An Interesting Discussion on Pascal's Wager

[Jayhawker Soule]

And there are no limitations to the "what ifs".

That strikes me as a vapid claim.

 

[LuisDantas]

It definitely depends on the religion. Most modern Christians I know live exactly the same way as atheists would and literally nothing is different about their lives other than the occasional prayer or church attendance.

I would posit that there is also another, often neglected, arguably undersestimated difference: atheists are more epistemologically conscious and epistemologically responsible than cultural or fear-motivated Christians (or for that matter, Muslims or Bahais).

Which just means that we are more respectful of truth.

That is a big thing to me.

 

[LuisDantas]

The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it is a "what if" proposition. And there are no limitations to the "what ifs". If the 'threat' is a what if, then so can the solution be. And the whole proposition cancels itself out.

What if God hates you and when you die is going to torture you forever? What if I kill God first?

Quite this.

 

[Ignatius A]

I confess I only got 10 minutes through the video. My problem with Pascal's Wager is that you would have to rely on a God not knowing that you are only believing in case it might exist. Which would rule it out as being omniscient. Does she address that?

How does pascals wager reply on God knowing why you believe? I don't believe it does but I'd love to hear your argument.

 

[Ignatius A]

The argument isn't about believing that a god exists. It's more along the lines of figuring out which religion you think is most probable and practicing that religion even if you don't believe the god exists, since there's a chance that the god doesn't actually care if you believe in it but only cares if you worship and pray to it. The idea is that the activity of doing that (even if it feels stupid because it's highly unlikely that the god exists) is worth doing anyway since there's very little cost or impact to your life of doing it but potentially huge consequences of not doing it.

But pascals wager has nothing to do with which religion you choose.

 

[PureX]

I think a good analogy would be this: let's say I move from a neighborhood that has no history of burglaries or any type of crime to a neighborhood where, say, 1 out of 50 people's homes are burglarized per year. Even though I don't actually believe that a burglary is going to happen this year (since there is only a 2% chance historically), I still would take specific actions to prepare for it in case it occurred, like possibly installing a security system or purchasing heavier doors or stronger locks. It's possible to take actions to prepare for something that you don't believe will occur if the consequences of that thing occurring are large enough.

Except that the burglaries are imaginary. And therefor so is the 'percentage' of danger. If we imagine there are no burglaries, the likely danger is eliminated. If we imagine many more burglaries, the danger is far greater. So why not just imagine no burglaries and eliminate the danger all together? After all, the whole scenario is imaginary.

The actual solution to Pascal's Wager is to eliminate the threat by eliminating the vindictive God.

 

[Ignatius A]

I would posit that there is also another, often neglected, arguably undersestimated difference: atheists are more epistemologically conscious and epistemologically responsible than cultural or fear-motivated Christians (or for that matter, Muslims or Bahais).

Which just means that we are more respectful of truth.

That is a big thing to me.

Thats not been my experience with atheists. What's a "fear motivated Christian"?

 

[Balthazzar]

I would posit that there is also another, often neglected, arguably undersestimated difference: atheists are more epistemologically conscious and epistemologically responsible than cultural or fear-motivated Christians (or for that matter, Muslims or Bahais).

Which just means that we are more respectful of truth.

That is a big thing to me.

This is one reason I started entertaining the idea of God equating to the universe/existence in its entirety. Truth matters and it is stated that Gods people are destroyed because of lack of knowledge. It makes sense to honor truth, the holy spirit/the spirit of truth, which is specifically stated to have the ability to guide into all truth. How can we go wrong when we do this? For this reason, I sometimes utilize a fail-safe position as an atheist, although I view the universe/all of existence, to be God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It definitely depends on the religion.

Right. And in Blaise Pascal's case, the specific religion he had in mind was presumably Catholic Christianity as it existed in 17th Century France.

Most modern Christians I know live exactly the same way as atheists would and literally nothing is different about their lives other than the occasional prayer or church attendance.

And in those cases where Christianity isn't about much more than "accepting Jesus into your heart," the objection to Pascal's Wager becomes more about objecting to the idea that we can deliberately choose what we will believe.

... but the original form of the Wager did assume that practicing a religion would come with a cost in time, tithes, etc.

 

[Ignatius A]

Right. And in Blaise Pascal's case, the specific religion he had in mind was presumably Catholic Christianity as it existed in 17th Century France.



And in those cases where Christianity isn't about much more than "accepting Jesus into your heart," the objection to Pascal's Wager becomes more about objecting to the idea that we can deliberately choose what we will believe.

... but the original form of the Wager did assume that practicing a religion would come with a cost in time, tithes, etc.

The "Christianity" you described "accepting Jesus into your heart" is heretical. It's is entirely unbiblical.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The "Christianity" you described "accepting Jesus into your heart" is heretical. It's is entirely unbiblical.

Well you and the Evangelicals can sort that out between yourselves. Let me know when you've come to a consensus.

 

[Link]

Except that the burglaries are imaginary. And therefor so is the 'percentage' of danger. If we imagine there are no burglaries, the likely danger is eliminated. If we imagine many more burglaries, the danger is far greater. So why not just imagine no burglaries and eliminate the danger all together? After all, the whole scenario is imaginary.

The actual solution to Pascal's Wager is to eliminate the threat by eliminating the vindictive God.

It is a solution but only if you become certain of the elimination. Otherwise, it's not.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

A simple refutation of Pascal's wager and all its variations:

Duck.

Did you duck? If you did duck, then congratulations, you just avoided any potential knives being thrown at your head. If you didn't duck, why didn't you? Just because you didn't suspect a knife was flying at your head? Well, ducking is a small sacrifice that costs nothing, so by not ducking all you're really doing is making it absolutely definitely certain that a knife - if flying at your head - is certain to hit you. Therefore, according to the wager, it is a better bet to duck than not to duck in any circumstance.

So, you should constantly duck. Or, at least, every once in a while. Because you stand to lose nothing by ducking, even if there is no knife flying at your head, but you stand to gain significantly if you dodge any potential knives. And a knife being thrown at your head is significantly more likely to be true than any potential gain in any theoretical afterlife. But if you're one of these people for whom the outcome being "infinite" is a significant portion, then just imagine that the knife is magical knife that will cause you to suffer for all eternity rather than just outright kill you.

 

[Heyo]

Timestamp?

The argument starts at 17:00, the example comes at 17:40.

I have a BS in Math and a MS in Statistics. There actually are "infinities" of varying sizes, which is referred to as cardinality. To use an easy example, the set of positive integers is smaller than the set of all integers, even though both are infinite sets.

Is 0.99999 * infinity bigger than 0.00001 * infinity?

 

[Balthazzar]

The "Christianity" you described "accepting Jesus into your heart" is heretical. It's is entirely unbiblical.

Some would claim my views to be heretical. Typically speaking, if we're not using a cookie cut model in how we relate our stance to others, it somehow becomes a type of heresy to some people. The basics, i would assume are important enough to acknowledge. God, son, holy spirit.

Utilizing "Source, re-sourced, and truth" to convey the trinity, might fall into a heretical category to some.

 

[Ignatius A]

Well you and the Evangelicals can sort that out between yourselves. Let me know when you've come to a consensus.

There is nothing to sort out. What you described is perverted Christianity. It was in created1500 years after Jesus.

 

[Ignatius A]

Some would claim my views to be heretical. Typically speaking, if we're not using a cookie cut model in how we relate our stance to others, it somehow becomes a type of heresy to some people. The basics, i would assume are important enough to acknowledge. God, son, holy spirit.

Utilizing "Source, re-sourced, and truth" to convey the trinity, might fall into a heretical category to some.

My comment wasnt a response to you but to the poster that claimed Christianity is not much more than "accepting Jesus into your heart". Thats a perverted form of Christianity.

As to your views am I to understand you're an atheist that believes the universe is God?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is nothing to sort out. What you described is perverted Christianity. It was in created1500 years after Jesus.

Oh good - another random person on the internet who has decided that the version of Christianity they believe in is correct and the others are all wrong.

Line forms to the left, just past the line of self-appointed internet prophets.

 

[Ignatius A]

Oh good - another random person on the internet who has decided that the version of Christianity they believe in is correct and the others are all wrong.

Line forms to the left, just past the line of self-appointed internet prophets.

 

[viole]

s one of the few discussions that I have seen where the theist actually made me think

Yes, my Muslim friend also made me think. It is really more rational to believe in Allah, than not.
For if you are wrong, you will go to Hell, while if you are right you will have the jackpot.

Right?

It is truly mind boggling that people waste their time on that one, forgetting that it is equally applicable to competing beliefs, annihilating therefore itself. Unless God punishes only atheists, and not believers in the competition, which would be absurd, and contradicted by all those Scriptures allegedly authored by God Herself.. It tales two seconds free thinking to see that.

Now, the girl tries to get away with that by saying we should take the religion which is more probable. Which is nonsense, obviously, since they all have the same (zero) evidence, and they are therefore all equally probable. As a matter of fact, I could argue that it is more probable that God is disappointed with believers in Her, than atheists, for the simple reason that She made us in Her image, and She probably tests us to see if we are mugs or not, unlike Her, which is not a mug. The sky is the limit here on what can be considered more probable or not.

I think it all boils down to the desperate quest to find extra-confessional arguments for the existence of God, since the confessional ones have zero evidence, without realizing that their extra-confessional strength, if any, make them basically useless for promoting any particular confession. And they defeat themselves, as in this case.

That is just basic logic.

Ciao

- viole