How to Know if You’re a Fool

[Oceander]

No, you added a false premise.  Pascal didn't.  But, as I say, you prove Pascal's point by doing so.

No, I didn’t.  The false premise in Pascal’s argument is that there is only one religion. 

[240B]

Pascal's point is not predicated on a particular religion.

I respectfully disagree. Pascal was a Christian with a wholly Christian point of view. I doubt very much that he had Jews or Muslims in mind when he was contemplating religion. In fact, I'm not sure he was thinking about Christianity in a real, fundamental way. He was just hedging his bet. He was just play the cards of the world around him as he knew them.

It is better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. I would rather be a religious Christian and be wrong, than I would be an atheist and be wrong. Good bet. It's not really a very religious point of view but it makes perfect sense to a pragmatist.

[Sanguine]

No, it’s predicated on there being only one religion, whatever that religion might be.

Where does it say that? 

[RoosGirl]

I respectfully disagree. Pascal was a Christian with a wholly Christian point of view. I doubt very much that he had Jews or Muslims in mind when he was contemplating religion. In fact, I'm not sure he was thinking about Christianity in a real, fundamental way. He was just hedging his bet. He was just play the cards of the world around him as he knew them.

It is better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. I would rather be a religious Christian and be wrong, than I would be an atheist and be wrong. Good bet. It's not really a very religious point of view but it makes perfect sense to a pragmatist.

This article in no way mentions Christianity, it mentions God.  And I would argue that if a Muslim didn't know who Pascal was they could still apply his "bet" to their own religious life.

[Sanguine]

This article in no way mentions Christianity, it mentions God.  And I would argue that if a Muslim didn't know who Pascal was they could still apply his "bet" to their own religious life.

Yeah, I'm baffled by that argument.  Just not getting it, @240B.

[Oceander]

Where does it say that? 

It is inherent in the logic.  One is presented with a binary choice:  to believe in God or to not believe in God, and the relative risks of each position are then explored, and risk-weighted for the worst-case scenario.  The upshot of which is, that it only makes sense to believe in God - even if that belief turns out to be false because God does not exist - because the risks of being wrong are so much greater if you choose to not believe in God. 

That’s great, so far as it goes, but it breaks down when confronted with two separate theologies, each of which is comprehensive, each of which requires complete dedication, and each of which necessarily forecloses adherence to the other.  It breaks down because it cannot give any further guidance on which theology to follow; it can only recommend that you follow both, but that is simply not possible.

[Oceander]

This article in no way mentions Christianity, it mentions God.  And I would argue that if a Muslim didn't know who Pascal was they could still apply his "bet" to their own religious life.

If true, that requires belief in the proposition that the god of Islam is the same as the god of Christianity, and that following either religion is as good as following the other.  In other words, it requires acceptance of the proposition that Islam and Christianity are the same thing. 

[RoosGirl]

It is inherent in the logic.  One is presented with a binary choice:  to believe in God or to not believe in God, and the relative risks of each position are then explored, and risk-weighted for the worst-case scenario.  The upshot of which is, that it only makes sense to believe in God - even if that belief turns out to be false because God does not exist - because the risks of being wrong are so much greater if you choose to not believe in God. 

That’s great, so far as it goes, but it breaks down when confronted with two separate theologies, each of which is comprehensive, each of which requires complete dedication, and each of which necessarily forecloses adherence to the other.  It breaks down because it cannot give any further guidance on which theology to follow; it can only recommend that you follow both, but that is simply not possible.

Where does it say to follow both?

[RoosGirl]

If true, that requires belief in the proposition that the god of Islam is the same as the god of Christianity, and that following either religion is as good as following the other.  In other words, it requires acceptance of the proposition that Islam and Christianity are the same thing.

You are confusing "following" with "learning/seeking".

[Oceander]

Where does it say to follow both?

Because it cannot distinguish between either one.  It says to seek god.  Well, which god?  The God of Christianity, or the God of Islam.  Or are the two one and the same?

[RoosGirl]

Because it cannot distinguish between either one.  It says to seek god.  Well, which god?  The God of Christianity, or the God of Islam.  Or are the two one and the same?

It says to seek enlightenment.  That's the part where *you* decide which God based on your learning and understanding of what you've learned.  And as you learn more you opinion on which is correct may change.

[Oceander]

You are confusing "following" with "learning/seeking".

No, I’m not.  If i seek for God within the Catholic Church, does that not require that I adhere to all the tenets of its faith, and that I practice what it preaches?  It can I seek God on a part-time basis?  On the other hand, if I seek God in the mosque, does that not require that I adhere to all of the tenets of Islam, that I practice what is preached? 

How do I simultaneously seek God in the Roman Catholic Church and the Sunni Mosque, for example?  If i throw in a Jewish temple, things become even more complex. 

[RoosGirl]

No, I’m not.  If i seek for God within the Catholic Church, does that not require that I adhere to all the tenets of its faith, and that I practice what it preaches?  It can I seek God on a part-time basis?  On the other hand, if I seek God in the mosque, does that not require that I adhere to all of the tenets of Islam, that I practice what is preached? 

How do I simultaneously seek God in the Roman Catholic Church and the Sunni Mosque, for example?  If i throw in a Jewish temple, things become even more complex.

You understand that there is a difference between seeking and finding, right?

[Oceander]

It says to seek enlightenment.  That's the part where *you* decide which God based on your learning and understanding of what you've learned.  And as you learn more you opinion on which is correct may change.

Which presupposes the existence of precisely the thing that the wager was supposed to supplement: knowledge of God. 

[Oceander]

You understand that there is a difference between seeking and finding, right?

Duh.  You do realize that seeking involves more than merely gazing at your navel. 

[RoosGirl]

Duh.  You do realize that seeking involves more than merely gazing at your navel.

Depends what you're seeking, now doesn't it?

[Oceander]

Depends what you're seeking, now doesn't it?

I suppose so; but if God is Christian, or Muslim, you won’t find him in your belly-button. 

[Wingnut]

Some people will argue about anything just to show people they are a fool.

[the_doc]

I respectfully disagree. Pascal was a Christian with a wholly Christian point of view. I doubt very much that he had Jews or Muslims in mind when he was contemplating religion. In fact, I'm not sure he was thinking about Christianity in a real, fundamental way. He was just hedging his bet. He was just play the cards of the world around him as he knew them.

It is better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. I would rather be a religious Christian and be wrong, than I would be an atheist and be wrong. Good bet. It's not really a very religious point of view but it makes perfect sense to a pragmatist.

The weakness of Pascal's generally impressive argument is that although it piques intellectual curiosity in a potentially useful way in evangelism, the person who is made only mildly curious or only mildly unsettled by Pascal's discussion is still doomed if he overlooks Pascal's pivotal warning:  you'd better seek the God Whom you do not know until you find Him, until you actually know Him.

[240B]

Some people will argue about anything just to show people they are a fool.

That is the stupidest most ridiculous thing you have ever said. You're a fool. Your Daddy was a fool...fool!

[Sanguine]

Some people will argue about anything just to show people they are a fool.

 

[Absalom]

Some people will argue about anything just to show people they are a fool.

---------------------------------------------
Ghost, on the mark.
Not only a fool but an incorrigible windbag!!!
Pascal argued his wager in these ten brief words:
"Belief is a wise wager, so wager that He exists."
Being a clairvoyant, Pascal also had wisdom for Trump!
"If you wish people to think well of you; do not speak well of yourself."

[roamer_1]

If I seek God through one avenue, I cannot simultaneously seek god through the other, can I? 

Yes, you can... I did.

Ergo, I must choose one of the other.  Which one to choose? 

Eventually true, but not off the get-go... with a proper criteria, many pretenders fall away pretty quickly.

Fairly soon, one will arrive at a choice between one true god, or a pantheon which has been repeated all over the world... Because that is in fact the truth of it. THEN comes the decision, which to serve.

[roamer_1]

Because it cannot distinguish between either one.  It says to seek god.  Well, which god?  The God of Christianity, or the God of Islam.  Or are the two one and the same?

You have relatively few choices in that. Begin with the premise that the two books are diametrically opposed (which they are, but since you are unfamiliar, you must take my word, for the sake of the argument).

Given that you have examined the books sufficiently to give them the benefit of the doubt that they might indeed represent god(s), logic would have it, if you have winnowed the field down till there are no others, considering the two books are diametrically opposed, that:

1. They do not represent the same god at all, and there are two gods to choose from.
2. they represent the same god, but then one or the other book is not true, and you have two books to choose from.
3 neither represents god, and you must keep seeking.

[roamer_1]

How do I simultaneously seek God in the Roman Catholic Church and the Sunni Mosque, for example?  If i throw in a Jewish temple, things become even more complex.

That is not even beginning to begin... there are many contenders. MANY.

But the main point is that no, you do not need to be a devotee of any - throw them all on the fire.

Kick the tires. Examine the criteria. there is no demand for commitment.