A variation of Pascal's Wager-Question for Non Believers

[Bigdaddydvo]

This past weekend I visited the University of Notre Dame on the occasion of the Notre Dame-Navy game. One of the pregame celebrations was in memory of Father William Corby. Father Corby was a priest who was a Civil War Chaplain. He is well known among Civil War enthusiests for granting General Absolution to his unit in the Union prior to Gettysburg. The account follows:

"The Rite of Absolution

Gettysburg NMP
Another interesting monument near this location is that to Father William Corby, chaplain of the famous "Irish Brigade". On the afternoon of July 2, just prior to the brigade's advance to the Wheatfield, Father Corby stood upon a large boulder and granted general absolution to the catholic members of the brigade. It was a most stirring moment as the chaplain raised his voice above the din of battle while over 300 Union soldiers who were about to face death knelt before him. Within the hour, the brigade was in the thick of the battle. To commemorate this unique event, a statue of Father Corby was erected upon the exact boulder where he stood that afternoon, and was dedicated on October 29, 1910."

FYI, General Absolution is a tool catholic priests use to forgive the sins of people in emergency situations where their lives are in grave danger (e.g. a civil war battle). The Church requires that those who receive GA and survive the emergency situation must confess their sins to a priest at first opportunity to make the Absolution valid. If a person dies, then GA provides him/her the graces necessary to enter Heaven immediately.

This is a situation where someone has a high probability of dying. Here's my question for the non-believers: Each soldier in that formation knelt down to receive General Absolution. If in that formation, would you have knelt to accept General Absolution as well? What about a situation where death is almost certain, like an airplane about to crash?

It seems to me that even for a committed atheist, this is entirely a "spiritual freeroll" with no downside and only a very large upside. I'm curious about the rationale for those who wouldn't take it.

[Lestat]

Irrationality is it's own downside.

If you were about to die and someone told you to click your heels 3 times and you will receive total consciousness, would you do it having nothing else to lose?

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
Irrationality is it's own downside.

If you were about to die and someone told you to click your heels 3 times and you will receive total consciousness, would you do it having nothing else to lose?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not aware of ANYONE that believes this. The proposition you cited would be dismissed by every rational person. This stands in contrast to one billion Catholics who believe in Absolution, all of whom are rational (minus those with psychological disorders that are statistically expected within a one billion sample size).

[chezlaw]

it has the same downside as Pascals wager. God may prefer that you stick with being rational.

chez

Bigdaddydvo,

I don't mean to offend, but isn't religion just something you were told about? The fact that a billion people believe in it doesn't prove anything. The rationalization of the religion comes after the assumption of its truth. So, in a very basic sense, religion can be likened to "someone telling you to click your heel three times." Well, religion is actually the expansion from that revelation, and in the expansion there can be rationality. I can't argue that, just look at Aquinas: he was extremely rational. But it all starts from one assumption and grows from there. That isn't debatable, either. The truth of the assumption is debatable, but I won't get into that here.

EvF

[Lestat]

Your question was posed to non-believers. A non-believer sees no rational reason to believe in God. You basically asked:

Why not perform an irrational act if you have nothing left to lose? I just turned the question around.

As to whether or not the 1 billion people you cite are thinking rationally when it comes to religion; Well, you already have my opinion.

[imported_luckyme]

As long as the chance of death isn't 100% then there is a big downside. Even with the chance of death at 100%, for an atheist you have to live within your moral boundaries while you are alive. Death was always coming, the fact that it's been upgraded to a ClassVI is just a date change not a reason to forsake the meaning you have given to your life and the lives of those that matter to you.

It takes a lot of confidence in your answer to become an atheist, in north america even little kids become xistians so that's the default 'easy' road. Not having to give up rationality essentially means there is nothing that can challenge your deduction, so it's on much firmer ground than a 'leap-of-faith' that gets 'tested' with real-life actions. Real life confirms an atheistic view it doesn't challenge it.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that even for a committed atheist, this is entirely a "spiritual freeroll" with no downside and only a very large upside. I'm curious about the rationale for those who wouldn't take it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would definitely not kneel down and probably would have tried to make a very loud objection to this behaviour. A sort of last stand! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I find the concept of god totally immoral. I think that would he/she/it exists, the only possible (and heroic) position for a human would be to reject it with all it's might even at the risk of eternal damnation, and even if it is possibly due to a misunderstanding of the mystery of it being a loving god whilst displaying the cruelty obviously apparent in the world. Not to do so seems to be akin to people living in a tyrannical regime (Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Mugabe, etc..), shrugging they shoulders when they see an injustice or an act of cruelty, thinking, hey the tyrant is mightier than me and I could get in trouble here, or, the tyrant must know better.

I think to object to theism is to open the possibility of compassion and empathy based on an understanding and observation of the human condition. To accept god is to side with injustice, cruelty and to condone it, whatever the cause.

So I'll go for the heroic action. I feel somehow redeemed by this and it seems to give meaning to my life in a meaningless world. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[David Sklansky]

Just to clarify, your question is to atheists, correct? Certainly you can see why your argument falls apart for Jews or Muslims.

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to clarify, your question is to atheists, correct? Certainly you can see why your argument falls apart for Jews or Muslims.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this question is geared towards Atheists.

I presume you'd think it would fall apart because a Jew/Muslim would face potential retribution from their God if the following two conditions are met:

A) Jew/Muslim accepts Absolution and thus implicitly rejects their own faith.

B) Jew/Muslim faces negative retribution from their God if they die and it turns out that one of the two are correct.

Could we safely allow Jews or Muslims to answer the question if we, as a stipulation to the question, guarantee no negative consequences for accepting Absolution? (Assume an understanding God who can empathize with choices made under the most stressful of circumstances).