Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pascal's Wager - Any Way to Live a Life
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 126 (432864)
11-08-2007 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by iceage
11-07-2007 8:18 PM


I don't see how Pascal's Wager can be applied in any meaningful sense. People don't just decide to believe stuff because it's to their benefit. People believe stuff because, in some way hard to describe, stuff just makes sense to them. Some people believe stuff because they have seen arguments for its truth that (at least to them) sound logical. People believe stuff because they think it fits with what they've seen in the real world. Some people believe stuff because that is what they've been taught and they've never seen any reason to think differently.
But I don't think very many people ever sat down and said something like, "You know, if I believe that George Bush personally planted explosives in the World Trade Center and detonated, then I'll be respected among my peers, I'll become rich, and chicks will dig me. So I will believe it. I DO believe it!"
Hell, I was a fundamentalist Christian, and I didn't want to become an atheist. I already knew that, if the evangelicals were right, that unbelievers would go to Hell, and so forth. But, you know, that never entered into consideration. The only that matters whether something is a fact or not is the evidence and the logical conclusions one can draw from the evidence. And I fought against becoming an unbeliever. If I was able to choose my beliefs, then I would have remained a conservative, evangelical Christian literalist.
The main fallacy of Pascal's Wager is that it is entirely irrelevant to what a person sincerely believes. People just aren't going to listen to it and say, "Wow. That pay-off is fantastic. Well, I'm going to choose be become a believer."
Incidentally, I believe that Pascal himself recognized this fatal weakness of this particular argument.

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iceage, posted 11-07-2007 8:18 PM iceage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Phat, posted 11-08-2007 6:35 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 23 by Rrhain, posted 11-09-2007 2:29 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 17 of 126 (432867)
11-08-2007 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Chiroptera
11-08-2007 6:10 PM


How I came to believe the stuff I do
Chiroptera writes:
People believe stuff because, in some way hard to describe, stuff just makes sense to them. Some people believe stuff because they have seen arguments for its truth that (at least to them) sound logical. People believe stuff because they think it fits with what they've seen in the real world. Some people believe stuff because that is what they've been taught and they've never seen any reason to think differently.
I may have initially began to believe in God because He made sense to me. I still swear to this day that there was one day that I became aware of a presence which has never left me since that time, even though I don't always feel confirmation via tactile perceptions.
I also admit that there was and is a lot of peer pressure within my circle to believe, going to Church and all.
I support my belief personally through the behavior of others, the impulses within myself, and my willingness to believe. I think that will to believe is the anchor of it all. Evidence means little to me, because I have had personal experiences that settled the validity of my beliefs in my own mind and heart. For me, none of this is a bet. The decision was settled based on my will. People decide to believe or not. Its as simple as that.
Chiroptera writes:
If I was able to choose my beliefs, then I would have remained a conservative, evangelical Christian literalist.
You did choose your beliefs. You chose to believe in logic, reason, and evidence.
Edited by Phat, : add

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Chiroptera, posted 11-08-2007 6:10 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by nator, posted 11-09-2007 6:59 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 34 by iceage, posted 11-09-2007 4:26 PM Phat has replied

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 18 of 126 (432869)
11-08-2007 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by iceage
11-07-2007 8:18 PM


A demonstrably safe bet.
Pascal's wager assumes that god, if he exists, would give preferential treatment to people who are opportunistic, dishonest, hypocritical, and very shallow in their beliefs. Given the behavior of the vast majority of religious people, I'd say that taking the wager is a pretty safe bet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iceage, posted 11-07-2007 8:18 PM iceage has not replied

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 19 of 126 (432871)
11-08-2007 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Rrhain
11-08-2007 2:08 AM


'Will' vs. 'compulsion'.
As has been referenced elsewhere, yes. If you put someone in a room with other people, all of whom are insisting that a certain event happened, he'll start to convince himself it actually did, creating "memories" of the event.
Now, is this "will"? I'd say yes. Our will to be one of the crowd and not stand out is what does it.
I think you might confuse people with your use of the word 'will'. People will assume you mean free will. I think 'compulsion' would be more accurate. The subjects do not perform an analysis and make a well thought out decision to create a false memory for themselves. They are reacting to a compulsion to fit in, and the compulsion is totally subconscious so that they are not aware of having made any kind of decision or of not having experienced the event.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Rrhain, posted 11-08-2007 2:08 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Rrhain, posted 11-09-2007 2:44 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 126 (432882)
11-08-2007 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by iceage
11-07-2007 8:18 PM


Can you rephrase?
is employing Pascal's Wager in your approach to life an authentic and intellectually honest way to live!?
I don't really understand the question. What about it would or wouldn't authenticate an intellectually honest way to live?

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iceage, posted 11-07-2007 8:18 PM iceage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Stile, posted 11-09-2007 8:48 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 126 (432884)
11-08-2007 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
11-08-2007 12:12 AM


Re: Clarification of Pascals infamous Wager
The Wager posits that it is a better "bet" to believe that God exists than not to believe, because the expected value of believing (which Pascal assessed as infinite) is always greater than the expected value of not believing.
If salvation were as trite and banal as the wager makes it seem, then, yeah, betting on God would be the better option. Reason being, if the dominant secular thought asserts that all cognizance ceases after death, then there is nothing to fear in the grave. But if you wager against God, you run the risk of perdition.
For the Christian its a win-win situation. For the atheist its a win-loss situation.
Some atheists posit that following Christ is a waste of a life. But if the person is happy, generous, etc because they follow Jesus, what difference would it matter if it was a total delusion? You wouldn't know it either way because you'd be dead. So there is no waste.
The problem with the argument is that its prefaced upon a false dichotomy. There is ample justification to believe that not all theistic beliefs will save you. Also, if you are a Christian, simply believing that God exists does not constitute salvation.
In other words, you can't buy your "fire's insurance" just in case this whole God thing really is true. That's not how it works.
If the Wager really were as simple as Pascal phrased it, then, sure, its a no-brainer. The reality may be vastly different though.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 11-08-2007 12:12 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Rrhain, posted 11-09-2007 2:57 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 45 by iceage, posted 11-10-2007 3:59 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 22 of 126 (432914)
11-09-2007 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Jon
11-08-2007 7:17 AM


Jon responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Which god are you going to believe in?
The only one there can be.
And which one is that? Be specific. Be aware that there are others who are just as sure that your choice is wrong and their evidence is just as strong as yours.
quote:
quote:
There are plenty of gods out there...
Nope. Can be only one.
The Hindus might have something to say about that, as will the Shinto.
quote:
quote:
Too, and connected, isn't it interesting that the god you will typically believe in is the one your community believes in?
Is it?
Yes.
quote:
quote:
It isn't like you're treating all the various conceptualizations of god equally.
At the same time, it isn't like doing so is impossible.
Actually, it is.
You cannot possibly know all conceptualizations. Therefore, there is at least one you are at the very least ignoring completely.
quote:
quote:
You've touched on just one of the many problems with the Wager: The assumption that we understand god's intentions. There are others.
The primary one being that any real God would not give mind to whether or not a handful of mollusks clinging to a measly rock acknowledged its existence.
And thus, you fall for the very fallacy you were responding to: Thinking you understand god's intentions.
Who died and made you god?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Jon, posted 11-08-2007 7:17 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Jon, posted 11-09-2007 11:24 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 23 of 126 (432916)
11-09-2007 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Chiroptera
11-08-2007 6:10 PM


Chiroptera writes:
quote:
People don't just decide to believe stuff because it's to their benefit.
Oh, yes, they do! They do it all the time. You've never talked yourself into or out of something? What on earth do you think the concept of hierarchical social systems are doing? It's one of the myriad ways you eliminate doubt in yourself.
quote:
But I don't think very many people ever sat down and said something like, "You know, if I believe that George Bush personally planted explosives in the World Trade Center and detonated, then I'll be respected among my peers, I'll become rich, and chicks will dig me. So I will believe it. I DO believe it!"
You're making it simplistic, but that's exactly what people do. "He doesn't mean it when he hits me. He really loves me."
quote:
And I fought against becoming an unbeliever. If I was able to choose my beliefs, then I would have remained a conservative, evangelical Christian literalist.
Didn't you read your own post? For a while, you did.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Chiroptera, posted 11-08-2007 6:10 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 24 of 126 (432918)
11-09-2007 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by AnswersInGenitals
11-08-2007 6:52 PM


Re: 'Will' vs. 'compulsion'.
AnswersInGenitals responds to me:
quote:
People will assume you mean free will.
And I do.
It just isn't regarding the question people might assume. That is, they are freely choosing that they do not wish to be the odd ball out; to insist that everybody else is wrong. They choose to reject their own experience to substitute someone else's.
You're assuming that "free will" is some sort of slow, deliberate, methodical thought process.
quote:
The subjects do not perform an analysis and make a well thought out decision to create a false memory for themselves.
Why does that obviate free will? They freely chose not to do so. They could just as easily have said, "Now, wait a minute! Are you all insane?"
quote:
They are reacting to a compulsion to fit in
Yes, but there is also the reaction not to lie and the reaction of revulsion from those who lie right to your face.
And yet, they don't go in that direction. It's a choice. Is that not free will?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 11-08-2007 6:52 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 25 of 126 (432919)
11-09-2007 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Hyroglyphx
11-08-2007 8:59 PM


Re: Clarification of Pascals infamous Wager
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote:
If salvation were as trite and banal as the wager makes it seem, then, yeah, betting on God would be the better option.
What makes you think it isn't? Since when did you become the chosen one who knows the mind of the god that truly exists? You didn't really think it was the Christian one, did you?
quote:
For the Christian its a win-win situation.
Oh, such faith you have that the god that truly exists is the Christian one. How surprised you will be when you find out that you've been a very bad boy.
But don't worry, you'll have an afterlifetime supply of Rice-a-Roni®, the San Francisco Treat.
Keep digging that hole, NJ.
quote:
For the atheist its a win-loss situation.
Unless, of course, god rewards those who think for themselves. Isn't that one of those catchphrases in your book? "God helps those who help themselves"? Perhaps that was a hint to put the book down.
Keep digging that hole, NJ.
quote:
The problem with the argument is that its prefaced upon a false dichotomy.
Oh, it's more than just that. You've fallen for the same fallacy that Pascal did:
Thinking that it's your god that truly exists.
quote:
There is ample justification to believe that not all theistic beliefs will save you.
Indeed...so what makes you think that you've managed to find the right ones? Since when did you become the chosen one who knows the mind of the god that truly exists?
quote:
Also, if you are a Christian, simply believing that God exists does not constitute salvation.
But that's irrelevant. Even if you do everything that a "good Christian" must do, you're still nowhere near being in a good position for by being a "good Christian," it is just as likely that you have made yourself abomination in the eyes of the god that truly exists.
You didn't think the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you?
Keep digging that hole, NJ.
quote:
In other words, you can't buy your "fire's insurance" just in case this whole God thing really is true. That's not how it works.
Says who? You? Why should we believe you? Who died and made you god? How is it that you know god's intentions?
quote:
If the Wager really were as simple as Pascal phrased it, then, sure, its a no-brainer. The reality may be vastly different though.
But then again, it might not.
That you find the idea of a capricious and cruel god to be anathema is irrelevant. You may not believe in such a god.
But said god may very much believe in you.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-08-2007 8:59 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Phat, posted 11-09-2007 6:18 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 41 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-10-2007 10:33 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 26 of 126 (432935)
11-09-2007 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Rrhain
11-08-2007 6:31 AM


Re: you bet
Rrhain:
Are you asking how the researchers determined that the subjects weren't lying about having experienced the non-event?
Right. What criteria did they use to distinguish a genuine belief from outward compliance?
Was brain activity being monitored as subjects were speaking? You don't tell us.
You'd have to read the writeups for the full details.
Any idea where I might find these writeups? Can you share a link or an author's name? Institution? Publication? Approximate date? It helps with the Googling.
All I have right now, going from your post, is beliefs, memories, and scientists. That brings up 160,000 items. Some interesting press reports are showing up in the pile, but I see nothing yet like the study you described.
Unless you're suggesting the researchers were fools, do you have any particular reason that they would be unable to make such a determination?
I am asking what criteria researchers used in conducting a scientific study. It's a fair question.
________
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Rrhain, posted 11-08-2007 6:31 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Rrhain, posted 11-09-2007 9:54 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 27 of 126 (432938)
11-09-2007 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Rrhain
11-09-2007 2:57 AM


Re: Clarification of Pascals infamous Wager
Rrhain writes:
Unless, of course, god rewards those who think for themselves. Isn't that one of those catchphrases in your book? "God helps those who help themselves"? Perhaps that was a hint to put the book down.
Actually you won't find this phrase or anything like it in the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Rrhain, posted 11-09-2007 2:57 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by ringo, posted 11-09-2007 11:24 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 32 by Jon, posted 11-09-2007 11:25 AM Phat has replied
 Message 38 by Rrhain, posted 11-09-2007 10:00 PM Phat has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 28 of 126 (432939)
11-09-2007 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Phat
11-08-2007 6:35 PM


Re: How I came to believe the stuff I do
quote:
You did choose your beliefs. You chose to believe in logic, reason, and evidence.
The thing is, logic, reason, and evidence are there, and work, no matter if you "believe in" them or not.
If you think you can choose your beliefs, then why don't you choose to be an Atheist for a week?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Phat, posted 11-08-2007 6:35 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by mike the wiz, posted 11-12-2007 4:32 PM nator has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 29 of 126 (432949)
11-09-2007 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Hyroglyphx
11-08-2007 8:48 PM


Rephrased
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
iceage writes:
is employing Pascal's Wager in your approach to life an authentic and intellectually honest way to live!?
What about it would or wouldn't authenticate an intellectually honest way to live?
My guess as to what iceage is getting at is the morality of using Pascal's Wager.
In it's essence, Pascal's Wager is this:
It is better to believe in God because of the possible personal rewards rather than not believe in God and missing out on those personal rewards.
Which is extremely greedy and self-centered.
If you're only reason for belief is the chance at personal reward... are you really being a good person?
Isn't that what religion is really about... being a good person?
Therefore, if one wants to use religion to be a good person, using Pascal's Wager is against that cause and is therefore an intellectually dishonest reason-to-believe.
If that is what he's hinting at, I agree with him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-08-2007 8:48 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 126 (432965)
11-09-2007 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Rrhain
11-09-2007 2:20 AM


And which one is that? Be specific.
The only One. There cannot be more than One.
Be aware that there are others who are just as sure that your choice is wrong
Let them be.
...and their evidence is just as strong as yours.
Doubtf'lly so.
Thinking you understand god's intentions.
I needn't understand God's intentions, merely Its nature, which is, in the general, discernable via logic.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Rrhain, posted 11-09-2007 2:20 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Rrhain, posted 11-09-2007 10:04 PM Jon has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024