Corgan Sow

Here are some quotes I get from posting about Smith's Wager at a message board...


I'm just wondering what do you folks think about these quotes...

Family Man

You may want to post or link to a version of Smith's wager. I've heard of it, but don't know it well enough to comment on it.

Corgan Sow

Here is the link; http://www.atheistalliance.org/libra...als_wager.html

Family Man

Personally, I think Smith's wager is meant more as a parody of Pascal's (thus highlighting it's inadequacies) but just for fun:

It makes you wonder that the other possibilities are. Just because the list is limited doesn't mean all of the possibilities aren't covered (e.g. people are either male or female covers all of the gender possibilities for the most part.) Of course, Smith is discounting the possibility that God really does care what you believe, but as I said, it is just a parody.

The probability of each possibility is quite irrelevant to the argument (though I would suspect that Smith would argue that the probability of that last item I mentioned is close to zero.) The outcomes are all indifferent or bad.

This argument is irrelevant. Smith's wager is only on one's beliefs, not on his actions. Nor does it have anything to do with relativism.

Also irrelevant. Smith is arguing that even if Christianity is right, their god is simply too untrustworthy to take seriously.

I'd ask for an example. I know of no other way of proving things outside of reason (ten to one he'll say God can be proven without reason.)

Tercel

Cool, I've never seen Smith's Wager before. As a moderate-liberal Christian, I fall under category 3. I think Smith's wager provides a good stop-and-think message for the fundies in category 4.

However, I see a small problem in Smith's Wager: I've used an almost identical argument myself as an argument for theism.

I disagree with Smith's assessment of categories 1 and 3.
If God does not exist (but we don't know it), is it better to be an athiest or a theist? Smith says:
"[Atheist: you'll live] a happy, fulfilling life free of mindless dogma and emotional tyranny."
I'd say:
"Theist: you'll live happily believing your life has a purpose; that you'll see your dead relatives and friends one day; that there is some real basis for caring about others and doing what is right; that everything has eternal and ultimate value and will not one day be as if it had never existed."

I think Smith has got fundamentalists in mind with his statement too, not moderate Christians.

Smith also implies that if category 3 is the case there is no advantage to be gained by belief over non-belief. I disagree even more here than about category 1. In category 1, the theist and the atheist both die and there are no further consequences of what they believed. In category 3, the consequences extend beyond the grave. While these consequences don't take the form of punishment by God, experience suggests that it's generally beneficial to belief the correct thing and generally unhelpful to believe the wrong thing.

Thus, in my version of Smith's Wager, I conclude category 3 Theism. Apart from that, I see no problem with Smith's Wager and think the quotes you posted are entirely unjustified.

Corgan Sow

Some of you think I'm taking spoon-feeds, but I do ask because even as a freethinker, Smith's Wager has flaws on it's own.

But thanks for reminding me it's a parody!

LHP Adept

'Experience suggests'? What experience? Are you speaking from firsthand knowledge as one who has died and visited the afterlife (or not) under a variety of circumstances?

Philosoft

Or frustrated that said purpose robs one of ultimate control.

Or that you'll know they're burning in hell when you don't see them.
Or that, without God's alleged guidance, you might be a psychopath.
Or that the time we spend as physical humans is ultimately meaningless in comparison to eternity.
I think all your counterpoints are ambiguous. Thus, I think "free of mindless dogma and emotional tyranny" is a vastly more valuable goal.

Tercel

I wasn't aware you had ultimate control. Did you become Omnipotent without telling us?

That's only true after you've died, in which case they'll be burning in hell if you don't see them regardless of what you believed. Prior to death, belief in an afterlife provides for the belief that you'll see your loved ones again.

???

That's a strange way of looking at it. What we do now affects our characters and that of other people for the rest of eternity. How is that ultimately meaningless?

Well I don't.

But as a liberal who reasons out my own beliefs I'm certainly "free of mindless dogma" - definately more so that some of the (fundamentalist) atheists I've seen on these boards. "emotional tyranny"? I'm not quite sure what's meant by that one.

Philosoft

Poor wording on my part. Perhaps, "feeling of ultimate control" or "belief in ultimate control."

Does the average Christian really believe this about his Buddhist cousin?
I've seen more than a few Christians thank their lord that he provides a framework of behavior, lest they never realize killing is bad.

Eh? Believe in God/Jesus, go to heaven. Are there levels of heaven for sincere believers who did morally questionable things during their lives?

As a Christian, you probably reject some science related to cosmology, evolution, or abiogenesis. Do you do so because you truly understand the implications or because they conflict with some parts of your belief system?
I suspect it has something to do with "original sin" - making people feel bad about themselves so that a forgiving father-figure seems that much more attractive.