Another view of "Pascal's Wager"

[Bradskii]

You appear to be easily distracted…

 

[MPat]

You appear to be easily distracted…

What makes you think tha… Oh, shiny!

More seriously, I’m afraid that it might be that the process by which you reached the conclusions in question is really a bit like the one you described.

That is, it might be that you really didn’t “choose” the belief that in that account “God” could be replaced by “nature” after weighing both options rationally, going through arguments etc.

Instead, it might be that you just asked how you feel about it (although “asked” normally implies more conscious action). And you feel good about it, you like it. So you chose it - but without thinking about it, so you hadn’t noticed that you made a choice.

And yes, in such case, since you can’t choose you feelings directly, and you keep choosing in accordance to those feelings, to you it really would look as if everything happens automatically.

And, since you aren’t going through real arguments to reach beliefs, you would find it hard to offer any arguments to others.

And you can’t explain why you did replace “God” with “nature” in explanation of consciousness, but did not replace “nature” with “Nothing” after that.

And since you can’t explain, you do not explain.

Everything seems to fit.

But it looks, um, suboptimal… Maybe I can still hope I made a mistake somewhere?

 

[Bradskii]

This is quite straightforward. Or at keast it appears that way to me.

I have no arguments FOR God. All that I have are arguments that others have given me. I’m pretty certain that if no-one had presented any to me and I had not been exposed to the idea of the Christian God then I would have, at some point, as everyone does, wonder about life, the universe and everything. And I might have wondered if there wasn’t something ‘out there’. But I am prety certain I wouldn’t have taken that thought any further. But that’s just me.

I’m the practical type and left to my own devices I wouldn’t have started sacrificing goats to appease the gods to get a good harvest. That’s not to say that I wouldn’t if everyone else was - we all feel the need to belong to a group.

So looking at the argumenfs for God, over very many years (and realising that if I didn’t accept them then I’d be the one guy not sacrificing goats), I came to the definate conclusion that the Christian God did not exist. There may still be something ‘out there’ but I was as sure as one can normally be that He wasn’t it.

So what have we got when we haven’t got God to explain everything? Well, we started with God and nature. It was explained to me that God made all things bright and beautiful. All creatures great and small. So if you take God out of the equation, what we have left is…Nature. That is, the natural world. All creatures great and small.

And I know how they all came about. And I know why we form groups and build cities. And why we kill and why we love our children. And why we feel shame and pride. And how we form our moral rules. And I know the purpose of an individual’s life and the purpose of the universe.

At no point do I need God as an answer to any of this. And at no time did I decide that He wasn’t needed. It’s simply a natural result of gathering all the available evidence and accepting it or rejecting it.

QED.

 

[MPat]

And I might have wondered if there wasn’t something ‘out there’. But I am prety certain I wouldn’t have taken that thought any further. But that’s just me.

You really want to claim you are not a deep thinker? Oh, well, if you do, I guess you know better…

So what have we got when we haven’t got God to explain everything? Well, we started with God and nature. It was explained to me that God made all things bright and beautiful. All creatures great and small. So if you take God out of the equation, what we have left is…Nature. That is, the natural world. All creatures great and small.

Actually, right now the fact that was presented and needs explanation is not existence of “creatures great and small”, but our failure to research consciousness.

And I’m afraid that, unless “nature” becomes something incompatible with materialism, it fails as an explanation.

And I know how they all came about. And I know why we form groups and build cities. And why we kill and why we love our children. And why we feel shame and pride. And how we form our moral rules. And I know the purpose of an individual’s life and the purpose of the universe.

Somehow, I find that hard to believe.

But I find it very plausible that you do think so. Or, perhaps more precisely, that you do feel so.

And at no time did I decide that He wasn’t needed. It’s simply a natural result of gathering all the available evidence and accepting it or rejecting it.

Are you going to brag about the work that went in “gathering all available evidence”, or is that at most “getting the evidence that was given”, as the other parts of your post seem to indicate?

But yes, I guess it could be that your story has lots of truth in it.

For you do not claim to have done much work with that evidence, you do not claim you were constructing arguments.

Yes, it might well be that you really just went where you feelings brought you.

I am not saying that is impossible. I am saying that it is not a good thing.

I am saying that it would be much better if you would ignore your feelings for a while and would start to think, to construct arguments, to look for evidence (actively).

But if you think that’s too much work, and aren’t motivated even by possibility of Hell and Heaven… I doubt I can get anywhere close to motivating you to do this work.

 

[Bradskii]

Motivated by heaven and hell? Well I vuess some people need a carrot and a stick. Let’s face it, all religions have a happy-ever-after. ‘Join my club and we’ll give you everlasting life’.

You know what they say about offers that seem to be too good to be true?

And no. I’m not going to brag about the amount of evidence I have investigated or the time I have spent doing so. Although I have a lot to brag about…

 

[MPat]

Motivated by heaven and hell? Well I vuess some people need a carrot and a stick. Let’s face it, all religions have a happy-ever-after. ‘Join my club and we’ll give you everlasting life’.

Not quite.

For example, it might be that religion of Norse pagans only promised finite life in Valhalla and an opportunity to fight and lose in a big battle.

But yes, reasonable people are motivated by long-term results of their actions.

Of course, there is an alternative of being motivated by feelings. It looks like you claim to be motivated by them and look down on those reasonable people. I don’t think that’s such a good idea.

You know what they say about offers that seem to be too good to be true?

You want to claim that possibility to end up in Hell is “too good to be true”?

And no. I’m not going to brag about the amount of evidence I have investigated or the time I have spent doing so. Although I have a lot to brag about…

Let’s see what you wrote previously:

All that I have are arguments that others have given me. I’m pretty certain that if no-one had presented any to me and I had not been exposed to the idea of the Christian God then I would have, at some point, as everyone does, wonder about life, the universe and everything. And I might have wondered if there wasn’t something ‘out there’. But I am prety certain I wouldn’t have taken that thought any further. But that’s just me.

I’m the practical type

Somehow, that does not sound like going beyond the call of duty of gathering evidence. It does not sound as if you spent days in the library looking for every argument, and rereading it tens of times, lest you fail to understand it correctly.

Yes “a practical man” is a common euphemism for someone who does not make much of an effort to find the truth.

But being such kind of “practical man” is a bad thing, not a good one.

And yes, if you did not take the duty to look for truth as seriously, as you should have, your threshold of acceptable effort would be so low, that your effort, while objectively inadequate, is going to look fine to you.

I also see that you do not claim that you were constructing arguments instead of relying on your feelings. I guess that counts like agreement that my “educated guess” was right?

 

[Bradskii]

You missed a bit out. The bit where I said I have no arguments FOR God.

It has always been the case that others have put the case for God to me. It has always been a positive claim by others that God exists. You may not realise that you can’t put forward an argument for something NOT to exist. I can’t prove to you or give you evidence that there is no dragon in my basement.

So all one can do is take the evidence that is offered, read the arguments given and…investigate.

Now that is no small thing. It could take a vast amount of reading. It could take a reasonably large library (hard copy and electronic). It could take very many years indeed. Let’s say decades. It could drive someone’s wife to distraction regarding the time and expense one spends on it (these are all hints by the way).

But if you want to think that my investigation into the evidence has been cursory, then so be it.

 

[MPat]

You missed a bit out. The bit where I said I have no arguments FOR God.

Yes, that’s a pretty good indicator of, um, suboptimal evidence gathering and interpreting.

It is suspicious, if you can’t find any arguments for one side, not even bad ones.

You may not realise that you can’t put forward an argument for something NOT to exist. I can’t prove to you or give you evidence that there is no dragon in my basement.

Specifically you? Well, if you say so…

Now, of course, your general claim is obviously, ridiculously false. But I do not intend to destroy it right away, as it is more interesting to let you have it and ask: is it OK to believe claims for which you have no proof?

Well, is it?

 

[Bradskii]

Yet again…I have no arguments for God. I didn’t say I couldn’t find any. My shelves groan with books that are littered with arguments other people have for the existence of God. I can repeat them.if you like but they wouldn’t be mine. I am absolutely positive that I couldn’t come up with anything new.

So all I have is other people’s arguments for God. So it is then encumbent on me to investigate these arguments and accept them as valid or reject them. If enough are accepted then it will generate a belief in His existence. If enough are rejected then disbelief will be the result.

And yes, it’s fine to believe in things that cannot be proven. And those things would run the gamut from the run-of-the-mill propositions that there is no dragon in my basement to scientific theories which cannot by definition be proven.

 

[MPat]

Yet again…I have no arguments for God. I didn’t say I couldn’t find any. My shelves groan with books that are littered with arguments other people have for the existence of God. I can repeat them.if you like but they wouldn’t be mine. I am absolutely positive that I couldn’t come up with anything new.

I’m pretty sure you aren’t going to come up with a truly new argument to the other side either.

To say “I have no arguments for X.”, while meaning “I have no new arguments for or against X.” is a bit confusing. Don’t do that.

And yes, it’s fine to believe in things that cannot be proven. And those things would run the gamut from the run-of-the-mill propositions that there is no dragon in my basement to scientific theories which cannot by definition be proven.

And in such case, why should anyone care if proof does not exist?

For that matter, let’s also go back to your claim:

You may not realise that you can’t put forward an argument for something NOT to exist. I can’t prove to you or give you evidence that there is no dragon in my basement.

And what exactly is meant by “proof”, “dragon” and “basement”?

Sure, if “dragon” might end up being an electron, we won’t be able to prove that there are no dragons in the basement - for there are electrons in the basement, the proposition is false, and false propositions aren’t supposed to be proved.

 

[Bradskii]

And what exactly is meant by “proof”, “dragon” and “basement”?

Proof: Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact.
Dragon: Mythical fire breathing creature.
Basement: Accesible area underneath a house, generally below ground level.

Edit: I don’t know why I responded to that. Maybe because I’m waiting for my wife to get ready and I’ve nothing better to do except drink beer and listen to some half decent blues on this cool bluetooth speaker I bought a couple of weeks back.

Mpat: 'What exactly is meant by ‘wife’, ‘bluetooth’ and ‘speaker’?
Bradski: Bye…

 

[laylow]

Edit: I don’t know why I responded to that. Maybe because I’m waiting for my wife to get ready and I’ve nothing better to do except drink beer and listen to some half decent blues on this cool bluetooth speaker I bought a couple of weeks back.

Ha, drinking beer and listening to archived Christopher Hitchens debates has been a recent pastime for me.

 

[Bradskii]

I miss the guy. I often didn’t agree with his views (hey, I don’t often agree with my wife on many subjects) but I loved to listen to him debate. And it still grates to have to say that in the past tense.

 

[laylow]

I miss the guy. I often didn’t agree with his views (hey, I don’t often agree with my wife on many subjects) but I loved to listen to him debate. And it still grates to have to say that in the past tense.

Yeah, it’s a shame, but he enjoyed his life. I disagree with some of his ideas, but am finding most things I hear him say making lots of sense.

 

[MPat]

Dragon: Mythical fire breathing creature.

Then disproving their existence is almost trivial. After all, “mythical” means “not existing in reality”, “only imaginary”. So, the proof is:

1. Dragons are mythical creatures. (premise, from definition of “dragon”)
2. Mythical creatures do not exist. (premise, from definition of “mythical”)
3. Dragons do not exist. (from 1 and 2)
4. If there was a dragon in Badski’s basement, dragons would exist. (premise)
5. There are no dragons in Bradski’s basement. (from 3 and 4)

Q. E. D.

As you can see, sometimes proving nonexistence of something is not even very hard. Of course, it means that you were obviously, clearly, ridiculously wrong in claiming that proving nonexistence is impossible.

Edit: I don’t know why I responded to that.

You must have been out of shape.

After all, you’re engaging in sophistry. In order to play, you have to make sure your terms are as vague, as possible, and evade every try to clarify them. To play this game, you have to pretend that the definitions are known by everyone - and to modify those definitions whenever needed.

And, of course, to pretend to be greatly insulted by any question.

Mpat: 'What exactly is meant by ‘wife’, ‘bluetooth’ and ‘speaker’?

Bradski: Bye…

Still something’s off… Where’s the passion?

If you don’t do your best, you might actually notice that you are not trying to find the truth, but to avoid it. And then how will you avoid the slippery slope to Catholicism?

 

[Bradskii]

If you are trying to PROVE that a mythical creature does not exist then pointing out that mythical (in one sense) means ‘does not exist’ is kinda missing the point.

You can’t prove a non-mythical creature does not exist because all I’d need to do is produce one.

So the way it works is this:

M: We can see there’s nothing there.
B: It’s invisible.
M: There’s no heat trace.
B: It emits no heat.
M: There’s nothing on the radar.
B: It doesn’t reflecr radio waves.

And so on and so forth. Maybe you are familiar with Russells’s teapot? His mythical teapot? It’s a variation thereof.

 

[MPat]

If you are trying to PROVE that a mythical creature does not exist then pointing out that mythical (in one sense) means ‘does not exist’ is kinda missing the point.

Let’s see what is supposed to count as a proof:

Proof: Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact.

I did give an argument (check) and it did reach the conclusion that was requested (check).

Yes, the argument is rather boring, but being non-boring is not a requirement.

Yes, the definition of the dragon that you provided is silly - after all, under it any creature that existed and was like a dragon would have to get a different name.

Yes, it does mean that, while you were busy pretending that it was obvious what counts as a dragon, you yourself did not know what a dragon is that well.

So the way it works is this:

M: We can see there’s nothing there.

B: It’s invisible.

M: There’s no heat trace.

B: It emits no heat.

M: There’s nothing on the radar.

B: It doesn’t reflecr radio waves.

And so on and so forth. Maybe you are familiar with Russells’s teapot? His mythical teapot? It’s a variation thereof.

That is the sophistry I was talking about. First you claim that “everyone knows” what is a dragon (so that you wouldn’t have to give a definition). and then you keep changing that definition (after all, “everyone knows” that dragons are visible).

You can’t prove a non-mythical creature does not exist because all I’d need to do is produce one.

I do hope I can’t prove something that is false, for a “non-mythical creature” seems to be something that has to exist.

OK, let’s do your work for you: you really wanted to say that if being mythical or non-mythical is not given so obviously, you could just present a creature to establish its existence, but simply not finding it somewhere does not prove it does not exist elsewhere.

The problem is that even presenting a creature won’t prove anything unless we already know what it is supposed to be. If we do not know what is a dragon, we can’t prove that a dragon does not exist, but you also can’t prove existence of it by presenting one, for it won’t be possible to show that it actually is a dragon.

On the whole, you end up claiming that things are unknowable and science is impossible (no, of course you won’t say that in those same words). We happen to disagree.

Not to mention that your claim is self-undermining: do you have a proof that there is no proof for non-existence of anything? If you do, you have a proof for non-existence of something - that is, a proof (and we have a contradictiom). If not, why do you believe it?

 

[steve-b]

I am used to hearing the traditional Pascal’s Wager and the arguments for it. However, it just refers to belief in God, not a specific religion.

One can make the wager as specific as one wants.

Laylow:

When I think about it from that perspective, I think Christians are quite ballsy.

The wager is between the idea that one is correct and one is NOT. And the consequences for being wrong is catastrophic

laylow:

Using Pascal’s logic, wagering that Jesus, a human being, is God, would have some pretty dire circumstances if incorrect. I don’t think anything could be considered more blasphemous than that.

Looking at the eyewitness evidence provided for Jesus life, death and resurrection from the dead, the story is compelling, considering that the one who denies it denies salvation for themselves.

laylow:

Most certainly it would be “safer” to be a theist?

and that’s on the wrong side of the wager when I give the parameters for the wager

 

[Bradskii]

You didn’t give an argument. You gave a definition.

 

[rstrats]

I’d still like to see someone demonstrate - in realtime - their ability to consciously choose to believe things.