« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down

Pascal's Wager

  • 143 Replies
  • 25615 Views
*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • -2 Flamebait
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #30 on: March 11, 2007, 10:39:31 AM »
You must mean something very different from belief than I do, or else be built very differently, because if I think something is false, no amount of willpower will convince me that it's true; I cannot believe through force of will.

Can you? Really? Do it. Believe that there is an invisible pink unicorn frolicking in your back yard right now. Go ahead.
Logged
-David
E pur si muove!
?

[][][]

  • 554
  • Man of science.
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #31 on: March 11, 2007, 11:31:02 AM »
Quote from: dysfunction on March 06, 2007, 09:05:11 PM
This is probably the weakest justification for religious belief. It might be more applicable if there were only one religion, only two choices: theism, or atheism. Then one might be a theist simply as a sort of insurance policy. But there are thousands of religions. If you choose to believe in the Christian God "just in case", what happens if Allah turns out to be the true god, or any of the pagan or Hindu or Zoroastrian gods? And even provided you chose the correct deity, an unlikely circumstance in any case, mightn't that deity be angered by the fact that you only chose his/her/its religion out of convenience?
Islams Allah, and Christianity's God are the same entity. They are both the same God that spoke to Abraham, the religions are very different though.
Logged
The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us. -Some Frenchy
*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #32 on: March 11, 2007, 01:11:40 PM »
Quote from: [][][] on March 11, 2007, 11:31:02 AM
Quote from: dysfunction on March 06, 2007, 09:05:11 PM
This is probably the weakest justification for religious belief. It might be more applicable if there were only one religion, only two choices: theism, or atheism. Then one might be a theist simply as a sort of insurance policy. But there are thousands of religions. If you choose to believe in the Christian God "just in case", what happens if Allah turns out to be the true god, or any of the pagan or Hindu or Zoroastrian gods? And even provided you chose the correct deity, an unlikely circumstance in any case, mightn't that deity be angered by the fact that you only chose his/her/its religion out of convenience?
Islams Allah, and Christianity's God are the same entity. They are both the same God that spoke to Abraham, the religions are very different though.

You don't think Allah would be pretty pissed if you thought Jesus was his son and ignored the words of his last prophet? Besides, there are thousands of other Gods that are NOT the same. Pascal's Wager fails miserably as an apologetic.
Logged
the cake is a lie
?

Kasroa Is Gone

  • 6869
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #33 on: March 11, 2007, 01:19:52 PM »
As far as I'm aware, simply believing in God is not enough to grant you everlasting life. In fact God might look even less favourably on you come Armageddon if you believed in him but never followed any of his teachings.
Logged
?

GenesisNemesis

  • 12
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #34 on: March 11, 2007, 03:49:48 PM »
Quote from: The Philosopher on March 06, 2007, 08:56:23 PM
Quote
  •     * You believe in God.
              o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
              o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
        * You do not believe in God.
              o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
              o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

From a purely logical standpoint, shouldn't everyone believe in God?




No. Pascal's Wager implies that only the Christian god exists, and, also, an afterlife, which has no evidence whatsoever for its existence. Same goes with God.
Logged
?

Wolfwood

  • 2328
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #35 on: March 12, 2007, 09:50:23 PM »
Quote from: skeptical scientist on March 11, 2007, 10:39:31 AM
You must mean something very different from belief than I do, or else be built very differently, because if I think something is false, no amount of willpower will convince me that it's true; I cannot believe through force of will.

Can you? Really? Do it. Believe that there is an invisible pink unicorn frolicking in your back yard right now. Go ahead.

That would be a radical belief. I might be able to manage it with some drugs and alcahol, but since I take neither I am a bit screwed. However for something that cannot easily be proven, or falls within the realm of possibilities (there is someone down stairs) it is easy to believe such based on evidence as small as sounds you thought you heard.

However I have fallen in love through force of will. I have also believed that someone or something was in my house/store when no one was there. While the ladder was was a product of paranoia and my mind playing tricks on me, it generated a belief of something that did not exist. The same could easily occur to someone for God. Would their belief be false then?

Finally I ask you, how do you come to the conclusion that something is false? And would it not be possible for someone else to come to the conclusion that what you thought was false is in fact true?
Logged
Quote from: BOGWarrior89

I'm giving you five points for that one

*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #36 on: March 12, 2007, 10:31:16 PM »
I'm paranoid of ladders, too.   ;D

I will say that I have convinced myself some fallacy to be true.  I would rather not go into details, but I definitely suffered because of my belief. 
Logged
*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • -2 Flamebait
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #37 on: March 12, 2007, 10:45:21 PM »
Certainly you can convince yourself of something based on meager evidence, but Pascal's wager is not evidence at all, it merely says you should will yourself to believe something which you don't. Of course most people, even - I would imagine - most atheists, don't find the idea of god nearly as unbelievable as the idea of an invisible pink unicorn, so they might not insist on nearly as much evidence to allow them to believe in god, but they'll still require some. In my experience, believing something on sheer willpower is simply impossible. Pascal might have tried to convince himself to believe in god because of his wager, but if he was actually successful, he must have had more concrete reasons for his belief.

Personally I think he should have stuck to probability, and not tried to meddle in metaphysics, since he clearly sucks at it, while he was rather good at probability.
Logged
-David
E pur si muove!
*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #38 on: March 12, 2007, 11:55:21 PM »
Ah yes, I agree with your stating that Pascal's Wager is not evidence.  However, if one believes that something bad will happen after death (which does not necessarily presuppose a belief in god) then there is very good motivation to accept the wager.  Nearly everyone is scared of death to begin with and a belief in god (and the bible, in this case) gives relief to that fear (somewhat tautologically, IMO, but that's just me). 
Logged
*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • -2 Flamebait
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #39 on: March 13, 2007, 12:07:45 AM »
What do you mean by "accept the wager"? Even if you agree that it is a valid argument, you can't do anything about it if you can't force yourself to believe a statement through willpower alone.
Logged
-David
E pur si muove!
*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #40 on: March 13, 2007, 12:50:12 AM »
What I meant was to accept Pascal's intention behind the wager, which is presumptuous of me.  Let me rephrase:  to believe in God based on the wager.  I hold fast that if someone were fearful enough of death and what becomes of them thereafter, then Pascal's Wager could influence them to believe in God. 
Logged
*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • -2 Flamebait
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #41 on: March 13, 2007, 12:59:30 AM »
Quote from: EvilToothpaste on March 13, 2007, 12:50:12 AM
What I meant was to accept Pascal's intention behind the wager, which is presumptuous of me.  Let me rephrase:  to believe in God based on the wager.  I hold fast that if someone were fearful enough of death and what becomes of them thereafter, then Pascal's Wager could influence them to believe in God. 
Maybe people could, but I certainly couldn't, and I don't understand how other people can either.
Logged
-David
E pur si muove!
?

SPrinkZ

  • 762
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #42 on: March 13, 2007, 02:09:22 AM »
Quote from: skeptical scientist on March 13, 2007, 12:59:30 AM
Quote from: EvilToothpaste on March 13, 2007, 12:50:12 AM
What I meant was to accept Pascal's intention behind the wager, which is presumptuous of me.  Let me rephrase:  to believe in God based on the wager.  I hold fast that if someone were fearful enough of death and what becomes of them thereafter, then Pascal's Wager could influence them to believe in God. 
Maybe people could, but I certainly couldn't, and I don't understand how other people can either.

You're a fearless person.
Logged
ah.
*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #43 on: March 14, 2007, 03:52:54 PM »
Death?  Ha!  Death doesn't scare me much.  It's the living I'm afraid of.  Though I do think someone could be convinced to believe in God based on Pascal's Wager, I think it is a petty and shallow reason to do so. 
Logged
?

Kasroa Is Gone

  • 6869
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #44 on: March 14, 2007, 03:59:31 PM »
Believing in God wouldn't help you escape his wrath. You have to follow his teachings otherwise you're no better than an atheist.
Logged
*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #45 on: March 14, 2007, 04:10:17 PM »
Quote from: kasroa on March 14, 2007, 03:59:31 PM
Believing in God wouldn't help you escape his wrath. You have to follow his teachings otherwise you're no better than an atheist.
I submit that when the supervolcano under Yellowstone erupts none will escape his wrath. 
Logged
?

Kasroa Is Gone

  • 6869
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #46 on: March 14, 2007, 04:24:36 PM »
If we survive that long!
Logged
?

erin19

Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #47 on: March 23, 2007, 12:46:44 PM »
i personally love pascals standpoint on this matter. nothing can be lost, only gained.
I'm not sure that i even believe in god but i totally understand why someone would. In my opinion, there is as much proof for god as against it. If having faith in a higher power makes you feel happy and complete than go right ahead, you're not missing out on anything by having faith.
Logged
*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • Meep.
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #48 on: March 23, 2007, 12:49:46 PM »
Quote from: erin19 on March 23, 2007, 12:46:44 PM
i personally love pascals standpoint on this matter. nothing can be lost, only gained.
I'm not sure that i even believe in god but i totally understand why someone would. In my opinion, there is as much proof for god as against it. If having faith in a higher power makes you feel happy and complete than go right ahead, you're not missing out on anything by having faith.
As much proof for God? There's no proof of God. If you believe otherwise, I'd really like to see what proof you're referring to, because I sure as hell hasn't seen any.

~D-Draw
Logged
?

Kasroa Is Gone

  • 6869
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #49 on: March 23, 2007, 08:48:32 PM »
Quote from: kasroa on March 14, 2007, 03:59:31 PM
Believing in God wouldn't help you escape his wrath. You have to follow his teachings otherwise you're no better than an atheist.
Logged
*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #50 on: March 23, 2007, 09:48:20 PM »
Quote from: DiegoDraw on March 23, 2007, 12:49:46 PM
Quote from: erin19 on March 23, 2007, 12:46:44 PM
i personally love pascals standpoint on this matter. nothing can be lost, only gained.
I'm not sure that i even believe in god but i totally understand why someone would. In my opinion, there is as much proof for god as against it. If having faith in a higher power makes you feel happy and complete than go right ahead, you're not missing out on anything by having faith.
As much proof for God? There's no proof of God. If you believe otherwise, I'd really like to see what proof you're referring to, because I sure as hell hasn't seen any.
~D-Draw

"As much" could still mean zero for either case. 

Quote from: erin19 on March 23, 2007, 12:46:44 PM
i personally love pascals standpoint on this matter. nothing can be lost, only gained.
I'm not sure that i even believe in god but i totally understand why someone would. In my opinion, there is as much proof for god as against it. If having faith in a higher power makes you feel happy and complete than go right ahead, you're not missing out on anything by having faith.

I still think this wager presupposes possession of a belief in God, or at least some belief in the afterlife.  I believe heaven and hell are right here in front of our faces, wherever we go, not some 'other' place we go when we die. Ergo, there is much in my personal lifestyle to loose by changing my belief structure so dramatically.  I would be an entirely different person with such a different perspective.  There may be something to gain, yes.  There is also plenty for me to loose, though. 

I don't understand what is so wrong about living a good life without a belief in God.  I know what I think is good, but I'm not going to make anyone else share my beliefs through fear.  How do we know what God thinks is good?  Does the bible tell us what is good?  The bible is self-important, self-fulfilling, and preposterous for the most part, and I could never accept it as anything but a premiere work of science fiction. 
« Last Edit: March 23, 2007, 09:50:09 PM by EvilToothpaste »
Logged
*

Vilkata

  • 128
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #51 on: April 04, 2007, 06:41:43 PM »
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful. It's the transition that's troublesome.


                                                                               Isaac Asimov
Logged
Quote from: Agent_0042 on April 05, 2007, 03:17:04 PM
As I said in another thread...

Forget "Earth: Not a Globe". Why don't you try reading "Earth: Not a Book, the Real Thing".
?

Bushido

Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #52 on: April 19, 2007, 05:38:31 AM »
Quote from: The Philosopher on March 06, 2007, 08:56:23 PM
Quote
  •     * You believe in God.
              o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
              o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
        * You do not believe in God.
              o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
              o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

From a purely logical standpoint, shouldn't everyone believe in God?

There's a hidden assumption here. Believing in G-d does not necessarily mean going to heaven.
Logged
*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #53 on: April 19, 2007, 10:28:38 AM »
There's a lot of hidden assumptions in Pascal's wager. Like the assumption that only Christianity and atheism are possible choices, when there are thousands of other gods that will probably be roughly equally pissed at you for believing in the wrong god or for not believing in a god at all.
Logged
the cake is a lie
*

beast

  • 2997
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #54 on: April 20, 2007, 07:08:26 AM »
Something slightly relevant to this topic but I've just started reading "What We Believe But Cannot Prove" - which is the collection of the 2005 Edge Question.  In the introduction by Ian McEwan, he makes the point that religious philosophers had to prove that God existed in their published work, otherwise they would be killed as "heretics" or similar.  I'm not sure if this still applied to Pascal, but I would certainly suggest that his opinions on religion, as all the opinions on religion by philosophers, were seriously compromised by the power of the church at that time.  And indeed, according to "The Atheist Manifesto" by Michel Onfray (which is shit, incidentally), there were no real atheists until Jean Meslier - who although lived shortly after Pascal, didn't have his work published until 1729 when he died.  I think a large reason there were no published atheists until that time is the fear of reprisal from the church at the time.
Logged
*

Guessed

  • 5379
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #55 on: May 26, 2008, 09:21:53 PM »
Quote from: beast on April 20, 2007, 07:08:26 AM
Something slightly relevant to this topic but I've just started reading "What We Believe But Cannot Prove" - which is the collection of the 2005 Edge Question.  In the introduction by Ian McEwan, he makes the point that religious philosophers had to prove that God existed in their published work, otherwise they would be killed as "heretics" or similar.  I'm not sure if this still applied to Pascal, but I would certainly suggest that his opinions on religion, as all the opinions on religion by philosophers, were seriously compromised by the power of the church at that time.  And indeed, according to "The Atheist Manifesto" by Michel Onfray (which is shit, incidentally), there were no real atheists until Jean Meslier - who although lived shortly after Pascal, didn't have his work published until 1729 when he died.  I think a large reason there were no published atheists until that time is the fear of reprisal from the church at the time.

Agreed, for as long as there have been believers in any god, there must have also been those who did not. It is human nature to be skeptical.
Logged
Quote from: Nomad on June 07, 2010, 10:38:52 AM
Is Dino open source?

Quote from: grogberries

?

Wiccan_Child

  • 11
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #56 on: May 27, 2008, 02:10:05 AM »
Quote from: The Philosopher on March 06, 2007, 08:56:23 PM
  •     * You believe in God.
              o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
              o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
        * You do not believe in God.
              o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
              o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.

From a purely logical standpoint, shouldn't everyone believe in God?

No, because this logic is flawed. It most glaringly makes the flase dichotomy of "Either Strong Atheism is true, or Christianity is true (Heaven, Hell, etc)". This is clearly not the case, as there are a vast number of afterlife scenarios, both within and without Christianity (Buddhism, Hinduism, even my own Wicca).
Logged
?

Althalus

  • 4064
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #57 on: May 27, 2008, 02:27:54 AM »
Quote from: Wiccan_Child on May 27, 2008, 02:10:05 AM
Quote from: The Philosopher on March 06, 2007, 08:56:23 PM
  •     * You believe in God.
              o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
              o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
        * You do not believe in God.
              o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
              o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.

From a purely logical standpoint, shouldn't everyone believe in God?

No, because this logic is flawed. It most glaringly makes the flase dichotomy of "Either Strong Atheism is true, or Christianity is true (Heaven, Hell, etc)". This is clearly not the case, as there are a vast number of afterlife scenarios, both within and without Christianity (Buddhism, Hinduism, even my own Wicca).
Pascals Wager gets thrown around a lot by dumb asses. Pascal wrote it for people actively trying to decide if they should continue being Christian, between Christianity and agnosticism only. It makes sense with this reference.
Logged
?

Wiccan_Child

  • 11
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #58 on: May 27, 2008, 02:34:52 AM »
Quote from: Althalus on May 27, 2008, 02:27:54 AM
Quote from: Wiccan_Child on May 27, 2008, 02:10:05 AM
Quote from: The Philosopher on March 06, 2007, 08:56:23 PM
  •     * You believe in God.
              o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
              o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
        * You do not believe in God.
              o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
              o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.

From a purely logical standpoint, shouldn't everyone believe in God?

No, because this logic is flawed. It most glaringly makes the flase dichotomy of "Either Strong Atheism is true, or Christianity is true (Heaven, Hell, etc)". This is clearly not the case, as there are a vast number of afterlife scenarios, both within and without Christianity (Buddhism, Hinduism, even my own Wicca).
Pascals Wager gets thrown around a lot by dumb asses. Pascal wrote it for people actively trying to decide if they should continue being Christian, between Christianity and agnosticism only. It makes sense with this reference.
That makes sense, since then the dichotomy is valid (in a way that doesn't make any sense, but w/e  :P). Of course, the OP didn't pose his question in that context, so...
Logged
*

Benocrates

  • 3077
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #59 on: May 27, 2008, 03:44:53 AM »
Quote from: Althalus on May 27, 2008, 02:27:54 AM
Quote from: Wiccan_Child on May 27, 2008, 02:10:05 AM
Quote from: The Philosopher on March 06, 2007, 08:56:23 PM
  •     * You believe in God.
              o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
              o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
        * You do not believe in God.
              o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
              o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.

From a purely logical standpoint, shouldn't everyone believe in God?

No, because this logic is flawed. It most glaringly makes the flase dichotomy of "Either Strong Atheism is true, or Christianity is true (Heaven, Hell, etc)". This is clearly not the case, as there are a vast number of afterlife scenarios, both within and without Christianity (Buddhism, Hinduism, even my own Wicca).
Pascals Wager gets thrown around a lot by dumb asses. Pascal wrote it for people actively trying to decide if they should continue being Christian, between Christianity and agnosticism only. It makes sense with this reference.

It still makes no sense, regardless of the context. If you were to assume Christianity to be the only alternative, then it would...but that assumption clearly can't be made. I didn't read the whole thread, but has anyone made the point that belief can't be forced or faked?
Logged
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Quote from: Parsifal on July 26, 2010, 04:39:24 PM
Get the fuck over it.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
« previous next »