Risk Analysis

[Randwolf]

Popular wisdom doesn't require to state references.

You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink.

It wasn't meant to be presented as a requirement, merely a desire.

As is, I simply choose not to drink from your well.

This has no impact on other topics or threads, at least to me.

Good day...

 

[Rav]

Or simply the time came for you where you were faced with the option to "upgrade" your faith, or stagnate (and eventually leave).

It seems you came somewhere to Stage 4 on the Fowler scala ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fowler's_stages_of_faith_development ), but didn't go into it fully, perhaps because your life was otherwise so comfortable so there seemed to be no impetus to move on.

I suppose you can wait for the sky to fall down, or make a concentrated effort ahead.

To be honest, I can't relate to any of that. I don't really see my experiences with faith accurately mirrored in that account at all.

 

[wynn]

To be honest, I can't relate to any of that. I don't really see my experiences with faith accurately mirrored in that account at all.

Why not? What are the differences?

 

[Mind Over Matter]

What do I have to lose by trying to force myself to believe (and adhere to the teachings of) some random religion knowing full well that even if I picked correctly, it's unlikely that I will reap any of the rewards that are offered anyway because my faith wasn't genuine? Seriously?

How do you know the faith that is acquired does not become, in the course of time, genuine?

How does anyone know that his faith is genuine until he lives, acts, breathes, and loves by it?

Ask anyone baptized from childhood into the Christian faith and living his entire life in it whether he does not ask himself, from time to time, "Is my faith genuine?"

Mere assent is not sufficiently genuine, as Pascal would be the first to insist. It is too easy for us to lie to ourselves, never mind others.

You are not certain to be saved just by betting on God and throwing the dice. But if you don't bet on God, you are certain to lose

 

[Mind Over Matter]

What do I have to lose by trying to force myself to believe (and adhere to the teachings of) some random religion knowing full well that even if I picked correctly, it's unlikely that I will reap any of the rewards that are offered anyway because my faith wasn't genuine? Seriously?

Contrary to popular opinion among theists, it takes a lot more than open-minded investigation of religious claims to become religious. It takes someone who is also willing to put more emphasis on the usefulness of emotion than rational thought when it comes to determining the truth. Religion is ultimately about what "feels" right. Committing suicide to escape the recycling of the earth "felt" right to members of the Heaven's Gate cult.

I would like to point out two lines of thought that might help answer your question:
1. The quote assumes that faith is based on accepting or rejecting revelation told to us by others. But there is such a thing as a personal call, where a person feels called by God. So people may choose their religion based on direct first-hand knowledge. I believe that anyone can come to know God if they devote sincere time to prayer.
2. Religious beliefs can, at least to some extent, be evaluated rationally. They aren't all equal. Some make more sense than others.

 

[Rav]

Why not? What are the differences?

For me, and most people I have ever known, faith was much simpler than all that. You either believed and did the things that flowed from that belief, or you didn't really believe and subsequently did a half-arsed job of it. The latter is not the kind of faith that the New Testament (for example) teaches that you're supposed to have.

Bible Jesus doesn't teach that it's OK to sit around and philosophize endlessly, and meaningfully "struggle" with your faith in order to mature it to a more significant level over a number of years, he taught that you just need to stop being such a fucking lukewarm disgrace and actually embrace his teachings and live them completely. That's what I did. I took religion (Christianity at least) out for a proper genuine spin. A couple of my friends have to and had similar experiences.

I do realize of course that my experiences wont necessarily reflect those of others, but I trust that I've highlighted the difference between my experiences and Fowler's stages of faith development.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

We can clear this up pretty quickly with a single example. The Bible teaches that Jesus died for our sins on the cross. The Qur'an teaches that Jesus was definitely not crucified, but was instead taken up to be with Allah. How do you reconcile this rather significant inconsistency with the idea that scripture is an ultimate authority on such matters?

By observing that the documents upon which the Qur'an is based are the Old Testament and the New Testament. How can the New Testament be both false and true at the same time? Taken as the word of God it should be true all the way through. There is no way to justify changing the teaching, so the Qur'an fails to justify itself as to the New Testament teaching about the death of Jesus.

The fact of the matter is that the Qur'an would not exist if the Bible, upon which the Qur'an is largely based, did not previously exist. Jesus was prophesied in the Old Testament and appeared in the New Testament. Mohamed was not prophesied in either Testament.

The Qur'an was not written during the first generation of those who followed the life and death of Jesus. How is it they would not be believed, but Mohamed should be believed as the manner of the death of Jesus?

 

[wynn]

For me, and most people I have ever known, faith was much simpler than all that. You either believed and did the things that flowed from that belief, or you didn't really believe and subsequently did a half-arsed job of it. The latter is not the kind of faith that the New Testament (for example) teaches that you're supposed to have.

Bible Jesus doesn't teach that it's OK to sit around and philosophize endlessly, and meaningfully "struggle" with your faith in order to mature it to a more significant level over a number of years, he taught that you just need to stop being such a fucking lukewarm disgrace and actually embrace his teachings and live them completely. That's what I did. I took religion (Christianity at least) out for a proper genuine spin. A couple of my friends have to and had similar experiences.

I do realize of course that my experiences wont necessarily reflect those of others, but I trust that I've highlighted the difference between my experiences and Fowler's stages of faith development.

In that case, it would seem that you were in even earlier stages, and that there was significant discord between your cognitive and moral development on the one hand, and the development of your faith on the other hand.

When people are born into a religious family and practice it from birth on so to speak, ideally, the developments of their cognition, morality and faith are in harmony.
But with people who join religion later, there can be a significant discord.

 

[wynn]

By observing that the documents upon which the Qur'an is based are the Old Testament and the New Testament. How can the New Testament be both false and true at the same time? Taken as the word of God it should be true all the way through. There is no way to justify changing the teaching, so the Qur'an fails to justify itself as to the New Testament teaching about the death of Jesus.

The fact of the matter is that the Qur'an would not exist if the Bible, upon which the Qur'an is largely based, did not previously exist. Jesus was prophesied in the Old Testament and appeared in the New Testament. Mohamed was not prophesied in either Testament.

The Qur'an was not written during the first generation of those who followed the life and death of Jesus. How is it they would not be believed, but Mohamed should be believed as the manner of the death of Jesus?

But this line of argument suggests that mundane reasoning is above divine revelation - because you are using mundane reasoning (ie. archaeological and historiographical records that state that the Bible is older than the Quran) to invalidate one divine revelation (in this case, the Quran) from being the superior one.

If you want to use mundane reasoning in one instance of judging what is to pass as divine and what isn't, surely you must use it in other instances too.
Mundane reasoning would say that it is immoral to condemn people to eternal damnation, for example.

 

[Rav]

In that case, it would seem that you were in even earlier stages, and that there was significant discord between your cognitive and moral development on the one hand, and the development of your faith on the other hand.

I don't think so, since my morals were always cut from the same cloth so to speak. My moral and ethical framework is not fundamentally different now than it was then, nor was it fundamentally different initially.

Your comments sound an awfully lot like a dismissal of the legitimacy of my experiences so far as they relate to forming an informed opinion about the basic aspects of religious experience. The next logical step would be for you to repeat a previous assertion of yours about how one can only have a truly informed opinion about a religion if they have practiced it across the fullness of a lifetime. If that is your intention, I have already responded to that topic in the thread you created for it.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Any citation from Pascal available here?

Here it is:

"If you gain, you gain all. If you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then, without hesitation, that He exists…. At each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognize that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing." Blaise Pascal

 

[wynn]

I don't think so, since my morals were always cut from the same cloth so to speak. My moral and ethical framework is not fundamentally different now than it was then, nor was it fundamentally different initially.

Your comments sound an awfully lot like a dismissal of the legitimacy of my experiences so far as they relate to forming an informed opinion about the basic aspects of religious experience. The next logical step would be for you to repeat a previous assertion of yours about how one can only have a truly informed opinion about a religion if they have practiced it across the fullness of a lifetime. If that is your intention, I have already responded to that topic in the thread you created for it.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here.

I also said, after the portion you quoted:

When people are born into a religious family and practice it from birth on so to speak, ideally, the developments of their cognition, morality and faith are in harmony.
But with people who join religion later, there can be a significant discord.

Meaning: For a person who joins religion later, say, at age 30, their cognition and morality are at the level for 30-year-olds, while their faith is at the level of 2-year-olds. Understandably, there will be internal discord.

I'm not saying this to belittle anyone. It's simply how it is - if one takes up something later in life, one is a newcomer at it, regardless of how old and experienced they otherwise are.


EDIT:

Note that organized religions take this into account, so the materials for introducing children to the religion are different than those for introducing adults.

 

[jmpet]

When one does the "risk analysis" one must take into account the old adage sometimes refered to as Pascals Wager. While athiests discredit ro ignore it completely the fact is that God not only recognizes it but uses it to help many begin their journey.

The old adage is this.
If I believe in God and am wrong - then I have lost nothing
If I don't believe in God and am wrong - I lose much.
To the above I would add this.
If I believe in God, but in the "wrong way", - then, if he exists, I will likely be judged on my sincerity in seeking His Truth.

Athiests will say that believing, or practiceing, out of fear is not belief but hypocracy. Which to an extent I agree with.
However, look at what the Bible says about it, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom". (Ps 111:10)
So if one begins his belief and his journey out of "self serving" fear, it is none the less a start. Then as one coninues the journey and grows in wisdom, fear is replaced by Love until fear vanishes altogether.
This then is the goal as set forth by Christ in the Gospels. The Goal of being eprfect in Love.

Athiests can call into doubt many "historical facts" in the Bible. They can point to inconsistancies in christian faiths. But they cannot deny the root core of Christ' teaching which is Love.
i am trying to use this as my goal and guide and ANY of the bible canons will be sufficient.
Of course we must not forget or deny the necessity of the Love and discipline offered to us By Christ through the magisterium of His Church.

So it's better to be slightly wrong than outright wrong? Sounds overly-simplistic to me.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

But this line of argument suggests that mundane reasoning is above divine revelation - because you are using mundane reasoning (ie. archaeological and historiographical records that state that the Bible is older than the Quran) to invalidate one divine revelation (in this case, the Quran) from being the superior one.

If you want to use mundane reasoning in one instance of judging what is to pass as divine and what isn't, surely you must use it in other instances too.
Mundane reasoning would say that it is immoral to condemn people to eternal damnation, for example.

Would you mind defining "mundane reasoning"? It is not an expression with which I am familiar.

Pascal asks the atheist to reason his way to God. How is it that for the atheist Islam would be more reasonable than Christianity?

 

[wynn]

Would you mind defining "mundane reasoning"? It is not an expression with which I am familiar.

Common sense. The natural sciences. The social sciences.
That which is not divine reasoning.

Pascal asks the atheist to reason his way to God. How is it that for the atheist Islam would be more reasonable than Christianity?

That would depend on the brand of his mundane reasoning.

 

[Yazata]

How do you know the faith that is acquired does not become, in the course of time, genuine?

If somebody proclaims that 'X is true', in full knowledge and recognition that he doesn't really know whether X is true or not, simply because there may be some benefit to him in saying the words...

How is that not a lie?

We consider it dishonest when advertisers do it.

How does anyone know that his faith is genuine until he lives, acts, breathes, and loves by it?

But how do we get from the "wager" to living, acting, breathing and loving one's faith?

That wasn't a problem for Pascal. He was trying to intellectually rationalize a deep and passionate faith that he already embraced for reasons that weren't intellectual at all. His faith was already present and he was just trying to convince his friends, and more importantly himself, that it wasn't irrational.

Mere assent is not sufficiently genuine, as Pascal would be the first to insist. It is too easy for us to lie to ourselves, never mind others.

You are not certain to be saved just by betting on God and throwing the dice.

Right. So the "wager" is just kind of empty.

It lacks force from both a religious perspective and from the atheist perspective.

From the religious perspetive, it doesn't support or motivate real faith.

From the atheist perspective, it's just another example of circular reasoning.

But if you don't bet on God, you are certain to lose

That's the circularity.

The only people who are likely to believe that rejecting Christianity is a losing proposition are people who are already Christians.

 

[wynn]

If somebody proclaims that 'X is true', in full knowledge and recognition that he doesn't really know whether X is true or not, simply because there may be some benefit to him in saying the words...

How is that not a lie?

Some theists will reply to this that we value our intellectual integrity too highly and that it is mere hubris to have the kind of concerns you raise above.

But how do we get from the "wager" to living, acting, breathing and loving one's faith?

That wasn't a problem for Pascal. He was trying to intellectually rationalize a deep and passionate faith that he already embraced for reasons that weren't intellectual at all. His faith was already present and he was just trying to convince his friends, and more importantly himself, that it wasn't irrational.

Exactly. Pascal did not arrive at his faith via the wager.
(Just like Descartes' philosophical maneuvers weren't what brought him to his faith.)

The only people who are likely to believe that rejecting Christianity is a losing proposition are people who are already Christians.

Or those with an obsessive fear that God is evil or that there is eternal damnation.

 

[Yazata]

Some theists will reply to this that we value our intellectual integrity too highly and that it is mere hubris to have the kind of concerns you raise above.

Imagine a television advertiser. He creates a TV ad that loudly proclaims that Product X has Wonderful Features A, B and C.

But suppose that the advertiser doesn't have any clue about whether or not the product actually has those features. What he does know is that saying that it does will likely increase sales and could conceivably make him a lot of money.

How are the ethics of that different than those of Pascal's wager?

I agree that a theist might try to convince me that my moral objection is just hubris, just part of my damnable revolt against the Lord.

But the fact remains that I'm not willing to surrender my conscience and my sense of ethics quite that easily. The wager just doesn't smell right to me.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Originally Posted by Mind Over Matter
Athiests will say that believing, or practiceing, out of fear is not belief but hypocracy.

i consider myself a theist, and i believe that also..

then pursuing some reglion to that end is exactly consistent.

then your getting into the whole 'works' arguments, (If i only do as i'm told i will not go to hell..)

 

[NMSquirrel]

*************
M*W: Good point, and I would like to answer your question. It's not so much that I think about god per se, but I give more thought to the people who believe in god, and why.

i would think it is more critical to you of what You think of who/what God is,
not someone else...
of course your ideas about who/what God is won't line up with others,maybe thats just where God wants you to be..:shrug: