FOR THE LOVE OF MIKE, what I said has nothing to do with Pascal's wager, I am not a great fan of Pascal's religious thinking - though unlike you he did think about it. For someone to make that accusation of me in the same week I slammed the Catholic heresy of Jansenism (Pascal was a Jansenist) only proves they don't know what they're talking about as they reassemble phrases picked up from neo-atheist websites and talk shows like refrigerator "poetry" magnets.
You also do that while pushing something even stupider than the pop-kulcha "understanding" of Pascal's wager, believing to get you into heaven, believing in materialist-atheist-scientism which not only gets you nothing, literally, nothing, it reduces EVERYTHING TO INSIGNIFICANCE INCLUDING OUR MINDS AND THE PRODUCTS OF THE MIND, INCLUDING SCIENCE AND WHATEVER SCIENCE CAN TELL YOU ABOUT ANYTHING, INCLUDING EVERY SINGLE CLAIM MADE IN SUPPORT OF MATERIALISM, ATHEISM AND SCIENTISM. Materialism in all its nihilistic destruction of the significance of human minds, human experience and human knowledge, is the one ideology I know of which can only be true if it is false because if it is true NOTHING CAN BE TRUE. To tie science to it only proves that when professional science was divorced from rigorous philosophical reflection that its quality was bound to suffer, especially in any aspect in which the issues of human consciousness directly impinged on what was being studied, as, indeed, happened directly in modern physics - not so much with chemistry due to what topics chemists studied. Nietzsche, a jerk and a moral degenerate though he was, had a better training in philosophy than a lot of scientists of his day did so he understood more fully what accepting materialism held as consequences for everything including science and how everything in human affairs would then become a mere exercise of power, its concentration, its accumulation, the necessity of ever increasing levels of depravity for the powerful to do those things, science maybe becoming a tool of that regime of depravity, one which, in post-Christian, post-religious world, become ever clearer in their willingness to do anything.
As to your claim that I reject science because I indicate I don't trust cosmologists to believe they won't suddenly in the near or far future to change their mind about anything AND, SO EVERYTHING, that's not my fault, it's theirs. They do that so often and, as can be seen in the influence of Fred Hoyle, the former editor of Nature, John Maddox, etc. they can insert their ideological preferences directly into that branch of what is perhaps unwisely considered physics and dominate things even well after their claims have been undermined.
Update: Aren't you the one who mocked me for using a computer - which you take as a product of materialist-atheist-scientism - because of your contention that atheists own science, man, and therefore me using it to argue against atheist-materialistic-scientism was somehow illegitimate?
Introducing your conception of "science" into this as an argument for atheism turns that into a wager, a rather stupid one but I'll let that go for now, you using science on the basis of its utility, as a produce of desireable things and products and tools, etc. in exactly the same way that Pascal is sometimes asserted to have used the possibility of eternal bliss in heaven as a thing to be desired and, so, something you could put a bet of getting on based on the finite amount you'd bet to get an infinite payoff.
And loads of scientists, including the one who set off modern science, Copernicus, have been fully religious believers.
What you're saying boils down to. starting with what you incorrectly claim I'm saying:
Pascal: You bet on a life of sacrificing what you might want (though not everything you might want) in order to get the big payoff (heaven) so - God.
Atheists: You bet on sacrificing everything to materialist ideology for the smug satisfaction of ownin' the God botherers and for that you get ultimate meaninglessness and a finite end in which your corpse rots in the ground and whatever meaning you had for those who knew you or knew about you eventually evaporates, sometimes a hell of a lot faster than the atheist bet on but a lot sooner than infinity. So- no god.
Some pay-day.
You don't seem to understand that I believe in God, not as a mathematical operation or axiom or a term in a mathematical or logical equation but as the loving Creator who wishes that all will be saved - my all really means all in what I believe. God as I conceive of God incompletely, is too big to do math with, too big to fit into the confines of a logical argument, too big to fit into any person's experience. I believe in God who, when Moses asked who he should say had sent him said "I am", tell them I am sent you. Pascal's imagination seems to have been attached too tightly to his brilliance in manipulating mathematics. I think that's something that happens a lot more often than not.
No comments:
Post a Comment