Pascal's Wager still a Longshot unless.....

[Diogenes' Dog]

They must have given him the keys to the convent

So religious people live longer healthier lives according to stats.

Stats also show that people with high IQ's are less apt to be religious. Yet people with low IQ"s don't live as long as those with Higher IQ's. IOW low IQ people are are more apt to be religious (believe in God) and will die earlier than their higher IQ atheist counterparts. Plenty of websites will verify my words. SOmebody's got it wrong. Pascal didn't give two shits about this life, it's all about being judged when you die.

Pascal did invoke Hell in his original Wager, which is one of the assumptions that most of us don't have today. It defies reason that a loving God would send anyone to Hell for eternity, let alone for the "crime" of honest atheism. To flatter such a God in order to save your own skin is pure cowardice!!

Hence, if alive today, I think Pascal would change his wager to make emphasis on the many benefits of religion (so I've done it for him).

As for the stats about more atheists among people with higher IQs, who also live longer - I do agree, on average. Low IQ people are generally poorer and less well educated, possibly more superstitious. However, the two sets of stats do not contradict, as each is an intersecting subset e.g. High IQ atheists may only live slightly longer than low IQ believers. However, low IQ atheists may live very short lives, and high IQ believers very long ones!
Therefore, it very much depends on the proportions within each subset.
e.g. (fictional example)
High IQ belivers = 20% = 80
High IQ atheists = 30% = 70
Low IQ believers = 30% = 60
Low IQ atheists = 20% = 50

Av.lifespan believers = 68 Av.lifespan atheists = 62

 

[Lori_7]

-=-

There's no predicting what would please a god, how long it would be pleased or what it would do if it were pleased.
Scripture portrays god as ultra selfish, myopic, insecure, petty, angry, hateful, sadistic, childish & insane. And having less regard for humans than humans have for ants.

so in one sentence you say you hate god...the very thought or premise of god...

It either can't handle it or doesn't want to.
It is not my responsibility. Stop saying it is.

and in the next blame god for the disassociation?

do you not see a contradiction here?

 

[lightgigantic]

Psychoticepisode

one can improve their odds. Pretty simple really. If you think that believing God exists means you can't lose then I say think again. That is only part of the handicapping. Which theistic religion will improve your wager even more?

I think the essence of pascal's wager is more to the effect that in a best case scenario, the results of atheism are pitiful by contrast.

Well that's a tough one so to further enhance your wager would it not be prudent to practice all of them and worship every god that's out there?

Ironically this is a practice observed in India. People have this ever incresing altar of personalities. Its called "shot gun" worship and is kind of the default position of an absence of philosophy in religious practice.

Would God have a problem with this?

The problem with shotgun worship is that it is not perfectional. Details below

Would you sincerity be in question? Faith and devotion? How would you deal with contradictions in ideology?

Sincerity and devotion requires some sort of focus. A henological outlook is the best means for achieving this in light of multiplicity.

eg

If one examines the different religions, one will see different rituals. One will also different conceptions concerning the object of worship. Some people, overcome with devotion in their hearts, establish the form of the Lord in their soul, in their mind and finally in the external world. Understanding that the form is non-different from the Lord within, they worship that form. In some religions, because the greater emphasis on logic, the worshipper simply forms a conception of God in the mind, and worships it. They do not accept an external form of God. In reality, however, all these conceptions are forms of the Lord.

According to language differences, different religions call God by different names. The religions have different names, and the languages used during worship are also different.

Because of these five differences, it is only natural that various religions will appear quite different. However it is improper and detrimental to argue over these differences. If one goes to someone else's place of worship one should think, "The people are worshipping my Lord, but in a different way. Because of my different training, I cannot quite comprehend this system of worship. However, through this experience, I can deepen my appreciation for my own system of worship. The Lord is only one, not two. I offer respect to the form I see here, and pray to the Lord in this new form that he increase my love for the Lord in His accustomed form." Those who do not follow this procedure, but instead criticize other systems of worship and show hatred, violence and envy, are worthless and foolish. The more they indulge in useless quarreling, the more they betray the very goal of their religion.

Caitanya Siksamrta - bhaktivinoda thakur

It seems the wager is only worthwhile if one only believes in God. However, as we have seen, God does not take too kindly to non worship.

Its not clear exactly what you are seeing here.

I for one would not want to worship the wrong god. So does just believing make it all right? Why you believe isn't important, is that it? Believing for the sake of covering your ass is ok?

Its called alloyed devotion.
Some might deem it as OK, but that's probably more to do with it serving their intentions as opposed to being a recommended spiritual position to be stabilized on.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Pascal did invoke Hell in his original Wager, which is one of the assumptions that most of us don't have today. It defies reason that a loving God would send anyone to Hell for eternity, let alone for the "crime" of honest atheism. To flatter such a God in order to save your own skin is pure cowardice!!

Hence, if alive today, I think Pascal would change his wager to make emphasis on the many benefits of religion (so I've done it for him).

As for the stats about more atheists among people with higher IQs, who also live longer - I do agree, on average. Low IQ people are generally poorer and less well educated, possibly more superstitious. However, the two sets of stats do not contradict, as each is an intersecting subset e.g. High IQ atheists may only live slightly longer than low IQ believers. However, low IQ atheists may live very short lives, and high IQ believers very long ones!
Therefore, it very much depends on the proportions within each subset.
e.g. (fictional example)
High IQ belivers = 20% = 80
High IQ atheists = 30% = 70
Low IQ believers = 30% = 60
Low IQ atheists = 20% = 50

Av.lifespan believers = 68 Av.lifespan atheists = 62

Nice try if you're a theist then it seems the cost of longevity is paid for with brain cells. That theists have a wonderful time being dumber than atheists is good to know.

1 out of every 20 people is an atheist. Pick any of the remaining 19 theists and the odds favor the atheist being smarter. Being smarter means you will live longer, its just common sense. Smarter people make better decisions. If you cast your lot in with the theists then unfortunately you're one in a pack of a lot of dumb people.

Pascal, because he was a theist meant there was a good chance he made a dumber decision than an atheist. Facts don't lie I think you'd agree. Because if....

The entire collective world of atheists thinks Pascal's wager is stupid and since the facts bear out that atheists are smarter, then theists have to accept Pascal's wager as dumb. No different than God belief. Why can't you accept the atheist rationale when you know the odds are it is the smarter call? The facts say so. Heheh

 

[Alien Cockroach]

Not really. It's mostly peddled by people who do have real faith, in attempts to convert more logically-minded people who do not. Only someone who already believed in the conclusion it's supposed to reach would think it was convincing.

I grew up around Christians, and I used to be one. I know people who are full of shit when I run into them, whether they're liberal or conservative, religious or non-religious. I know prey when I see it.

They may believe in their conclusions, but they know as well as I do that their arguments are a crock of shit. They know full damned well that they are trying to speak persuasively, rather than truthfully, to a person they have assumed to be immoral and ignorant. They are food.

My Protestant ancestors turned against the Papists because the Papists had abandoned Scriptural truth and begun to make up their own bullshit in its place. The Papists at the time were bunch of lying fucking bastards, and the fight against that is at the deepest roots of my heritage. The fucking ring-kissers can kiss my ass: I bow to no man or anything created by Man. The Protestants and I may in disagree over whether or not the Bible is man-made, but we're on the same side in respect to the evils of idolatry. Well, the Catholic Church went wrong when they started making shit up. Stick to the script, assholes.

You don't make shit up just because it sounds more persuasive. Just because you can carve jewelry out of dried shit doesn't mean that you should wear it.

And you don't trap a predator by trying to lure it with a carrot-on-a-stick, especially if it is smarter than you are and mean enough to kill a snake with a look. Prey is prey, whether it is liberal or conservative, religious or non-religious. The same red blood comes spurting out when you bite into its jugular. Deceivers all have the same stink.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Nice try if you're a theist then it seems the cost of longevity is paid for with brain cells. That theists have a wonderful time being dumber than atheists is good to know.

1 out of every 20 people is an atheist. Pick any of the remaining 19 theists and the odds favor the atheist being smarter. Being smarter means you will live longer, its just common sense. Smarter people make better decisions. If you cast your lot in with the theists then unfortunately you're one in a pack of a lot of dumb people.

Well, remember your statistics are selective for the West at the current time. If you take a historical perspective, there are many, many more smart theists than smart atheists: Newton, Liebnitz, Pascal, Descarte etc. etc. So, taking history as a whole, I joined a very smart set of fellow theists!

Our current education system teaches us to be critical and sceptical. It's not surprising then that more educated people today are more likely to be critical sceptics when it comes to religion!

Pascal, because he was a theist meant there was a good chance he made a dumber decision than an atheist. Facts don't lie I think you'd agree. Because if....

In fact I think he was startlingly bright! Look him up on Wiki...

There are some very dumb atheists just as there are dumb theists, and very smart theists just as there are smart atheists. I don't think by becoming an atheist, a person automatically joins the smart set!

The entire collective world of atheists thinks Pascal's wager is stupid and since the facts bear out that atheists are smarter, then theists have to accept Pascal's wager as dumb. No different than God belief. Why can't you accept the atheist rationale when you know the odds are it is the smarter call? The facts say so. Heheh

LOL, so if a smart person wears odd socks, I should do the same, because it's obviously smart!? :bugeye:

You must start behaving very strangely if you want to be smart - brilliant people are often very eccentric!!

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

So, taking history as a whole, I joined a very smart set of fellow theists!

But there is no denying that the IQ of atheists is higher than theists. By joining as you say, a theist smart set, you must take this into account. Smarter than the rest of the theists? No doubt. Smarter than the smartest of the atheists? Doubtful. By sheer numbers alone you may get close to the top atheist mind and one or two may even sneak ahead, but the odds do not favor it.

Imagine if, at one point in time, that the only thing people could communicate to each other was whether god existed or not. Knowing now that atheists have higher IQ's, which group (theists or atheists) would have made the more intelligent decision?

 

[CptBork]

What if there is indeed a god, and they're ok with people who remain skeptical and don't commit to a belief, but they get pissed off at people who erect false gods and effectively worship idols? Did Pascal ever think about that?

And of course if you don't run around dancing naked in the rain and spitting at the police when they come to arrest you, that might also piss the gods off. So next time it rains, get dancing.

And of course if there actually are no gods, committing to a religion gives you a 100% chance of going to the grave tightly embracing laughably childish beliefs, and having wasted a good chunk of your one and only life believing in and depending on things and forces that don't actually exist.

 

[swarm]

1. ...

1. There is no conclusive rational proof of God’s existence or non-existence.
   
   This is a fallacy. You are assuming there is a god, but that there just isn't proof yet (begging the question). The correct way to state this is:
   
   There is not yet any reason to consider claims of god seriously.
   
   
2. However, if God does exist, finding God becomes of supreme importance, and the way to the ultimately rewarding and meaningful life.
   
   Since there is nothing actually known about god, there is no reason to assume an actual "god" is necessarily of any importance to a person's life. People who avoid the god delusion lead as rewarding and meaningful life as any one else. And such an actual "god" is obviously going out of its way to avoid becoming involved.
   
   
3. Research shows that believers in a benign God are generally happier, healthier and live longer than non-believers.
   
   And reseach has shown that Buddhists, who hold no necessary beliefs about gods, are measurably happier than those of other faiths.
   
   So? Are you going to become a Buddhist?
   
   
4. Therefore, in the absence of proof, it is worth making an initial ‘leap of faith’ and to act on the assumption that a benign God does exist (until the evidence proves otherwise).
   
   So in the absence of any evidence for god what so ever, it is best to dismiss god all together and investigate what actually are positive influences in a person's life.
   
   
5. If you are right and God exists, from (2) you will live a rewarding and meaningful life.
   
   Just skip the delusion all together and learn to lead a rewarding and meaningful life through correct effort like the Buddhists.
   
   
6. If you are wrong and God does not exist, from (3) you are still more likely to have led a happier, healthier and longer life, than if you had not believed.
   
   If by some absurd quirk of fate there actually is a god, she will reward you for catching the hint and leaving her in peace.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

But there is no denying that the IQ of atheists is higher than theists. By joining as you say, a theist smart set, you must take this into account. Smarter than the rest of the theists? No doubt. Smarter than the smartest of the atheists? Doubtful. By sheer numbers alone you may get close to the top atheist mind and one or two may even sneak ahead, but the odds do not favor it.

You may be overstating your case PE! We are talking of an average of 2-6 IQ points difference - not a huge amount!!

Furthermore, the evidence points to theists showing greater EQ (emotional intelligence) than atheists. So, I don't think you will gain more IQ by becoming an atheist! Though I wouldn't want to stop you trying!!

Imagine if, at one point in time, that the only thing people could communicate to each other was whether god existed or not. Knowing now that atheists have higher IQ's, which group (theists or atheists) would have made the more intelligent decision?

In fact statistics also indicate that the educational attainment level of believers is generally higher than that of non-believers. Though atheists may start out with slightly higher IQs, theists do better and are the best educated.

(E.g. In Australia, 23% of Christian church attenders have a university or postgraduate degree, compared to the general population of 13%. In the US too, religious behavior increases with education level, according to the 2004 General Social Survey. The majority of early school drop-outs are among those who have never attended a religious service.)

Based on that -I'd conclude that "God exists" is the more informed and educated decision! What would you say?

 

[Nasor]

Research shows that believers in a benign God are generally happier, healthier and live longer than non-believers.
(N.B. See the work of Tully, J., et al., 2006; O'Connor, P.J., et al. 2005; Krucoff, M. W., et al. 2005; D'Souza, R.F. & A. Rodrigo. 2004; Hughes M. et al., 2000; Koenig H.G., et al., 1997; Strawbridge, W.J., et al. 1997 and many more).
...

If you are wrong and God does not exist, from (3) you are still more likely to have led a happier, healthier and longer life, than if you had not believed.

Haha. I can't believe no one bothered to comment on this giant logical FAIL.

The mere fact that happiness, health etc. is correlated with belief in a benign god doesn't mean that believing in a benign god will make you happier or healthier. It could very well be that people who lead happy, healthy lives are more likely to believe in a benign god simply because their pleasant life makes the notion easier to swallow. In other words, it seems likely that you are reversing the cause and the effect. There is no clear logical reason why believing in a benign god would make people healthier, but there is a very obvious logical reason why people who are happy and healthy would be more likely to believe in a benign god.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

[*] There is no conclusive rational proof of God’s existence or non-existence.

This is a fallacy. You are assuming there is a god, but that there just isn't proof yet (begging the question). The correct way to state this is:

There is not yet any reason to consider claims of god seriously.

No, there is plenty of reason - religious experiences for one. However, the question is not conclusive either way.

[*] However, if God does exist, finding God becomes of supreme importance, and the way to the ultimately rewarding and meaningful life.

Since there is nothing actually known about god, there is no reason to assume an actual "god" is necessarily of any importance to a person's life. People who avoid the god delusion lead as rewarding and meaningful life as any one else. And such an actual "god" is obviously going out of its way to avoid becoming involved.

Who says nothing is known about God? There's loads of teachings about the nature of God. It's the main subject of Theology!

Something the various religious teachings are all agreed on is the importance to 'the good life' of belief.

[*] Research shows that believers in a benign God are generally happier, healthier and live longer than non-believers.

And reseach has shown that Buddhists, who hold no necessary beliefs about gods, are measurably happier than those of other faiths.

So? Are you going to become a Buddhist?

I think Buddhists are ascending the same mountain, but by a slightly different route. Many of the core teachings of Buddhism and Christianity/Judeism/Sufism are essentially very similar e.g. the importance of compassion (Buddhism) and love (Christianity), and of practices of meditation (Buddhism) and contemplation (Christianity). Differences are mostly superficial or cultural.

[*] Therefore, in the absence of proof, it is worth making an initial ‘leap of faith’ and to act on the assumption that a benign God does exist (until the evidence proves otherwise).

So in the absence of any evidence for god what so ever, it is best to dismiss god all together and investigate what actually are positive influences in a person's life.

Research would seem to indicate that some sort of spiruitual belief is a large positive influence!

[*] If you are right and God exists, from (2) you will live a rewarding and meaningful life.

Just skip the delusion all together and learn to lead a rewarding and meaningful life through correct effort like the Buddhists.

Are you going to become a Buddhist then swarm? Good for you!

[*] If you are wrong and God does not exist, from (3) you are still more likely to have led a happier, healthier and longer life, than if you had not believed.

If by some absurd quirk of fate there actually is a god, she will reward you for catching the hint and leaving her in peace.

She would be bound to want a relationship!

 

[swivel]

Imagine a good fantasy film. The evil king is fighting against the valiant peasant. The king has untold resources and power and he is a corrupt, hateful bastard. He spends enormous resources making life miserable for our plucky little hero, who refuses to submit to the jerk's whims and focuses on living a good, honest, moral life without ever giving up his freedom or dignity.

We see these characters all the time (Braveheart being a good one). Do you guys really pull for the king in these movies? Do you think Mel should pledge allegiance right before he dies? He is being tortured. It's painful. He can end that pain by swearing to an evil bastard that is punishing him for fighting the GOOD fight. Are Christians really watching Braveheart and pleading with Mel to GIVE UP? Just because a mean overlord demands it?

I'm sorry, but I would rather live a good live and have an evil god banish me to hell than swear on his name out of fear and be rewarded by an overseer who is this petty and immoral.

Pascal's Wager is a massive failure on all fronts.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

(E.g. In Australia, 23% of Christian church attenders have a university or postgraduate degree, compared to the general population of 13%. In the US too, religious behavior increases with education level, according to the 2004 General Social Survey.

Based on that -I'd conclude that "God exists" is the more informed and educated decision! What would you say?

Hey DD, it doesn't matter how you slice it, atheists are generally smarter. I don't really want to belabor that interesting tidbit much more. As far as degrees and doctorates go, let's start leveling the playing field. I think we can eliminate any that are traditionally associated with the divinities, religious philosophy, theology, whatever. Let's just deal with studies that have no religious relevance because I just can't see too many atheists enrolling in theistic bird courses. You'd have to be a complete moron to not get a degree in that academic genre.

The majority of early school drop-outs are among those who have never attended a religious service.)

If one in twenty people in this world are atheists then I would have to assume that the majority of those who did not attend a religious service are theists. We're talking belief here, not servitude.

Based on that -I'd conclude that "God exists" is the more informed and educated decision! What would you say?

I would say you must have a degree in theology. Keep the certificate by the loo in case you run out of bum wipe.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

What if there is indeed a god, and they're ok with people who remain skeptical and don't commit to a belief, but they get pissed off at people who erect false gods and effectively worship idols? Did Pascal ever think about that?

I think the point of the updated version is it's not about what the gods attitude to you is, but the benefits of some form of spiritual belief.

And of course if there actually are no gods, committing to a religion gives you a 100% chance of going to the grave tightly embracing laughably childish beliefs, and having wasted a good chunk of your one and only life believing in and depending on things and forces that don't actually exist.

I think many atheists version of God is 'laughably childish', because its usually based on what they rejected when they were a child or teen. However, there wouldn't be university departments of theology if it were so!

I find the 'Old man on a cloud' image of God still prevalent among atheists. A sophisticated theism is much more about the depths of our own being, our ultimate concerns, and the infinities we find around us. There is nothing childish about those.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Haha. I can't believe no one bothered to comment on this giant logical FAIL.

The mere fact that happiness, health etc. is correlated with belief in a benign god doesn't mean that believing in a benign god will make you happier or healthier. It could very well be that people who lead happy, healthy lives are more likely to believe in a benign god simply because their pleasant life makes the notion easier to swallow. In other words, it seems likely that you are reversing the cause and the effect. There is no clear logical reason why believing in a benign god would make people healthier, but there is a very obvious logical reason why people who are happy and healthy would be more likely to believe in a benign god.

True - we don't know which is cause and which effect though many of the studies are also about the protective effect of belief e.g. on mental health, in helping to 'make sense' of adverse circumstances.

Leaving aside any supernatural factors, it is probably some combination of the effect of better social networking (e.g. churches), moral rules against damaging practices e.g. drunkenness, drugs, promiscuity (SDIs) etc. and also having a strong purpose or meaning in life, which religion provides.

There is evidence (see this What makes us Happy article in "Time") that people derive direct life satisfaction from their religious practices. E.g. 11% of people cite their religion as the single most important source of happiness in their life.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Hey DD, it doesn't matter how you slice it, atheists are generally smarter.

Despite theists having higher EQ and being generally better educated!? That's belief in the face of contrary evidence! You a Creationist by any chance PE?

If one in twenty people in this world are atheists then I would have to assume that the majority of those who did not attend a religious service are theists. We're talking belief here, not servitude.

I think there might be a flaw in your logic there. Most theists (though I suppose not all) have been to church sometime in their lives!

I would say you must have a degree in theology. Keep the certificate by the loo in case you run out of bum wipe.

No, I'm a scientist... though I do find theology interesting!

 

[swarm]

religious experiences for one.

You seem to have missed the "reason" part of reason.

Who says nothing is known about God? There's loads of teachings about the nature of God. It's the main subject of Theology!

Lots of books, lots of "teachings," none of it having the least to do with any actual gods. Just like there are lots of books and teachings on unicorns, but no unicorns to form a basis of those books and teachings. Talk about much todo about nothing.

Something the various religious teachings are all agreed on is the importance to 'the good life' of belief.

Actually the "good life" seems to come from secular Greeks. Religion seems to mainly be about suffering patiently while supporting the clergy.

I think Buddhists are ascending the same mountain, but by a slightly different route.

Maybe you should find out instead?

Many of the core teachings of Buddhism and Christianity/Judeism/Sufism are essentially very similar e.g. the importance of compassion (Buddhism) and love (Christianity), and of practices of meditation (Buddhism) and contemplation (Christianity).

Well sure in the same way that the core teachings of secular humanism and xtianity are are essentially very similar.

Just chunk all the god crap and we are in business.

Are you going to become a Buddhist then swarm? Good for you!

Going? My aren't you the observant one.

She would be bound to want a relationship!

Oh? Why?

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Despite theists having higher EQ and being generally better educated!? That's belief in the face of contrary evidence! You a Creationist by any chance PE?

Emotional intelligence (EQ) is a strength in your estimation? Atheists don't overreact and concoct a god from the anxiety of not understanding the world around them, is that what you mean?

I think there might be a flaw in your logic there. Most theists (though I suppose not all) have been to church sometime in their lives!

An educated theist might also realize that many atheists have attended church.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

You seem to have missed the "reason" part of reason.

No, I don't think so. Experience is the basis for everything we believe. Combined with reason, we deduce the existence of things like 'atoms', 'quarks', 'dark energy' and even - 'God'. So, I'm puzzled why you think I've missed the "reason"?

Lots of books, lots of "teachings," none of it having the least to do with any actual gods. Just like there are lots of books and teachings on unicorns, but no unicorns to form a basis of those books and teachings. Talk about much todo about nothing.

I think your ideas on the nature of God are over-simplistic swarm. "Old man on a cloud" stuff! God is not another entity, like a unicorn! God is the eternal, non-physical, transcendent origin of all beings, and all things. It's what joins us all!

Actually the "good life" seems to come from secular Greeks. Religion seems to mainly be about suffering patiently while supporting the clergy.

Ah, Eudaimonia etc. (my favourite word)!

Religion (especially in the West) has absorbed much of Greek philosophy, especially Aristotle and Plato. They may have been 'pagan', but their spirituality is monotheistic and has been a strong influence in Christianity especially. "Plato's Cave" is a wonderful metaphor for finding the spiritual 'good life'. Plotinus and others refined it, and St. Augustine incorporated it into Christian theology. The Cynics and Stoics have also been a huge influence. What you call 'suffering patiently' probably comes from Stoicism (Marcus Aurelius and that crowd). In modern parlance it is all about non-attachment! Good religion is about finding the 'good life'.

Well sure in the same way that the core teachings of secular humanism and xtianity are are essentially very similar. Just chunk all the god crap and we are in business.

Secular humanism is well intended, but when push comes to shove, it's watered down theism, with no real path to anywhere. Buddhism, is a path to the realisation of yourself as the universal 'Buddha Nature'. Christianity is the way to realise the universal 'God' within you and all beings, Islam, Judeism, Taoism, Jainism, Hinduism etc. likewise. They all are paths towards somewhere, that has 'heart'.

Oh? Why?

Because we only really know something or someone through relationship. That's what theism is all about.