Assuming that there is only one God does not automatically mean
he gets really pissed at a person for choosing the "wrong religion. "
Pascal's wager backwards
- Thread starter aaqucnaona
- Start date
Assuming that there is only one God does not automatically mean
he gets really pissed at a person for choosing the "wrong religion. "
I think a common problem that people tend to have with Pascal's Wager is that they take it at face value and in effect are trying to decide on more than actually exists as a genuine option for them (I am referring to William James' typology on what makes for a genuine option, from his The will to believe).
A side effect of being educated in matters of "world religions," being exposed to concepts outside of one's own culture and being educated in critical thinking (which often simply means feeling pressured to have an opinion about everything) is that we find ourselves in situations where we are expected to make choices (or where we feel we must make choices) between options that are neither live nor momentuous for us, even if they may be logically forced (ie. either-or choices).
IOW, we find ourselves in situations where we try to make a decision about something that doesn't seem relevant to us, even if we recognize that it is a theoretically possible decision (even if it is a decision requiring blind faith).
This is how Pascal's Wager holds many people in its grip: not because they would find it relevant, but because they are convinced that they must resolve every philosophical(-looking) problem that someone confronts them with.
People from "simple backgrounds" are often criticzed by the academically inclined for being intellectually immature, lacking sophistication etc. - in short, that they are simpletons and rednecks.
Yet those "simpletons" have mastered one skill: they don't concern themselves with things that don't concern them. They are much more realistic.
So, humour can indeed pay* for its evolution in a brutal world - we are lucky, well I am, or you would still have been mad at me.
I think you may be with me on this - its good for a cancer patient, but surely it is not at all good for a jihadist terrorist?
So how is the choice to believe made and on what basis is it made?
Can you please elaborate?
I guess like most atheists, you have an atheists view of religion.
A complete lack of personal.
I think that that is true and is a side effect of the pragmatic, materistic, scientific view an atheist normally has. And I admit and understand the usefulness of subjective religious experience [from post no 7 -http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=112017&highlight=masks] - but to actually analyse the philosophical and ontological truth of religious claims, you have to adopt atleast a disintrested, objective, non-partisan and rational/logical/parsimonious standpoint, do you agree?
*Stewie-brian humor* So, there. I am not bragging. Not at all. I dont even have to brag by putting a picture about not bragging. But I did just to show that I am not Bragging. *Stewie-brian humor ends*.
Ps-
* evolutionary traits [rather than randomly drifted traits] have to "pay" for themselves by improving the survivability of the gene's hosts.
This is the first [and one of the few] times I would say "I totally and completely agree with you".
I have to admit being a simpleton is a very practical and realistic thing in personal lives. But we, all of us, have chosen not to do that - that is why we are here, having this discussion. I think ours is a harder but better life, to know and understand, not just live and feel the world around us.
I don't think it was my choice - it wasn't my choice to go to school and learn all that about world religons and critical thinking.
If all our "knowledge and understanding" don't lead to greater happiness for ourselves and others, then all that "knowledge and understanding" are worth nothing.
Sure, but my post started with: What if....
Thus we assumed the pissed part too. And why wouldn't he get pissed? After all believing in something else is just as bad as being an atheist, if we approach the problem logically.
So his trashing a couple of major Gods just doesn't do it for you? What can you expect from the humans anyway? That they won't do all they can to hold on to their stupid beliefs. Most of the world is in denial about something anyway.
So his trashing a couple of major Gods just doesn't do it for you? What can you expect from the humans anyway? That they won't do all they can to hold on to their stupid beliefs. Most of the world is in denial about something anyway.
What trashing? Did he even ever hear about those two major religions?
Do you wish to "have taken the blue pill"? Or is that choice, forced on you or not, a good one?
Plato would kill you for that. For many people, knowledge has an intrinsic value that nothing can match. We are, afterall, a species of knowledge seekers and pattern formers.
However, a lot of people actually find this knowledge not only very worthy to have, but experience great exhilaration to "unweaved the rainbow" and doing so actually enhances its beauty [to them]. I happen to be such a person, which is why I place a great emphasis on knowledge [lectures, books] discussions and debates and the greatest source of them - science.
Do you not fit this discription? If no, why not? And how would you describe yourself in this context?
Not at all.
Everything that happens, happens according to God's will.
To suggest that God gets angry over things happening the way he wanted them to be anyway - that is just confused.
I fell asleep watching the Matrix.
Just because someone presents me with a choice, doesn't mean that said choice is a genuine one for me.
Really?
With what? Logorrhea?
IOW, they are happy.
No need to ridicule that word. "Happiness" is a perfectly respectable word.
I don't think so.
We can easily read the Wager in roundabout like this:
Imagine - you have heard of a path to true happiness, one that is not subject to birth, aging, illness and death. You've been thinking about this path a lot. You don't know of any other path which would match it. But you would have to put in some considerable effort and faith into walking this path. As it is, your time and your life are ticking away. If you don't wager and don't take this path, perhaps you won't suffer any more than you otherwise would, but you could also end up miserable for a long time. What will you do? You can't just sit still anymore, you must wager.
Are you talking about Pascal's definition of god or something else?
Because he defines god as that which nothing is conceivably greater
IOW if you want to start talking about a god that gets pissed over thought crimes, you have to explain how that quality renders him superior to a god that isn't
:shrug:
Logically?
I doubt it ... unless you can explain how an inferior grade of physics (say Newtonian) is just as bad as being bereft/ignorant/ entirely skeptical of any knowledge of physics when one starts talking about a superior grade of physics (like say Einstein)
:shrug:
Last edited:
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I think that's true. It wouldn't have had nearly as much persuasive force, that's for sure.
How much Pascal and others in his circle in France actually knew about non-Judeo/Christian/Islamic religion is an interesting (to me, anyway) question of intellectual history. Pascal lived in the middle 1600's, and some Europeans had already learned something about other religions by that time. The Jesuits certainly, who were already active in India, China and Japan. But I'm guessing that Pascal's circles were much more fascinated by the scientific revolution, then in full force, and probably had little time for learning about what would have seemed to them like heathen superstitions. Many 17'th century intellectuals were even starting to doubt Christian revelation and were moving towards Deism.
That's what Pascal's 'wager' really seems to be addressing. Pascal was trying to create a game-theoretical justification for practicing a more traditional Christianity in the face of growing skepticism. Unfortunately, it seems to have been conceived in terms of 'Christianity: take it or leave it', with the 'Christianity' in question a believe-or-burn version. So even if we accept the 'wager's' extremely-questionable conclusion that we shouldn't be atheists and should instead be believing something in case it pays off by being true, the whole argument still has little to say to us about the bigger problem of religious choice, about the problem of choosing which of the world's many religious paths is most deserving of our existential bet.
Presumably it would be advisable to place our bet on the possibility that is most likely to be true. But even in Pascal's time the skeptics about supernatural revelations had already cast doubt on whether anyone can know that. That's why he had to resort to a gambling analogy.
In a situation with many alternative religious choices that are all equally probable, the (probably unintended) implication of the wager argument seems to be that it would be most rational to believe in the most crazy, unforgiving and intolerant theology out there, on the basis that the difference between salvation and damnation would be greatest in that system, and hence the potential pay-off for believing correctly would be greatest if that one turns out to be true.
And I find that implication to be contrary to what religion should be about and even faintly blasphemous.
Whatever way you put it, it amounts to : My god is more powerful than yours.
Not at all.
If one enters communication with others with the intention to prevail over them,
then one will directly or indirectly make claims to the effect of "My way is the right way, and everyone else deserves to go to hell,"
or feel like a victim.
So? Does that mean he can get pissed?? Just put yourself in his place, how would you feel if those silly people worship somebody else??