(July 31, 2012 at 6:22 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: I like to call it Pascal's copout.
Is "belief" under Pascal's wager really "belief" at all? How can you go from not believing in something due to lack of evidence, and then go to a state of "believing" while still knowingly lacking evidence? Seems to me more like pretending than believing which under most theist's line of "thinking" won't cut it to get you out of hell.
I'm not sure what the problem you're articulating is. People can change their minds, and change their beliefs. Are you asking how this occurs? That seems like a question for neuropsychology.
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
