Freethought & Rationalism Archive

cyris8400 · 08-24-2007, 08:55 PM

If we are actually going to be punished or rewarded based on beliefs, then atheism actually sounds like the best bet. It makes you Switzerland. No matter who wins or loses, no one touches Switzerland.

RAFH · 08-24-2007, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janus

What RAFH said.

Also, you assume that only the gods that humans believe in might exist. In reality, there's a near infinity of possible gods that might exist. To name one example, for all you know the real God might want His children to be sceptics, and therefore anyone who believes in something on faith, including someone who (by the sheerest luck, since there's no evidence) happens to believe in Him, will suffer in A Really Bad Place for eternity.

It's as if someone were to tell you that a mini blackhole will appear in the exact spot where your head is at the moment in 10 seconds, but fortunately you can avoid death easily by moving one or two steps from where you are. Of course there is no evidence that this will happen, and it's just as likely that the mini blackhole will actually appear in the area where you've just stepped by following the person's advice. Not only that, it's exactly as likely that the black hole will appear anywhere you can possibly move to in the next 10 seconds, whether or not someone has claimed that this is a possibility. Without evidence, nothing you can possibly do can increase your chance of survival, so you might as well choose to not waste your life thinking about it, particularly since you know that the likelihood that any such claim is true is tiny anyway.

Or this god character is just a real dick, fries 'em up and eats 'em, or glazes 'em with something sweet and freezes 'em for a nice cool treat on a hot eternity.

~M~ · 08-24-2007, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiploc

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~M~

the wager is tenable.

How do you figure?

crc

blah. i dont feel like writing essay like responses. you can debate me in it after i am through with upcoming formal discussion with punkforchrist.

fishbulb · 08-25-2007, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~M~

blah. i dont feel like writing essay like responses. you can debate me in it after i am through with upcoming formal discussion with punkforchrist.

If it takes an essay to defend, that probably says something about the viability of the argument, especially since it can be debunked in one or two sentences:

1) The wager presents a false dilemma: either there is no god and no afterlife, or there is a personal god and one particular interpretation of Christian theology is true. Nothing else is possible. There are an infinite number of alternative possibilities that the wager simply ignores with absolutely no justification.

2) The wager confuses belief with desire. The wager states that one should believe in god because of the consequences of holding that belief whether it turns out to be true or not, but what it really means is that one should want to believe. If someone really believed that god exists, he would not be concerned about the consequences of god not existing any more than people who really don't believe that god exists are worried about being punished by said nonexistent god for their lack of belief. It is only when one is uncertain of the existence of god that one would be concerned about not believing the right thing. This makes it impossible to base a positive belief in god on the wager itself; either you already believe (in which case the wager cannot convince you of what you already believe) or you don't (in which case the wager has no persuasive power at all). If you are uncertain, the concept of punishment for believing the wrong thing can fill you with fear, but it can't instill real belief.

Either one is enough to discredit the idea.

~M~ · 08-25-2007, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishbulb

If it takes an essay to defend, that probably says something about the viability of the argument, especially since it can be debunked in one or two sentences:

that's nonsense and sweeps the essay like responses from Carrier, Lowder, Martin, Smith and so forth into your little flawed reasoning.

feel free to offer me a debate after i am done my discussion with PfC and we will see if you can defeat me in a paragraph or two, eh?

Wiploc · 08-25-2007, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~M~

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiploc

How do you figure?

crc

blah. i dont feel like writing essay like responses. you can debate me in it after i am through with upcoming formal discussion with punkforchrist.

Sounds good.

crc

fishbulb · 08-26-2007, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~M~

that's nonsense and sweeps the essay like responses from Carrier, Lowder, Martin, Smith and so forth into your little flawed reasoning.

feel free to offer me a debate after i am done my discussion with PfC and we will see if you can defeat me in a paragraph or two, eh?

I'm not interested in a formal debate, nor am I interested in seeing whose rhetorical skills can defeat whose. I am simply interested in the strength of the argument (Pascal's wager, that is).

I must confess that I am suspicious of arguments that require large essays to even summarize. It seems pretty obvious to me that (a) Pascal's wager assumes only two possibilities: no god at all, or god as he believes in god, and simply tries to will away all of the other possibilities in order to create a simplistic 2x2 outcome matrix; and (b) belief is not something one can adopt of one's own volition anyway, but is rather a consequence many influences: one cannot simply decide to change beliefs as though they were underwear.

I would think that, if someone had a cogent argument as to why either of these are not right, it should be possible to at least summarize the main point in a few sentences.

Pascal himself was a pretty smart guy. Apparently, he didn't think it needed more than a couple of paragraphs to delineate the argument in the first place.

WilliamB · 08-26-2007, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

While I've never read it from Pascal himself, I understand 'Pascal's Wager' more or less to be something like:

'Might as well believe in / worship God - if you're wrong, you'll never know, but if you're right, you're safe. After all, with the alternative (not believing) - if you're right, you'll be equally clueless, but if you're wrong....'

I've noticed the rather insightful rebuttal to this on this page. I've seen it worded in different ways, but basically, I think it comes down to the observation of Homer Simpson:

"But what if we're going to the wrong church? Every week we're just making God madder and madder...!"

I think this rebuttal works in theory, but I'm curious how well it actually functions in practice - that is:

If Judaism is right, I'm not sure how much I have to worry about - Does present day Judaism promise destruction for me as a Christian? I'm a bit ignorant of this, but from discussions I've had with various Rabbis, I don't believe so.

If Islam is right, I'm pretty much safe as a Christian - I might not get all the virgins, but I am considered part of the group refered to as 'people of the book' in the Koran - so at least I'm not in danger of hell there, either.

If Buddhism is right - well, its atheistic anyway - though there is the possibility in Buddhism of some kind of reincarnation; after all, most Buddhists accept Jesus as a guru of some sort...

If Hinduism is right, well, I just get another chance to try again. Most Hindus I have talked with (granted, hasn't been many) are willing to say that Jesus could well have been an incarnation, etc. Granted, I might be a cow by that point - but I'll probably be a rather apathetic cow....

If Shintoism is right, then I'm more or less not worried about an eternal soul in any tangible way;

There are many others, but most of them don't seem much of a threat to me if I am mistakenly believing in the wrong thing... This is where someone might correct me if I'm glaringly mistaken, of course - I am overgeneralizing.

But, basically, if any of the other world religions is right, I seem to have little to fear after my death for being a Christian. Certainly if atheism is right, I have little to fear after death.

So while the rebuttal to Pascal's wager is significant, I'm not sure how well it functions practically - you have every other religion in the world, seemingly (as I overgeneralize it) suggesting that Jesus is 'a way' to be right with God, and you have Jesus saying he is the 'only way' to be right with God - Still, just playing the odds, it seems like there's still some merit to Pascal's idea...

Now, I await your insightful thoughts.... (Gundulf braces himself for impact.....)

Maybe God would like you to stop worrying about yourself so much and start worrying about others.

**edited to add:

Alright, that was a cheap shot. But I do get a sense from some Christians - not you necessarily - that their faith boils down to nothing much beyond basic self-interest.

Alf · 08-27-2007, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyris8400

If we are actually going to be punished or rewarded based on beliefs, then atheism actually sounds like the best bet. It makes you Switzerland. No matter who wins or loses, no one touches Switzerland.

Ahem, that is in modern civilized morality. Back in the barbaric days of bronze age goat herders their god ordered them to kill and wipe out those who posessed land which the chosen ones wanted.

If the barbaric god of christianity is true, switzerland would not be safe. All christians should pray and hope that their barbaric god does not exist.

Alf

KevinGreene · 08-28-2007, 11:39 AM

It always amused me that Pascals Wager, if you believed in it, would seem to indicate you should shop around for which religion had the worst version of hell to avoid.

"So if I believe in your Christian God, I can avoid Christian Hell?"

"Pfft... you don't want that. Join Islam, are descriptions of Hell are much worse!"

"No! Join my new Cult! It's hell is twice as awful as either of those. Don't you want to avoid the worst possible consequence?"

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

08-24-2007, 08:55 PM	#31
cyris8400 Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Oklahoma City Posts: 134	If we are actually going to be punished or rewarded based on beliefs, then atheism actually sounds like the best bet. It makes you Switzerland. No matter who wins or loses, no one touches Switzerland.

08-28-2007, 11:39 AM	#40
KevinGreene Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Mesa, Arizona Posts: 431	It always amused me that Pascals Wager, if you believed in it, would seem to indicate you should shop around for which religion had the worst version of hell to avoid. "So if I believe in your Christian God, I can avoid Christian Hell?" "Pfft... you don't want that. Join Islam, are descriptions of Hell are much worse!" "No! Join my new Cult! It's hell is twice as awful as either of those. Don't you want to avoid the worst possible consequence?"

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.