract philosophical idea.
Man is directly related to the god or gods in every kind of mythology. Only the relationships are quite different. Christianity is based firmly on the sin-sacrifice-redemption dynamic, wherein the god is a discrete entity, aloof and judgmental. He is supposed to have made the world, which was then pure, but later profaned, as was God's creature, man, [Why else would his next-of-kin be not permitted to utter even a sayable version of his name?] by The Adversary*, who tempted man and led him into the sins of moral awareness and sexual awareness - the two never to be separated .
*And where did he come from? And what is his purpose?

As a consequence of these complexities, many of the arguments about 'theism' are based on very confused accounts of what really is at issue. — Wayfarer

It's exactly as complicated as some scholar or theologian wishes to make it.

Christianity is based firmly on the sin-sacrifice-redemption dynamic, wherein the god is a discrete entity, aloof and judgmental. — Vera Mont

Christianity (and other religious and philosophical traditions) are not one exclusive model. Otherwise there wouldn't be the interminable conflicts between the various denominations. Within the Christian world there are more and less pantheist or panentheist visions.

Within the Christian world there are more and less pantheist or panentheist visions. — Wayfarer

Which Christian denominations do not consider Christ their saviour?

Which Christian denominations do not consider Christ their saviour? — Vera Mont

But there are very different interpretations of what that means. The Eastern Orthodox interpretation is different to the Calvinist, for instance - the orthodox don't believe in 'vicarious atonement'. In any case, it isn't my intention to get into all of those details. From the perspective of philosophy of religion, the question is what do these doctrines and ideas mean?

the question is what do these doctrines and ideas mean? — Wayfarer

That we were at one time keenly aware of a very great loss. Whether it's interpreted as a fall from grace, original, or the inability to speak the language of other animals, something happened. Something we chose. The move to settled agriculture alienated us from, and put us in conflict with Nature (including a vital portion of our own nature.)

:up:

I am not at all sure that there is a life beyond this one, but I'm certain that I came into this life with some memory of previous lives, ill-defined but at times vivid. So I have the tentative view that life extends beyond the bounds of an individual birth and death and so am alive to the possibility that heaven and hell are more than myth. So with that in the background, something like Pascal's wager assumes a greater urgency. I frequently contemplate the gloomy possibility that at the point of death, you will realise that your life has been misdirected, at the precise moment when you know you have no more chances to do anything about it.

What is Christian faith supposed to be about, in philosophical terms? I would put it like this: it is about realising one's identity as a being directly related to the intelligence that underlies the Cosmos, a direct familial relationship, not as abstract philosophical idea. (This is the gist of Alan Watt's book The Supreme Identity).

The name 'Jupiter' was derived from the Sansrit 'dyaus-pitar' meaning 'Sky Father'. There are versions of that name all through ancient culture. The name sounds like 'Jehovah' even though it is etymologically unrelated. But the point is, for a great many people, believers and unbelievers alike, Jehovah is conceived as a 'sky-father'. But underneath or concealed by the popular image, there's another level of meaning although it's very difficult to convey. The name 'Jehovah' was derived from the Hebrew yahweh, itself a derived from the tetragrammaton, a sequence of consonants that was literally un-sayable. In ceremonial religion, the name of God was invoked using other terms, but the 'sacred name' was unsayable because it was unthinkable, it was over the horizon of being, so to speak. By uttering the name casually, one profaned it, by bringing it into the profane world.

As a consequence of these complexities, many of the arguments about 'theism' are based on very confused accounts of what really is at issue. (David Bentley Hart's book The Experience of God addresses this confusion.) — Wayfarer

:up: :100: :clap:

I frequently contemplate the gloomy possibility that at the point of death, you will realise that your life has been misdirected, at the precise moment when you know you have no more chances to do anything about it. — Wayfarer

What do you mean by misdirected? Missed opportunities to learn or missed opportunities to improve life for others? Or both?

Probably both. You know the original etymology of 'sin' is 'to miss the mark'.

Useful discussion of meaning of religion here, from which:

The religious person perceives our present life, or our natural life, as radically deficient, deficient from the root (radix) up, as fundamentally unsatisfactory; he feels it to be, not a mere condition, but a predicament; it strikes him as vain or empty if taken as an end in itself; he sees himself ashomo viator, as a wayfarer ( :yikes: ) or pilgrim treading a via dolorosa through a vale that cannot possibly be a final and fitting resting place; s/he senses or glimpses from time to time the possibility of a Higher Life; he feels himself in danger of missing out on this Higher Life of true happiness. If this doesn't strike a chord in you, then I suggest you do not have a religious disposition. Some people don't, and it cannot be helped. One cannot discuss religion with them, for it cannot be real to them.

:up:

One cannot discuss religion with them, for it cannot be real to them.

One can recognize the desire for transcendence without sharing it or attributing to it an ontological reality coextensive with that desire. There is a rhetorical ambiguity at work. What is it that cannot be real to them? The longing or a life other than our "natural life", a "a Higher Life"?

Sure. Right now we can probably find many thousands of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens and taken away for a probing... — Tom Storm

Empirical evidence for the supernatural is a contradictory notion because that which is sensed must be by definition natural. That is, if I see a ghost, the ghost must be just a new discovery, like a previously unknown insect in the rain forest.

This draws a distinction between the type of evidence necessary for proof of a non-corporeal God and that of previously undiscovered physical events (like alien abduction, Bigfoot, or a strange new sea creature). If someone claims a miracle, it should be assumed not to have occurred because few things are as empirically established as physical laws. That is, I will find you not guilty of a crime if it were physically impossible for the crime to have occurred as alleged.

What then is left in terms of proof are such things as pragmatics or subjective mystical experiences. The only way I could see empirical evidence as being evidence of God's existence would be in the indirect sense, as is the fact that existence exists points to something creating that existence.

Funny thing is that no sooner does one start to set out god's attributes then one runs into contradictions. — Banno

Of course these conversations have been going on for over a thousand years:

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/maimonides-conception-of-god/

think most people believe in god because they are brought up with the idea - evidence and faith are post hoc. Children are taught there is a god and the notion becomes absorbed as part of their socialisation and enculturation. You're much more likely to have an experience of a particular God as an adult if you are properly primed from birth. — Tom Storm

Much time is spent psychoanalyzing the theist, perhaps because he seems so obviously wrong to the atheist that an explanation must be arrived at for why an otherwise intellgent person would take it seriously. But this is me psychoanalyzing the atheist. My guess is that we're both part right and part wrong here.

What is interesting to me is how seriously the atheists take these conversations. You can't seem to have a thread about theism without the atheists being sure to enter the conversation and passionately objecting, some more respectfully than others. Often the conversation turns toward a discussion of childhood trauma dealing with religion, prior episodes of social ostracism arising from religious institutions, and other bad acts of religion. To the extent the driver behind atheism is pain caused by religion, then that does seems like something that needs to be addressed, but I acknowledge a reasonableness to the atheistic position that keeps it from being explained as just reaction to trauma, but it seems part of it for some.

The religious person perceives our present life, or our natural life, as radically deficient, deficient from the root (radix) up, as fundamentally unsatisfactory;he feels it to be, not a mere condition, but a predicament;

Why??
What's wrong with him and his life?
This is real to me as a psychological problem unique to human animals, but not common to all human animals. I come back to a sense of loss.
But of what, exactly?
Not of the "higher" life they long for, because they haven't experienced it yet, hence the longing. It must be for a state of innocence - that is, the genuine life of appreciation for sunlight, grass, water; the joy of having limbs to move about, a voice to sing with, taste, sound, smell, exertion and rest, affection and pleasure, striving and triumph. The moments between terror and grief.
When you have defeated the body, mortified and discarded, you don't have very much left.
But this yearning to set it free of earth.
The death-wish.

You can't seem to have a thread about theism without the atheists being sure to enter the conversation and passionately objecting, some more respectfully than others. — Hanover

You can have all the theist conversations you like without any butting in from me.... so long as they don't open with: The trouble with atheists is...."

I was referring to something along the lines of Pascal's wager. — Agent Smith

Pascal's wager assumes a relationship between belief in God and salvation, an ideosyncratically Christian notion, which just because pervasive does not mean the link is entailed by theism generally.

This is what is often missed in these discussions, that it is assumed theism is a belief system requiring certain fundamental beliefs. But theism is no more a belief system than is atheism. Theism asserts God's existence. Atheism denies it. How you wish to develop those single itemized beliefs into a system is up to the person, but assuming something logically must flow from there is incorrect.

Anyway, that is why I never understood Pascal's wager to be an important argument because my immediate response was to ask how did Pascal know that believing in God is exactly what God didn't want you to do and that is what would lead to punishment. I found that suggestion no more or less absurd than the idea that belief in God would lead to salvation, mostly because I'm not Christian and the concept of salvation based upon belief was entirely foreign to me.

Just interested on your attraction to the labels agnostic atheist, as an accurate combination, for you Tom.
Why are you not more attracted to Ignostic atheist?

Atheism forces God into little boxes and then complains when the boxes don't stack neatly. — T Clark

Rather, atheists complain about the untidiness of the boxes that religious leaders put God into.

Rather, atheists complain about the untidiness of the boxes that religious leaders put God into. — praxis

You've been talking to different atheists than I have.

Atheists don't make up religions. Religious leaders do. They box up God, Gods, or whatever. Atheists question these stories or 'boxes'.

Why are you not more attracted to Ignostic atheist? — universeness

Mainly because the term is new to me.