"I would rather believe that God exists and be wrong, losing out on some finite moments of pleasure or personal gain and just rot in the earth. Than not believe in him, and have to live in Hell for the rest of eternity."
This is pretty much a loosely tied together version of Pascal's Wager. I'm sure many of you are far more familiar with this concept than I am.
But essentially, that is the wager. According to Pascal, it is a wager that must be made and cannot be avoided. You either believe and take the safer bet towards the after life, or you disbelieve and risk your eternal soul for the sake of pleasure in this life.
A real life philosophical russian roulette, so to speak.
I can see how both Christians and Atheists would hate this kind of proposition. As Christians believe that this sets up "soft believers" that really have no interest in worshipping God and only do so out of convenience than love. And atheists of course hate this because they find it wholly unnecessary or false in some way or another.
But how do YOU feel about the Wager? Share your thoughts below and let's see what comes of it.
Ah, but why believe in the New Testament God? He seems like something of a forgiving guy. So, if I place my "bet" with him, but it turns out Osiris is really the real God I'd be ****ed.
On the other hand, if I worship Osiris and it turns out Yahweh is the real one, I might be able to make a deal with Him and be forgive.
The logic of Pascal's Wager dictates you should find the most spiteful, hateful, unforgiving God and worship HIM and just cross your fingers if you're wrong you can work something out with the real guy.
I'm skeptical of the idea that you can "will" belief based on some kind of argument. Perhaps if you had someone captive in a kind of Patti Hearst type scenario, maybe you could brainwash them. But am I going to "will" myself to belief because of this argument? No.
There are tons of god beliefs. What if I pick the wrong one? Will God care?
What if I pick the "right" one so to speak, but not exactly (e.g. one Christian denomination vs. another)? Will God care about that?
It also assumes that all "beliefs" are created equal. In such a way, I could create a brand new wager involving an invisible Leprechaun under your bed that will kill you if you don't believe in it. The Leprechaun wouldn't even contradict God. Must you believe that?
How much further down the line can we go with this? You must also believe in the invisible unicorn who will sexually assault you in your sleep, the invisible gnomes, etc, etc.
It's quite possibly the worst theistic argument I've ever heard by someone who is otherwise a respected mind. Meaning, I've heard worse theistic arguments but only from laymen or idiots on the internet.
"Pascal's Wager" is cute, but it's a few centuries out of style. I find the American pragmatic philosopher William James and his version of the wager to be a far more convincing and exciting game.
In summary, James says that making the choice to believe is an action which is "lived, forced and momentous". Like Pascal, he has a practical approach to it, but goes a bit further than merely saying that believing is simply the more pragmatic option to nonbelieving. James actually describes the opportunity to believe to be like an invitation to an adventure, a once in a lifetime opportunity, a choice you simply have to make or not. You can say no, but would you? It's very much like Bilbo Baggins as he's portrayed in the movie version of "The Hobbit". Yes, you can stay at home and live your comfortable life, or you could go out there on a journey which you don't even know if you'll return home in one piece. You could die. Worse, you could fail and return home a miserable wreck. You could lose everything. No matter how it ends, you'll never be the same person afterwards. However, the journey itself to go out into the unknown potentially becomes so rewarding that staying in your comfort zone, locked in your own closed mind, seems simply boring in comparison.
Now that's a gamble. If you like that, I suggest checking him out. James has some really nice, vivid examples that make the act of believing more than one of risk mitigation (he still uses that as the fundamental idea, but expands it quite a bit). A philosopher of pragmatism, he sees that there is a wealth of hidden opportunity and experience in belief, far too great to describe here in one post, and which might be far too good to pass up, even if passing it up is the rational, logical decision. I recommend him over Pascal to anyone interested.
I participate yearly in a survival challenge in which I am dropped off in the wilderness with 1 days rations, a knife, and no other supplies, and have to find my way home. This is typically several weeks hiking from civilization.
I have personally killed several bears in the course of this challenge, with the use of snares and other traps.
Pretty much all that's needed to said is said. There are many reasons Pascal's Wager isn't a good reason to believe in a deity. You can't force yourself to believe in something you don't. Which God do you pick? There are thousands of creation myths out there and in history, each borrowing stories from civilizations before it, Christianity being no exception. Besides, wouldn't an omniscient being know that you're only following it for selfish reasons? With these points to consider and more, I refuse to play such an impossible game.
Ah, but why believe in the New Testament God? He seems like something of a forgiving guy. So, if I place my "bet" with him, but it turns out Osiris is really the real God I'd be ****ed.
On the other hand, if I worship Osiris and it turns out Yahweh is the real one, I might be able to make a deal with Him and be forgive.
The logic of Pascal's Wager dictates you should find the most spiteful, hateful, unforgiving God and worship HIM and just cross your fingers if you're wrong you can work something out with the real guy.
I like this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
"I would rather believe that God exists and be wrong, losing out on some finite moments of pleasure or personal gain and just rot in the earth. Than not believe in him, and have to live in Hell for the rest of eternity."
...
But how do YOU feel about the Wager? Share your thoughts below and let's see what comes of it.
If God exists (in particular, the omniscient kind) I'm fairly sure he knows the difference between someone who believes and someone paying lipservice for convenience.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Pascals wager also seems to involve the idea that worshiping god goes without a real price. Granted eternity in hellfire is a bit worse of than having to sit through an hour of church weekly (arguably) but still having religion dictate your life can be a dangerous and damaging thing depending on your outlook on the religion.
Its one of the most idiotic theistic arguments I've ever heard. Essentially if you are a good person who does good acts then God is a repulsive monster that will burn you forever because He does not judge you based on the merits of your actions, He judges you based on whether or not you soothe his frail ego with worship.
Apparently if I make reasonable decisions on what to believe or what not to believe, I am doomed. But if I do special pleading and believe in a certain god and portray him as having the worst attributes, that I will be rewarded with paradise for insulting him in this manner. This wager just has so many levels of dumb.
Furthermore, it assumes that the god(s) must have an afterlife.
The real god(s) may not have built a hell or heaven at all. So whether you believe or disbelieve, you could still be worm food.
So as Taylor said, I guess you'd have to wager for the worst possible god(s) to piss off, crossing your fingers the real one is better.
The problem remains, that the worst possible God we know of, or have a doctrine for, may not in fact be nearly as malevolent as the real god(s).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
For I can make up a religion out of thin air saying that ones who are atheist will be blessed with sunshine and puppies for all eternity. Let's call this religion, the book of DOG.
As a logical matter, the book of DOG and book of GOD are equally likely to be true. I now gain no more from believing in God for the sake of pascals wager.
For a belief in God says eternal life. But a belief in the other says sunshine and puppies. So now using pascals wager, I am not confronted with this dilemma:
If I believe in the book of DOG, I will reap eternal sunshine and puppies.
If I believe in the book of GOD, I will reap eternal life.
The calculus of the wager as now changed.
In fact, the calculus of the wager is infinitely malleable.
For I can make up a religion out of thin air saying that ones who are atheist will be blessed with sunshine and puppies for all eternity. Let's call this religion, the book of DOG.
As a logical matter, the book of DOG and book of GOD are equally likely to be true. I now gain no more from believing in God for the sake of pascals wager.
For a belief in God says eternal life. But a belief in the other says sunshine and puppies. So now using pascals wager, I am not confronted with this dilemma:
If I believe in the book of DOG, I will reap eternal sunshine and puppies.
If I believe in the book of GOD, I will reap eternal life.
The calculus of the wager as now changed.
In fact, the calculus of the wager is infinitely malleable.
There are better arguments out there IMO.
The crux of your argument is "making a religion up out of thin air". Since the world religions exist, this presents a problem to your argument.
Note, I am not saying that because world religions exist they are correct, rather that equating them to a belief created on a whim is an oversimplification.
If there is a god, he created me with the capacity for knowledge and propensity towards logic and reason that lead me to believe he doesn't exist. So if there is a god that hates and condemns people who don't believe, he's a real dick for giving me the reasoning skills to not believe in the first place.
Oh, I thought he was talking about playing a spell that is countering a spell with counters on it as it comes into play, but I see you guys were just discussing whether he was flashing a creature with flash in order to flash a flashback or just flashing a creature with flash but not needing flash in order to flashback a spell without flash.
Pascal's wager essentially says that God (or the Creator, or perhaps another deity) is such an insecure and cruel monster that if you use the gifts of logic and reason he gives you, and even if you are a good person your entire life, you will burn for eternity unless you also cater to His frail ego by soothing it with worship. Because He loves you.
If you ask anyone who proposes Pascal's Wager if they think that it is valid advice that should be followed, they will surely say yes. When you ask them if they follow their own advice by believing in numerous other deities, they will say no. Because even they know that Pascal's Wager is idiotic.
If there was a Creator out there, He would surely judge by the merits of our actions, not brown-nosing.
The problem I have with Pascal's Wager is that it assumes that belief is a choice. As if I could simply make the decision to believe in a deity. The best I could muster is a well rehearsed lie, which I would think (as has already been pointed out in this thread) a being like a tri-omni would know to be a lie. What would be the point?
If there is a God and he has a plan for me, then his plan was for me to question anything for which there is no evidence. Pascal’s Wager helps me naught.
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
For I can make up a religion out of thin air saying that ones who are atheist will be blessed with sunshine and puppies for all eternity. Let's call this religion, the book of DOG.
As a logical matter, the book of DOG and book of GOD are equally likely to be true. I now gain no more from believing in God for the sake of pascals wager.
For a belief in God says eternal life. But a belief in the other says sunshine and puppies. So now using pascals wager, I am not confronted with this dilemma:
If I believe in the book of DOG, I will reap eternal sunshine and puppies.
If I believe in the book of GOD, I will reap eternal life.
The calculus of the wager as now changed.
In fact, the calculus of the wager is infinitely malleable.
There are better arguments out there IMO.
The crux of your argument is "making a religion up out of thin air". Since the world religions exist, this presents a problem to your argument.
Note, I am not saying that because world religions exist they are correct, rather that equating them to a belief created on a whim is an oversimplification.
Scientology and a few other alien cults probably show how they can be created over time if you study their history and practices. Not exactly "thin air," but more like grown or cultivated over a few decades with a charismatic leader.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Scientology and a few other alien cults probably show how they can be created over time if you study their history and practices. Not exactly "thin air," but more like grown or cultivated over a few decades with a charismatic leader.
Joseph Smith started the Mormon faith after spending 18 months in prison for fraud. A strong argument can be made that he wrote the mormon bible as a way to justify defrauding people with the protection given to religions to prevent him from going back to jail. It's a perfect example of "cultivat[ing] over a few decades with a charismatic leader".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
The thing about it in general is that people have choices.
You have the choice to believe in God. You also have the choice not to believe in God.
If you do choose to believe in God then if it does turn out that he doesn't exist then you have lost nothing. you die and then nothing.
If you don't believe in God though you have to believe that he doesn't exist. if He does end up existing then you lose everything including your soul. The only hope that you have is that he really doesn't exist.
Someone mentioned convience. I find that there are many people that claim to be christians for that simple thing alone. Yet Christ already told how they will be responded to.
Some one else mentioned they would rather be judged on their works. You seriously want to have your deeds judged against perfection? Good luck with that. You will find that your deeds and works don't measure up.
i think pascal's wager is meant more for discussion than any type of serious theory.
It does envoke thought.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
If you do choose to believe in God then if it does turn out that he doesn't exist then you have lost nothing. you die and then nothing.
Unless a different god exists, and he takes umbrage at your choosing to believe in the wrong one. It could even be that there's a god who doesn't want people to believe in gods, and punishes those who do. Or there could be some other sort of afterlife arrangement entirely. Maybe you get whacked with a wet noodle for all eternity unless you can say "Please sir may I have another" in Quechua. No God - just the noodle. We're in the realm of pure speculation free from the shackles of evidence-based reasoning, so the possibilities we can contemplate are endless.
If you don't believe in God though you have to believe that he doesn't exist.
No, this doesn't necessarily follow if multiple gods exist. Someone may acknowledge the existence of a christian god, but may not believe he's the guy who created the universe or is the source of morality.
I mean, just take a look at the old testament. When other gods are mentioned (say, by the Pharaoh's priests), it isn't about whether or not other gods exist, but whether or not which god is more powerful. The Israelites are not told that other gods don't exist, but rather other gods shouldn't be placed before him.
That being said, I'm curious as to when the judeochristian faiths moved from "other gods exist, mine is better and jealous" to "other gods don't exist".
if He does end up existing then you lose everything including your soul.
That doesn't follow, either. There are literally millions of people, especially in the past, who have lived and died without even having heard of the judeochristian god, much less believed in him. Is it your assertion that they've all lost their souls?
Personally, I think the premise holds, though I believe he was being a bit too specific. Put simply, if the Atheists are right, nothing happens. However, if anything else is right, than not having a belief in anything means you are forfeiting the chance, bar none.
The thing is, any given set of beliefs is equally likely to be true, and ignoring Atheism is the only one which holds no potential rewards for following it. These supposedly ludicrous hypotheticals posited by everyone else hold more merit than not believing in anything.
Think of beliefs as a roulette wheel. The odds of picking the winning number are slim, but choosing Atheism is the equivalent of throwing your chips in the trash.
Paying lip service to a power is simply a subset of beliefs, that being that you believe that if there is a power, it will accept said lip service. I see no problem with that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
L1 judge since 1/30/12 (lapsed as of 1/30/13)
My Friend Code is: 0146-9645-8893
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"I would rather believe that God exists and be wrong, losing out on some finite moments of pleasure or personal gain and just rot in the earth. Than not believe in him, and have to live in Hell for the rest of eternity."
This is pretty much a loosely tied together version of Pascal's Wager. I'm sure many of you are far more familiar with this concept than I am.
But essentially, that is the wager. According to Pascal, it is a wager that must be made and cannot be avoided. You either believe and take the safer bet towards the after life, or you disbelieve and risk your eternal soul for the sake of pleasure in this life.
A real life philosophical russian roulette, so to speak.
I can see how both Christians and Atheists would hate this kind of proposition. As Christians believe that this sets up "soft believers" that really have no interest in worshipping God and only do so out of convenience than love. And atheists of course hate this because they find it wholly unnecessary or false in some way or another.
But how do YOU feel about the Wager? Share your thoughts below and let's see what comes of it.
It isn't Christian or Atheism, there are a nigh infinite number of possible gods. The math does not work in Pascal's favor.
On the other hand, if I worship Osiris and it turns out Yahweh is the real one, I might be able to make a deal with Him and be forgive.
The logic of Pascal's Wager dictates you should find the most spiteful, hateful, unforgiving God and worship HIM and just cross your fingers if you're wrong you can work something out with the real guy.
1. You have to believe in the "true" God. There are hundreds upon hundreds of deities and no way of knowing which one is real if any at all
2. Matter of inauthentic faith. Would God or gods reward the person for using Pascal's wager in believing?
There are tons of god beliefs. What if I pick the wrong one? Will God care?
What if I pick the "right" one so to speak, but not exactly (e.g. one Christian denomination vs. another)? Will God care about that?
It also assumes that all "beliefs" are created equal. In such a way, I could create a brand new wager involving an invisible Leprechaun under your bed that will kill you if you don't believe in it. The Leprechaun wouldn't even contradict God. Must you believe that?
How much further down the line can we go with this? You must also believe in the invisible unicorn who will sexually assault you in your sleep, the invisible gnomes, etc, etc.
It's quite possibly the worst theistic argument I've ever heard by someone who is otherwise a respected mind. Meaning, I've heard worse theistic arguments but only from laymen or idiots on the internet.
In summary, James says that making the choice to believe is an action which is "lived, forced and momentous". Like Pascal, he has a practical approach to it, but goes a bit further than merely saying that believing is simply the more pragmatic option to nonbelieving. James actually describes the opportunity to believe to be like an invitation to an adventure, a once in a lifetime opportunity, a choice you simply have to make or not. You can say no, but would you? It's very much like Bilbo Baggins as he's portrayed in the movie version of "The Hobbit". Yes, you can stay at home and live your comfortable life, or you could go out there on a journey which you don't even know if you'll return home in one piece. You could die. Worse, you could fail and return home a miserable wreck. You could lose everything. No matter how it ends, you'll never be the same person afterwards. However, the journey itself to go out into the unknown potentially becomes so rewarding that staying in your comfort zone, locked in your own closed mind, seems simply boring in comparison.
Now that's a gamble. If you like that, I suggest checking him out. James has some really nice, vivid examples that make the act of believing more than one of risk mitigation (he still uses that as the fundamental idea, but expands it quite a bit). A philosopher of pragmatism, he sees that there is a wealth of hidden opportunity and experience in belief, far too great to describe here in one post, and which might be far too good to pass up, even if passing it up is the rational, logical decision. I recommend him over Pascal to anyone interested.
How well do you do against one?
I like this.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
If God exists (in particular, the omniscient kind) I'm fairly sure he knows the difference between someone who believes and someone paying lipservice for convenience.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Apparently if I make reasonable decisions on what to believe or what not to believe, I am doomed. But if I do special pleading and believe in a certain god and portray him as having the worst attributes, that I will be rewarded with paradise for insulting him in this manner. This wager just has so many levels of dumb.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
The real god(s) may not have built a hell or heaven at all. So whether you believe or disbelieve, you could still be worm food.
So as Taylor said, I guess you'd have to wager for the worst possible god(s) to piss off, crossing your fingers the real one is better.
The problem remains, that the worst possible God we know of, or have a doctrine for, may not in fact be nearly as malevolent as the real god(s).
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
As for mimetic approaches instilling belief, I think that is unquestionably true, although not limitless.
For I can make up a religion out of thin air saying that ones who are atheist will be blessed with sunshine and puppies for all eternity. Let's call this religion, the book of DOG.
As a logical matter, the book of DOG and book of GOD are equally likely to be true. I now gain no more from believing in God for the sake of pascals wager.
For a belief in God says eternal life. But a belief in the other says sunshine and puppies. So now using pascals wager, I am not confronted with this dilemma:
If I believe in the book of DOG, I will reap eternal sunshine and puppies.
If I believe in the book of GOD, I will reap eternal life.
The calculus of the wager as now changed.
In fact, the calculus of the wager is infinitely malleable.
There are better arguments out there IMO.
The crux of your argument is "making a religion up out of thin air". Since the world religions exist, this presents a problem to your argument.
Note, I am not saying that because world religions exist they are correct, rather that equating them to a belief created on a whim is an oversimplification.
-regarding Snapcaster Mage.
If you ask anyone who proposes Pascal's Wager if they think that it is valid advice that should be followed, they will surely say yes. When you ask them if they follow their own advice by believing in numerous other deities, they will say no. Because even they know that Pascal's Wager is idiotic.
If there was a Creator out there, He would surely judge by the merits of our actions, not brown-nosing.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
If there is a God and he has a plan for me, then his plan was for me to question anything for which there is no evidence. Pascal’s Wager helps me naught.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Scientology and a few other alien cults probably show how they can be created over time if you study their history and practices. Not exactly "thin air," but more like grown or cultivated over a few decades with a charismatic leader.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Joseph Smith started the Mormon faith after spending 18 months in prison for fraud. A strong argument can be made that he wrote the mormon bible as a way to justify defrauding people with the protection given to religions to prevent him from going back to jail. It's a perfect example of "cultivat[ing] over a few decades with a charismatic leader".
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
You have the choice to believe in God. You also have the choice not to believe in God.
If you do choose to believe in God then if it does turn out that he doesn't exist then you have lost nothing. you die and then nothing.
If you don't believe in God though you have to believe that he doesn't exist. if He does end up existing then you lose everything including your soul. The only hope that you have is that he really doesn't exist.
Someone mentioned convience. I find that there are many people that claim to be christians for that simple thing alone. Yet Christ already told how they will be responded to.
Some one else mentioned they would rather be judged on their works. You seriously want to have your deeds judged against perfection? Good luck with that. You will find that your deeds and works don't measure up.
i think pascal's wager is meant more for discussion than any type of serious theory.
It does envoke thought.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No, this doesn't necessarily follow if multiple gods exist. Someone may acknowledge the existence of a christian god, but may not believe he's the guy who created the universe or is the source of morality.
I mean, just take a look at the old testament. When other gods are mentioned (say, by the Pharaoh's priests), it isn't about whether or not other gods exist, but whether or not which god is more powerful. The Israelites are not told that other gods don't exist, but rather other gods shouldn't be placed before him.
That being said, I'm curious as to when the judeochristian faiths moved from "other gods exist, mine is better and jealous" to "other gods don't exist".
That doesn't follow, either. There are literally millions of people, especially in the past, who have lived and died without even having heard of the judeochristian god, much less believed in him. Is it your assertion that they've all lost their souls?
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
The thing is, any given set of beliefs is equally likely to be true, and ignoring Atheism is the only one which holds no potential rewards for following it. These supposedly ludicrous hypotheticals posited by everyone else hold more merit than not believing in anything.
Think of beliefs as a roulette wheel. The odds of picking the winning number are slim, but choosing Atheism is the equivalent of throwing your chips in the trash.
Paying lip service to a power is simply a subset of beliefs, that being that you believe that if there is a power, it will accept said lip service. I see no problem with that.
My Friend Code is: 0146-9645-8893