Quote:
rhutchin
As you originally described it, atheistic Buddhism is a belief system that purportedly allows a person to escape eternal torment. That is the same thing that theistic belief systems offer. Pascal’s Wager is built on two basic points: (1) uncertainty in the position that God does not exist, and (2) the penalty (eternal torment) for believing that God does not exist and being wrong. Pascal’s Wager says that rational reaction to this uncertainty and the penalty is to pursue that option which provides a means for a person to escape eternal torment.
Atheistic Buddhism may be a non-belief position with respect to the existence of god, but that is irrelevant to the analysis posed by Pascal’s Wager.
enemigo
So since you are aware of the concept of atheistic Buddhism, your logic says that you should accept it and choose not to believe in god, just in case it is true. So do you believe in god?
|
No. Logic says that you need to consider atheistic Buddhism in the pool of all belief systems that purport to provide a means to escape eternal torment. The problem for the rational person is that he seeks to escape eternal torment, but he is confronted with more than one alleged belief system telling him how to escape torment but only one is true. One can believe in only one system because belief in any one system negates protection under any other system. Pascal’s Wager only removed the nonbelief option.
Quote:
rhutchin
Pascal’s Wager leads one to the conclusion that they should take action to avoid eternal torment. As originally conceived by Pascal, only the Biblical God was seen as providing an escape from eternal torment. Since then, other gods and belief systems (such as atheistic Buddhism) have been suggested to provide a means to escape eternal torment. The Wager is still valid; the rational action is for a person to seek to avoid eternal torment. The part that has become complicated is the need to determine which of the many belief systems espousing a way to escape eternal torment is actually true.
enemigo
Notice how you have retreated from the position that Pascal's Wager necessarily results in theism.
|
That is because people have created many belief systems to enable a person to escape eternal torment and Pascal’s Wager basically differentiates between belief systems and nonbelief systems. Pascal reduced the equation down to belief in God or no belief in God. However, the analysis is expandable to belief systems vs nonbelief systems. As presented by Pascal, the Wager leads to the conclusion that a person should believe in God in order to escape eternal torment. In the expanded version, the Wager leads to the conclusion that one should accept that true belief system that provides an escape from eternal torment. There is no retreat. It is the same Wager expanded to include more than one belief system.
Quote:
rhutchin
That’s fine. If you decide that you will not believe in any god, then you should be pursuing one of those non-theistic systems that promise you escape from eternal torment. Are you? If not, you are acting irrationally.
enemigo
You've shifted the goalposts. You have admitted that Pascal's Wager's risk analysis logic can produce situations where nontheism is safer than theism. But the whole point of Pascal's Wager is supposed to be an argument that one should believe in God!!!
|
Pascal’s Wager leads one to believe in God where only God provides an escape from eternal torment. The key to the argument is the need to escape eternal torment. In recent years, nontheistic belief systems have been proposed to enable a person to escape eternal torment. When these belief systems are incorporated into the analysis, we get the result that one should pursue that belief system that will enable one to escape eternal torment. The added problem is that one now has to sort through all the belief systems that have been proposed to find the one that is the true belief system.
Quote:
rhutchin
OK. How is the Professor’s God not an alternative belief system? Are you saying that it is not a belief system?
enemigo
What do you mean by "belief system?"
You said, "Pascal’s Wager affirms your position that you should believe in a god vs not believing in any god, but it does not tell you which god to believe in."
It does not affirm the position that you should believe in god, because if God Z exists, and you believe in any god, including himself, then you get punished.
|
A person should believe in God when only god-related belief systems are considerd that would enable a person to escape eternal torment. You (or someone else) then proposed that non-theistic belief systems could exist that allegedly could accomplish the same result. Thus, the expansion to all belief systems.
A belief system is needed when a person has concluded that it is to his benefit to escape eternal torment. Having concluded that he should seek to escape eternal torment, the person then must find a way to do this. A belief system purports to enable a person to escape eternal torment by doing some action.
Quote:
rhutchin
OK. I say A and you say (A + irrelevant trivia).
enemigo
Accepting potential does not automatically exclude non-belief as a valid position though, as your example does.
|
Non-belief is excluded because it cannot save a person from eternal life which is the objective. Any system that a person believes can save them from eternal torment is a belief system. Thus, if one believes that nonbelief can save one from eternal torment, he has converted nonbelief into belief. If a person has no reason to believe that nonbelief will save them from eternal torment will, following Pascal’s Wager, he will rationally choose a belief system over nonbelief.
Quote:
rhutchin
OK. You can’t escape eternal torment unless you believe that god Z provides a means of escape but if you believe in god Z, you lose. That limits you to the only “safe� position possible - belief in God Y. That is the conclusion the Wager reaches – One should rationally pursue that option that offers escape from eternal torment.
enemigo
But the options you included in your example A, are incomplete. They don't account for the possibility of atheism. You excluded atheism as an option before even making the risk assessment. And your supposed reasoning for excluding atheism as an option, is because risk assessment makes it invalid. You are arguing in circles.
|
Atheism does not enable one to escape eternal torment, so it is irrational to pursue atheism if one seeks to escape eternal torment. If a person has reason to believe that atheism will enable him to escape eternal torment, then atheism reduces to the God Z situation. Where a person has the goal of escaping eternal torment, he will always pursue that which he is convinced (i.e., he believes) will allow him to reach that goal.
Quote:
rhutchin
You are leaving the basic premises out. The two premises driving the analysis are the uncertainty inherent in the nonbelief position and the penalty of eternal torment. Those premises remove any non-belief option as a viable option. The risk in taking a nonbelief position and being wrong is too great.
enemigo
See this? You are assuming your desired conclusion; that risk makes nonbelief invalid. Then using that assumption to decide that non-belief is invalid.
|
The conclusion one seeks is escape from eternal torment. That which makes nonbelief invalid is its inability to enable a person to escape eternal torment. The risk is derived from uncertainty and the possibility of being wrong. The conclusion one would reach is that nonbelief results in a risk so great that nonbelief is not a valid option. Risk does not precede nonbelief but is calculated from nonbelief.
Quote:
rhutchin
Consequently, the rational course of action is to pursue a belief system that provides a means to escape eternal torment (with the added problem of determining which belief system is true).
enemigo
Should I pursue an atheistic belief system that provides escape from eternal torment, or should I pursue a theistic belief system that provides escape from eternal torment?
|
You have to determine which one is true and pursue that one. Pascal’s Wager tells you not to pursue a nonbelief because it does not provide an escape from eternal torment. It cannot sort out which belief system is true and will actually provide an escape from eternal torment. That has to be evaluated from the information that is available.
Quote:
rhutchin
Again, it is the risk of eternal torment that is driving the analysis. It is the possibility that certain god concepts might exist PLUS the need to believe in one of these god concepts to escape eternal torment that requires a person to believe that one of them does exist. You appear to be arguing as if there is no penalty for nonbelief.
enemigo
You are eliminating nonbelief as an option before you even get to the analysis that supposedly eliminates nonbelief as a viable option.
…
You've tried to get around this by saying that I can't accept one of the atheist configurations because they are invalid if I admit the possibility of god. Then I ask you why they are invalid, and you say because the possibility that they are wrong makes them too risky for them to be viable. But that risk is what you're supposed to be trying to figure out by risk analysis!! Again, you aren't supposed to enter risk analysis already assuming that nonbelief is too risky to be viable.
|
What you have done is propose that nonbelief can provide escape from eternal torment. You moved nonbelief from one side of the playing field to the other. I entered the risk analysis assuming that nonbelief could not provide a means to escape eternal torment. Once you decide whether you want to allow nonbelief to provide an escape from eternal torment (effectively making it a belief), then the risk analysis can proceed.
Quote:
rhutchin
All that is required is that a person accept the potential that everything that is uncertain present situations where one can make wrong decisions. Merely having knowledge of X does not require that one believe X. All one has to consider is the possibility of being wrong in that which one believes and factor in the consequences of being wrong.
enemigo
You had better not believe in god then, otherwise you won't achieve Nirvana. Since that potential exists. The only rational course of action is for you to not believe in god.
|
Unless, of course, the evidence points to belief in God as the true belief system.
[I did this while watching the USC/Texas game so it may read like it.]
01-04-2006, 06:40 PM
