Pascal's Wager

[valis]

Randi said:

So, it appears that it’s a much better bet to believe in God, which, though Pascal didn’t go into it, requires that you give the money, say the prayers, believe the stories, accept the limitations on your free will, subjugate yourself, and mumble “Hallelujah!” at every opportunity – among other indignities. No, Blaise, I’ll walk upright, with my eyes open – maybe right into Hell, but I don’t think so.

Perhaps Pascal didn't go into it because it isn't true. How can their be a fee or required behavoir to belive in a philosophical idea?

I belive in God, I used to be an Atheist (for the majority of my life) and I don't recall paying a fee for changing my mind. In fact all I did was change my mind. No ritual or anything. I might have murmured Hallelujah once and while in my life but only sarcastically. Certainlly not at every opportunity.

If I didn't know what a level headed skeptic Mr. Randi was I would think that he was harbouring prejudices based on stereotypes.

 

[Orphia Nay]

What made you change your mind about being an atheist?

 

[jimtron]

...say the prayers, believe the stories...

Hmmm, the prayers and stories of which interpretation of which religion?

 

[BPScooter]

Excellent, far-out-and-groovy question. "minds" are something of an issue, as are words like "being" and "knowing"...

Philosophy is the major discipline, in my humble opinion. I know, to the best that my mind can concoct, that I have reasons for my beliefs. Reason is a well-understood method of thinking.

When an athesitic/philosophic mind changes its beliefs, it is only because the evidence persuades a rational mind to do so.

Faith and charisma, persuasion in general, do rest on a foundation of non-reason. Wait, I take that back... rational persuasion based on evidence CAN persuade an open mind to change its beliefs. Science provides this sort of case for study.

Get ready for tons of definitions of 'mind' and 'belief' and such. Welcome to the rational hell of philosophy.

 

[CFLarsen]

Perhaps Pascal didn't go into it because it isn't true. How can their be a fee or required behavoir to belive in a philosophical idea?

If you believe in a "philosophical" idea, but don't follow it, doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

You say one thing, but do another?

 

[BPScooter]

"epistemolgy" is a tough word to use in daily conversation. I parse it to little kids like this:

'How do you know that what you think you know is true?'

or.. what is the epistemology of that?''

This does work with 10-year-old kid, just be sure that the issue is something like "girls have cooties" or "the Earth is about to melt."

*editd 4 speling

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
If I didn't know what a level headed skeptic Mr. Randi was I would think that he was harbouring prejudices based on stereotypes.

No, I think Randi's remark is simply directed at those religious types who DO live up to the sterotypes. He has no beef with people who just say "I belive, and you can do what you will".

If the stereotypes don't fit you, he isn't talking to you.

Hans

 

[SkepticScott]

Fees and Flaws

The "fee" involved may be opportunity cost. If you go to a religious service, you're giving up the chance to do something else during that time. Similarly, when you're thinking about one thing, you can't think about something else. Some people also think acting submissive, or acknowledging unworthiness as "costing" self-esteem.

The main problem with Pascal's wager is that humans have worshipped several thousand detities throughout history. Most of them demand exclusivity. Which one do you pick? Pascal assumed that there was only one, but that is not a valid assumption. Even if there is just the one the Abrahamic religions worship, which one? Do you go with the Jewish deity, Christian deity or Islamic deity? If Christian, which variety? Mormon? Roman Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Moonie? One of the small cults that spring up each year? Maybe the Branch Davidians were the religion? Maybe it's one that will be founded tomorrow? Next week?

It's not a simple 'yes or no' choice.

Another problem is that worshipping any deity might be a losing proposition. What if there is a deity, call it "Idnar". Idnar created everything, including all the other religions, and carefully concealed evidence of its existence. Idnar plans to reward those humans that showed the most intelligence and rational behavior. Anyone who believes in any religion loses; atheists get paradise.

I consider "Pascal's Wager" a fatally flawed argument.

 

[valis]

What made you change your mind about being an atheist?

The very short, highly abridged version is that I came to realise that there is absolutley no way, for me at least, to know whether God exists or not.

That is you have just as much reason to belive there is a God as not; in fact I have a very hard time defining what the definition of a God would be or what the lack of one would imply. Why? Because all the answers would lie in a 'time' before the creation of the uninverse, in other words in a time before time itself existed.

How I came to decide that Christianity makes sense; that is a long story that basically involved trying approach the subject withouth prejudice (as much as possible of course) and then coming to a personal decision.

In my opinion Atheism is just as much a religion as Scientology or Christianity or any other faith. Now here is the point where someone will feel compelled to reply with either:

Q: How can you belive in things for the sake of beliving in them when there is no proof, and how can you pick one belife system over another when they are all equally likely?

A: the answer is that the quetion applies to Atheism as well as religion.

Q: What about <Insert logical inconsistency in religion of your choice>?

A: Beats me, what happened five minutes before the big bang?

This post is already way longer than I like for posts; I just don't want to seem like I am ducking the question. Not to sound close minded but I see little to no point in discussing religion in general until someone comes up with a way to test the answers. I find it really difficult to belive that I am going to change anyones mind here; nor do I care to.

So in summary there are two answers to your question.

1. It was a personal decision.

2. Who cares anyway?

 

[valis]

I consider "Pascal's Wager" a fatally flawed argument.

I do as well. My post was in regards to Randi's statement about religion. You have fleshed it out a bit but it is still incorrect in my limited experience. I belive in God and it costs me nothing. I guess there is an oppurtunity cost. Let's see I go to church maybe five or six times a year. If I didn't go I would be laying on the couch watching the NFL pregame shows. Probably not costing me much.

 

[valis]

No, I think Randi's remark is simply directed at those religious types who DO live up to the sterotypes. He has no beef with people who just say "I belive, and you can do what you will".

If the stereotypes don't fit you, he isn't talking to you.

Hans

I can't see where he said anything even remotely like that. Perhaps I misunderstood it but I sure can't find any way to get that value out of the words I quoted.

 

[valis]

If you believe in a "philosophical" idea, but don't follow it, doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

You say one thing, but do another?

One of the few things I have learned in life that I am fairly certain of; everybody is a hypocrite.

In fact if someone did manage to be totally un-hypocritical they would probably be insufferable.

 

[Mojo]

I'll have a fiver each way on the FSM.

 

[Aepervius]

It is a matetr of personal opinion...

Q: How can you belive in things for the sake of beliving in them when there is no proof, and how can you pick one belife system over another when they are all equally likely?

A: the answer is that the quetion applies to Atheism as well as religion.

... But I disagree on that. In one case you presupose an existence without proof (god belief, whatever the god). In the other since there is no proof of existence , then you presupose a non-existence.

Do you believe in Sasquash ? In fairy ? Kobold ? Loch ness monster ? UFO ? EVP ?

This is the same thematic.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The very short, highly abridged version is that I came to realise that there is absolutley no way, for me at least, to know whether God exists or not.

So you took Pascal's wager?

That is you have just as much reason to belive there is a God as not; in fact I have a very hard time defining what the definition of a God would be or what the lack of one would imply. Why? Because all the answers would lie in a 'time' before the creation of the uninverse, in other words in a time before time itself existed.

We tend to call that "the god of the gaps". The differende between you and us is just that we simply accept the existence of the gaps.

In my opinion Atheism is just as much a religion as Scientology or Christianity or any other faith.

Then you have not understood at least one of them (belief and non-belief).

Q: How can you belive in things for the sake of beliving in them when there is no proof, and how can you pick one belife system over another when they are all equally likely?

A: the answer is that the quetion applies to Atheism as well as religion.

No, that is logically wrong. To believe in something that has no proof is not the same as not believing in it. In fact, it is just the opposite.

Q: What about <Insert logical inconsistency in religion of your choice>?

A: Beats me, what happened five minutes before the big bang?

Strictly logical answer: There is no such thing as "before the big bang".
More pragmatic answer: Nobody will ever know.

However, the Q and A constitute a non-sequiteur. The big bang is not a logical inconsistency, and even if it were, pointing out an inconsistency in atheism does not defend inconsistencies in religions. Actually, releigions claim to know the answers, atheism (or more appropriately, I suppose, materialism) does not.

Hans

 

[Santa666]

Valis,

Forgive an old man for sticking his two cents where it likely does not belong, but I must admit finding a couple of very glaring flaws with your argument.

First, especially as it pertains to christianity, there is quite a bit of cost involved (perhaps not actual money, mind you). If you follow traditional bible following christianity, getting into heaven involves much more than just "believing in god", you must believe that jesus was the son of god, died to forgive you of your sins, and accept him as your savior. If you subscribe to this religion, then anyone who does not, is not following this biblical principle for entry into heaven, thus, they are hell bound. Secondly, what makes your brand of religion "correct", versus the thousands of Hindus or Buddists, muslims, or any other religious follower out there. If you are not correct, you are wasting your time, and likely some amount of money, on precepts that will mean nothing because the afterlife you are expecting actually belongs to another religion (assuming it exists at all).

On a secondary note, what precisely about Atheism makes it equal to christianity or scientology?

Thanks in advance,



Santa (following charlie monoxide) Clause

 

[Kimpatsu]

In my opinion Atheism is just as much a religion as Scientology or Christianity or any other faith. Now here is the point where someone will feel compelled to reply with either:

Q: How can you belive in things for the sake of beliving in them when there is no proof, and how can you pick one belife system over another when they are all equally likely?

A: the answer is that the quetion applies to Atheism as well as religion.

Q: What about <Insert logical inconsistency in religion of your choice>?

A: Beats me, what happened five minutes before the big bang?

Your first question is fatally flawed, for it is based on the misapprehension that atheism is the beleif there is no god. It isn't; it's the absence of belief. Consequently, your conclusion is totally incorrect. There is, however, no evidence for the existence of any god, and you do not need a god to explain the existence of the universe or the existence of life, so applying Occam's razor, it is most likely that there is no god. But you are hankering for a certainty that doesn't exist.
Your second assertion is utterly nonsensical, as time started at the big bang. Asking what happened before the big bang is like asking "when is yellow?" or "why is Thursday?"; the question is utterly meaningless.

 

[Segnosaur]

Randi said:

Perhaps Pascal didn't go into it because it isn't true. How can their be a fee or required behavoir to belive in a philosophical idea?

I belive in God, I used to be an Atheist (for the majority of my life) and I don't recall paying a fee for changing my mind.

Well, as others pointed out, there may be 'costs' associated with religious belief in the form of opportunity costs (e.g. modifying behaviour to please a deity.)

However, lets assume that you are a person who said "I believe in god" yet did not affect your actions at all...

How exactly would that benefit society? One of the supposed benefits of religion is that it provides a 'moral code' (flawed as it is). If you're a seriel killer BEFORE finding religion, and you're still a seriel killer AFTER finding religion, do you think that 'god' will be happy?

Another issue... yes, it may be possible for an individual to start believing in god with no outward signs. However, humans are flawed creatures, and even a smart person may take the belief in god to mean that they must "do something" to appease said god (give money, go to church, etc.). In that case, the 'cost' of a belief is that lost A) by society (as resources go to a 'false' concern), and B) by the average believer.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Taking Pascal's Wager doesn't have anything to do with paying money (Randi was talking about money for his own separate reasons). It means gambling with your 'soul' whether heaven and hell exist. It is based on the fact that there is neither proof of heaven, hell, souls nor God. And, as SkepticScott has well described, it is also a gamble on the Old Testament religions being right about those concepts, and therefore fatally flawed.

So you took Pascal's wager?

I get that impression, too.

Valis, I understand it is difficult confronting one's own beliefs, and that it is personal.

As an atheist, I am very interested in hearing why someone would change their mind about being one. My belief in Christianity dwindled slowly over the years until I realised I was only a Christian because I was ostensibly betting Pascal was right (although I didn't know of the term 'Pascal's Wager' until later). I am much happier now I have got rid of that last niggling uncertainty, but am still open to hearing others' opinions and experiences. Confronting my beliefs has got to be a habit, but these days my 'non-belief' seems to only get 'stronger'.

I care about why you changed my mind, because there is always the possiblity that you have found some undeniable proof that has dire implications.

 

[valis]

... But I disagree on that. In one case you presupose an existence without proof (god belief, whatever the god). In the other since there is no proof of existence , then you presupose a non-existence.

But I disagree with your disagreement. This is the point that I changed my mind about. Why should I pre suppose a non existnece? There is an equal amount of evidence for existence as there is for non existence; less than none.

The reason I say less than none is if 'God' created the Universe than he exists outside of anything I am able to understand. I have no frame of reference. But the nature of existence without a creator is also beyond my understanding. I have come to the conclusion that; when faced with the unfathomable it is not valid that we should presuppose one possiblity over another when we cannot, or at least I cannot even envision the possiblities fully.

Do you believe in Sasquash ? In fairy ? Kobold ? Loch ness monster ? UFO ? EVP ?

1=very unlikely but possible I suppose, 2 less possible than 1, 3 I don't know what that is (is it some sort of dwarf that lives underground or is it the Yiddish monster thingy, I'll look it up later), 4 probably less likely than 1 but certainly more likely than 2, 4 certainly true; I have personally looked up in the sky and said 'I wonder what that is' thus UFO's are real because I saw something I did not identify. 5 very unlikely but makes a good episode of Art Bell's show from time to time.