Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Barefoot Bree · 01-11-2006, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

OK. The only issue that remains is to determine whether you could be wrong. Even with the complete absence of credible evidence, is it certain that this is evidence of absence (without touching on the certainty that your conclusion that there is no credible evidence is correct)? You do not have to convince me. You simply need to avoid the situation where you take a position that allows for you to be wrong and you ignore the consequences of being wrong.

How about the situation where I have evaluated all the evidence available to me, recognized where it led me - to disbelief - and am perfectly comfortable "ignoring" the "consequences" - which I don't believe in anyway?

Quote:

This is not really a matter of belief or disbelief. When you cross the street in front of an approaching car, it does not really matter whether you believe the driver will stop or whether you believe he will not. You can decide to cross the street (trusting that the driver will stop) and find out that you made a wrong decision, or you can wait, and even if you made the wrong decision (the driver actually stops), you don't suffer (at least not significantly). You can make a rational decision about crossing the street without having to belief anything about the driver.

Nyet. It is at its heart a matter of belief vs. disbelief - that's what the Wager is all about! It's not whether I believe the driver will stop, it's whether I believe the car - God - even exists, and I do not. You're the only one in this conversation insisting that this invisible car & driver are there! Therefore, I will cross the street, thanks. There's a mad shoe sale going on over there.

Quote:

Well, according to what the Bible says, from God’s perspective, you are a pretty pathetic individual (as are all people). Apparently no passes on that basis.

See exile's post immediately above. Any god who treats his creations with so little love and respect does not deserve adoration from said creations.

rhutchin · 01-11-2006, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by exile

Can you actually "choose" to believe in anything? Can you say to yourself "I believe in God. Shazzam! Now I don't believe in God" or vice versa?

Obviously one can decide to go to church, join a religion, and so on. But belief is something else.

IMO belief is something like an emotional state (love or hate, for example).
It's something one can consciously influence - but not directly control.

So - Pascal's Wager is useless.

Decisions to go to church, join a religion, and so on are the expressions of what I think would be called a person's "beliefs." If one did not "believe" that there was some purpose/benefit to going to church, one would not go to church. Belief is the motivation to action.

In terms of Pascal's Wager, the Bible presents the argument for the existence of God and for the reward or punishment of people by this god based on their actions. According to the Bible, a person is in danger of eternal torment. If a person accepts that this is possible, then we can cay that he "believes" it when he is moved to behave in a certain way because of these things.

Belief may be an emotional state, but if unexpressed, it might as well not exist.

I don't really see where the Wager is useless as a methodology for decision making.

rhutchin · 01-11-2006, 09:17 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
Well, according to what the Bible says, from God’s perspective, you are a pretty pathetic individual (as are all people). Apparently no passes on that basis.

Alf
Which is exactly why we don't buy it when christians claims that he is all loving. An all loving god would not consider anyone to be pathetic. Even the smallest ant would be valuable and cherishable to an all loving god.

Keep yoru petty torturing tyrant to yourself. We don't buy it.

Alf

Whether God is loving or not (or whether you understand it) is really not an issue. What matters is your ability to prove that God does not exist. Regardless of what God is, if you are unable to prove that He does not exist, then it would be prudent for you to act as if He does exist. You don't need to buy what God is, but ignoring Him would be irrational (and probably based in an emotional response to God since it is not a rational response).

Barefoot Bree · 01-11-2006, 09:24 AM

I have proven to my satisfaction that God does not exist. Insisting that I not ignore what does not exist makes about as much sense as.... I can't think of a proper analogy. It's bullocks. Not ignoring something I've dismissed as nonexistant is what would be irrational. Rationality means ignoring what does not exist.

And if god cannot look inside the individual and see that he's only going to church to (for instance) fulfill the promise he made to his wife, and sits there daydreaming the whole time without a shred of belief in what he's (not) hearing, then he's a pretty pathetic excuse for a god.

rhutchin · 01-11-2006, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alf

This is what Pascal want you to believe. The problem is that this is not the situation.
Here is the situation.

You stand in the fog and some man comes along and tells you that a truck is heading your way, you need to move out of the way. However, you attempt to move left and another guy tells you "don't move there, there is a truck coming and it will come right there" and when you try to move right a third guy tells you "don't move there, the truck is coming right there".

Now, what do you do? Do you stand still, move left or right?

Suddenly, the wager isn't that clear any more.

Alf

You are asking the Wager to do more than it is intended to do. Remember, the Wager is basically a risk analysis. It can tell you to move but not necessarily in which direction. Where a person has difficulty is when one person tells him he must move to escape harm and another tells him that he must stand still to escape harm. The Wager says that the person must choice to do one or the other. If the person does nothing because he is thinking about it, then that is a default choice to stand still, but still a choice and incurs the risk associated with that choice.

rhutchin · 01-11-2006, 09:31 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
Pascal/s Wager has two basic premises—

1. If the Christian God exists, then…
2. If the Christian God does not exist, then…

HRG
Let's fill in the dots.

1. ... then neither your belief nor your lack of belief in him determines your eternal fate. According to some Christians non-culpable lack of belief may be better than belief without acceptance.

2. ... then neither your belief nor your lack of belief in him determines your eternal fate. Lack of belief may be better than belief, or it may be worse.

Those are two ways to fill in the dots (based on what certain people say).

You can fill in the dots many different ways.

The final point you way is the one a person needs to consider, "Lack of belief may be better than belief, or it may be worse." Pascal merely argued that the person who considered the risks involved would conclude that lack of belief was worse than belief.

rhutchin · 01-11-2006, 09:44 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
I agree. I would be willing to identify eternal torment with the Biblical God, but in the course of discussion, others have brought up the Easter Bunny who has been alleged to threaten eternal torment and other types of gods and belief systems that also do so. This led to the separation of eternal torment from the Biblical God and discussion of the two as mutually exclusive ideas.

AlfI guess you don't mean mutually exclusive here.

God implies eternal torment but not the other way. If the NT god exist and the NT is true then eternal torment is real - end of discussion.

The point is that we do not think that god is real. Now, there may be other gods who also threaten with eternal torment if we do not worship them but generally most atheists do not believe in any of them.

Yes. I can go with that. However, it does not matter whether atheists think that God is real. What matters is whether atheists can prove that God does not exists. Absent the ability to prove that God does not exist, the prudent action is to take that course of action which offers the highest benefit and that is to believe (or accept the possibility) that God is real.

Mageth · 01-11-2006, 09:58 AM

I was just curious, rhutchin, if you check for monsters under your bed every night. According to your argument, you are acting irrationally if you do not do so.

You cannot prove that "monsters under the bed" do not exist. Therefore, rationally (according to your argument), you should take the normal, sensible precaution of checking under your bed every night before you go to sleep.

I also wonder if, when you spill salt, do you toss someover your left shoulder? The superstition goes that, if you spill salt, you need to toss some over your left shoulder to avoid bad luck. Since you cannot prove that no bad luck will result if you spill salt and do not follow the precautionary measure of tossing some over your shoulder, it would seem the rational thing for you to do would be to exercise the precaution and toss the salt over your shoulder just in case.

----

Earlier, I mentioned that your Pascal's Wager argument was an emotional appeal based on fear, and not an argument from rationality. I still hold to that. But I'll add this, based on the above:

It's also arguably an argument from superstition. In my book, the notion of "believing in God to avoid eternal punishment" qualifies as nothing more than a superstition, based on "folk knowledge". I classify it in exactly the same class as tossing salt over your shoulder to avoid bad luck. I am not a superstitious person. I do not toss salt over my shoulder. I do not avoid crossing a black cat's path. I am not afraid to walk under a ladder. I do not panic when I break a mirror. Likewise, I see no reason to genuflect to some god or other to avoid the superstition "eternal punishment".

BTW, there are many other such superstitions. Using your "rational" argument, you'd best be practicing all of them to avoid bad luck.

Mageth · 01-11-2006, 10:04 AM

It does not matter whether you think that spilling salt will result in bad luck unless you toss some over your shoulder. What matters is whether you can prove that spilling salt will not result in bad luck. Absent the ability to prove that spilling salt will not result in bad luck, the prudent action is to take that course of action which offers the highest benefit and that is to believe (or accept the possibility) that tossing salt over your shoulder will prevent bad luck.

It does not matter whether you think monsters under your bed are real. What matters is whether you can prove that "monsters under the bed" do not exist. Absent the ability to prove that "monsters under the bed" do not exist, the prudent action is to take that course of action which offers the highest benefit and that is to believe (or accept the possibility) that "monsters under the bed" are real. Check under your bed every night!

JamesBannon · 01-11-2006, 10:14 AM

Mageth,
Precisely. Pascal's Wager is a non-argument. Consider replacing God with an evil demon who will subject you to eternal punishment if you do believe. What would be the "most rational" course then? We might as well replace God with the Celestial Teapot, the IPU or FSM or any being that met the criteria.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-11-2006, 09:24 AM	#304
Barefoot Bree Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: East of ginger trees Posts: 12,637	I have proven to my satisfaction that God does not exist. Insisting that I not ignore what does not exist makes about as much sense as.... I can't think of a proper analogy. It's bullocks. Not ignoring something I've dismissed as nonexistant is what would be irrational. Rationality means ignoring what does not exist. And if god cannot look inside the individual and see that he's only going to church to (for instance) fulfill the promise he made to his wife, and sits there daydreaming the whole time without a shred of belief in what he's (not) hearing, then he's a pretty pathetic excuse for a god.

01-11-2006, 09:58 AM	#308
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I was just curious, rhutchin, if you check for monsters under your bed every night. According to your argument, you are acting irrationally if you do not do so. You cannot prove that "monsters under the bed" do not exist. Therefore, rationally (according to your argument), you should take the normal, sensible precaution of checking under your bed every night before you go to sleep. I also wonder if, when you spill salt, do you toss someover your left shoulder? The superstition goes that, if you spill salt, you need to toss some over your left shoulder to avoid bad luck. Since you cannot prove that no bad luck will result if you spill salt and do not follow the precautionary measure of tossing some over your shoulder, it would seem the rational thing for you to do would be to exercise the precaution and toss the salt over your shoulder just in case. ---- Earlier, I mentioned that your Pascal's Wager argument was an emotional appeal based on fear, and not an argument from rationality. I still hold to that. But I'll add this, based on the above: It's also arguably an argument from superstition. In my book, the notion of "believing in God to avoid eternal punishment" qualifies as nothing more than a superstition, based on "folk knowledge". I classify it in exactly the same class as tossing salt over your shoulder to avoid bad luck. I am not a superstitious person. I do not toss salt over my shoulder. I do not avoid crossing a black cat's path. I am not afraid to walk under a ladder. I do not panic when I break a mirror. Likewise, I see no reason to genuflect to some god or other to avoid the superstition "eternal punishment". BTW, there are many other such superstitions. Using your "rational" argument, you'd best be practicing all of them to avoid bad luck.

01-11-2006, 10:04 AM	#309
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	It does not matter whether you think that spilling salt will result in bad luck unless you toss some over your shoulder. What matters is whether you can prove that spilling salt will not result in bad luck. Absent the ability to prove that spilling salt will not result in bad luck, the prudent action is to take that course of action which offers the highest benefit and that is to believe (or accept the possibility) that tossing salt over your shoulder will prevent bad luck. It does not matter whether you think monsters under your bed are real. What matters is whether you can prove that "monsters under the bed" do not exist. Absent the ability to prove that "monsters under the bed" do not exist, the prudent action is to take that course of action which offers the highest benefit and that is to believe (or accept the possibility) that "monsters under the bed" are real. Check under your bed every night!

01-11-2006, 10:14 AM	#310
JamesBannon Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Paisley, Scotland Posts: 5,819	Mageth, Precisely. Pascal's Wager is a non-argument. Consider replacing God with an evil demon who will subject you to eternal punishment if you do believe. What would be the "most rational" course then? We might as well replace God with the Celestial Teapot, the IPU or FSM or any being that met the criteria.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.