I suppose I was asking something closer to foreign policy, not domestic policy.
That isn't really an answer to the question.
Because I think that people are only saved by Christ, so none of those work.
Now, if you're asking why I think that Christianity is more likely to be true than some position that would recommend any other identifiable course of action, well, I think that the fact that it's claiming to be a revealed religion and is large are reasonably strong points in its favor—if we expect God to reveal himself (or, at least, if we expect that to be likely provided that he care about what we do, which is what is here relevant, since we want to know what can give infinite benefits/harms). I think that the evidence for the resurrection is decent. The teachings make sense.
assuming there is an eternal existence beyond my single finite life, it is vastly (infinitely!) improbable that I'm experiencing the finite life right now.
Is this still true if eternity is not temporal? (Or: might not be temporal)
Then it's in your interest to estimate the probability space and act accordingly. Not to assume everything magically cancels.
Throwing up your hands and doing nothing is lazy and irresponsible, considering the stakes.
Pascal was quite right to criticize this attitude of carelessness or dismissal in Pensées 195:
Before entering into the proofs of the Christian religion, I find it necessary to point out the sinfulness of those men who live in indifference to the search for truth in a matter which is so important to them, and which touches them so nearly.
Of all their errors, this doubtless is the one which most convicts them of foolishness and blindness, and in which it is easiest to confound them by the first glimmerings of common sense, and by natural feelings.
For it is not to be doubted that the duration of this life is but a moment; that the state of death is eternal, whatever may be its nature; and that thus all our actions and thoughts must take such different directions according to the state of that eternity, that it is impossible to take one step with sense and judgment, unless we regulate our course by the truth of that point which ought to be our ultimate end.
There is nothing clearer than this; and thus, according to the principles of reason, the conduct of men is wholly unreasonable, if they do not take another course.
On this point, therefore, we condemn those who live without thought of the ultimate end of life, who let themselves be guided by their own inclinations and their own pleasures without reflection and without concern, and, as if they could annihilate eternity by turning away their thought from it, think only of making themselves happy for the moment.
Yet this eternity exists, and death, which must open into it, and threatens them every hour, must in a little time infallibly put them under the dreadful necessity of being either annihilated or unhappy for ever, without knowing which of these eternities is for ever prepared for them.
This is a doubt of terrible consequence. They are in peril of eternal woe; and thereupon, as if the matter were not worth the trouble, they neglect to inquire whether this is one of those opinions which people receive with too credulous a facility, or one of those which, obscure in themselves, have a very firm, though hidden, foundation. Thus they know not whether there be truth or falsity in the matter, nor whether there be strength or weakness in the proofs. They have them before their eyes; they refuse to look at them; and in that ignorance they choose all that is necessary to fall into this misfortune if it exists, to await death to make trial of it, yet to be very content in this state, to make profession of it, and indeed to boast of it. Can we think seriously on the importance of this subject without being horrified at conduct so extravagant?
This resting in ignorance is a monstrous thing, and they who pass their life in it must be made to feel its extravagance and stupidity, by having it shown to them, so that they may be confounded by the sight of their folly. For this is how men reason, when they choose to live in such ignorance of what they are, and without seeking enlightenment. "I know not," they say ..."
Mercantilism. :(
and what are you really left with?
A value that's still more than you sitting around and doing whatever else you do.
If I actually considered vague abstract probabilities like this worth acting on I'd probably be doing all kinds of dumb shit all the time.
This wouldn't actually be the case, if you were convinced a single path was better expected value. Then you'd just do that single thing.
Why word count and not syllable count?
What do you think the early Christians were even doing, if they didn't think there was a resurrection?
If you look at the things say he received, it's clearly more than you're positing.
You have a framing here that feels like it's intended to allow you to be pretty dismissive, and it just doesn't feel very plausible to me.
Where Muhammad got Islam from? Where Siddhartha Gautama got Buddhism from?
Do you really think that those three figures were gathering knowledge in the same way? That doesn't seem terribly likely to me. They seem pretty different in how they go about things.
I'm sure he did, otherwise we'd know nothing about him but instead would know about some other guy that did.
I don't know what you're trying to get at there, but I don't see how it interacts with the purpose that I mentioned it for: to indicate that Christianity is not just Pauline, but accurately conforms to what the direct followers of Jesus believes.
Only if you think him a devious liar, which, it seems, you do.
And it is believed Pauline by basically all scholars. You think he was just being a devious liar in that?
Anyway, Acts also confirms contact with the disciples of Jesus.
That last one is said immediately prior to the transfiguration.
Sure, it's trendy to go after Paul, and is frequently done by those who dislike Christianity, especially if they like the common idea of Jesus (which often does not correspond to Jesus as he actually was—he did not come to bring peace, but a sword). But yeah, secular academics, exchristians, and lefty christians all clearly have the direction of motivated reasoning going in that direction. This is especially the case for those who are precommitted to the position that Christianity couldn't possibly be, you know, true.
Anyway, Peter also sees a vision allowing the eating of unclean foods. And Paul confirms his beliefs with the apostles who were Jesus' direct followers—Galatians 2.
It is far easier to simply generalise groups, Tutsis or Yorubas are simply seen as Africans.
If we didn't want to do that, what would be your recommended more detailed classification?
Why are you convinced it's false?
I assume he thought that was true, though.
I imagine 3rd party is a more effective protest?
because I think another President DNC is preferable to a President Kamala.
In what ways?
Several of the members of the Supreme Court try pretty hard to just call balls and strikes.
as quite willing to compromise on values for tuition money,
Do they? I would have thought they were heavily subsidized.
I thought they knew he was Republican from voter records?
Maybe if one reads the 10th amendment broadly?
I suppose the real question is about what relation the founders would have intended the common law to have to the state governments, and what would they have considered to lie within their powers.
Could you elaborate on what you meant by this? I'm not tracking perfectly:
Because there's still quite a lot of us on the left who fundamentally dispute the framing of
COVID gamesmanship about religious services or with visas
I very much do not grant this!
- Prev
- Next
Isn't doing nothing the most foolish option, due to Pascal's wager?
More options
Context Copy link