Pascal's wager

[Runa216]

we're all atheists, my dear, I simply believe in one less god than you do.

[phoenix_fire]

You need to attribute stuff like that, Runa.

By the way. Does not being a bisexual make one asexual? Just asking.

[Fysk]

The basic premise behind Pascal's Wager is that if the atheist is right he gains nothing while the theist loses nothing. However, if the theist is right he gains everything while the atheist loses everything.

The basic premise is flawed. If an atheist believed in a God that didn't exist, it's likely that they would lose out on something because of their beliefs. That could be something like the ability to work or play games on a Sunday, or anything else your religion says thou shalt not do. Praying for five minutes a day all through your life certainly stacks up as the years pass. If religion is wrong and this life is all people have, that's a pretty significant loss.

I'd say it's more like a lottery than a multiple choice test. There are distinct disadvantages to taking part, which many see as more significant than the possible gain because of how unlikely it is that you're going to win.

The other false assumption it makes is that belief is something we can switch on and off. While you can control what you believe to some extent, there's a lot more to it than deciding you'll "believe" in something because you like the sound of the numbers. From a personal standpoint, if I was God I'd be much more annoyed at someone trying to put one past me by pretending to believe than someone who didn't, but was upfront and honest about it.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Runa216 we're all atheists, my dear, I simply believe in one less god than you do.

What if I believe in a universal divine presence, that all believers are worshipping, even if they don't realize it and percieve Him/Her/It/Them in different ways?

[Cephus]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary The risks aren't infinite, this life is all you're risking.

So you don't think your immortal soul and eternal damnation mean anything? After all, that's what's really at risk, according to a lot of theists.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Other animals have instincts on how to act socially, why not us? are we special?

Actually, we are. We're the only species with a brain capacity to override instinct. Other animals have no choice, they have to do what their instincts tell them. We can decide to act contrary to our instincts.

That's why humanity is so screwed up much of the time.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I'm talking from an atheist perspective. As an atheist, if you assume that you'll go to hell if you don't believe (which I don't) then all you have is your life on earth, because you're gonna be damned or gone. If you believe in anything, then you have a slightly greater chance of being saved. ( I don't subscribe to pascal, by the way.)

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Cephus Actually, we are. We're the only species with a brain capacity to override instinct. Other animals have no choice, they have to do what their instincts tell them. We can decide to act contrary to our instincts. That's why humanity is so screwed up much of the time.

Can you prove this? Because if you can't then we have to assume we are like other animals.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I'm talking from an atheist perspective. As an atheist, if you assume that you'll go to hell if you don't believe (which I don't) then all you have is your life on earth, because you're gonna be damned or gone. If you believe in anything, then you have a slightly greater chance of being saved. ( I don't subscribe to pascal, by the way.)

No you don't, that's based on faulty assumptions. For all you know, if there is a god of some sort, it's going to fry all the theists that followed the opposition, but save atheists who at least used their brains and followed the evidence.

You just don't know and you can't simply assume that your favored views will represent anything resembling reality.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Fysk The basic premise is flawed. If an atheist believed in a God that didn't exist, it's likely that they would lose out on something because of their beliefs. That could be something like the ability to work or play games on a Sunday, or anything else your religion says thou shalt not do. Praying for five minutes a day all through your life certainly stacks up as the years pass. If religion is wrong and this life is all people have, that's a pretty significant loss.

No matter how much the loss stacks up, it fades to insignificance in light of an eternal reward.

[Jack]

As an atheist, if you assume that you'll go to hell...

Err, what? Hell is a concept restricted to theistic thinking. Atheists don't think about hell, Satan or any other concept that is the sole property of religion.

[LetThereBe]

Basically the whole point I was driving at in making this post is the following.

Let us use the multiple choice analogy and assume Pascal's Wager is valid.

If there is a chance that you would "lose points for guessing" (analogous to believing in the wrong God and suffering a worse afterlife) then it would be foolish to believe in any specific religion, as so many choices exist on the test.

If we know absolutely nothing about the material of the test (analogous to the inability to make probability judgements about a specific religion) then the best idea is to pick the answer that seems the best (picking the afterlife that would be the most pleasurable and the God that is the most worthy of worship. Christianity seems to fail in both areas). The analogy falls short in this respect in that the true God could easily not be an answer on the test (not be a religion that is currently practiced) so making up your own would be just as valid as choosing one that already exists.

If we DO have knowledge about the material of the test (able to make probability judgements of God) then obviously we choose that which most closely matches up with the observable world, has the fewest internal inconsistencies and so forth. Christianity would not be the best choice in this respect either...

That is why I believe Pascal's Wager to be against Christianity (though not theism in general).

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Isherwood Err, what? Hell is a concept restricted to theistic thinking. Atheists don't think about hell, Satan or any other concept that is the sole property of religion.

We're debating on the validity of pascal's wager to theists, so hell has to be in the equation, otherwise we can't debate.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: LetThereBe This is primarily to the theists. The basic premise behind Pascal's Wager is that if the atheist is right he gains nothing while the theist loses nothing. However, if the theist is right he gains everything while the atheist loses everything. Therefore, even if the odds of your being correct are small, it is infinitely better to believe due to the possible benefit. Do any find this to be a valid argument?

How can one believe in God if one does not believe in God? I don't know how you go about faking something like that? Wouldn't "God" catch on?
Also, existence preceeds and rules essence, it matters little to me if God is real because "reality" is discribed only in the vocabulary i've learnt from my own existence.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary We're debating on the validity of pascal's wager to theists, so hell has to be in the equation, otherwise we can't debate.

It really makes no sense to debate the wager to theists because the wager was never intended to convince theists of anything. Why try to convince people who already believe that the odds are that you should believe? Pascal was talking to people who did not believe and by and large, the people who did not believe laughed in his face.

[Gods_Mercenary]

But obviously the wager is invalid to atheists anyway, because then they would be believers, by the way, check the original post, it's directed at theists.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Cephus It really makes no sense to debate the wager to theists because the wager was never intended to convince theists of anything. Why try to convince people who already believe that the odds are that you should believe? Pascal was talking to people who did not believe and by and large, the people who did not believe laughed in his face.

It does make sense, because my argument is that Pascal's Wager is an argument AGAINST specific religions (especially Christianity). I was trying to see if any theists thought in valid, and if so how they would then justify the belief in their specific deity.

Since few to none have said it was a valid argument, the debate is more or less pointless.

[another day]

Quote by: Cephus That's why humanity is so screwed up much of the time.

Oh really? Seems like overriding your instincts does more good then bad. After all, murderers and rapists act on animal instincts. They are the normal ones.

[Gods_Mercenary]

My instincts tell me to spread my genetic material to as many women as possible and to kill all male challengers, I must be right! :)

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary What if I believe in a universal divine presence, that all believers are worshipping, even if they don't realize it and percieve Him/Her/It/Them in different ways?

Then you're probably trying to hard to be "spiritual" when being spiritual isn't in your nature, it is just that you haven't had the proper exposure to other ways of viewing the world. An agnostic, in my opinion, is an uneducated atheist.