Pretty far-fetched, true, evidence strongly suggesting non-existance, true, proven not to exist, false.The chance that something like a yeti exists isn't just small, it's infinitesimal. List of animals described since 2000. There's a couple of distinct characteristics that ties these animals together, not all apply, but usually at least one:
-they live in tropical forests
-they're small
-they're omnivores or herbivores
-they were already known (some are just an update to the taxonomic treatment)All of the larger animals discovered have come from densely wooded regions. For instance, the medium-sized cats come from Borneo and Sumatra, places they're still trying to catalog lots of things.
Large animals living on tops of mountains are pretty rare. So rare that the few that do are notable exceptions. The dietary needs of a large animal are just too taxing to survive in a place where not much grows. Even people have a difficult time living at high altitude and we're pretty resourceful and adaptable. There aren't very many places where primates have spread to that humans aren't one of the species living there.
Two of the larger mammals discovered recently:
Saola - kind of a cross between a goat/bovine/deer, it's about 1.5m long, 1m tall and around 90kg. Lives in mountain valleys, from 300-1800m above sea level. Remains of the animal were first discovered in 1992.
Tapirus kabomani - similar dimensions to the saola, but a little heavier at 110kg and a only 1.3m long. Even though it was recently classified as it's own species, there's a specimen in the American Museum of Natural History... it was obtained by Theodore Roosevelt in 1914.
The idea that a primate the size of a brown bear is hiding in the mountains and we have no evidence of it to date is pretty far fetched.
And you can't prove you're not a brain in a jar.
Is that a...
What can I say? I'm a mathematician. 'True' is 100% true (and, preferably, proven), not 99.999% probable. Horrible things happen in maths when proofs aren't 100% accurate - you wind up trying to divide by 0 or similar.
I'm also pedantic to a fault (except as applied to maths, when I'm pedantic as a necessity). Just the way I'm wired (into the jar).
(Mmm jar. Goes to look for some good whisky to top up said jar.)
A mathematician, Huh? So you probably know about all those imaginary numbers like eleventeen and thirty-twelve. Anyhow, what's so bad about dividing by zero? It's certainly no worse than multiplying by infinity, and I won a lot of arguments in grade school by shouting "Infinity times!!"
What can I say? I'm a mathematician. 'True' is 100% true (and, preferably, proven), not 99.999% probable
Haven't mathematical "proofs" been overturned though, or found to contain an error?
You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Mathematics is not a field for wobbly "evidence". And no, mathematical proofs are not often overturned.
I just saw this thread (I venture into OT only on rare occasion), so forgive me if I just answer the OP's question as best I can...
As a Hicksite/liberal Quaker, I feel free within the context of my religion to explore multiple faith paths, and past explorations of faiths have included Christianity, Buddhism, and various flavors of paganism, all of which fuel into my spirituality even now. While I imagine most likely these explorations I will continue as a member of the Society of Friends....
If my spiritual journey led me to leave... or perhaps some Friend's obstructionism in business meeting finally caused me to snap and brutally violate the peace testimony such that I either felt it best I left or I was read out of meeting...
I would probably read up on things and see where I was taken next, maybe going again more towards Buddhism (help me rediscover that inner peace) or paganism... or if my faith was shattered enough I might go agnostic (although we have agnostics in the Society of Friends as well) but I expect I would spend a long time exploring on my own, working with my own philosophy before I sought out community again.
And the ultimate answer for me is... whereever the Inner Light leads me is where I would turn.
You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Mathematics is not a field for wobbly "evidence". And no, mathematical proofs are not often overturned.
Did I say they were often overturned? No.
Didn't say itDidn't hint it
Didn't imply it
So don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about when you need to make up stuff i didn't say in order to insult me.
Take Two
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What can I say? I'm a mathematician. 'True' is 100% true (and, preferably, proven), not 99.999% probable. Horrible things happen in maths when proofs aren't 100% accurate - you wind up trying to divide by 0 or similar.
I'm also pedantic to a fault (except as applied to maths, when I'm pedantic as a necessity). Just the way I'm wired (into the jar).
(Mmm jar. Goes to look for some good whisky to top up said jar.)
Not saying you're wrong. But it's that kind of pedantic reasoning that annoys people like BNW and me. It's where the concept of philosophy becomes a form of mental masturbation that people who don't understand that it's just mental masturbation think it proves what they want to be true.
Philosophy is an important and useful subject, it's thinking about thinking.
There is also another version of True that isn't 100%, but rather what is true to the best of our understanding. This carries the direct implication that the truth can and will change when new information is discovered. We'll never know everything with absolute certainty, so we're going to have to make assumptions about what is and isn't likely to be true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of my favorite songs of all time.
Not saying you're wrong. But it's that kind of pedantic reasoning that annoys people like BNW and me. It's where the concept of philosophy becomes a form of mental masturbation that people who don't understand that it's just mental masturbation think it proves what they want to be true.
So I guess it's a bad thing that my philosophy instructors have all said that philosophy is 99% mental masturbation and 1% accidentally being right?
99% of my sex life is masturbation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only 99%, gobbo?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not saying you're wrong. But it's that kind of pedantic reasoning that annoys people like BNW and me. It's where the concept of philosophy becomes a form of mental masturbation that people who don't understand that it's just mental masturbation think it proves what they want to be true.So I guess it's a bad thing that my philosophy instructors have all said that philosophy is 99% mental masturbation and 1% accidentally being right?
I like mental things and I like masturbation, so I don't completely hate it. It's just when that mental masturbation intersects with the real world and it's used to justify things that are most likely not true, like spending money to search for sasquatches or god.
Thinking about thinking is good.
Using ridiculous hypotheticals to justify real world actions, not so much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only 99%, gobbo?
[Dry humps Madame Sissyl]
Yeah, only 99%.
What can I say? I'm a mathematician. 'True' is 100% true (and, preferably, proven), not 99.999% probable. Horrible things happen in maths when proofs aren't 100% accurate - you wind up trying to divide by 0 or similar.
I'm also pedantic to a fault (except as applied to maths, when I'm pedantic as a necessity). Just the way I'm wired (into the jar).
(Mmm jar. Goes to look for some good whisky to top up said jar.)
Not saying you're wrong. But it's that kind of pedantic reasoning that annoys people like BNW and me. It's where the concept of philosophy becomes a form of mental masturbation that people who don't understand that it's just mental masturbation think it proves what they want to be true.
Philosophy is an important and useful subject, it's thinking about thinking.
There is also another version of True that isn't 100%, but rather what is true to the best of our understanding. This carries the direct implication that the truth can and will change when new information is discovered. We'll never know everything with absolute certainty, so we're going to have to make assumptions about what is and isn't likely to be true.
Yes, well, pedantic reasoning is necessary for a mathematical proof. Maths, not philosophy. I'm sorry that that's annoying.
Yes, well, pedantic reasoning is necessary for a mathematical proof. Maths, not philosophy. I'm sorry that that's annoying.
Whats annoying is this idea that math is better because its 100% proof and nothing else is. This is both incorrect and much easier to approximate with an abstract concept than a very complicated reality.
Yes, well, pedantic reasoning is necessary for a mathematical proof. Maths, not philosophy. I'm sorry that that's annoying.Whats annoying is this idea that math is better because its 100% proof and nothing else is. This is both incorrect and much easier to approximate with an abstract concept than a very complicated reality.
I didn't say maths is better, nor that nothing else is 100% accurate. And you're right, it proves theorems from hypotheses, so only reflects reality as closely as the hypotheses do (so sometimes, not very). But it does underpin all our science, so definitely has its uses.
Yes, well, pedantic reasoning is necessary for a mathematical proof. Maths, not philosophy. I'm sorry that that's annoying.What can I say? I'm a mathematician. 'True' is 100% true (and, preferably, proven), not 99.999% probable. Horrible things happen in maths when proofs aren't 100% accurate - you wind up trying to divide by 0 or similar.
I'm also pedantic to a fault (except as applied to maths, when I'm pedantic as a necessity). Just the way I'm wired (into the jar).
(Mmm jar. Goes to look for some good whisky to top up said jar.)
Not saying you're wrong. But it's that kind of pedantic reasoning that annoys people like BNW and me. It's where the concept of philosophy becomes a form of mental masturbation that people who don't understand that it's just mental masturbation think it proves what they want to be true.
Philosophy is an important and useful subject, it's thinking about thinking.
There is also another version of True that isn't 100%, but rather what is true to the best of our understanding. This carries the direct implication that the truth can and will change when new information is discovered. We'll never know everything with absolute certainty, so we're going to have to make assumptions about what is and isn't likely to be true.
You're taking my opinion, removing the context and applying it to something else. Can you see how that might be a false equivalency?
You're taking my opinion, removing the context and applying it to something else. Can you see how that might be a false equivalency?Yes, well, pedantic reasoning is necessary for a mathematical proof. Maths, not philosophy. I'm sorry that that's annoying.What can I say? I'm a mathematician. 'True' is 100% true (and, preferably, proven), not 99.999% probable. Horrible things happen in maths when proofs aren't 100% accurate - you wind up trying to divide by 0 or similar.
I'm also pedantic to a fault (except as applied to maths, when I'm pedantic as a necessity). Just the way I'm wired (into the jar).
(Mmm jar. Goes to look for some good whisky to top up said jar.)
Not saying you're wrong. But it's that kind of pedantic reasoning that annoys people like BNW and me. It's where the concept of philosophy becomes a form of mental masturbation that people who don't understand that it's just mental masturbation think it proves what they want to be true.
Philosophy is an important and useful subject, it's thinking about thinking.
There is also another version of True that isn't 100%, but rather what is true to the best of our understanding. This carries the direct implication that the truth can and will change when new information is discovered. We'll never know everything with absolute certainty, so we're going to have to make assumptions about what is and isn't likely to be true.
Can we just agree to differ on this? Because, for me, 'true to the best of our understanding' isn't 'True'. There's actually not a great deal I do accept as 'True'.
Not saying you're wrong. But it's that kind of pedantic reasoning that annoys people like BNW and me. It's where the concept of philosophy becomes a form of mental masturbation that people who don't understand that it's just mental masturbation think it proves what they want to be true.So I guess it's a bad thing that my philosophy instructors have all said that philosophy is 99% mental masturbation and 1% accidentally being right?I like mental things and I like masturbation, so I don't completely hate it. It's just when that mental masturbation intersects with the real world and it's used to justify things that are most likely not true, like spending money to search for sasquatches or god.
Thinking about thinking is good.
Using ridiculous hypotheticals to justify real world actions, not so much.
I've always wonder if belief in Bigfoot, and the search for him, was not fulfilling some psychological need in the people who did it. It's like the Holy Grail quests; sometimes it's not actually about finding what you are looking for, but the hunt itself that is the point. It gives a purpose they can accept, which in turn gives a bedrock of psychological stability they can cling to in even the most turbulent of times.
Can we just agree to differ on this? Because, for me, 'true to the best of our understanding' isn't 'True'. There's actually not a great deal I do accept as 'True'.You're taking my opinion, removing the context and applying it to something else. Can you see how that might be a false equivalency?Yes, well, pedantic reasoning is necessary for a mathematical proof. Maths, not philosophy. I'm sorry that that's annoying.What can I say? I'm a mathematician. 'True' is 100% true (and, preferably, proven), not 99.999% probable. Horrible things happen in maths when proofs aren't 100% accurate - you wind up trying to divide by 0 or similar.
I'm also pedantic to a fault (except as applied to maths, when I'm pedantic as a necessity). Just the way I'm wired (into the jar).
(Mmm jar. Goes to look for some good whisky to top up said jar.)
Not saying you're wrong. But it's that kind of pedantic reasoning that annoys people like BNW and me. It's where the concept of philosophy becomes a form of mental masturbation that people who don't understand that it's just mental masturbation think it proves what they want to be true.
Philosophy is an important and useful subject, it's thinking about thinking.
There is also another version of True that isn't 100%, but rather what is true to the best of our understanding. This carries the direct implication that the truth can and will change when new information is discovered. We'll never know everything with absolute certainty, so we're going to have to make assumptions about what is and isn't likely to be true.
You're still conflating my opinion of one thing and assuming that it's true for all things, even though I am flat out telling you that that is incorrect. I'd like you to realize that in certain areas I agree with you and find this mode of thought useful, but you don't seem interested that there might actually be common ground.
You're still conflating my opinion of one thing and assuming that it's true for all things, even though I am flat out telling you that that is incorrect. I'd like you to realize that in certain areas I agree with you and find this mode of thought...Can we just agree to differ on this? Because, for me, 'true to the best of our understanding' isn't 'True'. There's actually not a great deal I do accept as 'True'.You're taking my opinion, removing the context and applying it to something else. Can you see how that might be a false equivalency?Yes, well, pedantic reasoning is necessary for a mathematical proof. Maths, not philosophy. I'm sorry that that's annoying.What can I say? I'm a mathematician. 'True' is 100% true (and, preferably, proven), not 99.999% probable. Horrible things happen in maths when proofs aren't 100% accurate - you wind up trying to divide by 0 or similar.
I'm also pedantic to a fault (except as applied to maths, when I'm pedantic as a necessity). Just the way I'm wired (into the jar).
(Mmm jar. Goes to look for some good whisky to top up said jar.)
Not saying you're wrong. But it's that kind of pedantic reasoning that annoys people like BNW and me. It's where the concept of philosophy becomes a form of mental masturbation that people who don't understand that it's just mental masturbation think it proves what they want to be true.
Philosophy is an important and useful subject, it's thinking about thinking.
There is also another version of True that isn't 100%, but rather what is true to the best of our understanding. This carries the direct implication that the truth can and will change when new information is discovered. We'll never know everything with absolute certainty, so we're going to have to make assumptions about what is and isn't likely to be true.
Could you run the whole thing past me again? Because now I have no idea what either of us are saying. Or think we're saying. I'm now horribly confused.
Can we just agree to differ on this? Because, for me, 'true to the best of our understanding' isn't 'True'. There's actually not a great deal I do accept as 'True'.
You're taking my opinion, removing the context and applying it to something else. Can you see how that might be a false equivalency?
Which is all well and good and if pressed to be pedantic, I'll agree with you, but returning to the original topic that doesn't mean I'm any more agnostic about the existence of God than about the existence of Santa Claus or Russel's Teapot or that I'm not just a brain in jar somewhere.
I can't prove or disprove any of them, but that doesn't mean that believing in not quite impossible things without evidence is basically the same as disbelieving not quite impossible things without evidence.
No one uses a 100% proof of Truth for anything in everyday life except arguing about the existence of God.
I should have stayed out of this thread. I only posted anything because I have strong views on what constitutes a proof. And I'm too tired to put together a proper response (it's 10.40pm here and it's been a long day).
Moving away from the existence of God, it matters whether things are true or whether they're true 99 times in a hundred, or 999 in a thousand, because sometimes the 1/100 or 1/1000 event happens.
That's certainly true, but the only reason it's being argued about here is because of the "disprove the existence of God" thing. It's all spun off from trying to claim atheists are relying on faith just as much as theists are.Can we just agree to differ on this? Because, for me, 'true to the best of our understanding' isn't 'True'. There's actually not a great deal I do accept as 'True'.
You're taking my opinion, removing the context and applying it to something else. Can you see how that might be a false equivalency?
Which is all well and good and if pressed to be pedantic, I'll agree with you, but returning to the original topic that doesn't mean I'm any more agnostic about the existence of God than about the existence of Santa Claus or Russel's Teapot or that I'm not just a brain in jar somewhere.
I can't prove or disprove any of them, but that doesn't mean that believing in not quite impossible things without evidence is basically the same as disbelieving not quite impossible things without evidence.
No one uses a 100% proof of Truth for anything in everyday life except arguing about the existence of God.
I should have stayed out of this thread. I only posted anything because I have strong views on what constitutes a proof. And I'm too tired to put together a proper response (it's 10.40pm here and it's been a long day).
Moving away from the existence of God, it matters whether things are true or whether they're true 99 times in a hundred, or 999 in a thousand, because sometimes the 1/100 or 1/1000 event happens.
I would argue atheists do, but point out the kind of faith I'm talking about is not the kind of faith that everyone is arguing about.
Mainly, the kind of faith I'm thinking of is faith that you've not gone completely bonkers and are not just hallucinating everything.
Given how crazy real people are, I sometimes question if the "completely bonkers" possibility isn't the more comforting one.
...You're still conflating my opinion of one thing and assuming that it's true for all things, even though I am flat out telling you that that is incorrect. I'd like you to realize that in certain areas I agree with you andCan we just agree to differ on this? Because, for me, 'true to the best of our understanding' isn't 'True'. There's actually not a great deal I do accept as 'True'.You're taking my opinion, removing the context and applying it to something else. Can you see how that might be a false equivalency?Yes, well, pedantic reasoning is necessary for a mathematical proof. Maths, not philosophy. I'm sorry that that's annoying.What can I say? I'm a mathematician. 'True' is 100% true (and, preferably, proven), not 99.999% probable. Horrible things happen in maths when proofs aren't 100% accurate - you wind up trying to divide by 0 or similar.
I'm also pedantic to a fault (except as applied to maths, when I'm pedantic as a necessity). Just the way I'm wired (into the jar).
(Mmm jar. Goes to look for some good whisky to top up said jar.)
Not saying you're wrong. But it's that kind of pedantic reasoning that annoys people like BNW and me. It's where the concept of philosophy becomes a form of mental masturbation that people who don't understand that it's just mental masturbation think it proves what they want to be true.
Philosophy is an important and useful subject, it's thinking about thinking.
There is also another version of True that isn't 100%, but rather what is true to the best of our understanding. This carries the direct implication that the truth can and will change when new information is discovered. We'll never know everything with absolute certainty, so we're going to have to make assumptions about what is and isn't likely to be true.
When a conversation/debate is focused on things like mathematics or philosophy, I think the focus on minutia/pedantry can be useful, even essential. Trying to apply those same process to areas outside, particularly in regards to events that impact our personal lives or even public policy, can be disruptive.
That isn't to say that learning to think and process information through mathematics or philosophy isn't useful. It's just taken to the extreme, like many things, the benefit starts to diminish.
er response (it's 10.40pm here and it's been a long day).
Moving away from the existence of God, it matters whether things are true or whether they're true 99 times in a hundred, or 999 in a thousand, because sometimes the 1/100 or 1/1000 event happens.
But math isn't always right either. So you're stuck at either epistemic nihilism or having to make a judgement call after a small enough chance.
er response (it's 10.40pm here and it's been a long day).
Moving away from the existence of God, it matters whether things are true or whether they're true 99 times in a hundred, or 999 in a thousand, because sometimes the 1/100 or 1/1000 event happens.
But math isn't always right either. So you're stuck at either epistemic nihilism or having to make a judgement call after a small enough chance.
The phrase used in English law is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
'Highly improbable therefore proved false beyond reasonable doubt'
is fine (at least in my opinion).
'Highly improbable therefore proved false' is faulty logic, and using faulty logic hurts your argument.
In what sense our you saying maths isn't always right? The hypotheses don't always match the real world terribly well, but the conclusions drawn from them tend to be tested thoroughly.
The phrase used in English law is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
'Highly improbable therefore proved false beyond reasonable doubt'
is fine (at least in my opinion).
'Highly improbable therefore proved false' is faulty logic, and using faulty logic hurts your argument.
What you're saying though amounts to NOTHING ever being proved false, ever. Do see the problem with that?
The phrase used in English law is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
'Highly improbable therefore proved false beyond reasonable doubt'
is fine (at least in my opinion).
'Highly improbable therefore proved false' is faulty logic, and using faulty logic hurts your argument.
What you're saying though amounts to NOTHING ever being proved false, ever. Do see the problem with that?
An exaggeration, but I suppose I don't, no. Life's full of uncertainty. Much of life revolves around other people, and I can't prove anything about them at all. Over the internet and depending on the web page I can't even be certain I'm communicating with a real person.
Maths (and science) is a tool. You choose the tool appropriate to the problem. Newton's Laws of Gravity are accurate enough for plotting the ball playing table tennis and for launching satellites. Einstein's theory is a better model for very high speeds or very high gravitational fields.
But that's the easy stuff. You can propose theories and set up experiments and test things. My daughter's doing a Psychology A-level, with for example, different theories of child development, none of which explain all the case studies, so none of them are 'true'.
So, yes, there are lots of things that may or may not be true and that I can't hope to prove, and I'm fine with that.
So, yes, there are lots of things that may or may not be true and that I can't hope to prove, and I'm fine with that.
But if you can't prove anything (or anything other than your own existence) then what do the words proof or disproof even MEAN? If your definition includes nothing then it doesn't define or describe anything at all.
But that's the easy stuff. You can propose theories and set up experiments and test things. My daughter's doing a Psychology A-level, with for example, different theories of child development, none of which explain all the case studies, so none of them are 'true'.
I'm not a big fan of psychology. Not enough proof :)
So, yes, there are lots of things that may or may not be true and that I can't hope to prove, and I'm fine with that.But if you can't prove anything (or anything other than your own existence) then what do the words proof or disproof even MEAN? If your definition includes nothing then it doesn't define or describe anything at all.
Because there are lots of things I can prove, and lots of things I can disprove. Just not everything.
For example, (hopefully somewhat on topic) if 5 different religions claim to be 'the one true way', at least 4 of them must be wrong.
For example, (hopefully somewhat on topic) if 5 different religions claim to be 'the one true way', at least 4 of them must be wrong.
There's a number of problems with that.
1) Who says the universe can't have contradictions in it? Is it a particle or a wave? Solid yet juicy...
2) Religions are composite things. Hey, maybe christianity is mostly true but there's reincarnation.
3) You're not proving anything about the specific religions.
For example, (hopefully somewhat on topic) if 5 different religions claim to be 'the one true way', at least 4 of them must be wrong.
There's a number of problems with that.
1) Who says the universe can't have contradictions in it? Is it a particle or a wave? Solid yet juicy...
Maybe it does have.
2) Religions are composite things. Hey, maybe christianity is mostly true but there's reincarnation.3) You're not proving anything about the specific religions.
Organised religions tend to be 'the whole package'. I'm sure there are people with their own personal composite ideas (are they still called out as heretics?)
Pretty sure Christianity is 'You get one shot and you will screw up, so pray sincerely to Jesus and you'll be let off'. I don't think it compatible with reincarnation.
I don't want to get into specifics about religions as it tends to upset believers in the religions.
Christianity varies pretty widely in how you look at it, really. Parts of it do "Unless you lead a PERFECT life, you need God's forgiveness to get into Heaven when you die", while others dispense with that and phrase it as "you're tainted with Original Sin (tm) because a woman who did not have The Knowledge (tm) chose to eat an apple a few thousand years ago, and because of this it doesn't matter how well you live your life, you're going to Hell unless you beg forgiveness to God and he chooses to grant it". Some even try "You're either going to Heaven or to Hell, because it's in God's plan and nothing you do can change where you end up". Other variations of the same theme exist.
Christianity varies pretty widely in how you look at it, really. Parts of it do "Unless you lead a PERFECT life, you need God's forgiveness to get into Heaven when you die", while others dispense with that and phrase it as "you're tainted with Original Sin (tm) because a woman who did not have The Knowledge (tm) chose to eat an apple a few thousand years ago, and because of this it doesn't matter how well you live your life, you're going to Hell unless you beg forgiveness to God and he chooses to grant it". Some even try "You're either going to Heaven or to Hell, because it's in God's plan and nothing you do can change where you end up". Other variations of the same theme exist.
Probably according to strict scripture, yes. To be fair, the Christians I have met here in the UK seem a lot less strict. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses who came to the door Friday.
I think I'm viewed more as a lost sheep out on the hills somewhere that's going to get eaten by wolves or something, and I'd be much happier and safer as part of the flock. Problem is, I'm not a flock animal and I'm not prepared to let the shepherd dictate my life.
I find it interesting how powerful the lure of Pascal's wager remains today. You know the deal, if God doesn't exist, you have lost nothing by living as a christian, but if God exists, you gain eternal life, right? Problem is... Saying that you haven't lost something by living as a christian might be a tiny bit of an overstatement. And, without the slightest reason to believe God exists, that eternal life bribe looks pretty small.
Feelings of awe and spirituality are too individual and varied to be tied into a hugely influential one-size-fits-all scheme, indeed doing so is doing the exact same thing the religious bigshots complain about: having to fit someone else's definition of faith. Nor do such feelings have any sort of business being tied to a political agenda. There are clear and sufficient reasons to act well to others and show tolerance without copping out with BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO.
RE Pascals
Given the near zero chance of Christianity being true, its just as likely that the real god would be more upset at you picking Christianity over atheism. Heck, perhaps the real god wanted abraham to say "Oh hell to the no!"
|
I find it interesting how powerful the lure of Pascal's wager remains today. You know the deal, if God doesn't exist, you have lost nothing by living as a christian, but if God exists, you gain eternal life, right? Problem is... Saying that you haven't lost something by living as a christian might be a tiny bit of an overstatement. And, without the slightest reason to believe God exists, that eternal life bribe looks pretty small.
Pascal's Wager hings on defining "going to heaven in the afterlife" as an infinite gain - as opposed to the gain of not living as a christian, which is finite. So there's no claim that you lose nothing if you live as a christian, only that whatever gain you came by, it is negligible compared to spending eternity in a pleasant garden rather than a boiling cauldron.
The problems I have with Pascal's argument are:
1) Obviously the intention in Christianity is that you have to be genuine in your faith, not just hollowly live your life by it because of some min/max mathematical argument. So even if you do go by it, there's no guarantee of heaven (of course, increasing your odds by even a single percent or something is still worth it if heaven - infinity)...
2) The same argument can be applied to every religion, not only Christianity. In fact, I can start a super computer that we spew out ten thousand different new religions per second, and each one of them will claim that eternal punishment awaits that unfaithful, while believers will bask in perfection in the afterlife. Even without that computer, there are several major, established faiths existing today, and each of them has so many branches and sub-faiths, sometimes quite different from each other, each making their own claim for universal truth. How are you supposed to discern between them and decide which one to live by?
Pascal's Wager is also dependent on the various forms of Christianity not being mutually exclusive.
If God only approves of one version of Christianity, then the likelihood of picking the correct one is pretty greatly reduced. Heck, it's possible that the correct one could no longer even be practiced if it's practitioners had been wiped out in the early days of Christianity.
Edit: Also, if they're not mutually exclusive, than that means a significant number of specific claims are false.
Too many cooks spoiling the pot. :)
When all you need for pot is an oven and some brownie mix... ;D
