Do you like to gamble?

[D. Ellis Overttun]

You're betting that God is happier for you to pretend he exists than go with your honest belief on whether he exists. Otherwise the gambit is pointless.

No, I am saying that if I accept Pascal's wager that it is in my best interest to believe I would believe. Self-interest does not have to equal dishonesty.

 

[D. Ellis Overttun]

I prefer what has colloquially been titled the atheist wager (and often misattributed to Marcus Aurelius):

This is interesting. MA essentially expressed the same sentiment as BP. (Or did he?) However, I do not see anyone jumping all over MA. Why is that? Is the difference the belief of living a good life versus the belief in a deity? Does that mean if participants liked your post they should also agree with the wager?

 

[Willamena]

No, I am saying that if I accept Pascal's wager that it is in my best interest to believe I would believe. Self-interest does not have to equal dishonesty.

But if you believe simply because it is in your best interest to believe, that's pretence.

 

[HonestJoe]

What does anyone think about Pascal's wager?

It’s fundamental flawed on several levels.

It presumes the question is God (capital G) or no God rather than “What, if anything, is there?”.
It presumes anyone who doesn’t believe in God could simply choose to do so.
It presumes making that choice to believe for personal gain would please God and achieve that intended aim.
It presumes the simple state of not believing automatically displeases God and leads to a negative outcome.
It presumes that if God doesn’t exist, nothing happens after death.

Basically, the only thing Pascal’s Wager demonstrates is the danger of poorly thought out logic. It's been suggested that was actually Pascal's point in a way.

 

[D. Ellis Overttun]

It’s fundamental flawed on several levels.

It presumes the question is God (capital G) or no God rather than “What, if anything, is there?”.
It presumes anyone who doesn’t believe in God could simply choose to do so.
It presumes making that choice to believe for personal gain would please God and achieve that intended aim.
It presumes the simple state of not believing automatically displeases God and leads to a negative outcome.
It presumes that if God doesn’t exist, nothing happens after death.

Basically, the only thing Pascal’s Wager demonstrates is the danger of poorly thought out logic. It's been suggested that was actually Pascal's point in a way.

Would your response change if instead of the Pascal wager the question were: "What do you think of the misattributed Marcus Aurelius atheist wager?" (See #62)

Notwithstanding, I like the organization of your thoughts.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No, I am saying that if I accept Pascal's wager that it is in my best interest to believe I would believe. Self-interest does not have to equal dishonesty.

It has nothing to do with dishonesty. I'm paraphrasing one historically used criticism of Pascal's Wager.

As Étienne Souriau explained, in order to accept Pascal's argument, the bettor needs to be certain that God seriously intends to honour the bet; he says that the Wager assumes that God also accepts the bet, which is not proved; Pascal's bettor is here like the fool who seeing a leaf floating on a river's waters and quivering at some point, for a few seconds, between the two sides of a stone, says: "I bet a million with Rothschild that it takes finally the left path." And, effectively, the leaf passed on the left side of the stone, but unfortunately for the fool Rothschild never said "I [will take that] bet".
(Source : Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia)

 

[D. Ellis Overttun]

But if you believe simply because it is in your best interest to believe, that's pretence.

There are lots of things that I believe in because of simple self interest that is not pretense (eg. No pain, no gain. You reap what you sow.) Self interest does not necessarily equate to pretense. However, if you are saying it could. I agree.

 

[D. Ellis Overttun]

It has nothing to do with dishonesty. I'm paraphrasing one historically used criticism of Pascal's Wager.

ES is a lot smarter than me but I have to push back. If I believe and God does not take the bet, then I am in the same position as the atheist. If I believe and God does take the bet then I am in a better position than the atheist.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

ES is a lot smarter than me but I have to push back. If I believe and God does not take the bet, then I am in the same position as the atheist. If I believe and God does take the bet then I am in a better position than the atheist.

If you believe, you believe. The bet doesn't come into play.

 

[D. Ellis Overttun]

It has nothing to do with dishonesty. I'm paraphrasing one historically used criticism of Pascal's Wager.

What do you think about the misattributed Marcus Aurelius atheist wager? (See #62)

 

[james bond]

But I would bet that a decent number (say 5-10%) of Christians have adopted Christianity through just such a wager. Meaning therefore, that it does fit in with Christian thinking, albeit not appreciably so.

.

Christians help each other figure this stuff out. Luis Palau puts on these giant Christian shows like Billy Graham used to do. He invites people who are lonely, not satisfied with life to come to his show. I'm amazed at the number that show up. There's free entertainment, food booths and Christian booths. It's a good time for the family, but the main theme is to discover Christianity. Usually, it starts with John 3:16 and receiving flyers about Christianity. There are testimonies and speeches from Luis' family and friends. I've never heard Pascal's wager come up and there is no booth promoting it. It is something you read afterward. Pascal was a good computer language, but Blaise Pascal kinda missed the point with his logic.

I don't think there are many atheists/agnostics who became Christians because they were afraid of hell, do you?

Now that I think about it, there is only this letter to William Lane Craig from an atheist. Is he writing because he's afraid of hell or just to complain? He seems to be an atheist who believes in eternal life. He sounds like someone who wants his cake and eat it, too.

"Doctor Craig,

I would like to know from you if I, as an atheist, am going to be punished by God for not believing in him. If I, after looking objectively at all the evidence, come to the conclusion that I have not arrived here as the result of a divine plan but merely as a consequence of merely materialistic processes, do I deserve to be denied the gift of eternal life? If when coming face to face with God after death, I reveal that this was a position that I honestly came to after much investigation and really trying to understand nature?

I really can't see how God would punish me, if I lead a good, honest, a compassionate life but just feel that this is the only postion that makes sense of the world around me and what I understand about it. This does not seem to me to be worthy of condemnation when I compare my attitude to standards of evidence and investigation to those of some Christians, especially those who hold extremely unreasonably dogmatic positions. If I accept the findings of science, will God punish me but reward those people who reject all scientific evidence and adhere only to scientifically insupportable positions, such as a literal interpretation of Genesis whereby the entire universe was created between 6 and 10 thousand years ago?

I would add to this by saying that many of the advocates of this position, so called Young Earth Creationists, disseminate outright falsehoods and misinformation and everything from astronomy, to geology and biology, any field of science which disagrees with their reading of what they regard as divinely inspired scripture. This is in spite of the fact that almost all of them are completely unqualified to speak on the subjects that they do; if a person does not have a PhD in paeleontology and is not an active member of the paeleontological community then they really have no right at all to speak about the state of the fossil record in public to an audience who is equally unqualified to estimate the veracity of the claims that are made. However I respect the authority of the people working in the fields; when I read Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald Prothero, I respect his views on the fossil record as he has been working in the field for 30 years and has personally examined many of the fossils he talks about. Likewise, when Sean Carroll explains how compelling the DNA evidence for evolution is in The Making of The Fittest, I respect his opinion as he is right at the forefront of modern day biology.

In fact, when I read books on biblical history and compare the evidence for biological evolution according to modern day scientists, to the evidence for a historic event such as the Exodus according to modern day archeologists and historians then it is obvious there is a double standard being shown by some Christians regarding respect for evidence and the authority of people who know what they are talking about. I'm sure many more Christians would accept the Exodus as a historical event than would accept the occurrence of biological evolution.

I really do not see why these people who hold unreasonable, inflexible beliefs deserve to be rewarded for their apparent anti-intellectulism and reluctance to critical examine evidence and apply appropriate levels of scrutiny to various subjects. Will God really reward those who continue to promulgate nonsense, even when scientists point out their errors, and hold back the education of children? People like Ken Ham build museums to show children how dinosaurs lived with humans and all the "kinds", which, however it is defined, amounts to an awful lot of animals, all somehow crammed onto one boat. This is impossibility for so many reasons and yet young kids are taught this. He also 'trains' them to ask their science school teacher the incredibly fatuous question: 'Were you there?' As if human inquiry and scientific investigation can have absolutely no way of competing with 'revealed truth'.

The actions of these people adds to a further unwillingness on my behalf to be associated with them in any way, and just reinforces my conviction that they deserve enternal damnation much more than I do.

Thanks,

Adam"

Will God’s Judgement Be More Tolerable for Atheists than for Young Earth Creationists? | Reasonable Faith

 

[D. Ellis Overttun]

If you believe, you believe. The bet doesn't come into play.

Perhaps. But I bet for some it does.

 

[HonestJoe]

Would your response change if instead of the Pascal wager the question were: "What do you think of the misattributed Marcus Aurelius atheist wager?" (See #62)

Yes, because Aurelius proposed something very different which didn't encompass the flaws implicit in Pascal's Wager.

Aurelius acknowledges that we can't know if gods exist or not and, significantly, we can't know how they might respond to our actions so he proposes simply living a good life. The idea that if there are good gods, that should be sufficient to please them, if there are bad gods, they'll screw us over regardless and if there are no gods (or no gods who care what we do), you've still led a good life.

It does raise the question of what makes a life "good" but that's an eternal question that exists regardless of any of this.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I do not see religion or God as a means of protecting myself.
I see no personal reward in being a Christian or a follower of any other religion.
However I do believe that following the teachings of Jesus, in how we should live our lives, has a distinct benefit to society and the world.
God may or may not notice at all.

 

[james bond]

Rubbish. I'm an atheist and thrice been in violent situations I thought I might not live through, once almost correctly. I can assure you, no god crossed my mind.

You're an exception. There are "no atheists in foxholes" is due to the unconscious mind. I would say one would have to train themselves, whether a believer or not, to prepare for the situation and what they would do. Else you get that effect. Richard Dawkins is an example of someone who would pray if faced with a life ending situation. He's got God on his brain. Listen to his unconscious statement when faced with an embarrassing situation.

 

[Willamena]

There are lots of things that I believe in because of simple self interest that is not pretense (eg. No pain, no gain. You reap what you sow.) Self interest does not necessarily equate to pretense. However, if you are saying it could. I agree.

It's not that it's self-interest that it's pretence, it's pretence because it's utility. To believe because it's in your best interest is to say that beliefs exist to serve a purpose, which of course is silly.

 

[james bond]

There are quite a few atheists in foxholes, because they feel like the only life there is, is worth fighting for, instead of leaving it for something they don't believe in to fix.
Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers
Atheists In Foxholes - Freedom From Religion Foundation
What Is the Myth That There Are No Atheists in Foxholes?

It's not a myth. I still think, generally speaking, people will pray when they think their lives are about to end and have a chance. There's no shame or anything wrong with it except to the internet atheists. The reason is to give them courage when the end is near. It's a reflex action like curling up in the fetal position when things become overwhelming. The believers know this and use it to strengthen their resolve. Prayer does have power. We have people who do this for the doomed when they're about to be executed. The people you refer to just want to express their own beliefs and last one to argue over something that is attributed to them like the thought.co guy.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It's not a myth. I still think, generally speaking, people will pray when they think their lives are about to end and have a chance. There's no shame or anything wrong with it except to the internet atheists. The reason is to give them courage when the end is near. It's a reflex action like curling up in the fetal position when things become overwhelming. The believers know this and use it to strengthen their resolve. Prayer does have power. We have people who do this for the doomed when they're about to be executed. The people you refer to just want to express their own beliefs and last one to argue over something that is attributed to them like the thought.co guy.

The only people I've seen stop and pray in life or death situations (I've worked at a hospital) were people who are already theists. Do you have any evidence that this isn't a myth, let alone a 'reflex action'?

 

[D. Ellis Overttun]

It's not that it's self-interest that it's pretence, it's pretence because it's utility. To believe because it's in your best interest is to say that beliefs exist to serve a purpose, which of course is silly.

This is probably a better forum topic: Do beliefs serve a purpose?

I say "Yes". You say "No". (Eat your hearts out Lennon and McCartney.)

You have a great point!

 

[D. Ellis Overttun]

Yes, because Aurelius proposed something very different which didn't encompass the flaws implicit in Pascal's Wager.

I am probably missing something but I think I can take similar flaws and presumptions of Pascal's Wager and apply it to MA.

What I seem to be getting a sense of is that it is OK to phrase the wager in secular terms but participants do not feel comfortable couching the wager from a theist/atheist perspective. That is very interesting.