Another view of "Pascal's Wager"

[Bradskii]

rstrats:

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

The seemingly unanswerable question is…do we alter our beliefs to fit the facts…or do we alter the facts to fit our beliefs?

If it’s a fact then how do you alter it? My pen is resting on the table. That is a fact. We can test it. On the assumption that I accept the evidence as being valid I will therefore believe the pen is resting on the table. How can I do otherwise?

 

[rstrats]

Bradskii,
re: “If it’s a fact then how do you alter it? My pen is resting on the table. That is a fact. We can test it. On the assumption that I accept the evidence as being valid I will therefore believe the pen is resting on the table.”

Most likely. But could you say that you consciously chose to have that belief? Remember that in order to say that a particular belief is a choice there would have to be at least 2 options from which to choose and each option would have to be able to be chosen.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii,
re: “If it’s a fact then how do you alter it? My pen is resting on the table. That is a fact. We can test it. On the assumption that I accept the evidence as being valid I will therefore believe the pen is resting on the table.”

Most likely. But could you say that you consciously chose to have that belief? Remember that in order to say that a particular belief is a choice there would have to be at least 2 options from which to choose and each option would have to be able to be chosen.

You. Can’t. Choose. A. Belief.

 

[Bradskii]

I try not to argue with solipsists. There is no common ground.

 

[BoyGenius]

Christians are atheists of every god accept the Christian god. The odds are probably 1 in 1 trillion at best to be “right.”

if I can piggy back on laylow’s comment. Atheism must always contend to/with God’s existence. For even that atheism may have life in an argument, it must then continue to deal with God. Thus it really cannot make a departure from that. Or it would end in itself in a nihilistic void. Which Christian’s notably call Hell. For though the body dies, the soul lives on. And no soul on earth, in order to exist, can really say atheism can exist without the awareness that is there of God’s existence and presence. For that atheism to be true, God must be.

Christian’s are therefore not atheist’s, but theist’s. They do not oppose nor object to God’s existence. They do not even object to the false god’s either. They just simply object in believing in them. And rather beholding to the One True God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The atheist, however opposes all these god’s. Whether true or false. Atheist’s oppose them all.

And yet, a man like Neitzche who had not God to serve, but himself, his mind, his intelligence ended up in a mental hospital. Because he believed in something called nihilism - a nothing. Atheism must struggle and face this problem. Which it has not, and often ignores it. And rather surfaces to put it’s attention to Christianity, mainly. Which, oddly, is a safety point for the atheist. And here Pascal’s Wager suffices. It is better to believe in God than not. For you have nothing to lose, but to gain. Only the nihilist philosopher has but to lose his eternal salvation, when beyond the corridors of his soul, where his body diminishes, and shares in satan’s pride. He will believe, but sadly in the fallen state known as Hell. He will only be obstinate in finding out then. Which is sad nonetheless. And we should pray out of charity.

 

[MPat]

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

Of course I gave an argument. It has premises, conclusion, conclusion logically follows from the premises.

If you want to demonstrate otherwise, give a definition of an argument and show how it does not apply.

For now let’s take a definition from Argument | Definition of Argument by Merriam-Webster “a coherent series of reasons, statements, or facts intended to support or establish a point of view”. I did give statements (check), they make up a coherent series (check), I did intend it to support the conclusion (check).

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

First, a forum is by definition not “realtime”.

Second, you were already given a demonstration (P=NP) and have shown no interest in it, which shows that either you really should reread the thread, or you aren’t really looking for truth.

Most likely. But could you say that you consciously chose to have that belief? Remember that in order to say that a particular belief is a choice there would have to be at least 2 options from which to choose and each option would have to be able to be chosen.

What exactly is meant by “each option would have to be able to be chosen”? It looks vague.

I get an impression that the requirement behind those words is going to be self-contradicting, something like “Make the choice X and do not make the choice X at the same time and in the same respect.”.

So, can you make an example of any other case where “each option would […] be able to be chosen”?

For example, to take the same example, why exactly my belief that P=NP doesn’t count? See P versus NP problem - Wikipedia, if you do not understand what this belief is about.

Also, I do not see anything in your question that refers to motives, which is what the will works with. It might be that you mean something different by that “will”.

 

[Bradskii]

B: Prove to me the sun is not a bar of soap.
M: By definition it is a hot gaseous celestial body which produces heat and light by…
B: Whoa. I know what the definition is. Saying that by definition it cannot be a bar of soap is not good enough. I want proof that the definition fits in this case.
M: Ah, I see. So ok, here’s some asronomical info, some infra red readings, some calcs on its mass and energy output…
B: OK, fair enough.

That’s what we’re looking for. Except that like the orbitting teapot, an invisible non physical undetectable dragon cannot be proved not to exist. Likewise I can’t prove the soul doesn’t exist. Or aliens. Or santa.

 

[MPat]

B: Prove to me the sun is not a bar of soap.

M: By definition it is a hot gaseous celestial body which produces heat and light by…

B: Whoa. I know what the definition is. Saying that by definition it cannot be a bar of soap is not good enough. I want proof that the definition fits in this case.

M: Ah, I see. So ok, here’s some asronomical info, some infra red readings, some calcs on its mass and energy output…

B: OK, fair enough.

And why exactly is that supposed to be “fair enough”?

Now that is really not an argument. It is just a list of random facts that has yet to be put into a coherent whole (an argument). It should not persuade anyone.

You know, that would explain why you aren’t making more arguments: if you really do not know what an argument is, it is hard to expect you to make any.

The problem with this explanation is that I already pointed out what an argument is. So, mere ignorance should not have been much of a problem by now…

Still, another resource for learning about arguments: Argument | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

 

[Dan123]

You realize Christians have mental disorders too right? It’s not just nihilists.

 

[Gorgias]

I try not to argue with solipsists. There is no common ground.

Well… we each agree that, individually, we appear to exist, no?

But, beyond that, I’m with you…

 

[rstrats]

MPat,
re: “First, a forum is by definition not ‘realtime’.”

By realtime I was referring to doing something in the present as opposed to asserting that something was done in the past.

re: “Second, you were already given a demonstration (P=NP)…”

I have no idea what that means.

re: “What exactly is meant by ‘each option would have to be able to be chosen’?”

How can something be called a choice if it’s the only thing possible?

re: “I get an impression that the requirement behind those words is going to be self-contradicting, something like ‘Make the choice X and do not make the choice X at the same time and in the same respect.’”

Where did I say or imply that?

re: “So, can you make an example of any other case where ‘each option would […] be able to be chosen’?”

A banana and an apple on a table. You could select either one regardless of your preference.

re: “Also, I do not see anything in your question that refers to motives…”

If beliefs can be obtained by simply choosing to have them, then motives are not necessary.

 

[Russell_SA]

If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is…

…“God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.

Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. “No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all.”

Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

“That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much.” Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite.[7]

 

[Russell_SA]

All Pascal’s Wager goes to is the character of the deity for this wager to actually have weight in it.
If you are not convinced of a deity, you live your life not abiding by the tenants of the local cultural superstitions. No big loss there, other than missing out on some interesting dinner conversation.
If you are still not convinced of a deity existance but you hedge your bet that the fall out of not following the local cultural superstitions are too terrible to dismiss, this implies the following about their deity:

1. It values credulity over justification.
2. It created people with the ability to critically analyze the world but demands they shelve this when assessing its existence.
3. It knows what evidences everyone would need to believe it exists and is choosing not to provide this.
4. It is willing to destroy people’s emotional well being every waking day for the rest of eternity over rules it is not willing to clearly communicate to anyone or provide evidence of its existence at all.
5. It would rather people fake belief in it than actual belief in it.
6. It demands to be worshiped regardless of its own moral character or evidence of existence.
   Probably more points as well, but this is enough to morally bankrupt this deity.

 

[MPat]

re: “Second, you were already given a demonstration (P=NP)…”

I have no idea what that means.

That’s why I gave you the link to Wikipedia: P versus NP problem - Wikipedia.

re: “I get an impression that the requirement behind those words is going to be self-contradicting, something like ‘Make the choice X and do not make the choice X at the same time and in the same respect.’”

Where did I say or imply that?

It is not something you said. It is unlikely to be something you have noticed. It is something I suspect.

re: “Also, I do not see anything in your question that refers to motives…”

If beliefs can be obtained by simply choosing to have them, then motives are not necessary.

Then what I mean by “will” and “choice” and what you mean by those same words has little in common.

By will we mean the part of mind that takes the evaluations of goodness of various options from the intellect and makes the choice of one of them. In other words, motives are what it works with.

So, when we say that beliefs are chosen by will, we mean that not only logical arguments, but also other motives affect the choice of beliefs.

Do you want to disagree with our claim given in this wording?

If you are still not convinced of a deity existance but you hedge your bet that the fall out of not following the local cultural superstitions are too terrible to dismiss, this implies the following about their deity:

1. It values credulity over justification.
2. It created people with the ability to critically analyze the world but demands they shelve this when assessing its existence.
3. It knows what evidences everyone would need to believe it exists and is choosing not to provide this.
4. It is willing to destroy people’s emotional well being every waking day for the rest of eternity over rules it is not willing to clearly communicate to anyone or provide evidence of its existence at all.
5. It would rather people fake belief in it than actual belief in it.
6. It demands to be worshiped regardless of its own moral character or evidence of existence.

Probably more points as well, but this is enough to morally bankrupt this deity.

All that assumes that it is unreasonable to believe a proposition (or specifically a proposition “X exists.”), unless one has overwhelming evidence in its favour. But, of course, that is false.

And to demonstrate the fact that you yourself do not live by this principle, let’s take another assumption behind some of those points: that the atheists disbelieve in God honestly. Do you have overwhelming evidence for this point? Or even any evidence at all? (No, “How dare you suggest otherwise!!!” is not evidence, nor is any variation of it.)

And yet, I do not expect the lack of evidence to cause you to drop this assumption.

 

[Dan123]

Do you have overwhelming evidence for this point

You could just you know, listen to them and believe them. The way people show you the courtesy of believing you when you tell them what you believe.

 

[MPat]

You could just you know, listen to them and believe them. The way people show you the courtesy of believing you when you tell them what you believe.

First, that can only be an option if one can believe something without strong, overwhelming evidence - which atheists like to deny.

Second, the very fact that some atheist claims to be 100% honest is evidence (though, of course, very weak) against this claim. Honest men can afford to express doubts about their honesty more than liars.

Third, are the atheists also suddenly going to just believe the writers of the Bible, saints etc.?

Likewise, are you going to just believe “Bradski”, when he tells there’s a dragon in his basement?

The way people show you the courtesy of believing you when you tell them what you believe.

I guess you do not understand what I mean by “believing dishonestly”. No, I definitely do not think that people who claim to be atheists are all really Catholics lying about their beliefs.

No, I refer to “fooling oneself”, the kind of thing about which Richard Feynman wrote in “Cargo Cult Science” (http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.pdf).

 

[Dan123]

Likewise, are you going to just believe “Bradski”, when he tells there’s a dragon in his basement?

You realize there’s a difference between believing someone when they tell you what they think and believing someone when they try to explain the nature of the universe to you right?

Whether or not I believe your beliefs about God are correct or not, I believe you hold them. Even if I thought you were deluding yourself, I’d still believe you held those beliefs.

Bradski is either the coolest person I know, or far more likely using an illustrative example.

 

[MPat]

You realize there’s a difference between believing someone when they tell you what they think and believing someone when they try to explain the nature of the universe to you right?

Whether or not I believe your beliefs about God are correct or not, I believe you hold them. Even if I thought you were deluding yourself, I’d still believe you held those beliefs.

Bradski is either the coolest person I know, or far more likely using an illustrative example.

So, again, I was not talking about people claiming to be atheists when they are not.

I was talking about people explicitly or implicitly claiming not to be “fooling themselves” (or that someone else is not “fooling himself”).

Sometimes this “fooling oneself” is culpable, and it is not going to be cured by evidence.

 

[Dan123]

Fair, though I’m not sure how that doesn’t apply to pretty much any belief where certainly doesn’t exist. Which would in turn include theism.

 

[MPat]

Fair, though I’m not sure how that doesn’t apply to pretty much any belief where certainly doesn’t exist. Which would in turn include theism.

Of course.

Let’s look at a fragment of what I was responding to:

If you are still not convinced of a deity existance but you hedge your bet that the fall out of not following the local cultural superstitions are too terrible to dismiss, this implies the following about their deity:

1. It knows what evidences everyone would need to believe it exists and is choosing not to provide this.

As you can see, if it is possible for an atheist to be culpably “fooling himself”, there is no problem here. For then no injustice is committed in not giving him more evidence, but punishing him (let’s say, for not using the evidence he already has).