Russian Roulette and Pascal’s Wager

_{Mark

July 2, 2009

Atheism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

According to Allen McNeil the Gallup poll results for American scientists are:

Young-Earth Creationist = 5%

Guided Evolution = 40%

“Naturalistic” Evolution = 55%

For members of the National Academy of Sciences*, the results are:

Young-Earth Creationist = 3%

Guided Evolution = 14%

“Naturalistic” Evolution = 83%

*data from the Cornell Evolution Project, http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org

So here’s how I read it. One in six of the most accomplished living scientists believe in a living God responsible for the creation of mankind.

Pascal compares the risks of belief and disbelief:

1) If I disbelieve in God and I’m wrong, I lose everything.
2) If I disbelieve in God and I’m right, I gain nothing.
3) If I believe in God and I’m wrong, I lose nothing.
4) If I believe in God and I’m right, I gain everything.

The only rational position to take is #4 where you have everything to gain and nothing to lose. That is Pascal’s Wager.

Now if we take our odds of God being real from the greatest living scientists we find the odds of God being real are 1 in 6 (17%). So this is essentially like playing Russian Roulette with a 6-shot revolver with one bullet in it. If you pull the trigger and nothing happens you gain nothing but if you pull the trigger and the gun fires you lose your life. Why play that game? Even if the odds were a thousand or a million to one against getting a bullet in the head why play?

Dave Scott

Comments

Seversky, How do you arrive at the conclusion that morals have no objective existence? If not, where do they come from?William J. Murray_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

In my view, the word "truth", as sometimes used here, is misleading. I would argue that there is an objective reality outside each of us about which we have only limited knowledge. What we call "truth" consists in the degree to which our descriptions and explanations of that reality can be shown to correspond to it. Since our knowledge of that reality is partial and there can be a number of competing explanations for what is observed, to that extent truth is relative. On this interpretation there are no objective moral truths because morals have no objective existence. What we call morals are best understood as value judgements formed by people and rules based on those judgements which serve to regulate our behavior towards one another in society. That we find certain moral precepts in most if not all societies is best explained by the fact that all human beings, regardless of ethnic group or culture or religion, have certain basic interests in common which need to be protected in order to maintain social cohesion. The foregoing is, of course, a rationalization. At a more emotional level, we can argue that moral behavior springs from our capacity for empathy. Most of us do not steal or rape or murder, not just because some god says we should not, but because we can imagine the suffering caused by such acts and have no desire to inflict it on others. It is summarized as the "golden rule". We should be very wary of any who claim that the only thing preventing them from behaving badly is some sort of divine prohibition. There are too many examples of self-proclaimed believers who nonetheless are able to ignore the will of their god and commit the worst offenses. Any arbitrary claim to absolute moral authority by any faith or political ideology should be treated with extreme caution. In the case of political ideology, we have the object lessons of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zhe Dong and Pol Pot to show where that can lead. In the case of Christianity, its own holy text, the Bible, is replete with examples of God and his chosen people behaving in ways that we would now find morally reprehensible, to put it mildly. The Noacchian Flood, for example, had it occurred, would have been genocide on a scale of which the worst of the twentieth century dictators could only have dreamed. Ultimately, and perhaps paradoxically, our best hope lies in a recognition of our weakness and ignorance, the fragility of our own existence as individuals and as a species and a humility that befits such an understanding. People do not fly planes into skyscrapers because they doubt there is a god or an afterlife, they do so because they are certain of it and that their actions will earn them immortality and the eternal favor of that god. Any faith which encourages such behavior is not worthy of belief and any god who orders or endorses it is surely not worthy of worship.Seversky_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

"There is no evidence that a god of some sort, and an afterlife of some sort, does not exist; there is tons of evidence that a god of some sort, and an afterlife of some sort, exists. A relativist could choose either belief or non-belief without 'living a lie' or 'not facing reality.'" All good points, William. I would add also that people who accept that there are absolute truths also believe in relative truths - or else, how would we live? God's existence is absolutely true for God alone [well I might make an exception for the Apostles, Moses, and several other Biblical figures]. For everyone else it is relative, because there's no absolute proof. But nonetheless, there is still good reason for believing in him, and in this I do not feel like I'm living a lie. I feel that I would be living a lie if I started to live as though I don't believe in Him, when I can't escape the fact that I do. Faith is not something I necessarily chose for myself - in fact I fought it for many years. But the truth came back to me. I said this once before I believe, but I think it's a powerful concept: In the 23d Psalm it is written "surely goodness and lovingkindness shall follow me all the days of my life and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever." A Hebrew scholar and Jewish Christian friend once explained in a Sunday school class that the Hebrew word for "follow" in this passage is much more precise than in the English translations. It means "to persue with extreme prejudice." In other words, God's truth persues us, and doesn't let up. We are lost, and God seeks to find us - perhaps in our weakness, or in the lowpoints in our lives, when we've lost all hope, and He finds us. Even when we once claimed to be Christians, but for one reason or another, decided to go in another direction, God persues our hearts, and doesn't let up. That is my reality. It's not a lie, but a supreme truth for which there is nothing that compares. Indeed, if I'm turning away from that truth, it shows up in the most unexpected places - causing me to rethink and regroup. The unbeliever might look to the prostelytizer as an annoyance, but to a person who gets the urge to turn away - those simple reminders are a powerful way for God to get through to us. And then there are the church drive-bys, and the gospel tracts showing up on the sidewalk - or turning the channel just at the right time when a powerful preacher is at the height of his discourse - you can't escape. Even if you're not quite agreeing with the kind of religiosity that is being displayed, it doesn't matter - God is speaking to you through an objectionable medium - so be it. Such a predicament can do either of two things - leave the unbeliever cynical towards religion, or the believer convicted. So you can see how Christianity is a powerful conviction. It comes from the profound words of scripture, which can be read from a surface perspective with all the faulty assumptions, or dug down deep and personal. He's a personal God, and so we have to take the scriptures in a personal way. We "feed on the Word," because that is our hope - to know He who is true. So faith is far more than simply an intellectual acknowledgement of certain doctrine, or of simple belief in a deity. And to the non believers, we really ought to stop presenting it as such. While doctrine and belief are important, it's the moments of clarity with respect to one's life in context with the guidance of scripture, which leads to that conviction - that "blessed assurance" for which there is no escape. Once we were slaves to the world, now we are different kinds of slave.CannuckianYankee_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT}

IRQ Conflict, The article at apologeticspress.org attempts to rationalize God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart by arguing that those verses really mean that God allowed Pharaoh's heart to be hardened. This rationalization fails for a number of reasons. First of all, Exodus doesn't merely say that God hardened Pharaoh's heart -- it says that he did so that God could put on a show for the Egyptians. For example, before the tenth plague, it says that "the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you; that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt. Second, do you really find it plausible that Pharaoh wouldn't have relented after three or four plagues at most? Put yourself in Pharaoh's position. Would it really take ten horrible plagues to convince you to let the Hebrews go? Last, even if the rationalization were correct, doesn't it strike you as unfair and immoral for God to punish all of the Egyptians for the stubbornness of their ruler? Exodus 10:7:
And Pharaoh's servants said unto him, How long shall this man be a snare unto us? let the men go, that they may serve the LORD their God: knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed?
They're begging Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go. Why should God punish them, kill their firstborn, etcetera, when Pharaoh's recalcitrance is not their fault? Even if the folks at Apologetics Press were correct in their rationalization, the story of the plagues still depicts unjust and immoral behavior on God's part.mereologist_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT}

David, We aren't talking about living a "lie"; we're talking about choosing beliefs from a relativist perspective. For a relativist, nothing is "absolute" (if you prefer that term), so what one is doing is making rational decisions about what to believe based on non-absolute knowledge. Unless you know there is no afterlife (which you do not), then believing in it is not "living a lie". I posit that your choice of words there betrays - once again - a non-relativist framework, as did your comment about "facing reality"; you keep using phrases and terms that denote absolute or objective positions and do not seem to be generated from a relativist framework. One can easily go and find all kinds of evidence that would support a belief in the afterlife (I've already posted references to the William Crookes medium research, the NDE research recently published in the Lancet, and various other research programs that were carried out by very respectable institutions and groups). Since there is no evidence that an afterlife (or a god of some kind) doesn't exist, a reasonable person could certainly weigh the evidence that it does on a cost/benefit basis as to whether or not to believe it for the sake of enjoying life more. Unless you adopt a belief only because you think something is absolutely, or objective real, and has been proven to you by evidence that rises to the level of absolute or objective proof (thus contraindicating your claim of relativism), then you adopt beliefs from evidence or reasons that are relative (not requiring absolute or objective proof). All you would be doing, then, is adjusting the "grey area" of "acceptable levels of evidence" against a cost/benefit evaluation of a potential belief. But, claiming that you cannot believe in god or an afterlife because you would not be facing reality, or that you would be living a lie, IMO reveals an objective/absolute framework. There is no evidence that a god of some sort, and an afterlife of some sort, does not exist; there is tons of evidence that a god of some sort, and an afterlife of some sort, exists. A relativist could choose either belief or non-belief without "living a lie" or "not facing reality".William J. Murray_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

Bantay @ 101: Yes, we are in absolute agreement about that.Tajimas D_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
02:14 AM
2
02
14
AM
PDT}

#108 "So I am clear you dont deny then that everything that begins to exist must have a cause?" I won't speak for David of course but this is a question I find very interesting. First. We need to think carefully about causality. Informally we talk about "the cause" of an event but this is highly context dependent. Suppose I am exposed to swine flu and get it. You could say the cause was me meeting someone else who had it. But in another context you could say the cause was the lack of vaccination or my lack of natural immunity or my breathing in at the wrong moment. Any real event has multiple antecedents which were necessary for the event to take place. The cause is the combination of all them. In some cases even that is not sufficient. Take the emission of an alpha particle. There are a number of antecedents that are necessary - a suitable radioactive source etc. But even then a particle may not be omitted at any given time. As far as we know the specific emission of that alpha particle at that time has no totally sufficient cause. So in this sense there are events which apparently have no cause. And if it can appear they have no cause then it is logically possible for them to have no cause.Mark Frank_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT}

------"I know it is the number 1 anti ID tactic to get religion into the discussion as fast as possible but in future threads we can dispense with the word creationist or creationism." jerry is right, I'm gaveling this "creationist" discussion.Clive Hayden_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT}

DK:'I don’t believe something can “exist before it exists.” vivid is referring (none too obliquely) to my rejection of StephenB’s version of a amedieval proof of God. For StephenB (and apparently for vivid) anyone who fails to accept those arguments as proving a personal God is irrational." So I am clear you dont deny then that everything that begins to exist must have a cause? Vividvividbleau_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
12:36 AM
12
12
36
AM
PDT}

lamarck [97], I shouldn't have jumped into this. As vividbleau points out, I have engaged in fairly extended conversations on this subject before at UD. vividbleau is wrong about two things, however: 1. I don't believe something can "exist before it exists." vivid is referring (none too obliquely) to my rejection of StephenB's version of a amedieval proof of God. For StephenB (and apparently for vivid) anyone who fails to accept those arguments as proving a personal God is irrational. 2. No subject is ever exhausted for kairosfocus. :-)David Kellogg_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PDT}

Jerry, "Maybe there are some who have a different perspective on this. I personally look at this site as a way to make cogent arguments about the issues and learn from others including the anti ID people. They often have some relevant issues and we should look at this as a way to learn." Actually I'm happy to have the opposing view presented here. I think if this was a forum where everybody agreed with one another, we wouldn't have much to talk about. I've also noticed that debating others with opposing views strengthens our own framework and dialogue in communicating our views. We might also learn to avoid arguments that don't work. That's what I'm learning here. I would only ask that those who are not of the ID view - please be cordial. Yeah, we might harp on you a bit, but I think what happens here is far more mild than the abuse towards creationists, theists and ID supporters on other blogs - Panda's Thumb, for example. And also keep in mind, that when you are cordial, we are more likely to learn something from you. I used to debate on the theism/atheism newsgroups when I had AOL a few years ago. I made all kinds of errors in my thinking (as I often do here as well), and I was harshly confronted with those errors. But it was all worth it in order to sharpen my thinking. I think the important thing though, is to back off when things get heated. If it doesn't look like we're going to pursuade, even if we believe we have given the more pursuasive argument - why bother? I like it when someone gives me a particular insight, which can be expanded upon. That's primarily why I'm here.CannuckianYankee_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT}

vivid, "CY FWIW David believes in magic. He is right this is not his first rodeo. Stephen B , myslef and KF have pretty much exhausted this subject on another thread." Thanks. I guess my relative intuition was right this time then, but I thought I'd give it a shot inspite of it. Yes, I guess we're all relativists sometimes - or are we? How would we know for sure? Come to think of it, how could we be sure of anything? Well since you've already put so much into this, I won't bother then.CannuckianYankee_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT}

DK"I reject that claim as objective truth." So a thing can have non existence? A thing can be no thing and a thing at the same time and in the same relationship? Thats a rhetorical question since I already been down this road before. Vividvividbleau_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT}

"I don’t believe in objective truth, and I don’t think that little semantic games attempting to trap the relativist in self-contradiction are at all helpful. For everybody’s sake, but especially for jerry’s — Hi jerry! — I’ll avoiding getting into a long and unrpoductive argument about why." I could care less about what you think about objective truth. It has nothing to do with you since it is not a topic I would ever discuss with anyone here including the pro ID people. I just want you to stop using the term creationist. It has a way of mixing religion with science in ways that are not correct. I know it is the number 1 anti ID tactic to get religion into the discussion as fast as possible but in future threads we can dispense with the word creationist or creationism.jerry_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT}

"It’ll have to suffice to say, first, that this ain’t my first rodeo" CY FWIW David believes in magic. He is right this is not his first rodeo. Stephen B , myslef and KF have pretty much exhausted this subject on another thread. David of course will object to my use of the ter "magic" However to assert that something can just poof into existence from nothing, exist before it exists, is no different than invoking magic. There is one difference however at least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat ther is a hat and there is a magician!! Vividvividbleau_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT}

Tajimas D @ 84 "You may not recognize that I was reasoning in parallel to the original statement made by Dave Scott" Sorry. I just didn't notice the parallel, but I think we are in agreement that his conclusion from the NAS scientist probability isn't good evidence that God exists, only that a percentage of scientists believe God exists...which isn't saying much. Even a non-scientist can have good reasons for God existing, independent of what the best and brightest believe. I don't see how using scientists as an example of alleged spiritual brightness is, by itself, very convincing anyway. If the the probability was 9 out of 10 scientists believing, it would do nothing to convince the person who wills him/herself against belief in God. As such, I see Pascals wager as a thought experiment only, not something that reflects how a normal, sincere inquisitor would approach belief in God. Besides, according to the Bible, Christianity is all about "knowing" Jesus, having a relationship with God. I don't make probability assessments on my relationships with people, even someone who dies on my behalf. It doesn't seem like a good way to start a relationship based on faith and trust. But that's just me. I agree with you, that Dave Scot's argument is both flawed and unconvincing.Bantay_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PDT}

David, this isn't an option which you can discard by SAYING the word "relativism". It's not some kind of cure-all, do you see that? In other words, you have to prove that in the slightest way this can be fit into relativism, or just admit that you had nothing at all. You just deny it without elaborating. Do you not have any elaboration, or any reason to doubt this, and in fact you're just saying the opposite without thinking? I don't even know where you're coming from. If you're just saying something without any thought or concept involved then just say so. Also, didn't you ask what is to be gained? What kind of response were you looking for? You're saying that what I said is subjective so therefore I didn't gain from the objective truth? So you can't gain subjectively from an objective truth or what? Why?lamarck_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT}

Here mere: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2259IRQ Conflict_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT}

Barb wrote:
This was the final of the ten plagues brought on Egypt. Note that each plague was described in advance to the Egyptians.
Barb, You are conveniently ignoring the fact that over and over during the plagues, God "hardened Pharaoh's heart" so that he would refuse to let the Hebrews go. Here's the story of the tenth plague:
And Moses said, Thus saith the LORD, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt: And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts. And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more. But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel. And all these thy servants shall come down unto me, and bow down themselves unto me, saying, Get thee out, and all the people that follow thee: and after that I will go out. And he went out from Pharaoh in a great anger. And the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you; that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt. And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land. Exodus 11:4-10, KJV
God hardened Pharaoh's heart. He is the one responsible for the deaths. Indeed, it was only because God kept hardening Pharaoh's heart that there ended up being ten plagues. Can you imagine any sane ruler who wouldn't have let the Hebrews go after, say, the third or fourth plague at most? But no, God wanted to make a point and it didn't matter that innocent people had to suffer for it. That's quite some God you worship, Barb.mereologist_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT}

Barb, Perhaps it would be best not to criticize others for ignoring context when you yourself are known to ignore parts of the Bible you find inconvenient.mereologist_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT}

Echidna Levy: “Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)” This is a prophecy relating to the fall of Babylon and is not to be taken literally. The fall of Babylon was permanent, their dynasty was rooted out, and there never has been a renaissance. The reason for this is the desire to dominate others that was at in of the Babylonian kings’ hearts (see Isa. 47:5,6). Ambition and pride are things which God does not tolerate. “Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)” Again, a prophecy on the fall of Babylon. Media and Babylon at one time were allies and in 632 BCE they overthrew Nineveh, the capital of Assyria. This led to Babylon becoming the predominant world power. About 100 years later, though, the city of Babylon is overcome by the combined forces of the Medes and Persians. “And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)” This was the final of the ten plagues brought on Egypt. Note that each plague was described in advance to the Egyptians. Among the Egyptians, the firstborn were dedicated as sacred to the sun-god Amon-Ra, the supposed preserver of all the firstborn. The tenth plague that Jehovah brought upon the Egyptians served to discredit this god and showed up his inability to protect the firstborn. Bear in mind that the Egyptians had already had several opportunities to stop the plagues from occurring by not keeping the Hebrews as slaves. But they refused. The constant quote mining of scriptures is becoming tedious. Please at least examine the context of the verses that you attempt to use to prove a point. I believe that objective truth exists. Otherwise, what is the point of learning at school if everything is subjective? Life becomes nothing more than a glorified Monopoly game.Barb_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

For any who do not believe in objective truth, get in you car and drive into a tree. Either pick a smallish tree or keep the speed down so you can tell us whether you experienced objective, subjective, relative or some other kind of truth. Let me suggest, in place of Pascal’s Wager, Merlin’s challenge. And no, I am claiming no similarity to Pascal except faith in Jesus Christ. For all atheists, pray this prayer to the God who does not exist: “God, I know you don’t exist, but on the slim chance that You do, I desperately need to know it especially if You want something from me. Show me the truth and give me wisdom.” Or pick your variation - no copywrite on this. If nothing happens you do not have embarrass yourself by admitting that you took the challenge, and if something does happen, tell us. There is some historical basis for this: Richard Burton in Lebanon, etc. and similar claims by living people, including former Muslims. I don't know what Heaven will be like, but there is a near infinite universe out there.merlin_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg,
I don’t think there’s evidence for an afterlife. (Yes, my Christianity is that wacky.)
What the blue hell?? :O Oddly, I agree with you on the absolute truth business.herb_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

CY, yes, I have heard that before. I don't mind hearing it again, -- I'm used to it! -- but I've contemplated it plenty. To the relativist, this doesn't hold up, and there's a fairly abundant amount of writing about why. I mentioned one source in 71 above. It'll have to suffice to say, first, that this ain't my first rodeo, and second, that the issues are more complex than the seeming paradox presents.David Kellogg_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT}

David, You've probably heard this before, but I think your last post to William warrants this being repeated: If I say "There are no absolute truths." I have just contradicted myself. The statement must be absolutely true, and therefore negates itself. However, if I say "There are absolute truths." There is no contradiction. I have stated the truth. If you're concerned about living a lie, you might want to contemplate this predicament a little more.CannuckianYankee_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

I haven’t been here long, and so I’m curious - has there been a case on this blog where someone has reversed their position either for ID or against it - and there’s written evidence?”
Not totally reversed but Dr. Dembski had to reinstate the "Explanatory Filter" (a core ID tool for design detection) after having dispensed it before.sparc_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT}

William J. Murray, Just a quick response. I don't want to get hung up on the issue of objective truth. I already let myself get a little sidelined by accepting the terminology as offered (I prefer absolute vs. relative rather than objective vs. subjective. I would say that I'm a relativist and don't believe in absolute truth, but that the subjective / objective distinction doesn't even make sense to me.) Here's where evidence comes in. I don't think there's evidence for an afterlife. (Yes, my Christianity is that wacky.) I might get some "comfort and satisfaction" from attempting to believe in one, but that would, in my case, be overwhelmed by the discomfort and dissatisfaction that would come from embracing a lie. For me, a greater satisfaction comes from living life honestly. I can't just choose to believe something against the evidence in the hope that it will make me feel better. In fact, it will make me feel worse.David Kellogg_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

Is reality objective, or subjective? If it is objectively real, then aren't there objectively true statements that would correlate to it? Would these not be objective truths?William J. Murray_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg says: Huh? I take a small satisfaction in facing reality. In response to my question about "what does evidence matter", when one is deciding whether or not to believe in an afterlife, all other things being equal, except for the comfort and satisfaction one will enjoy through that belief. One might wonder what David Kellogg means by the term "facing reality"? He can't mean an objective true reality, because he denies objective truths. Perhaps he means that he prefers facing his own subjective reality, which from his perspetive means beleiving only that which is evidenced? However, he seems to have missed the point; if there is going to be no difference in one's life other than enjoying it more, how is it not rational to believe in an afterlife, whether or not there is compelling evidence for it? What difference does "evidence" make in the equation? If one admits that what on thinks "reality" is is subjective, and not objective, then who isn't "facing reality", whatever they believe, for whatever reason?William J. Murray_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

“But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him.”1Cor2:9IRQ Conflict_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply