What is the Objectivist Position on this Philosophical Quandry?

Posted by $ prof611 10 years, 3 months ago to Philosophy
121 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Here's a scenario based on a variation of Pacal's Wager [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_... ]:

An atheist lies on his deathbed. Suddenly, he calls for a priest, so he can "confess" and obtain absolution.

It seems to me that this behavior is completely logical. The man reasons as follows: If, by even an infinitessimal chance, his philosophy is mistaken, and there is a "god", he will then be able to go to "heaven". If his philosophy is correct, then he has lost nothing by "confessing".

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 4.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You'll have to answer to find the destination.

    Here, I'll give you another easier question. Have you ever loved someone?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by frodo_b 10 years, 3 months ago
    His behavior is not logical. Which god? Which faction?

    He would be better not confessing to any god, lest he choose the wrong one and further offend the right one.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by frodo_b 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Objectivism does provide the answer to that phenomenon. No one has the right to initiate force on another person, but everyone has the right to use force in their defense. You would be cut off at the knees the moment you tried to become the “bad ass on the block”.

    You seem to be confusing atheism with amorality. One does not need to believe in a deity to live a moral life. If anything, living a life based on a morality given to you by an imaginary being is more likely to lead to tyranny and oppression. Want to violate someone’s rights? No problem, say your invisible friend told you to do it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Not at all. It's in my rational self-interest to be the baddest ass on the block. Prove me wrong.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by gaiagal 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    An omniscient loving God would know if the confession was sincere or not sincere and mete out the consequence desired by the confessing soul. Sincere, heaven, insincere, hell. The soul's choice, not God. Free will.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Retaliate all you want. If I'm the BAOTB I'll defeat you. And subjugate you to my will.

    And where do you come up with "Theocracies otoh see everyone as a potential tyrannous traitor?" Nowhere do I see that in Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism. I'm sure you can cite Islam and fringe groups, but not the modern major core religions.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And I have probably answered this at least 10 times. Objectivism allows retalitory force. It is not a system of anarchism. Theocracies otoh see everyone as a potential tyrannous traitor. And I have no idea where oppression comes from. There is only one philosophy that has fully developed the moral justification for freedom. It 's like you refuse to read any of the philosophy. Because you mis -characterize it like this all the time
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Have you never found solace in a treasured possession - a teddy bear, a letter from a loved one, even a memory?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I've probably posted this a hundred times here, but one more won't get those who dislike it any more angry with me.

    For those who don't believe in a deity, if they are right, then those of us who do and live a moral life as specified by most major religions (leave Islam out for the moment), then at the end of said life what has been the result? We've all lived together amicably and with mutual respect. But what if the deists are correct?

    As you say, we have to die to know the truth. But what about the life before death? I argue that Objectivism does not provide the answer to the "Baddest Ass on the Block" phenomenon. Thus, the rational/logical outcome of atheism is tyranny and oppression.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Do you not live in the comfort of your love for another and their love for you? Is that not rational?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by paturpin 10 years, 3 months ago
    No one can "prove" God exists but neither can one "disprove " the existence, its a matter of faith in the final estimation. It'll all come out in the wash as the saying goes, you have to die to find out the truth
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    As stated above, there are infinite descriptions for what is or could be god. The atheist should consider-
    the actual god could be both a rewarder and punisher. Knowing that the confession is contrived, this god could send the scheming atheist to hell whereas a steadfast honest atheist may go to limbo or heaven even. So for an atheist weighing up even remote probabilities there is a downside to switching.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by paturpin 10 years, 3 months ago
    its kind of the same idea of "no atheist in fox holes"
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There's been a lot of foolishness perpetrated over the centuries. If that were absolutely true, and believing that Christ was the savior was the only method of getting into heaven, then what about all those who died prior to Christ even being born? Or what about all those peoples around the globe who never were exposed to such knowledge even after his death (and even today, with some peoples that have been separated from the rest of humanity)?

    No, those ideas are not reasonable. Christ said that "what so ever you do unto the least of my brothers, you do unto me." Thus, living a moral life where you are compassionate to your fellow humans is all that is required (and compassionate does not mean "living for them" or being their slave, so you radical O's out there, just lay off).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 23Skidoo 10 years, 3 months ago
    According to Scripture, if he believes that Christ is the Son of the living God and says so aloud, he will gain entrance to heaven. Even Hitler or Stalin could have done the same.... You are right, the dude is just covering his bases, just in case....
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Watcher55 10 years, 3 months ago
    The problem with Pascal's Wager and its variants is they are based on an invalid restriction of the possibilities. The God claimed is an arbitrary claim: and any arbitrary claim is meaningless, partly because there are an infinite number of competing and contradictory arbitrary claims. No rational choice can be made.
    For an illustration of the problem, see The One True God: http://www.thesavvystreet.com/the-one-tr...
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo