This was very good! I need to actually research more into Jewish theology that isn’t 2000 years old. As someone who grew up Christian and knows the culture and a lot of NT studies, I think a lot of these discussions gloss over “the God of philosophers” and the actual God(s) people have believed in over the course of history.
A slight defense of these two though: unfortunately, a lot of western philosophy of religion is basically just arguing about Christian conceptions of God, not consciously acknowledged as such? In this regard, I think their error is inherited from a flaw of the discourse.
Probably worth noting that Jewish thought for the last probably 1300 years is based in rabbinic thought, all of which is post-biblical. This is why many people refer to Talmud as our central text. The Hebrew Bible—although interpretation of it through the tradition remains our foundation—when taken alone doesn’t give an idea of what people mean when they refer to Judaism, now. Some would say that the Hebrew Bible isn’t concerned with theology at all, in fact. There are still a few non-rabbinic Jews out there but Tanakh alone isn’t a useful guide to them. Always happy to give learning tips if requested! And you likely do not have the perception I was straightening out in this comment, just might be useful for some to know.
Sounds good! If there are any good books you can point to, I'll add them to my wishlist. It's funny now that I think of it, my religion classes in undergrad focused on the varieties of Jewish traditions and what they believed 2000 years ago, but not the content of what they believe *now*.
Always appreciate people engaging with my work -- thank you!
I will say that, in the same spirit of fact-checking, due diligence, etc., it would be important to highlight this note at the end of my own essay which provides important context:
"Thank you for reading! This is the part where I look directly down the barrel of the camera to say that I don’t think this argument is true! I think Pascal’s Wager is mugging like Richard Hanania says and I don’t find it a convincing reason to convert to any particular religion. I don’t in fact think it would be good to quote-unquote ‘go Super Mao Zedong Mode’ and destroy all religions in the world, no matter the cost. I have a much more moderated, pluralistic view of things. But why should everyone else have all the fun?"
So my essay was more about poking fun at Pascal's Wager itself than anything else -- it's a reductio ad absurdum. I *don't* think we should play the Wager game, but if we insist on it then I present this fun little toy argument for why the Wager actually leads us to anti-religious conclusions. But the essay is not an earnest argument for these conclusions themselves. Indeed I would hazard to guess that we actually share many of the same misgivings about quantifying all of this and the limits of mathematical tools to be helpful here.
At the same time, even if my argument is a toy one, your criticisms deserve to be engaged with. I think the 1st one is already addressed by my thinking but your 2nd one is novel and I appreciate it very much. So:
For the 1st one you mention that some denominations believe ignorance is no excuse and that people who die in perfect ignorance of god will still go to hell. That would be an Evil God scenario, in my book! That is the kind of thing I had in mind with the parenthetical "If God is Evil we are all going to hell anyway." Nothing to be done about that kind of thing, imo.
For the 2nd one, my understanding of it is -- if God is real then, on most theologies, he wouldn't allow his faith to be wiped out. Is that accurate? World governments would go "Super Mao Zedong Mode" but then the might of Heaven would rain down and smite them to stop them. Most importantly: this might even be what triggers the End Times and then there'd be no more souls going to Heaven or purgatory or wherever. That's a good point! I think that effectively addresses the EV logic of my toy argument and if I am committed to saving it I will have to think a little bit about how to respond to this.
Thank you again. I appreciated the more general section of the essay about the actual diversity of religious beliefs and the need for empirical work to make any of this actually useful to others. If you do go on to read some of my other stuff, you'll find that I take the same view -- I am much more of an empiricist / pragmatist kind of guy than a rationalist kind of guy.
Thanks for reading, I really appreciate your response. I should’ve probably clarified more in the post that I don’t think you’re advocating for the wager (or religion-cide!), I just disagreed that that logic is how it would play out. I think the wager is wrong too. And I’ll look forward to reading more of your work.
I don’t really understand the first criticism. BB’s god is limitless but you say yours acts on the world and seem to see a contradiction here? I’m not sure what it is? Only a limited god could act on the world?
A god who acts in the world in discernible ways could be disproven in the same ways he gives that Santa Claus could be, is the issue. (Especially if incarnate.) Or so it seemed to me.
I think Bentham's Bulldog wants the specific Christian conception of God to be true, which is why the theism vs atheism argument being made is so muddled. I agree that the problem of evil is an issue specifically for that idea of God. I have to be blunt and say I don't find much of it very persuasive. He argument seems to revolve around "Well, lots of people throughout history have thought it was true." A lot of people believed in a geocentric universe (an idea enforced by the Catholic Church at the time, I might add) and that bloodletting was an effective medical treatment. The truth is not an election, something people vote on as if picking a candidate.
Perhaps my biggest argument with that entire perspective is that some things simply aren't worth your time and energy to consider. It's dishonest to act as if anyone has the time and ability, or would even benefit from considering and reading up on every single argument which is advanced. There are true blue flat Earthers these days. They craft intricate arguments. I don't feel it necessary to familiarize myself with them. There are only so many hours in the day, so many facts you can cram into your brain. Better chose carefully which ones make the grade.
I'll just fess up and say I'm an atheist, although a bit of an unusual one. I posted a note about how my ideas about God follow Spinoza pretty closely (although I think Alain Badiou's argument in Being and Event that not even Spinoza's idea of God exists like he wants it to is pretty persuasive).
Point well taken but I think there’s a historical consideration here: at one point it was very much worth it to carefully debunk bloodletting as a medical cure, and trepanation, or more recently lobotomy. But at this point it isn’t.
The truth isn’t an election, but what’s worth taking seriously can differ over time and sometimes be a bit of a popularity contest. In the 1790s, James Tilly Matthews believed he was being harassed by spies with an “air loom,” but he was one dude, so nobody felt that was a serious idea worth engaging with — merely a symptom. Same goes for flat earthers, who reject even ancients who knew better. We have myriad reasons accumulated across centuries or millennia to reject them, and they’re fringe.
But the belief in a god is not fringe, and arguments are still being made for and against it by intellectually weighty writers. If it were a bloodletting revival that would not be the case.
Not everyone has to engage the debate, but the argument that belief in a god shouldn’t be treated as ridiculous, unlike flat earthers, seems entirely true.
I don't mean to put God in the same category as flat earth, just pointing out the how hollow the logic that "Well, a lot of people think it is true" is as a justification.
I think it's worth noting regarding the seriousness of a debate over the existence of God, that by your own admission we are nowhere near having the same definition of God. BB is talking about the Christian God, your conception is based in Judaism (which at least has Monotheism in common) and they there's talk of polytheistic religions. It's hard to argue against something which contains that much variation in a serious way. This last one is more directed at BB than you, but he jumps so quick from "God must exist because of this argument" to "Christianity broadly speaking is true and so is the Bible to some degree" when it is not at all clear that one follows from the other.
I think that's the part that really bothers me. It's like "What else are you even implying is true as a result of this argument for God?" I think there's a whole lot more superstition waiting in the wings than just anthropomorphic representation of existence in that instance, and I start getting a little more hostile. Even when I went to college, and this was at a STEM heavy university mind you, the debate over evolution was still being fought. I'll just be blunt and say Creationists gave me a baseline level of contempt for Christianity I've never shaken and probably will.
I'll also be even more forthright and say I was raised ELCA Lutheran and went to church every Sunday from the ages of 0-18. This isn't my first rodeo.
To me it’s only a justification for not thinking it’s ridiculous, as in beneath arguing about seriously for those who are so inclined, but fully agreed that it shouldn’t impact whether anyone thinks it’s *true*.
I [as a Christian with views that teeter right on the edge of (un)orthodoxy] feel like the thing that’s most missing from these discussions is just…a sense of embodiment. To me and like I think 99% of people who are actually religious, religion is a *way of going about things* that is practiced, that’s more easily *shown* than cognized about or argued about. The cognition is still important, of course, and at some fundamental level you do need to believe some specific things and not other specific things, but the whole doctrinal element feels honestly secondary or even tertiary to the general *orientation* of following a particular religion.
Specifically, arguing about divine attributes and whether/how they can be reconciled or whatever as a Main Determiner of whether to be religious is just deeply back-asswards to me, moreso than other theological points of disagreement. Like, if God exists, and He’s good, and (presupposing we’re Christians) we’re operating under the assumption that both of these are true… then He’s good in a way that is nonetheless consistent with apparent evils in our world. Can we talk about something else now? Do something else?
This was very good! I need to actually research more into Jewish theology that isn’t 2000 years old. As someone who grew up Christian and knows the culture and a lot of NT studies, I think a lot of these discussions gloss over “the God of philosophers” and the actual God(s) people have believed in over the course of history.
A slight defense of these two though: unfortunately, a lot of western philosophy of religion is basically just arguing about Christian conceptions of God, not consciously acknowledged as such? In this regard, I think their error is inherited from a flaw of the discourse.
Probably worth noting that Jewish thought for the last probably 1300 years is based in rabbinic thought, all of which is post-biblical. This is why many people refer to Talmud as our central text. The Hebrew Bible—although interpretation of it through the tradition remains our foundation—when taken alone doesn’t give an idea of what people mean when they refer to Judaism, now. Some would say that the Hebrew Bible isn’t concerned with theology at all, in fact. There are still a few non-rabbinic Jews out there but Tanakh alone isn’t a useful guide to them. Always happy to give learning tips if requested! And you likely do not have the perception I was straightening out in this comment, just might be useful for some to know.
Sounds good! If there are any good books you can point to, I'll add them to my wishlist. It's funny now that I think of it, my religion classes in undergrad focused on the varieties of Jewish traditions and what they believed 2000 years ago, but not the content of what they believe *now*.
Hello Virginia!, you share quite interesting posts, so I thought I’d introduce myself with an article.
This one is about science, religion and atheism:
https://open.substack.com/pub/jordannuttall/p/science-and-atheism-the-religion?r=4f55i2&utm_medium=ios
Always appreciate people engaging with my work -- thank you!
I will say that, in the same spirit of fact-checking, due diligence, etc., it would be important to highlight this note at the end of my own essay which provides important context:
"Thank you for reading! This is the part where I look directly down the barrel of the camera to say that I don’t think this argument is true! I think Pascal’s Wager is mugging like Richard Hanania says and I don’t find it a convincing reason to convert to any particular religion. I don’t in fact think it would be good to quote-unquote ‘go Super Mao Zedong Mode’ and destroy all religions in the world, no matter the cost. I have a much more moderated, pluralistic view of things. But why should everyone else have all the fun?"
So my essay was more about poking fun at Pascal's Wager itself than anything else -- it's a reductio ad absurdum. I *don't* think we should play the Wager game, but if we insist on it then I present this fun little toy argument for why the Wager actually leads us to anti-religious conclusions. But the essay is not an earnest argument for these conclusions themselves. Indeed I would hazard to guess that we actually share many of the same misgivings about quantifying all of this and the limits of mathematical tools to be helpful here.
At the same time, even if my argument is a toy one, your criticisms deserve to be engaged with. I think the 1st one is already addressed by my thinking but your 2nd one is novel and I appreciate it very much. So:
For the 1st one you mention that some denominations believe ignorance is no excuse and that people who die in perfect ignorance of god will still go to hell. That would be an Evil God scenario, in my book! That is the kind of thing I had in mind with the parenthetical "If God is Evil we are all going to hell anyway." Nothing to be done about that kind of thing, imo.
For the 2nd one, my understanding of it is -- if God is real then, on most theologies, he wouldn't allow his faith to be wiped out. Is that accurate? World governments would go "Super Mao Zedong Mode" but then the might of Heaven would rain down and smite them to stop them. Most importantly: this might even be what triggers the End Times and then there'd be no more souls going to Heaven or purgatory or wherever. That's a good point! I think that effectively addresses the EV logic of my toy argument and if I am committed to saving it I will have to think a little bit about how to respond to this.
Thank you again. I appreciated the more general section of the essay about the actual diversity of religious beliefs and the need for empirical work to make any of this actually useful to others. If you do go on to read some of my other stuff, you'll find that I take the same view -- I am much more of an empiricist / pragmatist kind of guy than a rationalist kind of guy.
Thanks for reading, I really appreciate your response. I should’ve probably clarified more in the post that I don’t think you’re advocating for the wager (or religion-cide!), I just disagreed that that logic is how it would play out. I think the wager is wrong too. And I’ll look forward to reading more of your work.
I don’t really understand the first criticism. BB’s god is limitless but you say yours acts on the world and seem to see a contradiction here? I’m not sure what it is? Only a limited god could act on the world?
A god who acts in the world in discernible ways could be disproven in the same ways he gives that Santa Claus could be, is the issue. (Especially if incarnate.) Or so it seemed to me.
I think Bentham's Bulldog wants the specific Christian conception of God to be true, which is why the theism vs atheism argument being made is so muddled. I agree that the problem of evil is an issue specifically for that idea of God. I have to be blunt and say I don't find much of it very persuasive. He argument seems to revolve around "Well, lots of people throughout history have thought it was true." A lot of people believed in a geocentric universe (an idea enforced by the Catholic Church at the time, I might add) and that bloodletting was an effective medical treatment. The truth is not an election, something people vote on as if picking a candidate.
Perhaps my biggest argument with that entire perspective is that some things simply aren't worth your time and energy to consider. It's dishonest to act as if anyone has the time and ability, or would even benefit from considering and reading up on every single argument which is advanced. There are true blue flat Earthers these days. They craft intricate arguments. I don't feel it necessary to familiarize myself with them. There are only so many hours in the day, so many facts you can cram into your brain. Better chose carefully which ones make the grade.
I'll just fess up and say I'm an atheist, although a bit of an unusual one. I posted a note about how my ideas about God follow Spinoza pretty closely (although I think Alain Badiou's argument in Being and Event that not even Spinoza's idea of God exists like he wants it to is pretty persuasive).
Point well taken but I think there’s a historical consideration here: at one point it was very much worth it to carefully debunk bloodletting as a medical cure, and trepanation, or more recently lobotomy. But at this point it isn’t.
The truth isn’t an election, but what’s worth taking seriously can differ over time and sometimes be a bit of a popularity contest. In the 1790s, James Tilly Matthews believed he was being harassed by spies with an “air loom,” but he was one dude, so nobody felt that was a serious idea worth engaging with — merely a symptom. Same goes for flat earthers, who reject even ancients who knew better. We have myriad reasons accumulated across centuries or millennia to reject them, and they’re fringe.
But the belief in a god is not fringe, and arguments are still being made for and against it by intellectually weighty writers. If it were a bloodletting revival that would not be the case.
Not everyone has to engage the debate, but the argument that belief in a god shouldn’t be treated as ridiculous, unlike flat earthers, seems entirely true.
I don't mean to put God in the same category as flat earth, just pointing out the how hollow the logic that "Well, a lot of people think it is true" is as a justification.
I think it's worth noting regarding the seriousness of a debate over the existence of God, that by your own admission we are nowhere near having the same definition of God. BB is talking about the Christian God, your conception is based in Judaism (which at least has Monotheism in common) and they there's talk of polytheistic religions. It's hard to argue against something which contains that much variation in a serious way. This last one is more directed at BB than you, but he jumps so quick from "God must exist because of this argument" to "Christianity broadly speaking is true and so is the Bible to some degree" when it is not at all clear that one follows from the other.
I think that's the part that really bothers me. It's like "What else are you even implying is true as a result of this argument for God?" I think there's a whole lot more superstition waiting in the wings than just anthropomorphic representation of existence in that instance, and I start getting a little more hostile. Even when I went to college, and this was at a STEM heavy university mind you, the debate over evolution was still being fought. I'll just be blunt and say Creationists gave me a baseline level of contempt for Christianity I've never shaken and probably will.
I'll also be even more forthright and say I was raised ELCA Lutheran and went to church every Sunday from the ages of 0-18. This isn't my first rodeo.
To me it’s only a justification for not thinking it’s ridiculous, as in beneath arguing about seriously for those who are so inclined, but fully agreed that it shouldn’t impact whether anyone thinks it’s *true*.
I [as a Christian with views that teeter right on the edge of (un)orthodoxy] feel like the thing that’s most missing from these discussions is just…a sense of embodiment. To me and like I think 99% of people who are actually religious, religion is a *way of going about things* that is practiced, that’s more easily *shown* than cognized about or argued about. The cognition is still important, of course, and at some fundamental level you do need to believe some specific things and not other specific things, but the whole doctrinal element feels honestly secondary or even tertiary to the general *orientation* of following a particular religion.
Specifically, arguing about divine attributes and whether/how they can be reconciled or whatever as a Main Determiner of whether to be religious is just deeply back-asswards to me, moreso than other theological points of disagreement. Like, if God exists, and He’s good, and (presupposing we’re Christians) we’re operating under the assumption that both of these are true… then He’s good in a way that is nonetheless consistent with apparent evils in our world. Can we talk about something else now? Do something else?
As I always say, there's the "proof from assholes". It runs like this: "Atheists are assholes, therefore God exists"