Which is worse - believing an being wrong or not believing and being wrong?

[GeoffP]

Another round of Pascal's Wager, I see. It's a bit more complex than "believe/not believe".

 

[Cris]

Kerux,

Absence - meaning? What? None!

Not a complete sentence. Not really sure of your point here and I'd rather not guess.

However we christians perceive the meaning of a "god" or "gods", still to effect your meaning of "atheism," you will instantly disregard it.

Most Christians here do recognize and understand the atheist concept. Your statement “we Christians..” implies all Christians share your particular perspective, but clearly they do not so your statement is fundamentally flawed. Also based on the 7 years I’ve been here I do not remember any Christian offer your particular distorted perspective of atheism.

I think you need to realize that your views are just one minority view from a minor sect of Christianity and that you will have enormous trouble debating with others if you do not learn quickly that others have alternative perspectives.

I cannot read your thinking (if you have)

If you wish to take the moral high road that many Christians claim they have why is it that at every opportunity you introduce barbed insults like this one in parenthesis? You’ve also called me conceited and deceitful, yet I have said little to incite such aggression but rather have welcomed you and am trying to help you understand some basics for intelligent debate. It would seem that you have been conditioned (brain washed) into believing that atheists are really closet theists who have strayed and must be brought back, or are simply evil, or must be ignored, or don’t really exist, or variations like that.

If your beliefs really do have a solid basis as you hope and have been taught then open your mind and listen to others and test the strength of your beliefs. Remember there are and have been thousands of religions throughout time and each has had many variations. All claim they are the only and real truth. Are you quite sure that the version you have adopted is indeed the only religion with truth, or is it the only one that has caught you and you haven’t examined any others in any detail yet?

but for sure you have known your thoughts either freely or forcibly.

I was a Christian for a number of years and examined its claims carefully and found them baseless. My choice of perspective now is totally without force by anyone else but arrived at by my own personal investigation over several decades.

 

[Learned Hand]

Pascal’s entire “argument” in his wager is based around the idea that since heaven has infinite value, it is always better to “wager” for it so long as there is any non-zero chance that the wager will pay off. It’s essentially an argument in expected value theory, where the expected value of a bet is the value of the winnings multiplied by the chances of winning. If heaven is of infinite value, then a bet on heaven will have an infinite expected value so long as the odds of heaven existing are non-zero.

If you don’t see the problem with his reasoning consider this:
I am now officially claiming that if you spend the rest of your life wearing a blue hat, you will gain something of infinite value. If you don’t wear a blue hat for the rest of your life, you will suffer an infinite loss. According to Pascal, it is now in your best interest to accept my wager and wear a blue hat for the rest of your life. Are you going to go out and buy a blue hat now? I doubt it. To better understand the flaws in Pascal’s wager, ponder the reasons why you aren’t planning to wear a blue hat for the rest of your life - even though a correct belief in my blue hat claim will result in an infinite gain, while an incorrect disbelief will result in an infinite loss.

Regarding the whole "sincere belief" thing that Cris brought up, it's true that Pascal didn't actually use his wager as an argument for why people should believe in god. But that vast, vast majority of people who try to use his wager as a rhetorical tool (including the guy who started this thread, I imagine) don't understand that, and do end up committing that fallacy.

Well, I'd probably not wear the blue hat because the infinite value upon which I would be wagering has not been defined. What will I get? Heaven vs. Hell is Pascal's. What's yours?

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Which is worse - believing an being wrong or not believing and being wrong?

Believing IS wrong, both ways. It is better to know truth, than believe in anything, even if it is truth and you don´t know it. Until you know it, you trust it, and you don´t condemn others who don´t; because, what is the point?

Believing has condemned humanity to ignorance and stupidity.

 

[Learned Hand]

Believing IS wrong, both ways. It is better to know truth, than believe in anything, even if it is truth and you don´t know it. Until you know it, you trust it, and you don´t condemn others who don´t; because, what is the point?

Believing has condemned humanity to ignorance and stupidity.

Guess you don't have many dreams in life, eh??

 

[kerux]

Zero?

You do realise that the mathematical concept of zero is still a valid mathematical concept right? Zero does not mean that zero doesn't exist.

Zero represents non-existence. And mathematics is not an exact science, as others conformed before. The Bible does not contradict science inasmuch as scientists find supporting evidence of the things they have not understood, things declared in the Bible.

Similarly, a lack of belief in a god does not mean that people who lack this belief do not exist.

Wonder is the first thing that makes people to exist.

Maybe you do not exist as you appear to lack understanding?

Of course I do not exist in your mind and perception, inasmuch as you are firm in erasing all the records of the history of our God in your memory (if you have) which history is still in the making. But let the Bible remind you (if you have mind) that the history of this earth had been exposed already in the first century in the writings of thr Revelator, John the Beloved, one of the Apostles of Christ Jesus, the Son of the God of a peculiar nation.

The unfortunate aspect of this statement is that you assume it as foregone truth that good morals are a direct result and responsibility of your god. You and other christians have yet to prove this claim.

What is fortune? I don't have any fortune but

The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower. Psalms 18:2

Good morals are a direct result and responsibility of my God because my God is Good to me and to all of us, but He is a Jealous God and I cannot forsake that. Other christians, of course the false ones, will repeal the brethren's burden of proof.

 

[kerux]

Yes that is true

I was a Christian for a number of years and examined its claims carefully and found them baseless. My choice of perspective now is totally without force by anyone else but arrived at by my own personal investigation over several decades.

Yes I agree with you. You were a false christian for a number of years and now is a full-fledged enemy of God. Aren't you?

 

[Nasor]

Well, I'd probably not wear the blue hat because the infinite value upon which I would be wagering has not been defined. What will I get? Heaven vs. Hell is Pascal's. What's yours?

Does it even matter? I am claiming that you will get something of infinite value. You can make it heaven and hell, if you want. Wear a blue hat for the rest of your life and I promise you will go to heaven. If you don't, you will go to hell. Now are you going to go out and buy a blue hat? If not, why?

 

[(Q)]

Yes I agree with you. You were a false christian for a number of years and now is a full-fledged enemy of God. Aren't you?

Whose god? Your god? Someone else's god? Which god out of the tens of thousands that have been purported to exist do you refer?

 

[Learned Hand]

Does it even matter? I am claiming that you will get something of infinite value. You can make it heaven and hell, if you want. Wear a blue hat for the rest of your life and I promise you will go to heaven. If you don't, you will go to hell. Now are you going to go out and buy a blue hat? If not, why?

Human promises don't enter The Wager. Something of infinite value. Hmm. Like a never ending stack of diamonds? I still wouldn't wear the blue hat, as it is still finite (I'll still die), so that falls into the finite categories of I believe, but was wrong, or I don't believe, and was right.

If the Bible said all men who wear blue hats shall make it into heaven (which it does not) I'd wear my blue hat. Not much of a sacrifice for heaven.

Learned

 

[Cris]

kerux,

Yes I agree with you.

What are you agreeing with?

You were a false christian for a number of years

No, I was just like you, naive, agressive, arrogant, and tried to recruit others to Christianity. I had been conditioned and brain washed just like you.

and now is a full-fledged enemy of God. Aren't you?

That doesn't make a lot of sense. It is not realistic to attempt to be an enemy of a fantasy. But if a god were ever to be shown to actually exist and be able to grant everlasting life etc, then I would one of the first to join in.

If I'm to be considered an enemy of anything then it would be targeted at those who attempt to affect my life by insisting on fantasies and other irrational superstitions as if they were true.

 

[Nasor]

Human promises don't enter The Wager. Something of infinite value. Hmm. Like a never ending stack of diamonds? I still wouldn't wear the blue hat, as it is still finite (I'll still die), so that falls into the finite categories of I believe, but was wrong, or I don't believe, and was right.

If the Bible said all men who wear blue hats shall make it into heaven (which it does not) I'd wear my blue hat. Not much of a sacrifice for heaven.

Learned

The nature of the infinite value or the "window dressing" that surrounds the claim of infinite value is irrelevant to the logic in Pascal's Wager. You don’t even have to know exactly what you’ll be getting, so long as you know that it will have an infinite value.

You can generate an infinite number of “wagers” that, according to Pascal’s logic, would all be in your best interest to take. All you need is a promise of infinite value, and you can generate Pascal’s standard 2x2 decision matrix.

 

[Learned Hand]

The nature of the infinite value or the "window dressing" that surrounds the claim of infinite value is irrelevant to the logic in Pascal's Wager. You don’t even have to know exactly what you’ll be getting, so long as you know that it will have an infinite value.

You can generate an infinite number of “wagers” that, according to Pascal’s logic, would all be in your best interest to take. All you need is a promise of infinite value, and you can generate Pascal’s standard 2x2 decision matrix.

True, logically speaking. But the "window dressing" does matter. Eternal (infinite) heaven vs. eternal (infinite) damnation is huge, and a huge part of Pascal's discussion of the Wager. If the infinite value is not proposed, and the finite is not known, what the hell am I wagering for? You previously said to come up with ideas or investigate reasons for not participating in the wager; one cannot wager in a vacuum. If infinite heaven and infinite hell await me, then I am already a part of the wager -- I cannot say, "well, count me out of this one, I'm not wagering." If infinity is on one end, and negative infinity is on the other, I am already a logical part of the Wager, and a choice not to choose is a choice itself (toward negative infinity).

 

[Nasor]

True, logically speaking. But the "window dressing" does matter. Eternal (infinite) heaven vs. eternal (infinite) damnation is huge, and a huge part of Pascal's discussion of the Wager.

He simply uses heaven because he assumes that it has an infinite value. But, as has already been stated, the logic of his "wager" still works for anything of infinite value. That is precisely why it is faulty. Under his logic, there are an infinite number of competing wagers that all have an infinite payoff.

If the infinite value is not proposed, and the finite is not known, what the hell am I wagering for?

I did propose infinite value in my blue hat claim, remember? Infinite value has been proposed. The specifics are irrelevant. The finite costs are also known; you have to wear a blue hat for the rest of your life, which will probably be inconvenient.

So, again, we can apply Pascal's exact same logic to my blue hat claim. If you believe me and are correct, you win a payout of infinite value. If you believe me and are wrong, you have lost a small finite value. Clearly, according to Pascal's faulty logic, you should now run out and buy a blue hat.

Here's the thing; even though Pascal's logic works just as well with my blue hat claim as it does with christianity, you won't take my blue hat claim seriously unless you have some convincing reason to believe that my claim is true, despite any expected value arguments. Similarly, an atheist isn't going to take the claims of christianty seriously without some convincing evidence. Since atheists don't consider people's subjective, internal experiences or an ancient book with stories of talking snakes and people magically conjuring things out of thin air to be "convincing evidence," the wager is meaningless.

 

[Learned Hand]

Here's the thing; even though Pascal's logic works just as well with my blue hat claim as it does with christianity, you won't take my blue hat claim seriously unless you have some convincing reason to believe that my claim is true, despite any expected value arguments. Similarly, an atheist isn't going to take the claims of christianty seriously without some convincing evidence. Since atheists don't consider people's subjective, internal experiences or an ancient book with stories of talking snakes and people magically conjuring things out of thin air to be "convincing evidence," the wager is meaningless.

Well, I guess the problem is not really the four-tiered logic of the Wager (infinity, -infinity, false positive, false negative). If the blue hat may bring me something of infinite splendor, I would wear the hat, so as to avoid the necessary opposite -- infinite pain (negative infinity). I think where you get your lines crossed is in forgetting that they are, in fact, absolutes. You have no other choice than to be a part of the wager. If these are the ONLY two choices, then the solution is easy: wear the hat. But the Wager also includes a false positive (you wear the hat, but there's no infinite splendor), and a false negative (don't wear hat, and there is infinite pain). So I'd wager on the blue hat.

Point is, heaven and hell cannot be reduced to wearing a hat. It is physical, whilst the former is ethereal, spiritual, etc. You MUST be a part of the wager, and Pascal's logic simply dictates that you have better odds of happiness if you believe than do not. You can't say, "I won't bet on it" just because the logic works the same with a blue hat as it does heaven and hell. See my point?

 

[Nasor]

Well, I guess the problem is not really the four-tiered logic of the Wager (infinity, -infinity, false positive, false negative). If the blue hat may bring me something of infinite splendor, I would wear the hat, so as to avoid the necessary opposite -- infinite pain (negative infinity).

The blue hat might in fact bring you infinite splendor. The chances that my claim is true are small, sure, but they're non-zero. So are you really going to go buy one now? I doubt it.

I think where you get your lines crossed is in forgetting that they are, in fact, absolutes. You have no other choice than to be a part of the wager. If these are the ONLY two choices, then the solution is easy: wear the hat. But the Wager also includes a false positive (you wear the hat, but there's no infinite splendor), and a false negative (don't wear hat, and there is infinite pain). So I'd wager on the blue hat.

You say that, but I doubt you're really going to rush out and buy a blue hat. Are you?

Point is, heaven and hell cannot be reduced to wearing a hat. It is physical, whilst the former is ethereal, spiritual, etc. You MUST be a part of the wager, and Pascal's logic simply dictates that you have better odds of happiness if you believe than do not. You can't say, "I won't bet on it" just because the logic works the same with a blue hat as it does heaven and hell. See my point?

That is also true of the blue hat wager. Now that I have claimed that you can have an infinite reward if you wear the blue hat, you have no choice but to participate in the wager.