Jed Rothwell wrote:
Wesley Bruce wrote:
In other words
* If I believe in God and I am right what do I gain? All the
pleasures of eternity.
* If I am wrong what do I loose? A few passing pleasures and then
oblivion.
* If I disbelieve in God and there is life after death and some
judgement.
Pascal's argument is based on the notion that belief is voluntary;
i.e., we can choose what we believe, and what we do not believe. This
is false.
To take a dramatic example, consider a person in her 40s who is dying
of an incurable disease. She may want to believe she will survive by
some miracle, but if she is educated and understands disease and
probability, she will believe with as much certainty as a person can
muster that she is doomed. No amount of wishful thinking or desire on
her part will affect this belief, or impair her judgement. I have seen
many people in this situation, both theists and atheists, including a
friend who died last month. They can no more choose to believe one way
or the other than I can choose to believe that 2 + 2 = 5. (In some
cases the disease, drugs or extreme fear will impair the patient's
judgement, but I have never seen this happen.)
Not only is Pascal's argument false, it is contrary to everyday
experience, since we all know that we cannot make ourselves think that
2 + 2 = 5, or night is day, or up is down. In my opinion this argument
is also preposterous and cruel, since it tries to impose a "guilt
trip" on people who cannot bring themselves to believe in fairy tales.
- Jed
You have a good point but I suspect your immune to the guilt trip bit.
You don’t strike me as the type and I don't see you doing anything wrong
anyway. Your argument assumes an absolute truth but not my absolute
truth. I have seen people cured of the incurable. It may be random
chance or an act of God but either way faith is involved. One has faith
in probability and naturalism the other has faith in God thanks to
experience and witnessed events.
We have lived in an age where Atheism used guns to attempt to enforce
its will. Christians like me don't mind the harmless atheists. It's the
ones that try to out law belief or kill it by force or guile that are
the big problem.
2 + 2 does not equal 5 but 2 +3 does. If you only see the 2's where I
see a 3 then we have a minor problem.
As for fairy tales; is the big bang any more or less of a tale that any
of its alternatives? Starting assumptions are the difference between a
good theory and a bad one. Starting assumptions often go unstated or
even unknown, sub-conscious, to the user.
Our fusion opponents assume that all nuclear reactions should have the
same branching ratio. It is an assumption they don't question. Its is to
them as real as your dieing friends beliefs in the incurability of the
disease. But in their case that belief, while strongly held by many,
does not change the truth of cold fusion one bit. Absolute truth must be
the bigger of the two tales.
- Re: OFF TOPIC Pascal's false argument Wesley Bruce
-
