Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Charlemagne]

Why would it be LOGICALLY INFALLIBLE to be convinced there is no God and no judgment awaiting us at the end of life?

Okay, I'm sure that this is a reasonable question but, to me, it reveals kind of the simplest and best argument against Pascal's Wager. That is, that Pascal's Wager assumes facts not in evidence. If you don't have a concept of God reasonably close to Pascal's, the question can go from confusing to moot. For instance, if your religious belief is that you are conceived by a deity which conceives the entire natural environment then the wager is absurd. If you exist, God exists - actually you can flip that around. If you believe in a unitary Prophet, then the wager is maybe a bit less nonsensical but is also largely moot. If the Prophet didn't say it, it's not a rational question about the Nature of God.

These are just examples, not meant to get into the weeds about a particular religion.

But in non way did you answer my question. Please look at the question again. Is it logically infallible to be an atheist? In other words, could atheism be false?

[Dlaw]

Let me try to answer that with a continuum:

Let's start with Iron Man, then God, then The White Whale from Moby Dick. The dynamic here is jumping off the precipice of conjecture into the abyss of conclusion.

If you believe, as a child may, that Iron Man is a real person then you pretty much start out in the abyss. A question of whether Iron Man is real or not doesn't rationally exist. The people who created Iron Man deliberately created a fantasy for fun.

Let's move on, gingerly, to God. The concept of a God or Gods BARELY clings to the edge of the precipice, but we'll return to that.

The White Whale is at least plausible. There are whales, there were whales, so an albino whale is possible. Whaling certainly existed and because whalers came into contact with so many whales (cuz there were so many more then) they saw behaviors that we don't currently see. So Moby Dick inches away from the cliff edge on that score. Most importantly, the narrative is meant to make points about people rather than whales - many points over many, many pages so we're a couple of paces away from the precipice now.

I've think there is at least a rational argument for a pre-Big-Bang sort of order in the Universe but parting the Red Sea? Well, I'm pretty sure some character in the Marvel universe could part the Red Sea but, you know, see the abyss above. This is the problem with Gods: they inevitably gather around them facts not in evidence. They try to exist in the worlds of philosophical conjecture teetering and wild cultural myths at the same time. We Atheists are somehow meant to deal with this impossible structure.

The problem with your question is "judgement". It doesn't belong in the question and it didn't belong in the wager. Probabilistically it's like playing Rock, Paper, Scissors against someone who is holding a real rock and will hit you with it if you throw scissors. You don't throw scissors. You don't care if it kills your odds of winning. The rock doesn't belong in the game and neither does eternal damnation belong in the wager.

So as a philosophical matter, is the atheist viewpoint infallible, yes - disappointingly so. But atheism may be moot as a human matter. It may be that belief in a supernatural Mother or Father is totally baked in to our concept of the world. It might be a product of the evolution of our brains and/or of our social nature. But I feel that because atheism is facially infallible it's moot (there's a chance I may have used that word too often). God is a social fact, the question is whether the ideas attached to God are healthy and beneficial. There's also a meaningful question of whether the narrative flows nicely.

[Charlemagne]

You've raised too many questions needing book-length answers.

I cut to the chase. It doesn't really matter whether a white whale or an Iron Man really do exist. They are obviously modern invention created for our entertainment.

God cannot be a modern invention, because the need to worship (whether a true God or false gods) is as old as the human race. As you say, it's baked in. But if there really is a God, why wouldn't worship be baked in? If there is no God, why would it be baked in? God, though never revealing himself fully, is subtle. He invites us to believe in him. This invitation is a calculated one. "Come to know me and be worthy of me or refuse to come. If you come, there will be reward because you have acknowledged your Creator. If you stay away, you will be full of regret for your base ingratitude. Your choice."

This is Pascal's God. If you don't like him, as you say, the narrative does not flow nicely.

So the only way this proposition of the wager can be defeated is to deny infallibly that God exists to make it.

But on what grounds can you say you are infallibly certain that God does not exist? You still have not answered.

[Dlaw]

But on what grounds can you say you are infallibly certain that God does not exist? You still have not answered.

The more we know about the Universe, the more impossible God becomes, even if we strip the concept down to the bare essentials - which Pascal doesn't do.

Whatever promise Scripture tells us to make, whatever threat of judgement Scripture tells us is real, is moot. The more that's attributed to God, the more impossible He becomes.

Our *tendency* to worship a Sky Mother or a Sky Father is probably baked into our brains, not anything else.

Net, you have an idea for which you have to reject all attributions except "humans tend to believe this". In terms of the reality of the notion, all that's left is so thin that there's almost nothing left and as soon as you start building up a more substantial idea you've destroyed your own argument because you have to posit a God that COULD exist and that's almost impossible.

[Dlaw]

Oh, sorry, God is definitely a modern invention because God and Gods keep changing. There's no stable idea of God that doesn't have self-destroying attributions.

[Charlemagne]

Oh, sorry, God is definitely a modern invention because God and Gods keep changing. There's no stable idea of God that doesn't have self-destroying attributions.

The need of humans to worship is well documented to be prehistoric, not modern. Yes, many different religions have risen and fallen because they were false. The need to worship has not fallen, though it has been strongly resisted in modern times. It is not religion that will destroy itself, but atheism that may destroy us all if it finds a way to destroy all religion. At its heart, atheism has no sacred principles to advance or defend. The invention of nuclear weapons was not ordered by the Vatican. It was ordered and done by men who did not believe in the sacredness of life. The millions of babies aborted each year worldwide was not ordered by the Vatican. It was ordered and done by those who do not believe in the sacredness of life and have no fear that there will be a dreadful accounting for them when they leave this world, because they believe there is neither a God nor a next world. How they can know this for an infallible certainty escapes me.

[LuckyR]

Oh, sorry, God is definitely a modern invention because God and Gods keep changing. There's no stable idea of God that doesn't have self-destroying attributions.

The need of humans to worship is well documented to be prehistoric, not modern. Yes, many different religions have risen and fallen because they were false. The need to worship has not fallen, though it has been strongly resisted in modern times. It is not religion that will destroy itself, but atheism that may destroy us all if it finds a way to destroy all religion. At its heart, atheism has no sacred principles to advance or defend. The invention of nuclear weapons was not ordered by the Vatican. It was ordered and done by men who did not believe in the sacredness of life. The millions of babies aborted each year worldwide was not ordered by the Vatican. It was ordered and done by those who do not believe in the sacredness of life and have no fear that there will be a dreadful accounting for them when they leave this world, because they believe there is neither a God nor a next world. How they can know this for an infallible certainty escapes me.

Uummm... the vast majority of those choosing abortion are theists (particularly Catholics) not atheists.

[Dlaw]

The need of humans to worship is well documented to be prehistoric, not modern. Yes, many different religions have risen and fallen because they were false. The need to worship has not fallen, though it has been strongly resisted in modern times.

Well, Christianity and Islam have done very well since the during the last 1700 years or so but that really has more to do with the incredible acceleration in the size and complexity of societies during that time, doesn't it? The Vikings conquered huge swaths of territory but nobody remembers what their religion was about. The Abassid caliiphate on the other hand consolidated major religion that is today's faster-growing.

As for the "resistance" to the major religions I think the problem is that they are relics. They're just too old not to get things wrong all the time.

It is not religion that will destroy itself, but atheism that may destroy us all if it finds a way to destroy all religion. At its heart, atheism has no sacred principles to advance or defend. The invention of nuclear weapons was not ordered by the Vatican. It was ordered and done by men who did not believe in the sacredness of life. The millions of babies aborted each year worldwide was not ordered by the Vatican. It was ordered and done by those who do not believe in the sacredness of life and have no fear that there will be a dreadful accounting for them when they leave this world, because they believe there is neither a God nor a next world. How they can know this for an infallible certainty escapes me.

I think religious people have it backwards: they start with ideas of dread, vengeance and and redemption and THEN assign a God to fix them. It's much the same with Pascal's Wager: it starts with the ideas of judgement and damnation and then tries to sneak in a true God.

[Moreno]

Blaise Pascal was a famous 17th century mathematician, physicist, inventor, philosopher, and theologian.

He is remembered for his Wager Argument for believing in God. He argued that, in the absence of proof positive that God does or does not exist, it is better to bet on the existence of God than to bet against the existence of God. If we are wrong, we lose nothing. If we are right, we stand to gain everything. It is an argument designed for the atheist to consider, not the person who already believes. It is the single argument that the skeptic Bertrand Russell did not attack in any published statements that I can find.

Your thoughts?

I just wanted to clarify that Pascal was not saying that if you lack a belief in God, you should (somehow) decide to have that belief, just in case. The wager was aimed at theists and saying, to put it colloquially...Hey, you might was well keep going with that belief, because you've got nothing to lose.

[Charlemagne]

Oh, sorry, God is definitely a modern invention because God and Gods keep changing. There's no stable idea of God that doesn't have self-destroying attributions.

The need of humans to worship is well documented to be prehistoric, not modern. Yes, many different religions have risen and fallen because they were false. The need to worship has not fallen, though it has been strongly resisted in modern times. It is not religion that will destroy itself, but atheism that may destroy us all if it finds a way to destroy all religion. At its heart, atheism has no sacred principles to advance or defend. The invention of nuclear weapons was not ordered by the Vatican. It was ordered and done by men who did not believe in the sacredness of life. The millions of babies aborted each year worldwide was not ordered by the Vatican. It was ordered and done by those who do not believe in the sacredness of life and have no fear that there will be a dreadful accounting for them when they leave this world, because they believe there is neither a God nor a next world. How they can know this for an infallible certainty escapes me.

Uummm... the vast majority of those choosing abortion are theists (particularly Catholics) not atheists.

It is by and large Catholics and the Catholic Church that oppose abortion. I'm not aware that atheists by and large do.

[Charlemagne]

The need of humans to worship is well documented to be prehistoric, not modern. Yes, many different religions have risen and fallen because they were false. The need to worship has not fallen, though it has been strongly resisted in modern times.

Well, Christianity and Islam have done very well since the during the last 1700 years or so but that really has more to do with the incredible acceleration in the size and complexity of societies during that time, doesn't it? The Vikings conquered huge swaths of territory but nobody remembers what their religion was about. The Abassid caliiphate on the other hand consolidated major religion that is today's faster-growing.

As for the "resistance" to the major religions I think the problem is that they are relics. They're just too old not to get things wrong all the time.

It is not religion that will destroy itself, but atheism that may destroy us all if it finds a way to destroy all religion. At its heart, atheism has no sacred principles to advance or defend. The invention of nuclear weapons was not ordered by the Vatican. It was ordered and done by men who did not believe in the sacredness of life. The millions of babies aborted each year worldwide was not ordered by the Vatican. It was ordered and done by those who do not believe in the sacredness of life and have no fear that there will be a dreadful accounting for them when they leave this world, because they believe there is neither a God nor a next world. How they can know this for an infallible certainty escapes me.

I think religious people have it backwards: they start with ideas of dread, vengeance and and redemption and THEN assign a God to fix them. It's much the same with Pascal's Wager: it starts with the ideas of judgement and damnation and then tries to sneak in a true God.

Not really. We start with a belief in God, and then try to make sense of everything else through that God.

Matthew 10:32-33
"Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly father."

You forgot to mention that both salvation and damnation are offered.

[Charlemagne]

As for the "resistance" to the major religions I think the problem is that they are relics. They're just too old not to get things wrong all the time.

Here in the United States that is the regular Marxist line. "The U.S. Constitution is just too old not to get things wrong all the time. Let's scrap it and start from scratch. A recipe for hell on earth.

[Moreno]

Why would it be LOGICALLY INFALLIBLE to be convinced there is no God and no judgment awaiting us at the end of life?

Okay, I'm sure that this is a reasonable question but, to me, it reveals kind of the simplest and best argument against Pascal's Wager. That is, that Pascal's Wager assumes facts not in evidence. If you don't have a concept of God reasonably close to Pascal's, the question can go from confusing to moot. For instance, if your religious belief is that you are conceived by a deity which conceives the entire natural environment then the wager is absurd. If you exist, God exists - actually you can flip that around. If you believe in a unitary Prophet, then the wager is maybe a bit less nonsensical but is also largely moot. If the Prophet didn't say it, it's not a rational question about the Nature of God.

These are just examples, not meant to get into the weeds about a particular religion.

But in non way did you answer my question. Please look at the question again. Is it logically infallible to be an atheist? In other words, could atheism be false?

I know this has come up in many different ways but even the wording of that sentence, to me, is confused. Let's aim it at theists. Is it logically infallible to be a theist? Being a theist is neither logical or illogical. ARguments are logical or not. For example, someone could be a theist because he prayed for money and later that day he won 50 bucks on a lottery. (this is not a jab at theists, I happen to be one, bear with me here). So, he says to his friends. I now believe in God. I prayed for money and I got some. That is the only way that could have happened. There must be a God, there is no other explanation. Well, I think that argument has logical problems. The argument. If he simply believes that is not an argument. If he has faith, for example, that is not an argument. If his experiences, in some way, have led to him being a theist, well that's neither logical or illogical. It just is. That is the effect of his experiences. But if he makes an argument that his experiences demonstrate the existence of God, he may or may not be being logical.

So it is with atheists.

And remember logic doesn't resolve everything.

Some native american who describes one of the first European ships to appear for his tribe may mount a perfectly logical argument that it was an enormous closed canoe like object with humans on board that could throw fire. Some of this tribe members could argue, quite logically that is more likely he hallucinated.

[Charlemagne]

Why would it be LOGICALLY INFALLIBLE to be convinced there is no God and no judgment awaiting us at the end of life?

Okay, I'm sure that this is a reasonable question but, to me, it reveals kind of the simplest and best argument against Pascal's Wager. That is, that Pascal's Wager assumes facts not in evidence. If you don't have a concept of God reasonably close to Pascal's, the question can go from confusing to moot. For instance, if your religious belief is that you are conceived by a deity which conceives the entire natural environment then the wager is absurd. If you exist, God exists - actually you can flip that around. If you believe in a unitary Prophet, then the wager is maybe a bit less nonsensical but is also largely moot. If the Prophet didn't say it, it's not a rational question about the Nature of God.

These are just examples, not meant to get into the weeds about a particular religion.

But in non way did you answer my question. Please look at the question again. Is it logically infallible to be an atheist? In other words, could atheism be false?

I know this has come up in many different ways but even the wording of that sentence, to me, is confused. Let's aim it at theists. Is it logically infallible to be a theist? Being a theist is neither logical or illogical. ARguments are logical or not. For example, someone could be a theist because he prayed for money and later that day he won 50 bucks on a lottery. (this is not a jab at theists, I happen to be one, bear with me here). So, he says to his friends. I now believe in God. I prayed for money and I got some. That is the only way that could have happened. There must be a God, there is no other explanation. Well, I think that argument has logical problems. The argument. If he simply believes that is not an argument. If he has faith, for example, that is not an argument. If his experiences, in some way, have led to him being a theist, well that's neither logical or illogical. It just is. That is the effect of his experiences. But if he makes an argument that his experiences demonstrate the existence of God, he may or may not be being logical.

So it is with atheists.

And remember logic doesn't resolve everything.

Some native american who describes one of the first European ships to appear for his tribe may mount a perfectly logical argument that it was an enormous closed canoe like object with humans on board that could throw fire. Some of this tribe members could argue, quite logically that is more likely he hallucinated.

I'll ask again for the last time. Are you infallibly certain there is no God? Yes or no will suffice.

If you read my article here, you will find that a yes answer will set you at odds with many great thinkers. Perhaps you will have enough respect for them to consider their points of view.

[Charlemagne]

Here is the article to which I just alluded.

https://catholicinsight.com/science-and-religio