The Limits of Religious Belief

[voice=Dr Erskine at Steve Rogers' final enlistment attempt]So you want to kill women.[/voice]Abortion is also a necessary medical treatment for a failed pregnancy without which the mother will die or, if she survives, will become infertile. The rash of state anti-abortion laws have the effect of condemning those women to a horrible death. Even though many of those laws give lip service to allowing abortion to save the woman's life or health, in practice she has to be on the verge of death before the doctors are legally allowed to do their job. Horror stories include the woman having to leave the ER and go wait in her car until she has almost bled out.Consider the recent case of Kate Cox who needed an abortion to treat her failed pregnancy in Texas. She had to appeal to the state courts to get permission, which was blocked by Ken Paxton:

quote:

---

Paxton has sought to block rules from the US Health and Human Services Department that would require hospitals to provide abortions to women when the procedure is necessary to save their lives.

​

After Texas judge Maya Guerra Gamble ruled that Kate Cox, a pregnant woman whose fetus had the trisomy 18 condition, qualified for an abortion under the medical exemption provision in Texas law, Paxton in December 2023 called the judge an "activist" that was "not medically qualified" to make this ruling, threatened to prosecute doctors if they performed an abortion on Cox, and stated that Texas hospitals that allowed Cox's abortion could "be liable for negligent credentialing" the abortion-performing doctor. Paxton appealed Gamble's ruling to the Texas Supreme Court, arguing that "how long the child is expected to live" was irrelevant to the case, and that Cox had not proven that the pregnancy threatened her life. The Supreme Court paused Gamble's ruling, leading to Cox leaving Texas to obtain an abortion; later the Texas Supreme Court ruled against Cox, stating that even though her pregnancy was "extremely complicated", even "serious" pregnancy difficulties do not meet Texas' medical exemption provision.

---

Kate Cox had to flee the state in order to receive the medical care she needed.Remember all the Republican hysteria over their imaginary "death panels under Obamacare"? Well, those death panels are very real and are created and operated by anti-abortion Republicans.So, why do you hate women so much? Or is it just that your god demands human sacrifice? Yeah, right! While your side also attacks access to birth control as well as sex education in order to keep young people for learning how to prevent pregnancy. Instead, you [pl] push "abstinence only" programs which don't work.Sex education and easy access to birth control do work to reduce abortion rates. Your [pl] opposition to them only serve to drive up the demand for abortions. What are you [pl] thinking?

Those are all moral precepts, not religious. Every single human society has them even though details can vary. Has nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs, except that religion keeps trying to steal credit for morality (doesn't one of them deal with theft?). Indeed, don't religious beliefs often require violating morality (eg, requiring the withholding of vitally needed emergency care for pregnant women)?Leaving for our monthly Atheists United breakfast.

That's Pascal's Wager. It's rubbish (British for "crap"). It's a weak argument and a cheap trick.That Wikipedia link describes it thus:

Wikipedia: Pascal's Wager:

---

The wager

​

The wager uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):

​

• God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives
• A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up
• You must wager (it is not optional)
• Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing
• Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
• But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe...' and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves.

---

The article discusses Pascal's original intent and arguments, not your (and other proselytizers') misuse of it to proselytize or just as a cheap trick to win an argument -- that is where it's rubbish. My page on it, After-Life Insurance, is introduced with it having been tried on me through a car insurance analogy, hence the title. My reply to the "salesman":

DWise1: After-Life Insurance:

---

So I told my after-life insurance salesman that his after-life insurance was a rotten deal (unfortunately, I didn't think of that name for it until the next day, but that poor guy was already hurting too much). We had to pay an exorbinant price for a policy that would only pay in the most restricted and oddest of circumstances. By the car insurance analogy, it would only pay if you were hit by a green Edsel -- on the northbound side of the Santa Ana Freeway -- while it was exceeding the speed limit -- backing up -- at night -- with its lights off -- being driven by a one-armed Lithuanian midget.

​

He had been so self-assured that his argument was flawless and unassailable. He couldn't understand what had just happened. I think he still doesn't know what had hit him.

​

Which goes to show that it does pay to read the classics.

---

I also reposted a parody news article, Pascal's Casinos Under Fire, from an old site:

Pascal's Casinos Under Fire:

---

"Safe Bet" Ruins Lives

​

In the Seventeenth Century, Pascal invented a wager that intertwined philosophy, religion, and gambling, and he opened a casino in which his new game was exclusively played. In time, Pascal's wager proved so popular that franchises sprouted in virtually every neighborhood around the world.

​

Basic gameplay follows the original recipe. The dealer asks, "God is, or He is not. What will you wager?" The players then bet on one of the two possibilities. If you bet that God exists and win, you win everything; if you lose, you lose nothing. If you bet that God doesn't exist and win, you win nothing; if you lose, you lose everything.

​

For obvious reasons, most players choose to bet that God exists, but that's only the beginning. They are given a complex regimen of "do-s" and "don't-s" to follow throughout their lives -- if they don't, they can't win. Some players come to regret their bet.

​

"If you lose, you lose a helluva lot more than nothing," said Jerrold Alwell, who is kicking a weekly gambling habit with the help of detox therapy. "They tell you it's a safe bet, but they make you sign your life away. I almost lost my mind to those liars at Pascal's."

​

"And they don't tell you that only one casino will have winners," added Angela de la Reese, also a recovering addict. "Players at all others will go to the winning casino's hell." Because each casino's regimen prohibits play at any other, players can't hedge their bets by playing more than one. Detox therapists call this the "avoiding the wrong hell" problem.

---

The basic error the Wager makes is that the choice is not just either-God-exist-or-not, but rather includes choosing the right god (from among 288,000 gods) as well as the right theology associated with that god (eg, from among about 45,000 different theologies for the "Christian God" alone). As I discuss it on my page :

DWise1: After-Life Insurance:

---

First there is one very basic question which never gets asked here: which god? Just because some of the gods may exist, does not mean that they all exist. Which one do you choose? Remember, if you choose the wrong one, the outcome will be the same as for not choosing any (ie, #3 and #4). Each god has roughly the same probability of existing as any other (ignoring some of the pantheon package deals out there), or that none of them exist. So choosing the right god is not 100% as presented to us, but rather is a fraction of 1%.

​

Even worse, you not only need to choose the right god, but you also need to choose the right theology. Some gods have a variety of theologies associated with them, each one considering itself the True Faith and the others heresies; e.g., the various sects of Christianity. So even if you choose the right god, if you choose the wrong theology, then you are just as out of luck as if you had chosen the wrong god, some times even more so. Pascal was a Catholic, so he was talking about choosing to be a Catholic. The Protestants using his Wager in vain have already chosen the wrong theology and so picked the losing side of the Wager and are trying to make losers out of everyone they proselytize to. To choose none of the gods actually turns out to be the safer bet, because, unlike the Christian god, a lot of the gods couldn't care less whether you believe in them or not.

​

And what happens if you choose a god and it turns out that none of them exist? Pascal naively assumed that being a Catholic had an inherent benefit of making you a better person, which you could not achieve as a non-believer. While there may be some room for argument in the first part, the last part is blatantly untrue.

​

Pascal maintained that believing in his god and theology costs you nothing, but that is not true of his own theology, nor of most of the theologies that exist. What if you could not pursue your dream career because your chosen god forbade it? Or marry your one true love (your "media naranja", or "half orange", as my wife's grandmother had put it) because your god forbade you to marry that kind of person? Or learn the sciences because your god forbade you to study the truth? Or to think for yourself because your god forbade it? Or had to suffered from a horrible disease or injury or had to watch your child die horribly of a treatable disease because your god forbade the medical treatment for it? For many of us, that would be too great a cost to bear.

---

So you have already lost the Wager. You are going to Hell. Salvation is for Catholics while Hell is for heretics, especially you heretical Protestants.You have already lost.

Circa 20 June 1785 (a few years before he drafted the First Amendment), James Madison authored a pamphlet, A Memorial and Remonstrance (link to my page reposting the text), for a campaign against Patrick Henry's bill before the Virginia Legislative to allocate public funds (ie, tax money) to "[establish] a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion" (ie, clergy). This pamphlet proved so effective that when the State Legislature reconvened, Henry's bill was dropped without even being brought to a vote. Instead, Thomas Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was voted into law.The first item of Madison's pamphlet address your objection (my emphasis added with bold yellow) and the second has one of the earliest descriptions of the Wall of Separation between Church and State (my emphasis also added in the text).

A Memorial and Remonstrance:

---

1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

​

2. Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

---

What we now see is a GOP minority which has achieved a bare political majority through devious means (eg, gerrymandering, election interference) trespassing on the rights of all members of society.The rest of A Memorial and Remonstrance describes the deleterious effects of mixing state and religion on society, government, and religion. And the first item provides us with the original intent of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

You claim that DrJones* wrote all that.Where did he write that? And what was he talking about?And what the hell is the conversion of existing terrestrial matter into biomass supposed to have to do with the earth accreting more mass? What the hell are you talking about?

Your correction of the formatting of your Message 44 made all the difference. Best to verify that one's message is formatted correctly and to correct any problems before walking away from it. But that still does not answer my question (Message 45): I see you arguing that the earth's past biomass over vast periods of time originated through accretion; id est, it rained down from interplanetary space onto the earth's surface thus increasing the earth's mass. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Oscar? Hence my question, "What the hell are you talking about?"Accretion is not how biomass forms. How could you possibly not realize that biomass starts forming from photosynthesis converting pre-existing molecules of water and carbon dioxide into carbohydrates (eg, C₆H₁₂O₆) and oxygen. That biomass then provides food for animals, as so on. Planetary accretion from space plays no direct role in the formation of biomass. Why would you ever think that it did?And how could you possibly expect Big Bang Theory to explain the formation of biomass? Biomass forms because matter and energy already exist and will form regardless of how that matter and energy came into existence. It's like how evolution, being an inherent property of life, exists and operates regardless of how life had gotten started in the first place; the moment that life got started (regardless of how that happened) evolution also got started.So your "questions" do not make any sense at all.(Message 44)I'll interpret that as A big number. A truly astronomical number.The problem with such large numbers is that unscrupulous types (eg, creationists such as Kent Hovind, Republicans trying to gut social programs or aid to Ukraine) will use them to deceive their audiences. I discuss such a case in my page, DWise1: Kent Hovind's Solar Mass Loss Claim, which examines a Kent Hovind claim that at the rate that the sun is losing its mass through "burning its fuel" (5 million tonnes per second) then five billion (10⁹) years ago the sun would have been so massive and have so much more gravity as to have "sucked the earth in". The rate of mass loss is close enough, but Hovind's deception comes from throwing astronomically large numbers at you and then doing a lot of hand-waving.By doing the math (which Hovind doesn't do and which he forbids his audience to do or to listen to anyone who has done the math), we find that in 5 billion years that sun had lost 788,923,149,367,500,000,000,000 tons (7.88923×10²³ tons), yet another astronomical number. But we can get some perspective by comparing that number to the total mass of the sun: 1.98855 × 10²⁷ tons. That means that the total solar mass lost so far is only 0.03965755% of the sun's total mass, a few hundredths of one percent. And since the sun's gravity is directly proportional to its mass, then the ancient sun's gravity was just a few hundredths of one percent greater, far too little change to have "sucked the earth in", but rather instead by only about 40,000 miles.In the case of Republicans, they try to "balance the budget" by cutting vitally needed social programs which in reality only account for a couple percent of the total discretionary budget; starving the poor will only succeed in starving the poor, not in balancing the budget.So don't let anyone fool you with big-sounding numbers.But looking at your own very large number and comparing it to the earth's total mass, I found something interesting: While I'm not intimately familiar with coal formation, it does make a lot of sense that much of the biomass' mass would have returned to the environment to contribute to the formation of more biomass.I do not understand why you would work with raw biomass figures instead of decayed biomass. As an example, consider peat bogs.And it's not clear why you talk about accretion of matter from space. Are you assuming that the only way for that decaying biomass to be buried is through the accretion of meteoric matter from space? Don't you realize that the earth's surface is geologically active? Sedimentary layers are not formed through the accretion of meteoric matter, but rather through the redistribution of materials on the earth's surface. ABE:
{

IOW: Yes, it is indeed a geological phenomenon.

​

What part of geology don't you understand?

}It can be very difficult and tiring to try to figure out what scientific illiterates are talking about.  ADDENDUM:

From your Message 60: How? By having studied geology and then spent their careers in geology which involves a helluva lot of work in the field examining and analyzing literally mountains of data.IOW, geologists know a lot about geology because they have seen and worked with a lot of geological evidence.Now compare that massive expertise with the arrogant ignorance exhibited by both yourself and stupid ignorant creationists in a religious crusade to disprove reality.Nu? Yes, they do. And geologists not only know the same thing, but they also know in great depth and great detail HOW floods make those changes. As well as the kinds of changes and the diagnostic characteristics of those changes.Geologists know a lot because they have seen and studied a lot. No, because the "changes" that YECs put forth have no basis in reality. Geological evidence not only does not support what YECs claim, but it actually contradicts their claims.Geologists know a lot because they have seen and studied a lot. Creationists know nothing because they refuse to even look but rather just make up stupid stuff to support their false beliefs. Yes, of course. And in addition geologists know what kinds of changes volcanos can make. YECs don't know that, but rather just make up stupid stuff.Geologists know a lot because they have seen and studied a lot. Creationists know nothing because they refuse to even look but rather just make up stupid stuff to support their false beliefs. Yes, of course. And in addition geologists know what kinds of changes earthquakes can make. YECs don't know that, but rather just make up stupid stuff.Geologists know a lot because they have seen and studied a lot. Creationists know nothing because they refuse to even look but rather just make up stupid stuff to support their false beliefs. What the f**k does that have to do with anything?Why are you so fixated so stupidly on something that has nothing to do with geological change? What the F**K are you talking about? What is that even supposed to mean?Is this some new form of creationist stupidity trying to push a crazy idea of "continuous progressive creation" in which your god continually creates new mass for the earth? That's sheer insanity in addition to being incredibly stupid!And yet again, it has absolutely nothing to do with the geological processes being discussed.Why are you so obsessed with such flagrantly stupid things? Is it a side effect of having devoted your academic career with made-up stuff? (NOTE: since the supernatural is completely outside our very limited and fallible human capabilities, no detailed examination (well, any examination at all) is possible, which means that detailed descriptions of the supernatural are necessarily all made up) Yes, it was originally formed by accretion, but, while miniscule amounts of matter is still being accreted, that has no bearing nor effect on geological processes such as erosion and depositation.Why are you so unwilling to even try to understand that?Here's an analogy. You were formed in your mother's womb through the accretion of material from her body. After you were born and weaned (ie, no longer gaining sustenance from your mother's body), you continued to grow. According to your own reasoning, the only way you could have grown was to have continued to accrete matter from your mother's body.How is that supposed to have worked? Obviously (so obvious that even you would have to agree), that is not at all how you grew through childhood and into adulthood. To argue otherwise would be most extremely stupid. Yes, you are wrong and, yes, we have corrected you. Repeatedly. But you refuse to accept correction.Geologists know a lot because they have seen and studied a lot. Creationists know nothing because they refuse to even look but rather just make up stupid stuff to support their false beliefs.As Percy points out in Message 56: Stop listening to creationists. Creationists are lying to you!Listen to geologists, since, unlike creationists, they know what they are talking about.Your SSC is in the Tampa area which includes the campus of the University of South Florida (USF), which does have a geology department. You also have community colleges. Use those educational resources!