What amazes me about moderns is the widespread ignorance of philosophy among them. Don't schools do philosophy anymore?
A foundation stone for my Christian faith is my acceptance of the First Cause argument put together with Pascal's Wager. From there it is but a short step to my Catholicism.
43 comments
First Cause? Oh, yeah, isn't that the one that says everything must have a cause except for the one teensy exception that "proves" your point? If you haven't gone beyond Scholastic Philosophy you have some rude shocks coming.
"What amazes me about moderns is the widespread ignorance of philosophy among them. Don't schools do philosophy anymore?"
If Dave has studied philosophy, as he accuses others of not doing, he's read the responses of people like Duff and Hájek. against the existence of God. For one thing, the First Cause argument doesn't lead to the assumption that there was one god, that god still exists, that god didn't create other, better worlds, that god cares about humanity or any of the other things Christians assume about the God of Abraham. Some Gnostics, for example, suggested that the Yahweh worshiped by Christians was a flawed or even evil demi-god created by an unseen uber-God. This explained why evil exists in the world.
On the whole, I'm inclined to think Dave hasn't studied philosophy quite as much as he says.
"Pascal's wager" reminds me of the immortal words of that great philosopher, Homer Simpson, "If we pick the wrong God, won't that make the right one madder?"
Some Gnostics, for example, suggested that the Yahweh worshiped by Christians was a flawed or even evil demi-god created by an unseen uber-God. This explained why evil exists in the world. Spawn !
Yeah, both Pascal's Wager and First Cause have been a philosophical laughingstock for the past few, uh, centuries. Go read some Voltaire and get back to me.
Ummmm, Dave... Hate to tell you this, but Pascal and Aquinas both started with Catholicism and worked backwards from that assumption - you cannot start with their 'work' and use it to prove Catholicism.
I´d say you´re right. But, you know, there are others like Plato, Aristotle, and Sartre, equally interesting but with whom you´d not agree that much.
"...the Quirmian philosopher Ventre, who said, 'Possibly the gods exist, and possibly they do not. So why not believe in them in any case? If it's all true you'll go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isn't then you've lost nothing, right?' When he died he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking sticks and one of them said, 'We're going to show you what we think of Mr Clever Dick in these parts.. .' "
(Pterry, of course)
Pascal Wager is not considered philosopher since the nineteenth century. Moreover, his argument is ridiculous. Let´s believe in God "just in case"?, why not Odin, "just in case"?.
Schools these days teach computer skills... and not much else. I don't think you'll find anyone teaching philosophy at anything but the college level. That said, it's obvious Davey boy here hasn't studied it either, or he wouldn't be so proud of his worn-out, endlessly-refuted logical fallacies.
Pascal's Wager is fatally flawed because it presupposes that there is only one God, and also that the supposedly omniscient one God cannot tell a true believer from a just-in-case "believer."
You have to be pretty dense to live your life according so easily debunked a principle as that, but then again what else would we expect?
Pascal’s Wager only works if you already believe there’s only one God and only one interpretation of what that God wants from you.
What you CAN do is invoke it as a justification for your faith, telling people your position is logical. That’s just, you know, backwards.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
