Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Helm’s wager
byFaith magazine writes about philosopher and theologian Paul Helm, who “looks at global warming through the lens of Pascal.”
Pascal’s argument was that if the evidence for God’s existence is no stronger than the evidence against, you should wager on the side of faith-that was what seemed reasonable to him,” said Helm. “As a philosopher, I am redeploying Pascal’s wager argument to think about global warming. We should adopt forms of action that are sensible, whether it is determined that mankind is responsible for global warming or not.”
If you go to byFaith, you can see some contrary comments against this kind of thinking, and some for it. What do you think about “Helm’s wager”?
Topic: Issues, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top46 Comments to “Helm’s wager”
I think Helm is wagering too much of my money…
Report comment to moderator
Well, let me take that back.. depends on what he means by “sensible”. I would venture to say that Al Gore and his ilk would be “wagering” too much of my money.
Already, by admitting that “climate change” may not be caused by man, he has become a bit more “sensible” in my book…
No more of this stupid fear mongering “shoot the skeptic” crap OK? Let us indeed be sensible.
Report comment to moderator
I recall proposing a similarly constructed argument on this blog, only to be promptly shot down for the reasons MIM mentioned.
Pascal’s Wager was designed to make people think about alternatives, but it’s really not a convincing argument in any context. Essentially, the cost of action (working to prevent global warming) in the face of a non-crisis (global warming discovered to be not humanly caused) is always greater, to the people that the wager is trying to sway, than the wager implies.
I’d be interested to know if Pascal’s Wager has ever really converted anyone in the religious or environmental contexts.
Report comment to moderator
Pascal had the same problem as many Christians, in assuming that the only options are Christianity or atheism.
If you are persuaded by the wager that you should believe in God, you still face the question of which God, which religion. As I recall, Pascal’s Pensees did make a case for why it should be the Christian God, but extracting the wager in isolation loses all that context.
On the environment, even if global climate change is not happening, or not exacerbated by man, undertaking efforts to end our dependence on a finite, expensive fuel that is largely controlled by countries hostile to us makes infinite sense.
Report comment to moderator
“…undertaking efforts to end our dependence on a finite, expensive fuel that is largely controlled by countries hostile to us makes infinite sense.’
Now there is a perspective on the issue I can get behind….
Report comment to moderator
So did Mammoth flatulence cause the ice age to end? Or was it all that C02 from cavemen fires?
Report comment to moderator
Humidity fluctuations from Global Warming are this year’s version of El Nino as a cause for “bad hair days”
But not for this soldier. Gimme the Yul Brenner look with less hair to comb,more face to wash!
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
Yeah it’s a good argument but you don’t have to run to national security. Industrial pollution is harmful regardless of whether it is true that it causes global warming. Burning fewer fossil fuels will reduce SO2 pollution (infamous causer of acid rain), mercury pollution, and ground level Ozone (which is awesome in the upper atmosphere, but you aren’t supposed to be breathing it!).
Report comment to moderator
Part of the problem I have with the Global Warming industry is that it ignores the progress that we have already made in reducing pollution of all kinds. I know we have a long way to go, but let’s be positive about what we have already accomplished and about reasonable efforts for future progress.
I think most conservatives are totally behind reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and on cleaning our environment as much as we can. But we don’t want to buy into unproven theories to motivate us. And we want to way all of these efforts against their cost (not just the financial cost). We don’t want to give up every convenience, if we don’t have to. (In that way conservatives are more consistent overall than lierals, who tend to talk big about these issues but live just about as “ungreen” as conservatives overall.)
Report comment to moderator
We want to weigh not way all these efforts.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle,
Lynn buying a hybrid is not a substantial enough warrant for what you are shoveling!
Report comment to moderator
if the evidence for God’s existence is no stronger than the evidence against
I thought that no one cared about evidence. Isn’t that why they call it “faith”.
Report comment to moderator
If there is an argument about whether a fetus is human or not, we should err to the side of caution, assume it is, and protect it.
Report comment to moderator
“I thought that no one cared about evidence. Isn’t that why they call it “faith”.”
For the thousandth time, faith does not mean believing without or contrary to evidence. Once you learn what words like faith mean and how they are used in discussions, you can start using them to make meaningful contributions. I’m not holding my breath on your account.
Report comment to moderator
Ken,
“you can start using them to make meaningful contributions”
But you miss the entire point. RDean’s goal is not to CONTRIBUTE, only to DISRUPT. It cannot be otherwise because he knows most of his points are specious. Like all trolls, he merely revels in getting a rise out of somebody. I say we ignore him.
Report comment to moderator
Luke, touche. You are right in pointing out that conservatives don’t do nearly enough. I would assert that most people, liberal and conservative, could do better. It really irks me that many liberals drive SUV’s, heat and cool their homes, and mow their grass–but then insist that “somebody” needs to do “something” about global warming.
Report comment to moderator
The issue of human causation (or not) is vitally important.
If human causation is it, then the calls for dismantling the global economy and culling a couple fo billion people from the population through horrible deaths (the ultimate result of the proposed solutions) might end up being necessary.
If it is not it, we will need that intact global economy to pay for the moving of populations out of new floodways and such ameliorative actions.
Report comment to moderator
From the original article: Pascal’s argument was that if the evidence for God’s existence is no stronger than the evidence against, you should wager on the side of faith-that was what seemed reasonable to him,” said Helm.
Justus – That’s the point…..the evidence for God’s existence is so overwhelming, that people like Erasmus, Night Train, RDEAN, Hitchens, Dawkins, et al are disobedient to God’s Word.
RDEAN, we have faith in God and Jesus based on the plethora of evidence, Sir. If there is no evidence, why have faith in no supporting foundation of facts? Truth is an absolute concept. Something is either true, or it is not. Global warming, as Paul Helm challenges us to consider, is not the catastrophy that Al Snore makes it out to be. This fiasco about global warming is A) Al Gore’s last real chance at relevancy and B) A farce that even the founder of The Weather Channel said was the idea of a demented sociopath. Gore’s no authority of science in the same way the average atheist isn’t an authority about God’s existence.
Report comment to moderator
Gee Justus … if Pascal was saying the evidence for is equal to the evidence against, then it seems your saying the evidence for is so strong and overwhelming is actually not Pascal’s point at all.
Do you have some this evidence handy to show us?
Report comment to moderator
Here’s another interesting take on the issue of “global warming”:
Conservatives were supportive of a “pre-emptive” strike against Sadam Hussein on the grounds that he might have nuclear weapons, which was bad for mankind. They’ve also been supportive of all sort of extra ordinary measures like wire-tapping without warrant, detaining people, limiting constitutional rights, etc. in order to go after people on the theory they might do something bad.
One wishes conservatives were willing to extend some “pre-emption” to our environment and global warming. Given the dire consequences if we do nothing or let things get worse, you’d think they’d want to take even some modest action. You’d be wrong.
Instead we find most conservatives denying there even is a problem at all. They think all of the scientists are in some grand global conspiracy. A fair number of them are just flat-out anti-science. A few of them will admit there might be a problem (but still want to do nothing). An even smaller number agree there is a problem, but are fatalistic about it (”there’s nothing we can do”). A handful of them see the problem and want to do something about it. Their fellow conservatives consider them to be “nut jobs”.
The bottom line in my opinion is that the opposition from conservatives has to do with one thing: money. They don’t want to do anything that will cost them money or involve sacrifice for the good of everyone. As long as they have their money and can live comfortably, to heck with saving the planet or the environment. As long as their company makes money, why should they care if it pollutes the water or the air? They can buy Evian by the barrel and fly off to Aspen to escape the air pollution.
Report comment to moderator
I like Paul Helm. He is an outstanding lecturer and a really down to earth fellow. I think his stance on global warming is based on a bad memory of a hot day.
You see, my friend invited him out to Dentry’s Pub and he mistook it for Darby’s, which is 2.5 miles away. The weather was hot that day in Vancouver, so by the time Professor Helm arrived at Dentry’s he was sweating profusely and a little off put by his mistake. So who wouldn’t want a little cooler temps to take a stroll around Vancouver?
Anyway, Helm’s sentiment is correct when he says, “We must ask, ‘What can I do, even if I’m not causing global warming?’” My fear is that we will disregard the the poor and vulnerable while spending trillions of dollars to control the environment.
Report comment to moderator
*sigh* here we go again…….. Well Steve, I’m starting to think you like testing me, or that you’re hoping to see if I can think “outside the Bible” (sound familiar?).
First, might I point out that Pascal’s wager was based on IF the evidence for is equal to the evidence against God’s existence, then one must do something about it. Now, let’s understand something. I believe in God based on the evidence that affected me. I have no clue as to what you believe or don’t believe, Steve. I have an idea, but it might be incorrect, as I do not possess the amount of knowledge about you that I’d need to correctly assess your spiritual background. Nevertheless, far be it that I would avoid answering your query. I shall do so in the best way I know. 
The Bible says that “he who comes to God must believe that He is. . .” (Hebrews 11:6). In other words, there is a “faith” factor relative to a belief in God’s existence. But the dogmatic and bold assertion above is itself an expression of faith. It takes faith to believe God is, and it takes faith to say God is not. In my judgment, it takes even more faith for the atheist to believe in his position because he holds to his faith against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Christians also affirm God’s existence on the basis of faith, but it is a reasonable faith based on the true nature of the cosmos, not a blind faith. Oh, while I have that thought in my head, might I share something about atheism? I’m sure our blog buddies (Erasmus, Night Train, RDEAN and others) would get a kick out of this:
An atheist is a person who makes a bold assumption, “There is no God.” It is bold because it claims in an absolute manner what is not possible: i.e., the existence or non-existence of God cannot be proven absolutely. It is also bold because, in order to make such an assumption, an atheist would literally have to be God himself! He would need to possess the qualities and capabilities to travel the entire universe and examine every nook and cranny of it before he would ever qualify to hold such a dogmatic conclusion! Another curious thing about the atheist is that before he can identify himself as one, he must first acknowledge the very idea, or concept, or possibility of God so he can then deny His existence! David saw the fallacy of this long ago when he said, “Only the fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God.’” (Psalm 14:1). My kid brother, who I love dearly, professes to not believe in God, but even he cannot dispute that rationale about atheism.
I will begin by using the standard I use – The Bible. Romans 1:20 says: For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so they are without excuse.
Then there are moral laws, nature, Jesus’ ressurection (a historical fact).
Theism is a reasonable idea. Theologians have traditionally used several philosophical proofs in arguing for the existence of God. These arguments are not always persuasive, but that probably says as much about us as it does about the arguments. People most often reject God for reasons other than logic. These arguments, however, do provide insights that, while not PROVING the existence of God, do provide insights that may be used to show EVIDENCE of His existence. Steve, I really wish there was more room in this post for this discussion, but there isn’t. Is this satisfactory?
Peace to you.
Report comment to moderator
Justus at #22:
*sigh* here we go again…….. Well Steve, I’m starting to think you like testing me, or that you’re hoping to see if I can think “outside the Bible” (sound familiar?).
It’s fun, though, isn’t it? It should be fun.
First, might I point out that Pascal’s wager was based on IF the evidence for is equal to the evidence against God’s existence, then one must do something about it. Now, let’s understand something. I believe in God based on the evidence that affected me. I have no clue as to what you believe or don’t believe, Steve. I have an idea, but it might be incorrect, as I do not possess the amount of knowledge about you that I’d need to correctly assess your spiritual background.
Thumbnail history: Raised Christian, developed serious doubts in my late teens. Became an agnostic seeker, still very interested in religion, but unconvinced. Sought out people of various faiths to dialgue with. In my late 20s, after a crisis of sorts (death of a parent), went back into Christianity and stayed a few years. Same old doubts recurred (largely along two lines: my inability to reject discovered knowledge/science in favor of Scripture, and no answer to the question of why God’s true revelation should not be universal) … back into seeking and, over several years, settling into a hard-to-define Deism/Universalism/agnosticism.
(My tagging on of “agnosticism” there may seem strange, but by it I mean that while I believe certain things, I do not claim to know them.)
The Bible says that “he who comes to God must believe that He is. . .” (Hebrews 11:6). In other words, there is a “faith” factor relative to a belief in God’s existence.
I’d read that more as you have to believe in order to repent and be saved. That makes more sense to me than saying you have to believe in order to believe, which could be said to be true of any idea. Scientology no doubt makes perfect sense to those who choose to believe it, even though it looks like lunacy to those outside. Choosing to believe a priori implies closing your mind to contradictory information. I was never able to do that.
But the dogmatic and bold assertion above is itself an expression of faith. It takes faith to believe God is, and it takes faith to say God is not. In my judgment, it takes even more faith for the atheist to believe in his position because he holds to his faith against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Christians also affirm God’s existence on the basis of faith, but it is a reasonable faith based on the true nature of the cosmos, not a blind faith.
So far as the existence of a God goes, I agree with that. It doesn’t however demand it be the Christian’s particular idea of God.
Oh, while I have that thought in my head, might I share something about atheism? I’m sure our blog buddies (Erasmus, Night Train, RDEAN and others) would get a kick out of this:
An atheist is a person who makes a bold assumption, “There is no God.” It is bold because it claims in an absolute manner what is not possible: i.e., the existence or non-existence of God cannot be proven absolutely. It is also bold because, in order to make such an assumption, an atheist would literally have to be God himself! He would need to possess the qualities and capabilities to travel the entire universe and examine every nook and cranny of it before he would ever qualify to hold such a dogmatic conclusion!
I fully agree here. To say there is no God is as much a statement of faith as to say there is. I don’t believe I have ever been an atheist. Agnosticism simply means I don’t claim to know one way or another … it is the only position that requires no faith.
Another curious thing about the atheist is that before he can identify himself as one, he must first acknowledge the very idea, or concept, or possibility of God so he can then deny His existence! David saw the fallacy of this long ago when he said, “Only the fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God.’” (Psalm 14:1). My kid brother, who I love dearly, professes to not believe in God, but even he cannot dispute that rationale about atheism.
I’m not sure that’s so impressive. The idea of God obviously exists. So does the idea of pink unicorns.
I will begin by using the standard I use – The Bible. Romans 1:20 says: For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so they are without excuse.
Agreed. All this is observed and universal and falls into the category of general revelation.
Then there are moral laws, nature,
Same as above.
Jesus’ ressurection (a historical fact).
Well there’s where the waters muddy. It’s a claimed historical fact. Some have argued it’s well-attested to, but in truth the only evidence there is is a few writings that make the claim that a few people saw him alive.
It’s not impossible, if one admits the possibility of a miracle-working God, but the case has not been made well enough for me.
In The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine writes that the historical existence of Jesus is not in doubt. But he goes on to say:
[BEGIN PAINE]
But the resurrection of a dead person from the grave, and his ascension through the air, is a thing very different, as to the evidence it admits of, to the invisible conception of a child in the womb. The resurrection and ascension, supposing them to have taken place, admitted of public and ocular demonstration, like that of the ascension of a balloon, or the sun at noon day, to all Jerusalem at least. A thing which everybody is required to believe, requires that the proof and evidence of it should be equal to all, and universal; and as the public visibility of this last related act was the only evidence that could give sanction to the former part, the whole of it falls to the ground, because that evidence never was given. Instead of this, a small number of persons, not more than eight or nine, are introduced as proxies for the whole world, to say they saw it, and all the rest of the world are called upon to believe it. But it appears that Thomas did not believe the resurrection; and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I; and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas.
[END PAINE]
Theism is a reasonable idea. Theologians have traditionally used several philosophical proofs in arguing for the existence of God. These arguments are not always persuasive, but that probably says as much about us as it does about the arguments.
Some are better than others. The ontological argument — that God must exist because God is perfect and non-existence would contradict perfection — is incoherent nonesense. The First Cause argument is more persuasive to me.
People most often reject God for reasons other than logic.
Perhaps. I can see some reason to suggest that, but I don’t know that it’s universally true.
These arguments, however, do provide insights that, while not PROVING the existence of God, do provide insights that may be used to show EVIDENCE of His existence. Steve, I really wish there was more room in this post for this discussion, but there isn’t. Is this satisfactory?
Thanks! It’s a good response.
Report comment to moderator
Steve, as I’ve posted before……I do appreciate our discussions and interaction on WoW.
Even on those occasions we disagree, I find you to be intellectually challenging.
Well done, Steve!
Report comment to moderator
ps: pink UNICORNS??? Oh, I was hoping you’d say pink peppercorns. That makes for a good chicken piccata!
Report comment to moderator
4: Pascal had the same problem as many Christians, in assuming that the only options are Christianity or atheism.
There are only two kinds of people in the world; 1) those who believe there are only two kinds of people in the world and 2) those who don’t. The minimum number of possible choices is two; there can’t be less. Even Jesus kept the number of options to a minimum. He said you’re either for him or against him. He either knows you or doesn’t know you. You’re either dead or alive. But people, being what they are, will never be satisfied with two choices and will insist on more.
Report comment to moderator
But CCC, there are more. If you become convinced God exists, you still have Judaism, Christian, Islam, Deism and their various offshoots (Baha’i, Mormonism, Jehova’s Witness, etc.) to choose among. And if you become convinced that there’s some sort of divine force but only possibly a definable God, you can add Buddhism and other Eastern faiths to the mix, along with Wicca. And that’s even before considering the various polytheisitic systems.
This binary option — Christianity or atheism — denies the reality of religious diversity. And it’s usually premised on the assumption that of course Christianity is true, how could anyone think otherwise?
The choice is just not that simple.
Report comment to moderator
I am apalled at Helm’s understanding of Pascal’s Wager. For those of you who care, Pascal’s Wager is categorized today as belonging to the class of n-alternative zero sum games. That is, while the original form of the wager assumed two alternatives, that is an artificial distinction. The wager works just as well with N alternatives–only one of which is the existence of God as described in the Bible. So SteveG’s suggestion that you need to worry about which God is spurious and nonsense.
The second and most important point is that when Pascal’s Wager is cast as a zero sum game, it becomes immediately clear that there are two values that are crucial–the probability that a choice (e.g, God exists) is true and the outcome value if that choice is true. Consider the following:
1a. Probability that Judeo-Christian God exists = (you choose a value between 0 and 1.0 based on evidence as you understand it).
1b. Probability that Odin or some other God exists = (Same as 1a above)
1c. Probability that no God exists = 1.0 – 1a – 1b (i.e., sum of probabilities across all hypotheses must equal 1.0)
2a. Value of Life if Judeo-Christian God does not exist and you believe = 1.00 (arbitrary number, but useful to set a baseline for the zero sum game).
2b. Value of Life if Judeo-Christian God does not exist and you do not believe = 1.00 (same as 2a)
2c. Value of Life if Judeo-Christian God does exist and you believe = + Googolplex (some arbitrary positive number so large it is difficult to imagine–implied by descriptions in Bible)
2d. Value of Life if Judeo-Christian God does exist and you do not believe or believe in some other god = – Googolplex (by same rationale as 2c).
3a through 3d: Same as 2a through 2d except the God is Odin or whatever (you have to set these values as I don’t remember what Valhalla is like).
Expected Value (EV1) if you believe Judeo-Christian God exists:
EV1 = (1a value)*(+Googolplex) + 1.0*(1c value) + sum of products for any other gods postulated.
EV1 = a very large positive number unless 1a is set to 0.0.
Expected Value (EV2) if you believe no god exists:
EV2 = (1a value)*(-Googolplex) + 1.0*(1c value) + sum of products for any other gods postulated.
EV2 = a very large negative number unless 1a is set to 0.0.
EV3 to EVn computed for any other gods in the same way.
The above explains why Pascal believed it was the most persuasive argument for belief for the rational person. That is, no rational person would ever set the value of 1a to 0.0 and no matter how close to O.O the probability of God’s existence is, belief is still the rational choice.
So Helm’s statement that if “evidence for God’s existence is no stronger than the evidence against, you should wager on the side of faith” does not correctly characterize Pascal’s Wager. The correct version is: Even if evidence for God’s existence is very, very close to zero, but still not zero, then you should wager on the side of faith if you are rational. If you are irrational, that’s another story.
Report comment to moderator
“Spurious and nonsense.” I beg to differ. No, I insist on differing.
Pascal wisely presented the wager as a binary choice because, as your formulae show, to do otherwise quickly become so complex as to be useless.
Say you consider only the options observed by mainstream religions that exist today. Your options include:
God exists and is One, with no human avatars. (Judaism.)
God exists and Mohammed is His prophet. (Islam, and you can break it down to Shi’a and Sunni if you like.)
God exists as a Trinity and Christ is his Messiah. (Christianity, and you can break that down into Catholicism, Orthodox and Protestant or even more granularly if you like.)
God exists and Baha’u'llah is his latest prophet. (Baha’i.)
God exists but not as any revealed religion describes. (Deism).
God exists and provided a New New Testament to Joseph Smith. (Mormonism.)
God exists but traditional Christianity has made some mistakes. (Jehovah’s Witness, Seventh-Day Adventism.)
God doesn’t exist, but space alien Xenu yadda yadda (whatever the heck it is Scientologists believe.)
God doesn’t exist but the Earth has a spiritual reality. (Wicca, Paganism and variants.)
God doesn’t exist, but the Eightfold Path brings enlightenment. (Buddhism.)
Many gods exist. (Hinduism.)
The universe is only the material physical manifestation. (Atheism.)
There are probably some I’m missing, and the picture becomes even more complex if you consider the possibility that maybe the ancient Greeks, Romans or Vikings were right all along.)
It should be obvious that if you’re going to parse out probabilities for all of those options and consider the Wager, you will need a very big calculator. And at the end of it, I would expect that most people end up concluding that the most likely probability is whatever they wanted to believe in the first place.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Please re-read Kyle A at #9.
I find I quite agree with him, and I think your stereotypes are innacurate.
Report comment to moderator
You can wager all you want. It’s not real money.
Report comment to moderator
#29 (STEVEG): “Spurious and nonsense.” I beg to differ. No, I insist on differing. Pascal wisely presented the wager as a binary choice because, as your formulae show, to do otherwise quickly become so complex as to be useless.
Not complex at all as you so clearly demonstrated in your post. You simply define the list of entities, assign the subjective probabilities based on your experience, set the value of each conditional outcome based your understanding of the associated religion and then sum the products to get the expected values. We do it all the time whenever we compute an average, center of mass, centroid, or any other mathematical or statistical measure of central tendency. If you want complex, then solve the n-body or many-body problems–that’s what we mean by complex.
Once it is understood that Pascal’s Wager is modeled by a n-alternative, zero sum game, the solution when there are n-1 gods and no-god (nth alternative) is straight-forward and known. The n-alternative zero sum game model has the added advantage of highlighting the real issue, which is deciding what probabilities to assign to each of the mutually exculsive alternatives.
It also confronts the atheist and the agnostic with the reality of their choices. The only way to avoid a rational choice for the God of the Bible is to set the subjective probability of His existence to zero. By mathematical necessity, the rational agnostic is, by definition in this system, in a completely untenable situation. He/she insists that the existence of God is unknowable implying that Prob(God exists) > 0.0 and thereby forcing a choice for God’s existence.
The atheist, rationally, is in a slightly better position as he/she asserts the Prob(God exists) == 0.0. However, as others have suggested on this thread, that means the atheist is charged with the impossible–proving that Prob(God exists) == 0.0, which is impossible to do. Again, with all due respect to the god of rationality which all you atheists and agnostics worship, you are sinning in the eyes of your god. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Report comment to moderator
The only way to avoid a rational choice for the God of the Bible is to set the subjective probability of His existence to zero.
That’s also the only way to avoid a rational choice for Allah, or for the God of the Jews who hasn’t sent Messiah yet. It proves nothing.
Report comment to moderator
#33 (STEVEG): You are absolutely right since heaven and hell exist in the respective theologies. So, if you are an agnostic, you are on the horns of a trilemma. Choose wrong and you suffer eternal torment, but you must choose…if you are rational. It would seem, therefore, that the true agnostic has a tremendous burden of angst until the truth is resolved. Times awastin’…get crackin’ as my father used to say.
On the other hand, Jesus says, “I AM the way, the truth, and the light. NO ONE comes unto the Father except by me.”
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave at #34: On the other hand, Jesus says, “I AM the way, the truth, and the light. NO ONE comes unto the Father except by me.”
So one of the books reports anyway. On the other hand, Allah says “There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His prophet.”
And the Jews say, “Messiah? What Messiah? Messiah has not yet come. Oy.”
It’s actually a quadrilemma at least, because of the possibility that God is One and never planned to send any human emissaries, so that people who are either awaiting one or think they have already identified one are mistaken.
And since heaven and hell rest on making the right decision (at least in the first three options) I wonder how confident you are in your decision. Quite sure, I am sure, but on what basis?
Report comment to moderator
#35(STEVEG): It comes down to the subjective probabilities, doesn’t it. What are those based upon? I, like you, began to question the existence of God at about the age of 15. My ostensive reasons were the hypocracy of the church, the non-inerrancy of scripture, the truth of evolution, the presence of liberal pastors who I regarded as taking money under false pretenses, etc. (it was actually simple rebellion against God, but I did not acknowledge that until much later). So, for the next seventeen years, I renounced God and proclaimed my self an atheist. Then, at age 33 or so (I was a graduate student at the time), the impact of “Big Bang” cosmology finally intruded on my conscious, I was confronted with the clear implications of the incredible complexity of DNA and its clear resemblance to a powerful self-maintaining, self-replicating computational device, my studies in probability theory that suggested that the foundations of evolutionary theory were all but non-existant, and so on to the point that every argument that I had built against God was reduced to dust and ashes.
Then I discovered that the Biblical texts were far more reliable than I had ever imagined or been led to believe by the liberal pastors I had listened to. In short, every intellectual argument I had regarding God’s non-existence was systematically rendered silly and unsustainable. I wish I could say that I saw the error of my choice, and recanted on my own, but that was not the case. I continued to resist out of sheer rebellion and stubbornness until God intervened directly. Once I encountered God through His Holy Spirit, I repented and returned to Him.
How did I choose among Islam, Judaism, and Christianity? Remember, I had discovered that the stuff from the higher critics regarding authorship of books in the Bible was, at best, wild speculation and at worst, sheer rubbish pushed by non-believing theologians. Once that was established, the words of John’s Gospel and the unifying themes of the Old and New Testament were sufficient evidence that the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus Christ was the one and true God worthy of worship.
Report comment to moderator
As I said before, you can wager all you want; it’s not real money.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave wrote: 28: “Pascal’s Wager is categorized today as belonging to the class of n-alternative zero sum games. That is, while the original form of the wager assumed two alternatives, that is an artificial distinction.”
Pascal’s wager also requires the bettor to play with a full deck of cards. The number of alternatives (n) is irrelevant; it’s whether the alternatives are mutually inclusive or exclusive. As it is, the world is awash in deniers of the law of noncontradiction and the belief that truth is relative. If all relativists exercised the same logic when crossing the street as they do when considering Pascal’s wager, there would be no one left to debate.
Everyone has there own Truth frame of reference. For the atheist, their Truth is atheism and anyone who denies the essentials of their Truth is a non-atheist (what the non-atheist believes, at this point, is irrelevant.) After all, atheism can’t be both true and not true at the same time and in the same relation. The same mutual exclusion applies to every religion. If I’m a Christian and someone denies the essentials of Christianity, the only possible way to describe them is as non-Christian. The mutual exclusivity of the alternatives is essential to Pascal’s wager making any sense.
Report comment to moderator
CCC — If all relativists exercised the same logic when crossing the street as they do when considering Pascal’s wager, there would be no one left to debate.
Roger — Bingo. When nothing is at risk, wagers are merely fun little games.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG,
So based on your PAINE post(#23), you don’t believe in the resurrection because you can’t see or touch Jesus for yourself. Do I have that right?
I think one problem with Paine’s discourse is that he is referring to Thomas as an example of needing ocular and manual demonstration. That means he is taking Thomas and the account of Thomas as a historical account of a historical person. So does he only take that portion of the account – Thomas not believing – and not the other portion of the account – Thomas seeing, touching and believing – as true? I think Paine really does have enough evidence to believe, he just chooses not to trust that portion of the story that is supernatural.
(By the way, Paul said that more than 500 people saw Jesus after the resurrection, so it wasn’t only 8 or nine as Paine claims)
Report comment to moderator
Well, this is all very philosophical, and veering towards abstract. But I don’t believe you can convince people on those grounds. Paul had a little success on Mars Hill, but not much. And afterwards he decided to change tactics.
Christianity is true when God has spoken to you directly. You’ve seen true followers, and seen that there are both genuine (converted) and pretentious (unconverted) Christians. You decide the true ones have something you want. Maybe you have the extra incentive of believing prophecy counts for something, or maybe someone has prayed for you or someone you know, and miracle of miracles, it works. Perhaps you’re just convinced that God’s principles of love excel everything else you’ve heard. Etc. What I’m trying to say is, it doesn’t boil down to abstract theory about the probability of this or that. It’s about being true to my own encounter with divine truth. If you’ve had no such encounter, time to pray for one. Otherwise, EVEN IF YOU DECIDE TO BELIEVE ALL THIS, you’re still lost. Bummer.
Report comment to moderator
SBG at #40: The Paine quote suffers a bit from being excerpted, but it’s part of a larger argument he makes about the nature of special revelation.
In summary, he argues that a special revelation is only a revelation to the person who directly receives it. To everyone else, it’s hearsay.
In this passage he’s contrasting the virgin birth narratives to the resurrection. The birth narratives, he argues, are purely based on special revelation. God speaks to the principal figures in dreams … meaning nobody but the dreamer knows for sure what was said. There is no expectation or possibility of any external support, because of the hidden nature of the revelations.
He argues the resurrection, and, particularly, the ascension, would have been a publicly seen event had it happened, and that’s the part I quoted.
(By the way, Paul said that more than 500 people saw Jesus after the resurrection, so it wasn’t only 8 or nine as Paine claims)
Paul said. None of the 500 apparently ever spoke for themselves. Paine does not treat that assertion specifically, but it plays into his point. We don’t have 500 accounts from people who saw Jesus post-crucifixion. We have Paul saying that number saw him. Paine would say this is hearsay evidence at best.
Report comment to moderator
Incidentally, The Age of Reason is available online here and at a few other sites, if you want to see more for yourself than it’s practical quote here.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG,
Maybe you missed my main point. Paine refers to Thomas’ unbelief as if he is a historical person and that his unbelief is historical. The only way we know about Thomas’ unbelief is because of John’s testimony. So Paine thinks John’s testimony alone about Thomas’ unbelief is enough evidence but John’s testimony about his subsequent seeing, touching and believing is not enough evidence.
History is not the same as a court of law because we can’t cross examine and we can’t bring in more witnesses or take more depositions than what we already have. Maybe some day we will dig up more scrolls but I doubt that would change anyone’s mind. If you think it is reasonable to believe that the evidence we have is not reliable, then I just have to pray that these discussions and conversations with other Christians may help to change your mind.
Report comment to moderator
I understood what you meant, but I wanted to try to put that excerpt into its full context. I think Paine rather is using the story of Thomas, whether true or not, as an example of the reasonableness of wanting to see something so fantastic for yourself rather than depend on someone else’s story as a sole basis for belief.
I don’t think it means Paine is expecting the wounded Christ to appear before him; I think it ties into his larger argument that those things about God that are both true and necessary for all, God has already revealed universally and objectively.
As for your second point, I’m always open to having my mind changed, but my experience with Internet debate forums like this is that it rarely happens. It does happen, but not often. The value, I think, is in honing and refining your own arguments, having weaknesses pointed out so you can patch them, and just the fun of arguing ideas.
When minds do change, it’s usually when there’s more going on in the person’s life than just the debate, though that can be the catalyst.
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG,
PAINE – “Thomas did not believe the resurrection; and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I; and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas.”
He says the same reason that Thomas would not believe is the same reason for him not to believe. He cannot see or touch Jesus so he won’t believe. I will re-read The Age of Reason but I believe he is treating the account of Thomas as historical. You’re right, it is a reasonable desire just as Peter and John had to run to the tomb to make sure it was empty for themselves. But would it be reasonable to demand that God reveal Himself to every single person in the same way in every generation? I think He has given us enough evidence as it is in the New Testament. Jesus said “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”.
STEVEG – “those things about God that are both true and necessary for all, God has already revealed universally and objectively.”
So what about your atheist, Buddhist or Hindu friends? If what God has revealed is necessary for all, and it’s universal and objective, then what happens to them? Hebrews 11:6 – “anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.” One of the problems with universal salvation is it supports the idea that God rewards those who don’t earnestly seek Him.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!