Ignatius A
Well-Known Member
It's what the Bible says not what I believe. I believe what the Bible says not what people who listened to a loony little monk 1500 years after Jesus believe.
The line is irrelevant.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
An Interesting Discussion on Pascal's Wager
- Thread starter Rational Agnostic
- Start date
The line is irrelevant.
Balthazzar
N. Germanic Descent
I'm a Christian who believes God is all. To accept Jesus in your heart would imply accepting the way the truth and the life into your heart. An honest and truthful spirit aimed to acknowledge and honor truth.
Cardinality in this sense has little to do with probability theory unless you want to start discussing measurable cardinals, which are *incredibly* large (larger than can be proven to exist in ZFC).
If singletons have measure 0, then every countable set will as well (for a countably additive measure-which most are).
What if *no* religion seems even remotely likely?
Ignatius A
Well-Known Member
Oh ok I must have misread your post. I agree but Christianity is not just accepting Jesus into your heart.
Ignatius A
Well-Known Member
That's a choice.
Balthazzar
N. Germanic Descent
That's true and it varies from establishment to establishment. Methodists handle the politics differently than would Catholics. I've been largely unable to find my niche, so I attempt to go with a truthful spirit of objectivity and utilize subjectivity as my effort to establish a personal relationship with Christ. I'm viewed unfavorably sometimes, but other times not so much. When my actions seem contrary to established doctrine, that's when I find myself less favored. Then again, it is my relationship with Christ and not anyone else's.
Edit: Of course, the bible makes for an informative and beneficial guide. Many of the principles are easy enough to acknowledge value in. Although, I'm unable to put all the principles into daily practice, doesn't mean that I won't learn their value over time and one day choose to. It's personal, and I learn as I go. When something clicks as being a truth, I typically apply it accordingly. If not, then I wait until it does ... sometimes learning the hard way.
Last edited:
Ignatius A
Well-Known Member
You're right it does very from establishment to establishment but when it varies from scripture that's the problem. For 1500 years then church was quite clear and unified in what it believed and taught.
Balthazzar
N. Germanic Descent
I added an edit section in my previous post.
It has to. There are various conceptions of what god would be, do or want. It isn't possible to generically believe or force oneself into believing into their existence.
Odd. Are you sure you paid attention to that experience?
Apparently it is what many theists blame us atheists for refusing to be - using Pascal's Wager among other feeble so-called arguments.
Literally everything is heretical according to some referential or another. Heresies are ok and in fact unavoidable.
To think otherwise is to grossly overestimate the true place and worth of some orthodoxy or another.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
From Wikipedia: Pascal's wager.
We can apply Pascal's wager to the social split in terms of the two main opinions on manmade climate change.
Many who believe in manmade climate change, are not scientists and therefore may not be able to reason all the hard data and draw the same science conclusions as the consensus. However, based on the prestige of these science leaders and all the doom and gloom predicted for doing nothing, many still think it is better to be take part in this religion and help avoid the potential of hell on earth. This path will lead you to the promised land.
The other choice, is to ignore manmade climate change and go on with your life. There is a good chance you will in the same place if the doom and gloom is all exaggerated or put off further and further. However for others, the cost of not believing and not being better prepared, to avoid the doom and gloom, is too high, so they choose to believe. This seems rational enough.
There is a strange religious parallel; Pascal's wager and religious instinct. A global flood like Noah, is also a part of the doom and gloom mythology of the manmade climate change theology. Original sin, such as white guilt, is also part of it.
I personally, see myself as a development type person, who can adjust to changes, if needed, so why worry all the time? I mostly need good data from others angles and sources, so I can better adapt with less paralyzing fear.
In the case, of the Christian faith example, even a last minute change of heart, if sincere, can be enough to enter heaven. I assume those who choose to stayed paralyzed in fear of climate change, if able to learn where to go, to survive, will tell others, if possible, if those others repent; A Place in one of the Human or Animal Arks of the Great Climate Change Flood of 2100.
We can apply Pascal's wager to the social split in terms of the two main opinions on manmade climate change.
Many who believe in manmade climate change, are not scientists and therefore may not be able to reason all the hard data and draw the same science conclusions as the consensus. However, based on the prestige of these science leaders and all the doom and gloom predicted for doing nothing, many still think it is better to be take part in this religion and help avoid the potential of hell on earth. This path will lead you to the promised land.
The other choice, is to ignore manmade climate change and go on with your life. There is a good chance you will in the same place if the doom and gloom is all exaggerated or put off further and further. However for others, the cost of not believing and not being better prepared, to avoid the doom and gloom, is too high, so they choose to believe. This seems rational enough.
There is a strange religious parallel; Pascal's wager and religious instinct. A global flood like Noah, is also a part of the doom and gloom mythology of the manmade climate change theology. Original sin, such as white guilt, is also part of it.
I personally, see myself as a development type person, who can adjust to changes, if needed, so why worry all the time? I mostly need good data from others angles and sources, so I can better adapt with less paralyzing fear.
In the case, of the Christian faith example, even a last minute change of heart, if sincere, can be enough to enter heaven. I assume those who choose to stayed paralyzed in fear of climate change, if able to learn where to go, to survive, will tell others, if possible, if those others repent; A Place in one of the Human or Animal Arks of the Great Climate Change Flood of 2100.
You think that "what the Bible says" is a single coherent thing? Interesting.
So on the one hand, we have "a loony little monk 1500 years after Jesus" arguing that what he believes is what the Bible says... and on the other hand, we have you, a random internet apoligist 2000 years after Jesus arguing that what he believes is what the Bible says.
I think you may have too high opinion of your opinion.
Balthazzar
N. Germanic Descent
This is a good point. Doom and gloomers have been present for quite a while now, and although I typically disagree with the way some handle the potential, I'm hard pressed to disagree with the mentality. Self-preservation, making preparations, etc. all fall in line with this primal instinct, self-preservation, specifically. The chicken little sky is falling bit gets old and worrisome, but the urgency may be ever present as it relates to ongoing quality of life and survival. I was never deemed a "prep" in high school, if you're familiar with the term, but I may be one currently. The term "Prep" is based on being prepared and when is being prepared ever a bad thing?
Not quite the same, though.
In the case of Pascal's Wager, if there's no God but you were religious, there's a cost. Pascal argues that the cost is worth it based on the potential outcomes, but even he acknowledges that there would be a cost.
OTOH, if we take climate change seriously, there are all sorts of benefits. Even without considering the potential for future climate change and all of its effects, we can acknowledge that:
- reducing air pollution is a net positive. There are lots of non-climate-change reasons to do this.
- reducing the urban heat island effect in cities is a net positive. We already have people dying in heat waves.
- reducing our vulnerability to flooding is also a net positive. It's not like severe floods don't already happen.
- etc., etc.
If we did the things that we need to do to properly respond to climate change, we would win even if climate change weren't real. The only question is how much we win by. And by the same token, if we don't do those things, we lose no matter what. The only question is how bad a loss we'd suffer.
... so with climate change, one course of action dominates without Pascal-style pondering of just how good or bad each of the outcomes might be.
Ignatius A
Well-Known Member
You made my point here
So you can't say what a fear motivated Christian is.
Is it a choice to find no religion at all likely? I don't see it that way. It is simply an evaluation of the evidence available.
Ignatius A
Well-Known Member
Yes I. That you don't does t really matter much to what is.
He altered the Bible somit said what he believed. I haven't
Well thank you for your thoughts. You might be right but can you show why I shouldn't have such a high opinion of my opinion, to use your phrase.
Most biblical scholars agree that the Bible is not univocal. In fact, it is multivocal on almost every particular.