Pascal's Wager

Pascal's Wager (Full Version)

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

Message

GotSteel -> Pascal's Wager (12/6/2010 5:00:33 AM)
Pascal's Wager was touched on in a thread recently and I thought deserved a thread of its own. Now I'm not looking for yet another thread where everyone who isn't buying Pascal's Wager explains all the issues with it (been there done that). I'd like to hear from those who think it's a valid proof. Here's the version provided in said thread: quote: ORIGINAL: Jaybeee It's pretty easy - Atheist and Christian die. If Atheist was right and the Christian was wrong, both end up as dust, and the Christian has paid no price for being wrong (all sins forgiven on accepting Jesus as saviour) BUT... If Christian was right and the Atheist was wrong, the chances are the Atheist goes to Hell, the Christian goes to Heaven. That's about it...cut it any way you like, committing to Atheism is a much higher risk, for no greater reward. To those who consider that a convincing argument, does this convince you: quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel It's pretty easy - Conehats and Aconehats die. If Aconehat was right and the Conehat was wrong, both end up as dust, and the Conehat has paid no price for being wrong (believing the Big Bang was a unicorn orgy and wearing a cone upon his head in order to worship the pointy creators) BUT... If Conehat was right and the Aconehat was wrong, the chances are the Aconehat goes to the Pointy Pointy Bad Place, the Conehat goes to Unicorn Fun Land (it's AWE-SOME I mean they even fart rainbows!). That's about it...cut it any way you like, committing to Aconehatism is a much higher risk, for no greater reward.

Elisabella -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/6/2010 5:37:58 AM)
There's also the chance they were both wrong and they burn together in Muslim hell. With so many religions in the world only a fool would treat faith like a roulette wheel.

Jaybeee -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/6/2010 12:41:37 PM)
I'm Glad to See you can do something right.

NorthernGent -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/6/2010 2:16:28 PM)
Of course it's not proof.....Blaise Pascal at no point suggested it was proof. It's an argument for the rationality of belief in god and widely seen to be an early example of decision theory.....unless of course such a notion was being peddled by someone who believed in predestination (i.e. Pascal)...in that scenario it wouldn't be a particularly rational argument.....why turn to god for salvation when in fact god has it all mapped out anyway?

GotSteel -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/6/2010 3:55:20 PM)
So are you wearing a cone?

GotSteel -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/6/2010 4:01:37 PM)
Is it a valid argument for the rationality of belief in god or is it flawed?

mnottertail -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/6/2010 4:05:47 PM)
It is flawed, profoundly. Glutton A believes that he will not stab himself in the tonsils with a fork and bleed to death when he eats. Glutton B believes that he will, so does not eat. Glutton A, being a risk taker, eats well. Glutton B, dies. (glutton b is the believer). All scenarios assume facts not in evidence, and 'here is the real glitch' assume as fact that which is not fact at all.

Brain -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/6/2010 7:35:05 PM)
Maybe I don't understand this but I think Conehat gives up a lot which is control of his life. I think that is a significant price to pay to worship stupidity. And I think it is a cost which has not been counted in the analysis just as British Petroleum does not calculate the cost of pollution when it engages in risky behavior that results in catastrophes like the Gulf oil spill. British Petroleum doesn't calculate the cost because they know the government will pay for the cleanup. In terms of my own personal experience I have never felt better psychologically knowing that I make my own decisions in my life without the yoke of religious dogma suffocating my existence. I think being free or having freedom is important and for me it also includes freedom from religion just as much as it includes or means freedom from tyrants.

NorthernGent -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/7/2010 10:22:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Is it a valid argument for the rationality of belief in god or is it flawed? What do you think GotSteel? As a man who believes (or would like to think depending on point of view) in thinking for yourself...as seen through your consistent though ultimately boring hammering of the god topic which tends to revolve around you leading the world into the coming enlightenment bound up in the think for yourself approach and it follows a world devoid of a god.....never mind that the established thinking on god has been tested right down the ages yet god is still knocking around as a widely held belief....then surely you can employ this wisdom that belies earthly convention.....and there's a contradiction in terms.....many have had a crack at knocking god right off his fuckin' perch and failed so you're not exactly going to sprinkle your magic on this affair and draw a conclusion once and for all......then what do you think about it? I've given you something to think about...don't tell me after all this effort you've expended that 2 beans and 2 beans = some beans.

GotSteel -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/7/2010 5:34:07 PM)
Thank you for the appeal to ridicule now would you mind answering my question.

LanceHughes -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/7/2010 6:06:10 PM)
The "cone" version makes it clear that the argument is based on "what happens after one dies." Two piles of dust. One had a fun life, free of moralistic strictures. (I'm a militant Atheist without morals, but, Honey, I've got the strongest ethics of anyone you'll ever meet.) The other was repressed, guilt-ridden, and paranoid. Let's add fiancially worse due to tithing. Which pile of dust would you have rather been? My take on "where do you go?" is simple. Let's say you have software on a disc. The disc is melted and while pliable, formed into a sphere. Where did the software "go"? It didn't "go" anywhere. The physical medium is no longer capable of supporting the software, music, photos, etc. Similarly, when one dies, the body is no longer capable of supporting what we call "life." So, Pascal's Wager is betting on something akin to betting on whether dancing or not will affect the crops, whether the entrails reveal the future, and so on. Conehead and Aconehead are farmers. Conehead celebrates a three day festival at the Spring Equinox in honor of the gods of fertility to ensure a good harvest. Aconehead spends the extra time and attention toward planting. (Add the money and energy not spent on the festival.) Who has the better harvest? Just finished re-reading "The New Golden Bough," a condensed and abridged version of the 13 volume classic detailing ferrtility and harvest festivals, taboos and intitiation rites, etc. throughout the world and throughout time. WHEW! Read it for the first time in College - not as part of a course. VERY often - the King of the Crops was a post fraught with danger. Any sign of weakness on the King's part was taken as foreboding the demise of the crops. The king was executed forthwith and a new one installed immediately. So....... Conehead kills HIS "King of the Crops" (sometimes on an annual basis) to affect the crops in a positive way. What does this do to the village / tribe except kill off a male member? Aconehead does NOT do so and therefore his village has extra labor to take better care of the crop and therefore harvest a better one.

LanceHughes -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/7/2010 6:18:24 PM)
OP seems to be asking to determine the validity of Pascal's Wager from a strictly Logic-101 point of view...... And away we go......... In one simple syllogism: Pascal's Wager is a circular argument which assumes there IS an after-life to prove that the Provider / Creator / Designer of the after-life (aka God) exists. All circular arguments are invalid. Therefore, Pascal's Wager is invalid.

LanceHughes -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/7/2010 7:02:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brain Maybe I don't understand this but I think Conehat gives up a lot which is control of his life. I think that is a significant price to pay to worship stupidity. <snipped> In terms of my own personal experience I have never felt better psychologically knowing that I make my own decisions in my life without the yoke of religious dogma suffocating my existence. I think being free or having freedom is important and for me it also includes freedom from religion just as much as it includes or means freedom from tyrants. Reasonably well put, but put better by Penn (of "Penn and Teller") at this link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557

LanceHughes -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/7/2010 7:50:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella There's also the chance they were both wrong and they burn together in Muslim hell. With so many religions in the world only a fool would treat faith like a roulette wheel. Pope answers phone: "Yes. Yes. I see." Gently hangs up phone. Turns to a Cardinal by his side and says, "That was God." Cardinal: "That's wonderful!" Pope: "Not so much. She was calling from Salt Lake City."

LanceHughes -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/7/2010 9:04:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Is it a valid argument for the rationality of belief in god or is it flawed? What do you think GotSteel? As a man who believes (or would like to think depending on point of view) in thinking for yourself...as seen through your consistent though ultimately boring hammering of the god topic which tends to revolve around you leading the world into the coming enlightenment bound up in the think for yourself approach and it follows a world devoid of a god..... never mind that the established thinking on god has been tested right down the ages yet god is still knocking around as a widely held belief....then surely you can employ this wisdom that belies earthly convention.....and there's a contradiction in terms..... many have had a crack at knocking god right off his fuckin' perch and failed so you're not exactly going to sprinkle your magic on this affair and draw a conclusion once and for all...... then what do you think about it? I've given you something to think about...don't tell me after all this effort you've expended that 2 beans and 2 beans = some beans. Lordy! I'm pretty sure that wins the record for longest run-on sentence. Hard to read even with a few CR/LF's added in for readability. Anyway.... wanted to extract just a bit: quote: never mind that the established thinking on god has been tested right down the ages yet god is still knocking around as a widely held belief The at-one-time established thinking that the earth is flat is no longer established, now is it? Took quite a while to get that nonsense settled. quote: many have had a crack at knocking god right off his fuckin' perch and failed so you're not exactly going to sprinkle your magic on this affair and draw a conclusion once and for all...... Well, actually, as more and more people are exposed to the logic flaws in arguments such as Pascal's Wager, the less people will "buy into" the mumbo-jumbo of religion and spirituality. It won't happen overnight like the Berlin wall crashing down.... more like the FAIL of the Egyptian Dynasties (and associated religion.) Come out of the Dark Ages, NorthernGent.

GotSteel -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/8/2010 12:38:54 PM)
I started this thread to try and get those using Pascal's Wager to grasp this point. quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel You're not going to have any more success using pascal's wager to convert non-theists to christianity then I'd have convincing you to worship Zeus for fear of being tortured by Hades. While I'm sure it's compelling to christians who have started to question, it's useless against non-theists. You might as well threaten us with unicorns. From a non-theist's perspective pascal's wager is an extremely crappy argument, the flaws in it are both rather obvious and well known. The only apologetics argument I'm aware of that's worse is the banana argument. You should look into quantum consciousness or at least the kalam cosmological argument. Now I'm certainly not under the impression that accepting that Pascal's Wager is bullshit is going to cause anyone to deconvert. But I'd at least like to have an interesting conversation, not listen to theists repeatedly assert the validity of an argument so poor that even the people using it wouldn't accept it as valid if it was about anything else.

SleazeMerchant -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/10/2010 1:22:20 AM)
It is also wrong because belief is not a choice. You can't simply choose to believe B instead of A, you have to have something to convince you of it in the first place. Pascals wager is just hedging your bets. And if going to heaven really required belief, and not just saying that you believed it, don't you think that the all powerful being that makes such descions isnt going to be able to see straight through your lie? And no, its not proof, and it's not really rational either. Pascals wager (originally) assumes a dichotamous choice, you are either a believer or a non-believer, and being a believer if there is a god gets you saved, and if not, nothing bad happens, but if you're a non-believer and a god exists you go to hell, and if he doesn't nothing bad happens. Obviously the best choice there is to believe (but belief isn't a choice either) that a god exists, because there are no negative consquences with it. But that's only the best choice when its dichotomas, which it's not. Last time I looked, there was a good deal more than 1 religion, so being a non-beleiver is putting you at the same odds as choosing any of the other religion of being punished in the afterlife. It's like Roulette, but you can't just bet on black or red any more, you have to pick a number.

LanceHughes -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/10/2010 9:20:27 PM)
>\|< A new emoticon / smiley invented by Lance for this exact case. Read it as "post imploded." LOL!

LanceHughes -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/10/2010 9:28:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SleazeMerchant [Pascal's Wager] is also wrong because belief is not a choice. You can't simply choose to believe B instead of A, you have to have something to convince you of it in the first place.<snipped> Sorry, but belief IS a total and complete choice. I'm fond of saying that I'm a born-again Atheist. We are ALL born religion free. Most of us are then indoctrinated in the religion of our parents. And if that's what you mean by "something to convince you," well, then, I guess brain-washing is what we're talking about. A few Atheist parents do NOT indoctrinate their kids in Atheism, but rather allow them to decide for themselves what religion (if any) to take up. Here's a parallel situation - - Come along with me on a thought exercise and say, "Well, my parents did not indoctrinate me in my chosen field of study, but rather allowed me to choose." <Jewish doctors excepted. Oh, and family businesses in first generation, with kids of founders expected to "carry on."> In my particular case, there were NO computers as I was growing up. Took a special class (in 1967 !!!) and fell in love with them. To this day (some 40+ years later) my Mom still doesn't understand WIIT-I-D (for a living, you perverts, you. LOL)

pyroaquatic -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/10/2010 9:48:31 PM)
Wait. wait wait.... what?? we are all going to die. okay... .i can see that. Can the bible simply be an allegory for the living hells and heavens people create for themselves on this realm? Why do things have to be A or B? Can I have two pointy hats? Is there any real proof of ANYTHING after a complete death? I am not talking about people seemingly coming back to life. I mean they are completely gone. Out of here not to return ever again. In any instance I think it is a good idea to simply do onto others as you would like others to do onto your self. There are multiple paths to the same place. It is a waste of time to denounce the paths others are taking especially if they do the best for themselves and others. The equation will always balance itself out in the end. It is only the end of Us if we 'destroy' the planet you know. Everything will rebuild and reconnect. Just a tiny hiccup in the reconstruction of chaos to order to chaos, simple to complex to simple. Emergence will continue regardless of destructive ways.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.882813E-02