RE: Pascal's Wager (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

lickenforyou -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/21/2010 3:46:00 PM)

quote:

Here’s a loose variation on Pascal’s Wager posted by a user on this site under the subject “Where is God?” tazzygirl - If its all meaningless, what have we lost by believing?

I hear this all the time from “not religious, but spiritual” people It’s not a literal interpretation, but close enough.

Not sure what my username on a fetish site has to do with the argument.


This what I'd really like to know.

Would you agree that this is a loose variation on Pascal’s Wager posted by a user on this site under the subject “Where is God?”   tazzygirl -  If its all meaningless, what have we lost by believing?  

And...

What does my username on a fetish site have to do with the argument?




Kirata -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/21/2010 4:36:58 PM)

I never said that your nick had anything to do with anything. I only linked it because I thought it looked better in color. [:D]

As for Pascal's Wager, I entered this thread when it veered into the Golden Rule. I have no more interest in Pascal's Wager than I do in how many feathers are on a chicken. The Enlightenment was a swing of the pendulum away from superstition toward reason, and a damn good thing too. But when reason becomes an end in itself, it has swung too far.

Nobody makes decisions in life based on reason alone. We can't. Reason can only enumerate factors and their potential consequences; we make decisions based on how we feel about those factors and consequences. And some things have no rational component at all.

Experiences of love and beauty, for example, are fundamentally non-rational. That's not to say that they are irrational in its typically pejorative sense, but simply that these experiences are not the outcome of a rational process. Thus, the notion that there might exist a rational argument for believing in God is absurd on two counts. Firstly because it is a category mistake, and secondly because you can no more will yourself to believe in God than you can will yourself to fall in love.

K.



lickenforyou -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/21/2010 6:29:51 PM)

I also joined the thread because of the Golden Rule discussion, so enough said on that.

I might have to disagree with the statement "Nobody makes decisions in life based on reason alone. We can't." At least with the "We can't" part. Certainly making decisions involving love, beauty, faith, and art can't easily be made without emotion. However, some of my best choices in life have come about because I was able to use reason alone to make them.

I also think that a belief in a higher power can be rationalized for individuals and for societies. The belief  itself, I agree, can not be proved so is seen by some as irrational, in the pejorative sense.

EDIT; because of a typo



Kirata -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/22/2010 12:17:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lickenforyou

However, some of my best choices in life have come about because I was able to use reason alone to make them.

If you're interested, just for the hell of it give an example of a decision you consider to be based on reason alone.

K.



tazzygirl -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/22/2010 12:31:24 AM)

quote:

quote:

Here’s a loose variation on Pascal’s Wager posted by a user on this site under the subject “Where is God?” tazzygirl - If its all meaningless, what have we lost by believing?

I hear this all the time from “not religious, but spiritual” people It’s not a literal interpretation, but close enough.

Not sure what my username on a fetish site has to do with the argument.


You quoted this as if Master Kirata posted it. It took me a few minutes to realize it was from your posting, not his.

Now, if you are going to use my words on a thread i have not posted too, then a heads up would be nice. I just happened to stumble across this because i find Master Kirata's posts enlightening and a joy to read.

As far as Pascal's Wager. I find it interesting that you would use my tongue in cheek comment as an excuse to prove your degree of "being right" in this thread. I, in no way, suggested you should believe. But, my very core belief is honesty. Pascal's Wager is all about lying. Not something i would apply to being spiritual at all.



lickenforyou -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/22/2010 1:35:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: lickenforyou

However, some of my best choices in life have come about because I was able to use reason alone to make them.

If you're interested, just for the hell of it give an example of a decision you consider to be based on reason alone.

K.



Ok, the decision I made to change cities for business reasons. I had to put emotion aside and weigh the pros and cons strictly on it's impact on the financial benefit.



tazzygirl -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/22/2010 2:17:50 AM)

And you believe financial security isnt an emotional issue?



GotSteel -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/22/2010 4:41:39 AM)

Please go into more detail about how it's a category mistake?



eihwaz -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/22/2010 10:22:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lickenforyou
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: lickenforyou
However, some of my best choices in life have come about because I was able to use reason alone to make them.

If you're interested, just for the hell of it give an example of a decision you consider to be based on reason alone

Ok, the decision I made to change cities for business reasons. I had to put emotion aside and weigh the pros and cons strictly on it's impact on the financial benefit.

How did you come to value financial benefit as more important than other factors (e.g., proximity to family/friends, cultural resources, lifestyle, aesthetics, etc.)?  Was that relative valuation rational?




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/22/2010 10:57:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

And you believe financial security isnt an emotional issue?


Not for most men.



tazzygirl -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/22/2010 11:01:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

And you believe financial security isnt an emotional issue?


Not for most men.


Wrong.



GotSteel -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/22/2010 12:57:46 PM)

Yeah...no one is here to discuss Pascal's Wager at this point. The posters involved in this thread who I've seen defend it in the past ran for it on page one. Which I suppose might be an indication of the effectiveness of my counter argument, but I suppose that only time will tell *sigh*



lickenforyou -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/22/2010 1:25:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

And you believe financial security isnt an emotional issue?


Not for me. It's a practical issue. You can react to it emotionally, but I find that if you do it clouds your judgment.



GotSteel -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/22/2010 3:03:44 PM)

I would say that the motivations which drive us aren't rational in nature. For instance I doubt that you reached your preference for survival over death rationally. I further suspect that you reached that preference before you were particularly capable of reasoning to a position.

Even though you may have made rational decision to change jobs in order to increase your financial security, if you look into your motivation for desiring financial security I suspect you'll find a non-rational compulsion in there somewhere.



lickenforyou -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/22/2010 3:05:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: lickenforyou
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: lickenforyou
However, some of my best choices in life have come about because I was able to use reason alone to make them.

If you're interested, just for the hell of it give an example of a decision you consider to be based on reason alone

Ok, the decision I made to change cities for business reasons. I had to put emotion aside and weigh the pros and cons strictly on it's impact on the financial benefit.

How did you come to value financial benefit as more important than other factors (e.g., proximity to family/friends, cultural resources, lifestyle, aesthetics, etc.)?  Was that relative valuation rational?




Survival, without it, all other needs and wants mean nothing. Do I stay where I am emotionally comfortable? Or do I go where I can make more money? If I make more money I can afford to stay alive when I'm too old to generate income.

Now, I will tell you that I want to live as long as possible because I want to see what happens in this world. I want to see as much as possible. And, that may be fulfilling an emotional need. But, emotions have evolved to help with survival That is why humans have done so well. All mammals have emotions that help them survive. But I think that emotions are triggered by the brain which is reacting to data.





lickenforyou -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/22/2010 3:18:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

I would say that the motivations which drive us aren't rational in nature. For instance I doubt that you reached your preference for survival over death rationally. I further suspect that you reached that preference before you were particularly capable of reasoning to a position.

Even though you may have made rational decision to change jobs in order to increase your financial security, if you look into your motivation for desiring financial security I suspect you'll find a non-rational compulsion in there somewhere.



I would say that financial security is directly related to survival. I would be glad to show you what I mean. But, we would first have to agree, or disagree, whether the drive for survival is rational or not.



Kirata -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/22/2010 5:43:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Please go into more detail about how it's a category mistake?

I'm thinking you know what a category mistake is (it's a trivial search on Wikipedia) and therefore that there isn't much detail to go into. It occurs when a proposition invests a category with a property it does not have.

Grant that 'rational' and 'non-rational' are legitimate classifications representing non-ambiguous categories and that belief in God is non-rational, then the proposition that there exists a rational process which leads to belief in God as its outcome contains a category error, because it (implicitly) ascribes to belief in God a quality (rationality) that it does not possess.

Such a proposition is therefore logically impossible and cannot be true.

If someone objects that belief in God is rational, they can be challenged to articulate a rational process that leads to belief in God as its outcome. The attempt must invariably fail. Otherwise, it would not be rational to be an atheist.

K.



tazzygirl -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/22/2010 10:05:12 PM)

quote:

Even though you may have made rational decision to change jobs in order to increase your financial security, if you look into your motivation for desiring financial security I suspect you'll find a non-rational compulsion in there somewhere.


A rational decision would be to live within one's means. There is no guarentee of a brighter future in moving, no promises of more money by switching locations.

lol

We finally agree on something, GS!



lickenforyou -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/22/2010 10:32:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Even though you may have made rational decision to change jobs in order to increase your financial security, if you look into your motivation for desiring financial security I suspect you'll find a non-rational compulsion in there somewhere.


A rational decision would be to live within one's means. There is no guarentee of a brighter future in moving, no promises of more money by switching locations.

lol

We finally agree on something, GS!


What an incredible statement. You have no idea what business I'm in. You have no information about why I moved. People are offered better paying jobs all the time if they are willing to relocate. So, right there, you are provably wrong. I live within my means. And, now my means have increased.



lickenforyou -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/22/2010 10:39:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

I would say that the motivations which drive us aren't rational in nature. For instance I doubt that you reached your preference for survival over death rationally. I further suspect that you reached that preference before you were particularly capable of reasoning to a position.

Even though you may have made rational decision to change jobs in order to increase your financial security, if you look into your motivation for desiring financial security I suspect you'll find a non-rational compulsion in there somewhere.



True, I have had an instinct to survive probably since birth. But, I don't simply stop at instinct. I have come to the logical conclusion that it is better to exist than not exist.

My motivation for financial security is directly related to my survival.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875